Thursday, 17 July 2025
Volume 785
Sitting date: 17 July 2025
THURSDAY, 17 JULY 2025
THURSDAY, 17 JULY 2025
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
MAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the first readings of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. Wednesday next week will be extended into Thursday morning for the consideration of Government business. On Thursday afternoon, there will be a one-hour special debate on constituency and local issues starting at 4.40 p.m., and at 5.40 p.m., there will be the maiden statement of Dr David Wilson, the MP.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I thank the Leader of the House for that comment. Does the Government intend to move urgency next week?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, the member will just have to wait and see.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions
Question No. 11 to Minister, 16 July
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In answer to oral question No. 11 yesterday, I stated that since I took office, staffing numbers have reduced by 620 fulltime-equivalents. What I should have said was that since I took office, staffing numbers have reduced or are planned to be reduced by 620 fulltime-equivalents.
SPEAKER: Thank you.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No petitions have been presented. Ministers have delivered two papers.
CLERK: The 2025-26 statement of performance expectations for New Zealand Growth Capital Partners Limited and Predator Free 2050 Ltd.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.
CLERK: Residential Tenancies (Registration of Boarding House Landlords) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Women
1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding pay equity?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Women: Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why has she not instructed the Ministry for Women to monitor the ongoing implications of the Government’s pay equity changes on women’s pay?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’m told that any further advice from the Minister for Women or actions have yet to be decided.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will she allow her advisory councils to monitor the impacts of the Government’s pay equity changes, as they’ve offered her, and, if not, why not?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister for Women, I have a number of stakeholders who I draw on for advice. I’m told that further advice has yet to be decided. However, all advice that has been received by the Minister for Women to date has been of great importance and very satisfactory.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister consider the National Council of Women of New Zealand to be a key stakeholder, and, if yes, why has she not yet met with the National Council of Women of New Zealand to discuss the pay equity changes?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister for Women, the Minister for Women meets with a range of stakeholders and has a number of stakeholders who she draws on for advice. The National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women advises the Minister for Women on a wide range of issues relating to the employment of women, and I don’t have details as to the future calendar.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that “the reason people leave a country is because they think they can earn higher incomes somewhere else”; if so, how many women will seek higher incomes overseas due to the Government’s pay equity changes?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister for Women, I don’t own a crystal ball. However, I also think it’s really important not to try and conflate all these issues for political purposes. We do have people who make a lot of personal changes to their lives due to their own personal circumstances.
Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister for Women’s job to listen to and represent all women in New Zealand, rather than privileging the perspective of one particular council or group of women?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Minister for Women advocates on behalf of all women in New Zealand and does a fantastic job.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can the Minister name any of the stakeholders—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just stop. It’s unnecessary, from both sides of the House. Please start again.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can the Minister name any of the stakeholders across the country who represent women who are celebrating the pay equity changes that have been brought in by her Government?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On behalf of the Minister for Women, I represent and advocate for women across New Zealand—not just one branch of women or two branches of women but all women—to make sure that we have the settings right. If you would like to have a look at the stakeholders that I regularly meet with, you just need to look at my diary, proactively released on the Beehive website.
SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Takuta Ferris. [Interruption] We’ll just wait for the House to settle itself—no comments are required while a question is being asked.
Question No. 2—Justice
2. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Justice: What safeguards, if any, will he put in place to ensure that the Government’s proposed citizen’s arrest changes won’t “lead to unreasonable use of force and unlawful detention” as is highlighted by the Ministry of Justice in the regulatory impact statement?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Any use of force that is beyond reasonable will expose people to potential civil or criminal liability. The public will need to exercise caution when effecting arrests, and police will use their discretion if they think someone has gone beyond the bounds of what is permitted by law. We are determined to give businesses and all New Zealanders more options to detain those stealing from them, because it’s not right that people can just walk out of a supermarket with a trolley full of groceries and nothing can be done about it. We are doing something about it.
Tākuta Ferris: What is his justification for expanding powers of citizen’s arrest when his own officials warned it will enable the use of unreasonable force against tamariki without reducing offending or improving public safety?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the justification: for supporting retailers and small businesses to be able to get on with life, without having people steal from them and no one being able to do anything about it.
Tākuta Ferris: What assessment, if any, has he made of the racial bias already present in the public perception of suspicious behaviour, as confirmed by the Understanding Policing Delivery report, and of how these new powers might embolden racial profiling and vigilantism against Māori and Pasifika?
Hon Shane Jones: Victimhood—victimhood.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Again, on behalf—
SPEAKER: No, hang on. At least get one sentence out without people immediately beginning to barrack the Minister.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, this is not about race; this is about crime. This is about crime in our communities, where people are taking and are stealing, and others—those hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand—are left to hold an empty basket. This Government does not mind what colour, creed, or race a person is; it’s about the crime that’s being committed and sending a message that New Zealanders have had enough, and we’re giving New Zealanders the tools to do something about it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister had any reports on how the proposed powers of citizen’s arrest will impact serial electoral law breakers?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the advice that the Minister will have received will have been about how we can support our communities to stop this crime from happening in the first place, and that is giving those tools to individuals, to retailers, and to our communities to be able to say, “We have had enough of people taking trolleys of food and taking and stealing from the good, hard-working citizens of New Zealand.”
Tākuta Ferris: Does he accept that this law could make it more dangerous—not safer—for Māori in public spaces, especially if it legitimises the use of force by untrained, unaccountable individuals?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I invite that member to actually go to the Beehive website and look at the press release. It talks about having to use reasonable force, which is defined in section 39 of the Crimes Act. It’s not about any force; it’s about reasonable force.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying, in her answer one back, that common shoplifting is like serial electoral lawbreaking?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, it can very quickly become serial when people are allowed to get away with their crimes.
Tākuta Ferris: Can he explain how a policy that doesn’t reduce offending and increases risks of violence against tamariki, whānau, and vulnerable communities meets any standard of responsible or effective lawmaking?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: I reject the presumption that this law is not going to have an effect. I think it’s going to have an absolutely great effect, especially for our businesses and our communities out there.
Cameron Luxton: What benefits can the Minister foresee citizen’s arrests will have for tradies who catch someone stealing their tools?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the proposed citizen’s arrest changes mean that tradies will be able to detain anyone they catch committing a crime such as stealing their tools, if they feel that it is safe to do so. Following the arrest, police must be called and their instructions must be followed. Tradies, who are often self-employed and are often targeted by thieves due to the equipment that they have—we think it’s only right that tradies and New Zealanders have an extra tool to detain those that deliberately disrupt their livelihoods.
Hon Shane Jones: Has the Minister had any reports as to how the proposed citizen’s arrest changes might apply to vandals and economic saboteurs defacing and scribbling graffiti over our fishing fleet on the ocean?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, this law that we will be introducing will allow any citizen who feels confident and safe to do so to be able to initiate a citizen’s arrest, call police, and take their advice. But I must say that it is not for people to have to do, but it’s something that they may do, should they feel safe and confident to do so.
SPEAKER: I just would like to point out that if someone asks the Minister a question, it would be polite to listen to it rather than speaking through it.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last week, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee announced the latest review of the official cash rate (OCR). It decided to hold the OCR at 3.25 percent, but continued to foreshadow further reduction, saying, “If medium-term inflation pressures continue to ease as projected, the Committee expects to lower the Official Cash Rate further.” In terms of the inflation outlook, the committee said it expects annual Consumers Price Index to increase in the middle of this year for various one-off reasons, but to fall back to around the 2 percent midpoint by early 2026.
Dan Bidois: By how much has the official cash rate fallen so far in this easing cycle?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: From late 2021 onwards, the OCR was progressively raised to 5.5 percent to combat inflation spurred on by the previous Government’s spending. Since last August, the OCR has been reduced by 2.25 percentage points, easing the cost of borrowing and delivering much-needed cost of living relief. It is important to remember that these OCR reductions are still flowing through to mortgage rates as many people are on fixed-term mortgages and will not yet have had the benefit of lower rates. Over the next six months, close to half of fixed-term mortgages are due to be repriced, so there is still a lot of easing momentum coming through the system.
Dan Bidois: What risk did the Reserve Bank identify to the outlook?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the monetary policy committee identified risks, including uncertainty around tariff policy and how this will affect the global economy. It noted that conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine has contributed to volatility and uncertainty around global energy prices, and it raised the risk that prolonged economic uncertainty might cause businesses and households to hold off investing and spending. While economic growth over the past six months was stronger than expected, the committee thinks it could weaken in the June quarter. Overall, however, the committee says that “Higher export prices and monetary policy easing should contribute to a gradual recovery in economic activity.”
Dan Bidois: How has the Government been supporting the easing of monetary policy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When it comes to adding stimulus to the economy or taking it away, the Reserve Bank does this through monetary policy. Fiscal policy can get in the way of that—for example, by being highly pro-cyclical, as it was in 2021 to 2023, or it can get out of the way, which is this Government’s approach. Our strategy of gradual fiscal consolidation over time allows monetary policy to respond by setting interest rates lower than would otherwise be the case, and it helps rein in New Zealand’s debt, which is getting close to Treasury’s ceiling of 50 percent of GDP. Some would spend more and rack up more debt, and that would be disastrous for New Zealand.
Question No. 4—Education
4. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How many Resource Teacher Literacy and Resource Teacher Māori jobs will be lost as a result of the Government’s decision to defund these roles?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): It’s been stated in all the Budget 2025 documentation: in total, we have reprioritised Resource Teacher Literacy (RT Lit) and Resource Teacher Māori (RT Māori) roles to fund more literacy and maths intervention teachers, and to deliver the biggest investment into learning support in a generation. This will affect 110 RT Lit and 48 RT Māori staff, allowing us to contribute to funding 492 fulltime-equivalent literacy and maths intervention roles to work in schools directly with children across New Zealand.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why was she looking to reprioritise the $55 million for Resource Teacher Literacy and Resource Teacher Māori roles before the consultation even started?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, what happens when you consult is you have to have a plan in mind to start with. We had a plan in mind in reprioritising some funding from the RT Māori and RT Lit roles because of the reports that we’d seen in the past and the feedback from the sector. We consulted in good faith, and made a decision just before the Budget.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why didn’t she consult with the executives of the Resource Teachers Literacy and Resource Teachers Māori before making her decision?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: As was appropriate, I directed the Ministry of Education, at a deputy secretary level, to take on that role, and they advised me once they had spoken to the umbrella organisation.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What specific services, if any, will replace targeted literacy interventions currently delivered by Resource Teachers Literacy, and how will the ministry ensure that these reach the same students?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, that is a fantastic patsy question because what we have reprioritised those roles into, as I said earlier, is 349 literacy support roles. When the schools’ contribution is factored in, that equals 700 literacy support teachers spread across 2,000 schools, rather than the 110 roles that we had before. What I would say to those RT Lits is that now that there are 700 roles available—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, stop there. You’ve asked the question and presumably you’re wanting an answer, and so we’ll now hear the answer in silence.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I was about to say, there are 700 fulltime-equivalent roles spread across 2,000 schools across New Zealand, and I would encourage those RT Lits—as I have directed the ministry to do—to work with them to identify those roles and encourage them to apply for those roles, because we do want to keep those specialised staff in the system.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Isn’t it the reality that her new framework has no real future for the expert Resource Teachers Literacy and Resource Teachers Māori to provide reading and writing support for children who are falling behind?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.
Question No. 5—Environment
5. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Is the Minister concerned about the state of freshwater quality following a Statistics New Zealand indicator showing that over the past five years, drinking water pollution levels were exceeded in at least 45 percent of sites for E. coli and 12 percent of sites for nitrates?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): There are definitely areas where freshwater quality is not up to the standard we expect. There are different causes of groundwater contamination that range from land use, to wild animals and infrastructure failures. In some cases, these are longstanding issues that have emerged over time and will require investment and change over the long term. We can’t and we shouldn’t try to make all fresh water in New Zealand pristine straight away. That’s why the Government is consulting on making sensible changes to freshwater rules that protect the environment and support our growing economy. Also, it is important to note that the data in this report is not representative of New Zealand’s drinking-water quality. Samples are tested from all monitored wells, regardless of whether they are used for human drinking water or not.
Lan Pham: Does he accept that nitrate contamination is the biggest threat to rural drinking-water and groundwater quality and that the primary driver of nitrate pollution is intensive dairy farming?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I do not accept that that is the primary concern for New Zealand farmers in terms of drinking water—you know, it is a very small amount. Often, it is driven by actions that have happened a long time ago, and not just by what’s happened now. Many aquifers have long recharge times that take a while for water to flow through, so we can’t just lump this all on dairy farmers right now. This has been a long-term thing to occur, and it’s going to take a long time to fix.
Lan Pham: What actions right now is the Minister taking to improve freshwater quality outcomes so that the number of breaches of maximum acceptable values for nitrate and dangerous levels of E. coli contamination are reduced?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: In terms of actions, one of the actions I’m most proud of is the work that we are doing regarding farm plans. These will be instruments that will help farmers identify precisely the issues that are occurring on their farms, will provide them with solutions and actions to take, and will help them and their catchment groups in terms of improving water quality.
Lan Pham: Is he concerned about the national drinking-water quality survey of New Zealand rural schools, which showed that nitrate contamination is the biggest threat to rural communities’ drinking water and that more than a hundred rural schools have nitrate levels that exceed 1 milligram per litre?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I was actually more concerned by the reports of arsenic and lead in those reports. To me, that was a far more concerning number than the nitrate limits, and one of the questions—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’d be concerned about all of it, if I were you—I’m concerned.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, I’d rather not have arsenic compared to nitrates, thank you very much. Obviously, the other side is quite keen on arsenic—OK, good on you. That’s what my initial concern was on reading that report, and I asked questions to the ministry around “Have those schools been warned about this? Are actions being taken?” From what I understood, a number of those issues were caused by infrastructure and other elements, and a big part of our focus was on understanding where those problems were coming from.
Hon Shane Jones: Is it possible that a number of commentators—reflected by the character of this last question—have mixed up drinking water with bathing water and swallowed the wrong one?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: That is entirely possible.
Lan Pham: How would removing the protections of national bottom lines for freshwater pollution and removing the nitrogen fertiliser cap—as is currently being consulted on by his Government—protect communities’ drinking water?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, I’d say, firstly, that these elements are under consultation and no decisions have yet been made. But I would say on the nitrogen cap that the key focus for New Zealand over the years has always been on what are the outcomes, not what the inputs are, and a big issue I always had with the nitrogen cap was that it focused on an input, not the outcome. You can get a much better outcome, potentially, by applying more nitrogen through fertigation, and thus not actually have the same leaching. Just having an input number, to me, never made any sense; it’s the output we need to focus on.
Lan Pham: How does he think the so-called rebalancing of Te Mana o te Wai towards commercial profits will improve freshwater quality when the primary driver of freshwater pollution in our rural communities is driven by commercial profits?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I’d once again reiterate that it is not about favouring one over the other; it is about trying to achieve a balance. The other side of the House constantly talks about “Where are our jobs?”, “Where’s the economy?”, etc., etc. We need a farming economy—80 percent of our exports come from our primary sector. This is the engine room of our country. We need to ensure that not only are we improving the environment but we are making farming possible in this country, as well.
SPEAKER: Just before we go any further, that was largely the Government side getting terribly excited about the answer. You should be far more respectful of the Minister who is delivering that answer.
Question No. 6—RMA Reform
6. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding the transition to the Government’s new planning system?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yesterday, at the Local Government New Zealand conference, I announced that the Government intends to stop councils wasting time and money on plan changes in advance of the new planning system coming into force. The Government intends to move an amendment to legislation currently before the House to prevent councils from initiating new plan changes under the Resource Management Act (RMA) unless they’re absolutely necessary, and removing requirements for them to review their plans and policy statements going forward. It’s our view that councils shouldn’t be spending millions on plan changes that they’ll have to redo again once the new planning legislation comes into effect.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What plan changes are exempted from this policy?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The default rule will be that no plan changes can proceed, but there will be a limited number that will be exempt from the stopping. Examples include streamlined planning processes and private plan changes under the RMA. The Government also recognises that councils need to be able to do changes relating to natural hazard management, as well as plan changes required by Treaty settlement agreements. Therefore, they will be exempt from these new requirements. Councils will also be able to apply to the Minister for an exemption to continue to notify a plan change.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has the Minister seen on this announcement?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There’s quite a lot of support for this change. Let me quote Sam Broughton, president of Local Government New Zealand—not a noted fan of the Government, normally—“This is really good for local government to hear some certainty.” Federated Farmers—who do tend to support the Government, to be fair—said that this change is “welcome news [for] farmers,” and that “Halting plan changes now avoids councils rushing to put in new red tape [in place] before the new RMA is in place.” This is a sensible change to save the ratepayer money and to get them focused on the transition to the new planning system and the new flexible infrastructure funding and financing system. There’s lots of legislation coming before the House, and I look forward to debating it in this Parliament.
Simon Court: Can the Minister confirm that in the new planning law, developers wanting to build a supermarket, an IKEA, or a solar farm won’t be subject to resource consent conditions that require Māori groups to say a karakia before earthworks commence or before removing a native tree?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is certainly the Government’s intention that consent conditions that are currently attached to quite sensible projects be reduced down. There are far too many consent conditions attached to projects that drive up cost and time and money. The member has quoted one example like that, but there are many more that people could also identify in this House.
Question No. 7—Health
7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that his mission is to ensure that “all New Zealanders can access the timely and quality access to healthcare that they all deserve”; if so, is he confident that is happening?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): In the context it was made, yes. But, as the member will know, this Government inherited significant wait-lists with too many Kiwis waiting too long to receive the care they need. My focus is on putting patients first so that they get the care they need when they need it. That’s why we’ve brought back health targets to focus our health system on delivery for patients, we’ve increased the number of doctors and nurses caring for patients every day, we’re delivering more surgeries like hips, knees, and cataracts through our Elective Boost, and we’ve delivered a record funding increase for GPs to improve access to care closer to home. We’re starting to see progress for patients, but we know there is more work to do, and we’re getting on with it.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Are the 130 Wellington women who have to travel to Christchurch for cancer surgery getting the timely and quality healthcare they deserve?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will know, there was a resignation of a specialist in Wellington. Health New Zealand is working to ensure that those patients continue to receive the care that they need, but my expectation for Health New Zealand is that they also work at pace to make sure that that service is re-established.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Do only 370 women aged 70 to 74 deserve breast cancer screening when his Government promised that 120,000 women would be eligible?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member knows, that programme was started in Nelson, and the full roll-out will begin later this year. But I would note that that member was saying to the New Zealand Herald that Labour didn’t campaign on it because officials advised her that it would be too challenging. Well, on this side of the House, we’re actually getting on and delivering it. If that Government had been re-elected, no women would be eligible.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Do women deserve a three-day maternity stay, as proposed by Catherine Wedd, and, if so, will he fund the $130 million needed to actually make that care happen?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as you know, that is a commitment in our coalition agreement. It is going through the legislative process, and on this side of the House, we are committed to timely, quality access to healthcare for all New Zealanders.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is abandoning plans to make cervical screening free ensuring that all women can access the healthcare they deserve?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on this side of the House, we have not made any changes to the eligibility for cervical cancer screening. But what I can confirm to the House is that the number of women receiving cervical cancer screening has been continuing to increase under this Government, and I want to continue to acknowledge the hard work being done across the country on cancer screening to ensure more people are receiving the screening they require.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is his Government’s habit of saying one thing and doing another the reason that Health New Zealand thought it was acceptable to cut maternity beds at Wellington Hospital?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on that side of the House, clearly they want to talk down our health system. On this side of the House, I want to thank the hard-working healthcare professionals up and down our country, who are working hard every single day, putting patients first, and delivering timely, quality access to healthcare for New Zealanders.
Question No. 8—Health
8. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements have been made about making it easier for internationally trained doctors to work in New Zealand?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Good news: yesterday, the Medical Council of New Zealand announced that Chile, Luxembourg, and Croatia have been added to the list of comparable health systems, which means doctors from those countries will now be eligible to apply for provisional general registration that will be processed within 20 working days. They also announced fast-track registration for GPs from the USA, Canada, and Singapore, and they announced shorter assessment time frames for overseas-trained specialists from the UK, Ireland, and Australia. This means qualified doctors from these countries can now get registered faster, start working sooner, and begin helping Kiwis get better without being tied up in red tape. This is a practical, common-sense change to support our goal of getting more doctors into hospitals and clinics across the country, and I thank the Medical Council for their decisions.
David MacLeod: How will these changes support our front-line health services?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: These changes to the comparable health system list now enable eligible doctors from 29 countries to have their applications processed within 20 working days so that our international doctors can get to work supporting New Zealanders without unnecessary bureaucratic delays and administrative hurdles. We know that internationally trained doctors already play a vital role in our health system. They support our domestically trained workforce, fill critical gaps, and contribute enormously towards the delivery of timely, quality healthcare. We’re ensuring that these doctors aren’t stuck on the sidelines. They’re where they’re needed the most: in clinics, in hospitals, and in our communities.
David MacLeod: What other actions is the Government taking to make it easier for overseas-trained doctors to work in New Zealand?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: This decision from the Medical Council complements a range of initiatives the Government is progressing to boost the number of doctors. Earlier this year, I announced a two-year training programme to support up to 100 additional overseas-trained doctors to enter New Zealand’s primary care system. These are doctors who are not from the comparable health system countries. Over 180 expressions of interest were received for this programme. This strong response shows there is untapped potential in New Zealand, so we’re removing the barriers and saying clearly that if you’re an overseas trained doctor and you want to help New Zealanders, we want you in our health system.
David MacLeod: How do these announcements fit with the Government’s plans to ensure Kiwis have access to timely care?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: These announcements build on the Government’s record $16.68 billion in additional health investments across three Budgets. We’re putting that funding to work by delivering more capacity in general practice, upgrading urgent care services, launching a new 24/7 digital health service, and reducing pressure on our emergency departments. We’re a Government that is focused on results and rebuilding the health system around the needs of patients, not the bureaucracy. Yesterday’s announcement is one more step in our plan to ensure New Zealanders get the health they need.
Question No. 9—Vocational Education
9. 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 those matters are operational for the individual polytechnics, I can confirm that since I took office, staffing numbers have reduced or are planned to be reduced by 620 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs). I can confirm that from the end of 2023 to the end of 2024, there has been a reduction of 380 FTEs. Obviously, 2025 numbers are not available yet. This has occurred as independent financial advisers have worked with individual polytechnics to develop their pathways to financial sustainability—work that should have been done more than five years ago.
Shanan Halbert: Was she briefed on the likely job cuts as a result of her reforms?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes.
Shanan Halbert: Hmm—
Hon Chris Bishop: Oh! They told the Minister something.
SPEAKER: I tell you what: there’s a question being asked, so let the question be asked with some respect.
Shanan Halbert: How many jobs are at risk at Toi Ohomai’s Rotorua, Taupō, and Tokoroa campuses?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It’s my understanding that Toi Ohomai are going through a consultation phase of a proposal for those two campuses, and no decision has been made yet.
Shanan Halbert: How many jobs are at risk at NorthTec and Whitireia WelTec?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I’m very pleased to say that at NorthTec, we have a wonderful team of community leaders who are working very closely with NorthTec to ensure that NorthTec can deliver quality education and training to that very important part of our country. With regard to Whitireia WelTec, that’s a very interesting situation. Whitireia WelTec in 2018 had a liquidity crisis, and the Government at that time put $20 million of financial support into Whitireia WelTec. You would think that given that amount of money, the first thing that Te Pūkenga might have done would be to look at the viability and what was driving that. But, no, it didn’t happen, and, in fact, Whitireia WelTec—
SPEAKER: OK, OK—that’s fine.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —is forecasting—
SPEAKER: You’ve strayed well away from the actual question.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a long answer, or at least a response, but the question was very specific. The Minister had no problem addressing it when it was in relation to a different polytech, but at no point did that response address the request for information about proposed job cuts at those two polytechs.
SPEAKER: No, I think the answer given by the Minister—because I’ve been listening carefully to these—was that there was a leadership group from within the community who were working through a plan. Now, that, I think, is a satisfactory answer. I was thinking as the answer went on that there might be something more relating to it, but it went off on to something entirely different.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister—
SPEAKER: No, no—sorry. We’ve got a point of order here.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: With respect, sir, the Minister said that there was a group of community leaders that were working with the polytech to ensure that education continues. That doesn’t address the specific question as to how many jobs are proposed to be cut there. The concern was not around the provision of education, but the number of jobs that were cut.
SPEAKER: Well, forgive me for my assumption that the education could only continue if there were people to deliver that education.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: With the same number, though, sir? Come on, this is not unreasonable.
SPEAKER: Well, when they say they’re working on a plan, I think that’s—I’m not going to get into that level of adjudication. I would ask the Minister to perhaps be very specific in the answer to that previous supplementary and not go off on to other circumstances. Can the Minister—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.
SPEAKER: No, I’m calling the Minister.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The second part of the question was about Whitireia WelTec, and I was explaining that Whitireia WelTec are forecasting an $11.3 million deficit—
SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s good.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —for this year, which—
SPEAKER: The clarification being sought is: has the leadership group come up with a number, as opposed to—
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: They are certainly working through ways in which to pull down that forecast deficit of $11.3 million.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as this is about vocational education, which could lead to a career in politics, has she got any idea how she can improve this crushingly boring question time that’s putting Mogadon out of business?
SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] No, the—[Interruption] Excuse me, how many people are chairing in here? The question started with the word “could”.
Shanan Halbert: How is having fewer jobs, fewer polytechnics, and fewer courses going to help our regions?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, it should be really clear to everyone that having a deficit of $11.3 million for one of our polytechnics is not sustainable on an ongoing basis, and, therefore, getting a viable network of polytechnics is critical to getting there. Now, that is requiring financial work to be done and, as part of that, there are going to be job losses, and if I could give the example of Whitireia WelTec, which, in their creative arts area, is running at a ratio of one staff member to 5.6 students, the speaker will be able to understand why some of these job losses are occurring.
Hon Simeon Brown: Can the Minister clarify to the House whether or not financial literacy courses will be one of the courses offered at these polytechs, and, if so, will members of the Opposition be eligible?
SPEAKER: OK, the member—sorry. I’ve warned and warned and warned. It’s time for the Minister to leave the House. Leave the House with some speed.
Hon Simeon Brown withdrew from the Chamber.
Question No. 10—Vocational Education
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Nō reira, tēnā tātou e te Whare. My question is to the Minister for Vocational Education, and asks—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, I tell you what: you can start again. There was so much noise here that I couldn’t hear a word you were saying, and I want to hear.
10. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Vocational Education: Does she stand by her statement that the Government’s plan for polytechnics will “set the sector up for long-term economic and learning success”; if so, is she concerned about Whitireia and WelTec closing their creative arts campus and Toi Ohomai proposing to close their Tokoroa and Taupō campuses?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I note that Whitireia WelTec’s creative arts campus has only 301 students enrolled in it, when the campus is set up for 1,000 students. The media has reported this morning that while the campus will close, all programmes currently delivered on this campus will move to the Whitireia WelTec Petone campus in 2026. Regarding Toi Ohomai, they are currently consulting on the future of their campuses, and no decision has been made.
Tamatha Paul: Why should Wellington learners have any faith in the Government’s polytechnic reforms when last year they could access hands-on practical learning in our city, and, under her reforms, they’re seeing campuses close, courses cancelled, and teachers sacked?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, the issue for Whitireia WelTec is that they are forecasting an $11.3 million deficit for this year. In terms of the arts campus, it is a $4.2 million lease and the cost per student for that lease would be $14,000, at a ratio of 1:5.6. Those ratios are simply not viable to continue, and so is the member suggesting that the rest of—
SPEAKER: No, don’t ask the member a question.
Tamatha Paul: Will students in Wellington have better hands-on and practical training opportunities following the dismantlement of Te Pūkenga, and, if not, who actually benefits from the Government’s reforms?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This is to ensure that there is a vocational education and training network of polytechnics that are financially viable, because you cannot access any sort of training if your polytechnic has a liquidity issue.
Tamatha Paul: How will workers in Tokoroa who are already reeling from the closure of the Kinleith Mill be supported to retrain and upskill when their local, purpose-built trades campus is proposed to be shut down following the Te Pūkenga reforms?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said earlier, Toi Ohomai is consulting on what will happen with that campus. No decision has been made.
Tamatha Paul: Does she agree with South Waikato Mayor, Gary Petley, that Tokoroa is “a community that already ranks among the five-most deprived in New Zealand, and which has one of the highest Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) rates … nationally”, and, if so, will the Government provide any support to Toi Ohomai or an alternative to prevent the closure of the Tokoroa campus and give hope to our community?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, as I have already announced, a further $20 million per year for the next two years has been reprioritised from the Tertiary Education Commission to enable additional funding where there are strategic regions with, for example, high numbers of NEETs or delivery that is strategically important to this country. So, yes, I have ensured that additional funding is there to support exactly the sort of situation the member is describing.
Tamatha Paul: Based on that criteria, will the Minister guarantee that Tokoroa, which has high levels of NEETs and has been deprived, will be prioritised for funding to save that campus and opportunities for students and young people in Tokoroa?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It is an operational matter for Toi Ohomai to determine where and how they provide delivery. But I can assure the member that in the modelling that I looked at, in terms of accessing that $20 million additional for two years, Toi Ohomai was one of the greatest recipients of it.
Question No. 11—Education
11. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about school property?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I was very proud to announce yesterday that the Government has put an end to building open-plan classrooms. Open-plan classrooms aren’t adequately meeting the needs of students. While open-plan designs were originally intended to foster collaboration, they’ve often created challenges for schools, particularly around noise and managing student behaviour. In many cases, open-plan classrooms reduced flexibility, rather than enhanced it. We have listened to parents and the sector, and all new classrooms will be built using standard designs that prioritise flexibility, like sliding glass doors and bigger spaces, over open-plan layouts.
Joseph Mooney: What feedback has she seen about her actions to end open-plan classrooms?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. A parent said, “I’m delighted that common sense has finally prevailed.”, another person said that open-plan classrooms were “distractions for learners, especially in high-cognitive focus areas like reading and maths, disadvantaging many students. Well done.”, and a teacher with 40-plus years of experience said, “Open plan has always been a hindrance to children’s learning. As a teacher I’ve seen it, children writing on the floor in various hunched positions was a common sight, so unhygienic and making writing difficult. They were also noisy, creating stress and distraction amongst students. Thank you for your hard work in lifting the standard of education in New Zealand.” [Interruption]
Joseph Mooney: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: Wait.
Joseph Mooney: What other announcements has she made about school property?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: We have responded to population growth in Wellington, with a $25 million targeted investment into new classrooms. Newlands Intermediate School is receiving 10 classrooms and Aotea College is receiving 16 classrooms. Aotea College is an example where existing open-plan classrooms were not optimal. This investment will deliver new, standard teaching spaces that better meet the needs of both students and staff. Delivering these classrooms in repeatable designs and off-site manufactured buildings also ensures we are achieving maximum value for money. Planning is already under way for these projects, with construction expected to begin within the next 12 months.
Joseph Mooney: How was she able to build more classrooms?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: As it turns out, it wasn’t that hard. In 2024, we lowered the average cost of a classroom by 28 percent so that we could deliver 30 percent more classrooms than the year before. We’re continuing to drive down the cost so that more Kiwi kids can access them faster. In 2025, new classrooms cost, on average, $620,000, compared to $1.2 million at the end of 2023. By building more off-site manufactured classrooms in repeatable designs, we are building more classrooms so that parents, schools, and communities have certainty and clarity about the school property and more students benefit from having warm, safe, dry classrooms, and I’m going to have another very big announcement tomorrow in Auckland.
Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
12. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Why is he proposing to change the law in ways that could undermine claims by 150,000 New Zealanders against two Australian-owned banks totalling $600 million?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The proposed changes are part of a large suite of common-sense financial reforms that include empowering regulators to take proactive action, streamlining licensing requirements, and taking a fairer, more proportionate approach to non-disclosures. This proposed change will align the law from the period between 2015 to 2019 with the current legislative arrangements. This proposed law change is all about ensuring courts have the discretion to come to fair and equitable outcomes.
Arena Williams: Was he wrong when he claimed in his 30 May interview with Heather du Plessis-Allan that the banks would have to refund all the interest and fees for the entire loans, and, if so, how does he justify signing off on a law based on that inaccurate claim?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, in relation to the conversation I had with Heather du Plessis-Allan, I accept that we were speaking at cross-purposes, and I accept that.
Arena Williams: Well, then, why did the Minister claim the banks were not lobbying the Minister on this issue, despite documents showing that the Banking Association was heavily involved in the process?
Hon Damien O’Connor: Tell the truth.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I haven’t been lobbied by—
SPEAKER: No, hang on—sorry. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Damien O’Connor: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: In terms of lobbying, this has been an issue since 2015, when the law was first enacted, and it has been a matter that parties have lobbied for that period of time. Not just banks, but all lenders—second-tier lenders, non-bank lenders—have been lobbying on that issue.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.
Arena Williams: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the—OK, I’m sorry, I’ve got to stick to my three rule. Arena Williams.
Arena Williams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why were ANZ and ASB given private meetings after the public consultation ended, when everyday New Zealanders affected by this lawsuit were not given the same opportunity to have their say?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I’m not aware of the meetings to which the member is referring. There are meetings held often with interested parties. Maybe the member would be more specific.
Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, to prevent—
SPEAKER: Sorry—a point of order, Arena Williams.
Arena Williams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document released under the Official Information Act (OIA) that is not publicly available that shows this process was started because of lobbying by the Banking Association on 10 June 2024.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Wait till the end, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Who released it?
Arena Williams: The release is from the Government department that has advised on the issue, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
SPEAKER: And are you telling me that it’s not on a Government release website?
Arena Williams: It’s not been proactively released, no.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document released under the OIA that is not publicly available—
SPEAKER: OK, could I just make it clear. I let one go through. The normal politeness or protocol around this is to wait till the end of the question, so I think we might do that. Is that all right?
Arena Williams: All right.
SPEAKER: Thank you.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of preventing faux outrage and on the view that sunshine is the best antiseptic, as such, does he accept that the badly drafted 2015 legislation was voted against by only one party—that’s the one you’re talking to—and fixed from 2019 onwards when New Zealand First was in Government, and that if the 2015-19 claims succeed, it’ll see windfall gains for litigation funders, 28 percent paid in tax, and very little for actual claimants? Where were you then?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes, it appears that the people who have the most to gain from not making this change seem to be the litigation lawyers.
Arena Williams: Does the Minister accept that the document I’ve tabled shows that he got the facts wrong, and, if so, how can he justify his decision to advise the Cabinet committee to retrospectively change the law to kill an ongoing legal case about hundreds of millions of dollars owed to ordinary Kiwis?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I haven’t yet had an opportunity to have a look at the paper that the member has tabled.
Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document released under the OIA that is not publicly available, but shows that as at 6 June 2024, Cabinet were not considering retrospectively wiping out the court action.
SPEAKER: Why are Government department papers released under the OIA not yet public?
Arena Williams: I—
SPEAKER: It’s not a question for you; it’s a question for perhaps the State service to listen to. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, can I speak to your brief interlude?
SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know. Is it going to be a criticism of the Chair, because that won’t go well.
Hon Chris Bishop: Never—never, Mr Speaker. I was just going to make the point, sir, that this Government has adopted the practice that started under the previous Government, actually, of the regular proactive release of material that’s relevant to Parliament. But, of course, it’s members and the media and all sorts of people who ask OIA requests to Government departments all the time, and there is material released to members and the media that is not part of a proactive release schedule.
SPEAKER: I wasn’t criticising the proactive release arrangements; I was simply questioning why it is that a Government department might decide to release some information to an individual who has requested it. If it is available in that form, it should be available to all the public.
Question No. 9 to Minister
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Earlier in question time, it was raised around whether a question from a Minister was appropriate because of a lead-up, and your response was actually that “Well, ‘can’ is a question word, and therefore it’s OK.”—or “could”, as it were. Could you please reflect on whether a question that starts with “In the interests of ‘X’ ” complies with that, and whether that approach to questions should be encouraged during question time?
SPEAKER: Yeah, I’ll have a look at the Hansard because I thought it was an “It’s” in front of it, which would still be a statement, so I’ll have a check of that. We’ve come to the end of question time. Those who have other business should leave quickly, quietly, and without conversation on the way.
Bills
Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)
First Reading
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.
Bills
Local Government (Water Services) Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 15 July.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): As part of our Local Water Done Well policy programme, this bill creates a strong, flexible framework for local government to deliver water services that are cost-effective, financially sustainable, and accountable.
This bill isn’t just about the system; it’s about the people. For communities like Mt Roskill, where many are feeling the pressure of the cost of living, keeping water affordable is essential. The good news is this bill includes the necessary provisions to finalise our Local Water Done Well deal for water care, which has already prevented a significant 25.8 percent water rate hike for Aucklanders last year, saving Aucklanders possibly $900 million in water and waste-water charges for the next four years.
This is not just a policy. This is a real saving for households, a true win for Auckland, and a real difference for families in Mt Roskill. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for this bill, but I do have an interest in it, and I want to come to some comments around the stormwater aspects of the bill, which I think are worthy of comment.
This is, I think, the third in the trilogy of the Government’s laws replacing Labour’s affordable water reforms. I think it is an interesting political case study of how Opposition politicking by the National Party locked them into a highly unsatisfactory policy outcome. In Opposition, the National Party pandered to localism. Localism’s not something you hear the National Party talking very much about these days—oh, how things have changed. But they pandered to localism, and they encouraged and engaged in a great deal of disinformation about mana whenua involvement in the governance and the organisation of regional water organisations. That’s a decision that they made in Opposition. But what it has done is locked them into, I think, what is for New Zealand a very unsatisfactory policy outcome, and we can see it in the way that in attempting to address—well, I think there is broad consensus about the problems with water infrastructure in New Zealand. There is the well-documented $185 billion over 30 years, the infrastructure gap for water infrastructure, and the unacceptable degree to which communities all around this country lack access to safe and affordable drinking water. So I think we agree on the problems.
What these three bits of law now put in place is a highly fragmented water services system that actually makes it harder for the entities that control and govern that water infrastructure to provide affordable, safe, modern water services and infrastructure into the future. It replaces one form of centralisation with another—that is, putting in place an appropriate and modern and tough regulatory framework without giving the water entities the tools or the balance sheet to be able to deliver on what’s required of them, but threatening Crown intervention if councils don’t comply. There was a lot of talk early on about enabling and supporting, and even requiring, collaboration on a regional basis, but there’s nothing in this draft law which actually genuinely would help the water entities, the councils, and other bodies from collaborating in the interests of efficiency and sustainability. So it is, I would argue, a thoroughly unsatisfactory outcome.
The effect of the National Government’s changes in this area have been to load on to councils a massive financial liability. People will have noticed in the last week that the Government is threatening now to legislate to impose on councils what they can and can’t do. This is the political theatre that this Government loves so much: to basically shovel the responsibility and the blame on to other people while pretending to be innocent.
Rates have been going up and there’s a reason for it: councils—apart from Auckland, which is I think a special case, which we’ll get to—all around the country are struggling to deal with the balance sheet implications of these laws, and they are having to put rates up. That’s one of the things that’s driving the cost of living crisis that is hurting New Zealanders so badly under this Government. So it’s bad policy and a whole lot of political theatre designed to distract and mislead people.
I wanted to make some specific comments about the stormwater provisions in this bill. I look forward to, in the committee stage, hopefully, having the chance to really dig down into some of the detail. But as an electorate MP in the Te Atatū electorate, the effect of the anniversary weekend floods in early 2023 was to expose the fact that the stormwater network was and is woefully under-invested in in Auckland. In West Auckland, that stormwater network mostly consists of creeks and streams and flow paths, and yet the council has never really properly budgeted, or invested and resourced, the management of that network. In my electorate, 300 homes had catastrophic flooding and water inside their homes. There were many cases, in that extreme weather event, of really severe flooding being caused by blockages in the creeks and streams where those houses were built. It was extremely frustrating for the residents, because, not only on anniversary weekend but a number of times in the preceding years, residents had been worried about blockages in the creeks and streams, and they could not get the council to come in and clear those blockages.
Auckland Council, for the last 20 years, has had a bylaw which says that any streams that abut or path or flow over private land—those streams, keeping them clear, are the responsibility of the private landowners. And so the council just washed its hands and refused to do anything about it. That really exacerbated the risks, and in many, many cases of the anniversary weekend floods, neighbourhoods and people’s homes were flooded so badly as to become uninhabitable because of the blockages and the lack of maintenance of those creeks and streams. So I’m pleased to see in the bill that there’s an attempt at dealing with this issue. There’s a provision which says that the water service provider—in Auckland’s case, this would be Watercare—must work collaboratively with the private owner to develop and implement a solution to manage the risk. The buck stops with the operator, with Watercare in this case, because if the collaborative approach cannot be achieved within a reasonable time or the private owner is unable to implement an agreed solution, the network provider—Watercare—must do it. So I’m pleased to see that.
It also makes it really clear that the private owner is not required to fix a blockage in the network if that was caused by an act or omission of another person in relation to other land. That’s one of the things that so often happened: further upstream in this network of creeks and streams, there might have been a flood or a blockage that caused flooding upstream, or trees flowed down and blocked the stream on private land. So I’m pleased to see those provisions in there.
We will, I hope, in the committee stage dig down a bit more into the precise definitions and the wording, because it’s very, very important in a time of increasing extreme weather-related events, that stormwater networks in our towns and cities have the capacity to cope with these events. This kind of regulation is really important for delivering that. I’ll leave those comments there. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei mō tēnei o ngā pire e pā ana ki ngā take wai.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to us all in the House. I stand to express the statements on behalf of Te Pāti Māori today regarding this particular bill that concerns water issues.]
The ongoing Crown position that everyone owns the water is designed to extinguish the rights of tangata whenua to water. This bill further embeds this position. Here we have the explicit removal of Māori from decision-making roles in water governance, replacing co-governance arrangements, and replacing them with structures dominated by territorial authorities. This shift relegates iwi and hapū to mere consultative roles, with consultation that is non-binding and discretionary. This constitutes a clear breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and of the Crown’s obligations as a Treaty partner. It is ignoring Māori rights.
For this reform to be successful, the Government must re-establish negotiations with hapū and iwi to determine how Māori rights and interests will be given effect to in freshwater management and allocation. Māori involvement is not optional. It is essential for the sustainable and just management of water resources into the future, and this is exactly what the Waitangi Tribunal recommended to our last Government during the establishment of three waters.
The Crown should be working directly with hapū and iwi to create a standard process for addressing Māori rights and interests in water more broadly, including matters of allocation and ownership. Effective reform requires regulatory systems that are coordinated and inclusive. Entrusting individual councils with the authority to decide whether Māori may participate in water governance places the Crown at risk. It increases the likelihood of Treaty breaches, it exposes both the Crown and local councils to litigation, and it undermines the legitimacy of any water services framework moving forward.
This bill also exacerbates the clearly inadequate water services that Māori communities endure. It perpetuates a fragmented, patchwork approach, where access to investment is inconsistent, creating winners and losers, instead of ensuring equity for all.
While this bill contains provisions that seemingly prevent the privatisation of water services nationwide, it’s crucial that the public understand that the Government is, in fact, laying the groundwork for partial privatisation. This involves a local council joining or forming new council-controlled organisations for water services funded by Government grants, and in order to receive funding, a council-controlled organisation must completely have detachment from council oversight and decision making. This separation, effectively, means that these water services organisations will be partially privatised. This isn’t just a minor change, but this is a significant step towards the full privatisation of our water resources.
This bill not only fails to uphold Te Mana o te Wai as a legal principle; it actively repeals it. The bill’s commentary says that “Clause 15 removes the objective to avoid environmental harm,” which is signalling a shift away from kaitiakitanga in favour of urban development, and thereby increasing the risk of environmental degradation.
In the face of accelerating climate change, this bill also omits explicit climate change responsibility for water services providers. There are no requirements for resilience planning, no mandatory vulnerability assessments, and no obligations to prioritise adaptation for the communities most at risk.
To summarise, this bill tramples tangata whenua rights, ignores Te Tiriti obligations, entrenches further environmental harm, and sets us up for the long-term privatisation of our waters. Te Pāti Māori does not commend this bill to the House. Tēnā rā koutou.
NANCY LU (National): I rise as the last speaker on the second reading of the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. This is the third bill that the Government has produced as part of its Local Water Done Well policy programme, which the National Party have campaigned on and is an election promise that we’re delivering. The first bill repealed the previous Government’s water services legislation, the second bill established preliminary arrangements for the new water services system, and this very bill, the third bill, will now establish enduring settings for the water services system.
What’s most important for New Zealanders? We’re asking councils to get back into delivering the basic services that all ratepayers and New Zealanders deserve. I commend this bill to the House.
That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendments agreed to.
SPEAKER: The question is,
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Water Services) Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill will be reported to the House by 18 November 2025.
I am pleased to be here today with this bill. In a relatively short period of time, this Government has done a lot to improve the lives for New Zealanders within their communities, from restoring local democracy to addressing water infrastructure issues. I am proud to take the first reading of this system improvements bill. This bill addresses the cost of living concerns we know are shared by New Zealanders around this country. Council rates have been identified as a big driver of inflation for Kiwi households, and we are doing something about that to address that problem.
Our goal is clear. We have said it before, and I will say it again; we want councils to get back to the basics and do those basics brilliantly. That means focusing on the essentials that are the top priorities, like water services, infrastructure, roading, and rubbish. There have been too many instances around the country where councils have lacked fiscal discipline and spent far too much on the things that most people do not consider are core activities of local government. We want to ensure that ratepayers see that the basics are taken care of with the money they pay.
This bill will help councils to reduce the pressure on rates in five key areas. First of all, this bill refocuses the purpose of local government. We looked at the evidence and it showed that whenever the four aspects of community wellbeing are included in the purpose of local government, rates go up as councils are focused on too many things. The most reasonable thing to do, therefore, is to remove the four wellbeings. We want to make it clear that the council’s role is to provide cost-effective and good quality infrastructure and public services to the communities in which they serve. We ask councils to have particular regard to the core services when they’re performing their role; nothing more, nothing less.
Then we want to make sure that council performance is better measured and made public. We all know councils already report their activities in all sorts of ways. That is a positive thing. However, council reporting is inconsistent, and the outcome is no one has the full picture, and ratepayers can’t see how their council is doing compared to another. From the end of this month, council profiles will be published annually on the Department of Internal Affairs website and will show the same set of data for every council in this country, allowing ratepayers to compare the spending and performance of their councils against their neighbours. This is not rocket science. This is common-sense delivery from a common-sense Government. This bill will support broader types of data being reported in the future by enabling new regulations to be made that will make it easier to adjust council performance measures.
We also want councils to prioritise core services in council spending. We have listened to ratepayers; we have listened to households and communities. In this bill, an additional financial management principle for councils has been included. This means that a local authority must have particular regard to the purpose of local government and the core services that they are meant to provide when determining its financial management approach. Councils should focus on what’s important when they are spending ratepayers’ money. The change reinforces that these core services should be given the appropriate focus when councils are deciding how much to spend and how much to charge their ratepayers.
We want to strengthen the transparency and accountability of councils. To do this, we’re rolling out initiatives that will better equip councillors to do their job. This includes a standardised code of conduct, new standing orders, and measures to ensure councillors can access the information that they need to do their job. The bill enables these to be set centrally rather than on an ad hoc individual council basis. This will provide greater certainty and greater consistency about behavioural standards across local government, reduce costs for councils, and ensure councillors are fully informed to make decisions.
Finally, we want to provide further regulatory relief to councils to reduce their cost base. Some regulatory requirements currently in the legislation are outdated and no longer relevant and have become a financial burden for councils and therefore for ratepayers. The regulatory relief we are providing comes in a multitude of ways, including modernising the public notice requirements in the Local Government Act, allowing chief executives to delegate authority for lending approval when they are out of office, removing the requirement for six-yearly service delivery reviews, extending the maximum length of a chief executive’s second term to five years, and removing the requirement for councils to consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge when appointing council-controlled organisation directors because this is already required within other parts of the legislation. Removing these regulatory burdens will support councils to focus on their core businesses, speed up delivery, and bring rates down.
This refocuses our councils and will help us to deliver better value for money and, ultimately, help address the number one issue that Kiwis feel right now, which is the cost of living. It will also ensure that the priorities are done first and foremost for locals in our local communities.
We are committed to reducing the pressure on rates for New Zealand households and acting in the areas we’ve identified as the drivers of rates increases. This is an excellent start to our ambitious yet crucial plan. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill. I am involved in the select committee that will be examining this bill, but the person who will be leading our work in this is our spokesperson Tangi Utikere, who’s actually at the Local Government New Zealand conference today, where apparently this bill is a topic du jour.
It’s not without some irony in my mind that I read this bill. I understand that the cost of living is a huge issue for New Zealanders, and almost every opinion poll shows that. I know that the Government will be desperate to try and point to ways that they are trying to address this, but this particular bill is not really about the cost of living; it’s about taking away the rights of democratically elected councils and putting them back to the centre.
Is this the same party that railed against three waters and the decisions that the Labour Government was making in order to save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars? It appears so—it appears so. It is deeply ironic that a party that has previously stood—or at least stated that they stand—for local control is snatching control off democratically elected councils through this bill and telling them what to do in a very prescriptive way from Wellington.
That’s what this bill does, and I didn’t think that I would see the day when the National Party would do this, but we see that things do change. They, obviously, have seen that they don’t trust democratically elected councils and seem to ignore the tools that exist currently if there are issues with councils. The House will know that if there are serious issues around the financial sustainability of councils—or serious issues around the management of councils—existing tools are in place in order for Government to, if necessary, take control of those councils. We’ve seen that both under this Government and under the previous Government.
This particular bill does not, in any way, save anyone any amount of money; it just tells local councils what to do. Although there are some minor aspects of this bill that I think we can be supportive of, they’ve really thrown the baby out with the bathwater here in terms of telling councils they’re not allowed to take into account the wellbeing of their communities. It’s shocking—shocking—centralised control of local authorities.
Telling councils that they should no longer be looking at tikanga Māori—I was interested to read this document here, the departmental disclosure statement, in relation to the changes that are being put in place by this bill. The departmental disclosure statement states, “The proposal relating to tikanga Māori knowledge in council-controlled organisation governance may affect Māori participation in local government decision-making”. Well, that sounds like a backwards step for New Zealand. Going hand in hand with the changes that this Government has made in relation to Māori wards, it is another attack on Māori through this bill—one that we absolutely cannot support.
Despite having the opportunity in this bill to address some legitimate concerns—and there are things in here, for example the code of conduct aspect, although I understand Local Government New Zealand does have draft codes of conduct that automatically exist. The other thing I think we can support is the idea of information going from officials to democratically elected councillors. There is a lot in here that takes a step backwards. It takes New Zealand away from a situation where we elect our local representatives and we trust them to know our communities best and what is best for our communities
What this bill says is “Wellington knows best. Wellington knows your community better than you, and the Government is going to step in and tell your council what to do.” It’s a degradation of the rights of democratically elected councils, and we cannot support it.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m stoked to speak on this bill. Our local government spokesperson is also at the LGNZ Conference, but, thankfully, we have a wealth of local government experience in our caucus.
Stuart Smith: Where?
TAMATHA PAUL: Well, I’ve served four years as a city councillor, for one. We have Lan Pham, who was an Environmental Canterbury councillor. And, also, Celia Wade-Brown, who was the Mayor of Wellington for a long time. So we know what we’re talking about, unlike the other side of the House. [Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, this is a barrage; these are not interjections. Interjections are fine, but keep the noise down, please.
TAMATHA PAUL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, yes, rates are very high, but this bill completely misses the point about why rates are high. The reason that rates are high is because there has been a legacy in this country of politicians who promised low or zero rates increases and completely under-invest in the infrastructure that we need to survive—things like our water infrastructure, our road infrastructure, our housing. These are things that have been neglected in the pursuit of petty votes.
This is why councils are facing the challenges that they are facing. They are having to deal with decades, legacies, of under-investment, but they also have to look to the future and prepare our cities and our regions for impending climate change and other resilience issues that they face. That is why rates are high, not because councils are focusing on other things.
If we want to talk about the Wellington convention centre, the Tākina convention centre cost a fraction of what the Auckland convention centre and the Christchurch convention centre cost. I’ll also note that those used Crown funding; ours was funded by our own businesses, our own downtown levy, and our own rates. We didn’t rely on the Government for those.
So this bill talks about core services. What are core services? According to this legislation, things like a just transition and mitigation and being able to prepare for climate change is apparently not a basic service. Things like safe walking and cycling infrastructure, making sure that kids don’t get hit off their bikes, is apparently not a core, basic service. Making sure that people are safe in our cities and don’t get harassed and assaulted is apparently not a core service. Well, those are things that are important to our communities, and if you cared about listening to our local communities, you would know that.
The other thing that is really concerning in this bill is that it changes a part in the Act around the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards into simply civil defence management, emergency management, which is basically saying we’re not going to try and futureproof any more. We’re not going to prepare ourselves for climate change and for the storm weather events. Look at what’s happened in the last few weeks in Nelson. Now, we are not going to do that any more; we are just going to prepare ourselves for the worst, and we’re going to say to councils, we’re only going to fund you to prepare for the worst. We won’t make the change that we need to make in this decade to actually curb our emissions and prevent these one-in-100-year disasters from happening over and over again. It is such a deep lack of foresight by people who have very little experience in local government and probably couldn’t get elected anyway.
If we want to talk about the toilets, what’s wrong with having a 24/7 public toilet? It is the first accessible toilet our city has ever had—ever had. That is a place that people can go, particularly our rough-sleeping community—[Interruption]—to wash—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shh! Too much noise.
TAMATHA PAUL: —themselves and to use the bathroom. It matters to elderly people, who need to use the bathroom more often. So if you actually talk to the communities that made these decisions, then that side might understand that.
What councils need is more funding and financing. This has been said by so many different groups—Local Government New Zealand to the Productivity Commission have said that councils need greater access to different financing tools to actually fund the things that they want to do. But, again, the problem is that they are facing under-investment and they are trying to face the future and the challenges ahead of us.
This bill does nothing to achieve that. On the one hand, you have a Government that campaigned, at least, on central government staying out of local government’s business. Then you give the power to local government and local councils and you don’t like the decisions that they’re making, because they want to keep their Māori wards, they want the centralisation of water services, and, actually, the lack of direction and the lack of a coherent strategy from this Government has resulted in the changes to councils’ credit ratings, which impacts their ability to borrow money and to fund the future.
So that is the problem. This bill completely misses the mark.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The sad thing about this House is that those people who sit in the seats closer to the Speaker’s Chair sound the loudest. There is a lot of noise coming from this side. I just want it to be interjections and toned down. Thank you.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this bill, the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill. It is a step forward to restoring focus and accountability and value in local government, which, ultimately, is about easing the cost of living for all New Zealanders, because local government touches every part of our lives, from rubbish collection, road maintenance, building consents in public spaces, and it needs to be done right so that things can work.
The Minister, in his speech, emphasised that when focus is lost, the cost is paid by ratepayers, who are families and small businesses across this country. Rates are going up faster than inflation, people are feeling squeezed, and one of the contributing reasons is too many councils have drifted away from their core responsibilities and into political and ideological territory, enabled by some changes that happened under the last Government, who introduced the four wellbeings—a bit of a misnomer when you look at the results.
This bill sends a clear message: councils are not mini-parliaments; they are service delivery agencies. Their job is to manage infrastructure and keep communities running, and doing it while delivering value for money. When they deviate from that, and waste ratepayers’ money, they increase the cost of living on all of us.
I’m going to give you an example here: Auckland, Whangārei, and Tauranga, and also councils in the Wairarapa and Wellington regions have adopted their own climate action plan. They’re trying to be well meaning but they are unnecessary because New Zealand has a national emissions reduction system in place: it’s called the emissions trading scheme. It drives behaviour change where it counts, and councils do not need to be getting involved in this area.
Last year, Whanganui District Council considered building a hotel. That is not the role of councils. Ratepayers are not venture capitalists. They expect their potholes to be fixed and their pipes to work, not to speculate on real estate plays. Some councils have even derailed their agendas in recent months after being distracted by international politics. These examples highlight what happens when councils go after political projects rather than delivering practical services, and this can lead to bloated budgets, higher rates, and frustrated residents who just want to see the basics done well.
We need to improve transparency. The Minister has spoken about the inability for members of local councils to get information that they require to properly assess proposals that have been put towards them. But also, think of the poor ratepayers: local residents who want to know how their council compares to other councils around the country. Right now, that would involve something like going out and OIA-ing every local authority—some 28 information requests. Well, what we’re going to see here is a tool, a platform, a table, a dashboard—something like what the Minister thought the building and construction industry has implemented very strategically and that has been well delivered. We’re seeing what building consenting authorities, which are also mostly councils, are delivering when it comes to timeliness for their building consent applications, acceptations, and code of compliance certificates being delivered. That has been a success by the Minister in the construction industry. This is going to be a success by the Minister of Local Government in getting answers for local people. This bill introduces that in the form of benchmarking.
Value for money needs to be at the heart of everything that councils do, from procuring to planning, and it might sound obvious, but right now, many councils have got into pursuing vague policy objectives and social outcomes, with little regard to the cost. We have seen procurement policies that emphasise ideology over results. This is not just unfair on ratepayers who are footing the bill; it is especially unfair at a time when every dollar counts. This bill helps restore fiscal discipline by putting costs and quality at the centre of council decision-making.
Finally, democracy matters. We have seen places like Tauranga put unelected iwi representatives with full voting rights on council committees. In Hastings, we’ve seen unelected youth councillors being appointed to council committees with full voting rights and pay. This is not how democracy should work. If you want a say in how local money is spent, you should get elected, and this bill is working to fix that direction in New Zealand. This change to the local government legislation that is being amended is going to focus councils on the job they were created to do, and I commend this to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you. This is an important bill. It is a well-signalled bill. The background to this bill, obviously, is some very, very high rates increases, and the last three years have been unprecedented. What we’ve seen is the average across all councils was 34.4 percent over the last three years compared to the Consumers Price Index. I know councils will say the local government inflation index of 13.7 percent is more important. In some jurisdictions—this city—it was 46 percent plus.
That is the sort of number which really hurts, and we are, I think for the first time ever—I had 30 years on a council. Generally speaking, what we heard from is people saying we want more services, more services, more services. For the last three years, we’ve started to hear people say in increasing numbers, “We are concerned about our rates. We are really hurting and people are really now afraid. They’re finding it difficult to actually pay the rates and they’re concerned they may not be able to stay in their own homes.” That is a real concern. That, really, is what this bill is responding to. I think what people are saying is they are really questioning the value for money that they are getting from their council, so that is what this bill is intending to do. It’s about imposing greater disciplines.
The thing is, when you’ve got statutory monopoly powers to rate, that comes with a lot of responsibility. That’s what this bill is trying to do, to impose greater responsibility. It removes—as we’ve heard—the four wellbeings and it changes the purpose of local government. What actually is good in that is it also does retain or keeps in there the purpose of economic development and growth, because that is consistent with the Government’s agenda, the necessity we have as a country to grow our economy. So it would make no sense whatsoever to say to councils, “You can’t be involved in that area and get that dropped because then it would harm our economic development.”
It requires a focus on core services. Now, there’s going to be a huge amount of debate about what is core, but what I do like is that core here is not just asset infrastructure, like network infrastructure. That’s really, really important. That’s obviously core-core, and waste management and public transport services and civil defence, but it also includes libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities. I think that is really, really important because those things are really, really valuable to communities and to the people who live right around our country to enjoy.
I think it’s going to be really interesting to see how we think about what environmental services are, how we define those, because in that reserves category, quite clearly environmental areas are very, very important. I think that that is important, particularly in this city, something that I’m personally very proud of.
Trying to define “core” has been a challenge in the past as well. You might well recall Rodney Hide, who said councils stick to core services. The next thing that was said was “What are you guys doing for the Rugby World Cup?” As soon as that was done, every event under the sun was in play. That is the danger that sometimes, when you say you can’t do this, this, and this—this, this and this—and this Government has done it as well, actually. We said, “Stick to core services.”, and I think the next day we had one of the Ministers of the Crown, plus the Mayor of Auckland, saying, “Hey, we’re funding this festival.”
Now, again, what is a core service? There’s going to be a lot of debate around that as this bill advances. There’s no question that some councils are going well beyond what is a core service at the moment and they should draw back in again. There are also—and we heard already in the debate—some critically important services that are only provided by councils that, if they are not core, councils are going to have to make some decisions about whether they are able to do those or not. It’s going to be a subject of some significant debate.
It’s good to see the focus on good quality local infrastructure. We’ve heard about under-investment in infrastructure. Good quality means you must be investing in it to keep it as good quality, to keep it being able to do the job it does, so it means good quality asset management. We’ve heard from the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) that over the last decade plus, councils across the country have been under-investing by about a quarter what they should have been. That’s every single council in the country under-investing by about a quarter in basic three waters infrastructure, so that’s where that deficit comes from.
We as a Government—every Government—need to look in the mirror as well and say, “Government’s not that crash hot at looking after infrastructure as well.” That is one of the things that the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission is saying to us loud and clear: we need to be investing more in asset management so we look after those assets so they can continue to do the job they need.
Look, just still on the OAG, it’s interesting that when I’ve talked to a number of councils about it—because we need to think about the cost that the Government imposes on local authorities—do you know the first thing that a lot of them said to me? Several of them in a row said, unprompted, that the audit costs are extortionate. For some of them, it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars. For some of them—small councils—it’s 1 percent or even 2 percent of their rates. So we’ve got to think very, very carefully about the amount of money that we, effectively, cost councils as well. Look, there’s a lot more I’d like to say, but I’m looking forward to seeing the bill progress, and I commend it to the House.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou. Māku ngā kōrero mō tēnei pire hāngai te haere ake nei, nō reira tēnā tātou.
[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to us all. The statements about this relevant bill that is progressing are up to me, and so greetings to us all.]
This bill is not a reform; it’s an absolute takeover. It marks the devolution of our democratic rights, stripping power from local communities and forcibly absorbing it as part of central government control. This goes far beyond reshaping local government. It introduces the same control mechanisms seen in the Regulatory Standards Bill, a piece of legislation so troubling that even the United Nations has raised concerns.
Under this bill, local councils shall be gutted. They will be gutted; gutted of their power to tailor decisions to their local needs, effectively turning councils into administrative arms of central government, as if to imply that out-of-touch politicians know better than the communities themselves. The claim by the Government that these moves will reduce rates pressures and improve efficiencies is an outcome that’s hardly likely to materialise, as they then set out to deal with all the backlash that’s going to come to them. The claim from this coalition Government, it’s just out the gate; it won’t be there.
Reshaping the function and purpose of local government in Aotearoa is only a taster of what the coalition Government intends to impose at the national level. And this is all happening in real time—real time—before our eyes. As I listen to the Minister’s opening statements, they’re so far removed from the reality of interpersonal life—you know, thinking that things can just be managed in units from some central location that’s not in the place that they live. These things will all have a real impact on many communities, and Māori are, for sure, likely to be amongst the highest affected negatively.
Democracy for us as Māori is an experience that we’ve never had the full benefit of, and this bill will only take that even further. The removal of requirements for councils to consider tikanga Māori in appointing directors of council-controlled organisations, particularly as these entities prepare for the partial privatisation of water services—you might want to reflect on the fact that the water case is still before the courts, eh—
Simon Court: You’re not the Speaker.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: —well, that the water case is still before the courts, e te Pīka, and that there is no clear statement—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I think they were referring to the fact that you used the word “you”, but you’re not the first person today that’s done that.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, I’ve heard all of them do it before too. But kei te pai. So the community wellbeing mandate, well, that’s gone. Councils will no longer be empowered to invest in the hauora of their communities through social, economic, environmental, or the cultural lenses; instead, just short-term fiscal targets. Yeah, I don’t know, I thought we would have learnt these lessons a long, long time ago, but obviously we haven’t.
All of this completely undoes the progress that’s been made in reconciling the holistic wellbeing of communities. We’ve seen time and time again that intervention by Government doesn’t work. Here we go; let’s do this one. It’s right down to doing it all based on cost efficiency, as if society is made up of widgets and robots that can be managed in a unitary fashion. You all look confused. I know. You’re very confusing.
Hon Member: No one understands what you’re saying.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: It’s a joke, mate—it’s a joke. It’s a joke to think that you can deal with people and the emotions that drive life in that fashion. It’s a joke. It’s an unimaginative joke. It’s a no vision, no capacity to see past your own small boxes in front of you; a joke. So to broadly summarise the bill, it removes councils’ ability to invest in equity—so no equity. It eliminates the requirements to consider tikanga Māori in establishing certain jobs in the council.
They should have taken a leaf from all of the mayors and the CEOs and the people from the councils who came before Parliament, before select committees, and said they actually are very happy to partner with iwi, with mana whenua in their rohe—they’re very happy to work with them. They’ve actually done the job of walking alongside those iwi, those hapū—walking alongside them for years now and have learnt that the future is with them, not excluding them. That’s a lesson that the central government has yet to learn, and this crowd over here are likely to never learn, but it is the reality. It is the reality.
Māori are the future, particularly in the regions. You either do the work and catch up to your local counterparts in local government, do the work, understand where Māori are going, get alongside them, or be left behind, like this bill. We don’t support it.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): The cost of living is the number one issue that I spend time working on. The cost of living is the number one issue that the National Party is focused on. It is the number one issue and the top priority for this Government. One of the things I continually hear as I’m working in the great Ōtaki electorate is people coming to me and talking—and we had it when I was out with Suze Redmayne, who’s the other MP in Horowhenua, when we were in the community on Monday. People were saying that rate rises are too high. They are a huge burden, and they are forecast over a three-year period to be more than 30 percent across a couple of councils in our area.
Hon Member: How much?
TIM COSTLEY: They’re 30 percent increases. We have to do something. People say, “What will you do about it?” I have a long list of people that request meetings with me and they come to my office and they want to talk about issues with councils, but they want to know what can we do to drive down the costs of living when it comes to things like rates. We know that not only did New Zealand suffer from inflation under the last Labour Government but we know that rates increases are inflationary. There are studies that demonstrate that, that they push costs up. So limiting rate rises is really important.
This bill brings a range of changes that, yes, are intentionally designed to get economic efficiency, to keep the costs of living down for Kiwis, because we think that’s the thing that matters to them more than any other right now: making life affordable. So we’re not embarrassed, we’re not ashamed, and we don’t agree with people like Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party when they come and say that we shouldn’t be focused on those things. We had the Green Party before saying we should have had more rate rises over the last few years, that that is the answer. What kind of lunacy is that?
I want to just reflect on one part of this bill, just one small section: Part 1, clause 6, amending section 10 of the Local Government Act. It is redefining the purpose of local government back to what it always was, which will be this: “[one] to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; [secondly] to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses; and [finally] to support local economic growth”—our Government’s all about going for growth—“and development by fulfilling the purpose set out” that I just discussed in No. 2.
Let me focus on that No. 2: good quality local infrastructure. Now, I think councils should spend money, on occasion, on public toilets. They should spend it on things like bus shelters. But I agree with people in my community that complain when they point to the bus shelter in Paraparaumu—or the bus stop there—that cost in the vicinity of $2 million.
Hon James Meager: What’s it made of?
TIM COSTLEY: What’s it made of? Reinforced steel so that they could put a garden on the roof. You can’t see it; it’s on the roof. But they put one up there anyway. We need a shelter on the side of the road, maybe, yeah, so people can get out of the wind and the rain—occasionally we have rain in Kāpiti—but we need councils to be making wise, sensible, and, at times, tough decisions. Our Government has to make tough decisions. Sure, it would be fun and make me feel good, like the last Government, to just spray money around everywhere, but it leads to inflation and it causes more problems. We have to make the tough, grown-up decisions and invest in sensible things. Quality local infrastructure—but done in an affordable way.
Secondly, local public services. Some of the examples that people have listed have been things like local rubbish and recycling. Actually, in the Kāpiti Coast, there is no curb-side rubbish collection or recycling, and they closed down the Waikanae recycling plant. I did object to that; it was prior to my time as an MP. But we need to do that in a cost-effective way.
Some of the local services—you might have seen the Horowhenua council and the outcry because they said, in the last budget round, that they were no longer going to mow people’s front lawns for them; they were mowing the berms out on the street. Actually, I think that was a sign of leadership. They, in part, backed down, but I thought that was a good decision from council, a sensible thing to say, “Actually, we don’t expect every ratepayer to pay for you to mow your lawns; you can mow your own lawns. You’re mowing the rest of them on the other side of the fence.” We need to make more grown-up decisions like that.
Finally, to the performance of regulatory functions. I acknowledge that the Government has a role to play here. That’s why we’re reforming the Resource Management Act. That’s why we’re looking for faster consenting, for cheaper and easier consenting. But we need councils to play their part as well. So I stand by this. I want to see good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and those regulatory functions, but it should be done, as it will now be done, in the most cost-effective way for mums, dads, and ordinary Kiwis. That’s what this bill is all about. I commend it to the House.
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Talofa, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. The Minister has explained through his legislative statement that local government has lacked fiscal discipline amongst councils—that this bill will ensure councils are focused on core functions, spending within their means, and that ratepayers must scrutinise council operations. What’s more is this bill removes all references to the four aspects of community wellbeing. It reinstates the purpose of local government being focused on cost-effective provision of good quality local infrastructure and public services. It reinstates the specific core services a local government must have, in particular regarding its performing of that role.
But the term local government means exactly that—that it’s local. So why is the central government dictating yet again to local government through this bill? The local body elections will be held towards the end of the year: October 2025. How does the Government expect democratically elected local politicians to help run their communities, when local government’s core role is to work with their communities? In fact, I looked up the definition and the core purpose of local government. The core purpose of local government in New Zealand is to enable democratic decision-making and action by and on behalf of communities to promote social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing, both in the present and for the future. This is achieved through a two-tiered system of regional and territorial authorities working to represent and serve the needs of their specific communities.
The Minister also explained that this is to achieve better measuring and publicising of council performance, helping councils to focus on financial prudence, so that ratepayers will benefit from increased transparency of council spending and improved decision-making. Well, that’s a lot of brick and mortar and rules around the who and the what in terms of that. But what about the people from local communities? Do they get to have a say in this top-down approach?
I want to emphasise that democratically elected local politicians work with their communities every day. Why do I know that? Because I had to do that over a decade, and it was a great pleasure working alongside communities and with council officials. Whilst the rulebook is being rewritten of council’s core functionalities, it is the local politicians that have to get around, day in, day out, to achieve with their local community, community outcomes—and they do.
The Minister also explained and advised on the essentials under this bill. Well, I can stand here and say that community kōrero, conversations with the community, community talanoa—that is an essential. Additionally, this bill removes the obligation for councils to consider tikanga Māori when it comes to appointing council-controlled organisation (CCO) directors. Well, that step removes the mana of tikanga Māori. When CCO directors are appointed specifically to make good decisions within their role, they are serving diverse communities. CCO directors must have an understanding of the benefits and the taonga as their role in serving those local communities. So whilst this bill has some technical improvements, these are far outweighed by the ideological and the structural changes that will constrain local leadership and erode bicultural governance.
Communities up and down Aotearoa are diverse. Communities understand the important relationship with local government and must have a voice within this kaupapa. Unfortunately, this is part of the Government’s agenda, with its reforms; alongside the water services bill and regional deals that increases central control, stripping councils of autonomy and the local voices of community. I do not support this bill.
Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I intend only to take a very short call, but I just want to start off by saying that it’s rather ironic to hear from that side of the House that they actually, all of a sudden, care for the people in local communities, because in the previous six years before National—and the coalition Government—took power in this country, they really did not care about what the local communities actually said.
This is the thing: yes, there are diverse communities up and down the country, and one of the biggest things that they complain about is the cost of living that we currently face. It is something that this Government is doing, and working very hard to fix, and one of the things that the cost of living impacts on is the ability for people to pay their rates. The reason why the rates are going up so high is because the cost for councils is actually going up. When I think about how the rates have actually grown in the last 20 years, I thought it was about 15 percent, but, you know, my learned colleague here, Andy Foster, who has actually been a mayor, said that it has actually grown by 30 percent and above.
This is one of the things that we need to actually make sure we return the councils to focusing on: their core-core work programme, to make sure that they deliver for the local community who want to make sure that their rates are not increasing at the rate of 30 percent as we were talking about before, and actually making sure that they focus on things like potholes, the infrastructure, and local community issues that people want their councils to focus on.
For example, I think one of my colleagues across the House actually talked about how the infrastructure for dealing with flood issues—whereas drainage and sewage issues were not dealt with for decades, in many, many iterations of councils and Governments. I think these are the things that councils need to focus on, and this bill delivers on that, to make sure they do that for our local communities. I commend the bill to the House.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Much has been said in the discussion about this bill today about the removal of the four wellbeings from the Local Government Act. I thought I might take some time to actually talk about those four wellbeings—what they are and what they do—because—
Tim Costley: Economic.
RACHEL BOYACK: Yeah, there is one. I’m going to get to the economic one, Mr Costley, because I think it’s a bit odd for the National Party, which claims to be the party of the economy, to be taking out the responsibility for the council to think about economic impacts of their decisions. It kind of seems weird and bizarre. I’m going to talk about a few examples.
One of the things that local councils do, and have a big impact on, is housing. The decisions they make around the council table can have an impact on the affordability of housing. The decisions they make around the table can have an impact on ensuring that housing developments don’t have a negative impact on the environment. Another thing that the decisions they make can do is to consider the positive social impacts that good quality housing can have on the community. Some of those decisions are actually related back to those four wellbeings—the social, economic, environmental, and cultural benefits to the community.
I would have thought we would want councils, when they’re making decisions around housing, to make sure that there’s good stormwater in place so it doesn’t have a poor impact on the environment, that the decisions they’re making around where houses are built and how houses are built will help improve the affordability of housing for the community, and that things like the social impacts of housing in the community will be considered.
There’s a particular example I want to raise from my community of Nelson—but it’s occurring across the whole country—which is around homelessness. In inner-city Nelson, we are seeing a growing increase in the number of rough sleepers. Now, if you consider the wellbeings, having a growing number of rough sleepers is impacting on the social wellbeing of the community. It is actually having an economic impact. I visited the museum the other day, where people are actually not coming in to visit our museum, because we have rough sleepers outside. This is a direct result of the fact we don’t have good provisions for rough sleepers in Nelson. Now, Nelson City Council has set aside some money to help improve services for our homeless community in Nelson. That’s a good thing. They should be doing that because it actually, as well as having a social impact, has an economic impact. If people aren’t coming and spending their money in a city, because there’s a growing number of rough sleepers, there’s negative economic impact on Nelson.
Let’s just talk about the economic decisions that councils make. Rates: I think about rates. I would have thought that it’s a good thing for councils to consider the decisions they’re making in the context of rates. I would have thought it’s a good thing for councils to be considering the impact of their decisions on things like the cost of living. I would have thought it was a good idea for councils to be making decisions that are ensuring investment in their cities. In Nelson, we invest in the Nelson Regional Development Agency. They go out, and they seek funding for our companies and our industries that help grow our economy. I would have thought that’s a good thing to do, but somehow the National Party wants to stop councils from doing that. It’s quite weird.
The last one was around the cultural decision. I haven’t touched enough on the cultural wellbeing. Every year in Nelson, we have the Nelson-Tasman Multicultural Festival. Thousands of people come to Founders. We’ve had to move it to Founders in Nelson, which is owned by the council, because the numbers that attend every year are growing and growing and growing. People come down, and, for a gold coin donation, they can enjoy cultural performances, cultural food, a whole lot of fun activities, holy festivals, and they can engage with local organisations like the Police and Fire and Emergency. They can purchase items made by our local ethnic communities. Funnily enough, when people come to that event, they spend a lot of money in our inner city, so there is a multiplier effect—something that we learn when we do Economics 101. What is actually a tiny, minute investment from the council actually helps improve the cultural wellbeing of our community, and it actually creates economic activity.
I think these are good things for local government to do, and so it’s a terrible move for this Government to, once again, remove the four wellbeings from the Local Government Act, and I do not commend this bill to the House.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise as the final speaker on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill.
This bill directly addresses cost of living concerns shared by New Zealanders around the country; we know it’s the number one issue facing Kiwis at the moment. Council rates have been identified as a big driver of inflation. For Kiwi households, average rate increases last year were 8.4 percent across the country, while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was at 2.2 percent. Therefore, we as a Government have to take action to ensure ratepayers get real value for money from their local councils. Too many councils across New Zealand have lost sight of their core purpose and are spending ratepayer money on things that aren’t essential services. There have been too many instances where councils have lacked fiscal discipline and spent far too much on activities most people don’t consider to be core council business.
Ratepayers are frustrated with rising rates. I think of my home patch in the Bay of Plenty: the Tauranga City Council recently consulted on their annual plan at 12.5 percent and settled on 9.9 percent—far outstretching what CPI is at the moment—while spending on many things that many ratepayers would consider nice-to-haves. That’s why this legislation is so vital for the New Zealand that we want, to ensure that it’s affordable for our families and households across the country. People are frustrated with rising rates, expanding bureaucracy, and poor value for money. Removing things like the four wellbeings and actually focusing on their core business is ultimately what this legislation is focused on, and therefore, I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Motion agreed to.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Instruction to the Governance and Administration Committee
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 18 November 2025.
Motion agreed to.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.
Bills
United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005 and Overseas Investment Regulations 2005
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. We come now to Part 1. This is the—
SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave that all provisions be taken as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Leave is not approved.
We come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 12, “Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005 and Overseas Investment Regulations 2005”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s my pleasure, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, the “Hon Trade McClay”, to speak in support of the United Arab Emirates—aka UAE—Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s legislation, Madam Chair and committee members, that will enable New Zealand to ratify a landmark free-trade agreement with one of our most important partners in the Middle East.
I do want to start by expressing my thanks to those who have been involved with progressing the bill so far, including members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—and I notice that its erstwhile chair Mr Tim van de Molen is present. I thank him for that, and, of course, Parliament more generally, civil society and business representatives, and Treaty partners. I emphasise to all those involved in the process that your engagement is a crucial part of the legislative process.
The agreement—or the CEPA, as it is affectionately known—unlocks new and exciting opportunities for New Zealand exporters, investors, consumers, and innovators. It’s a high-quality, modern free-trade agreement that provides preferential access for all New Zealand exports, with tariffs eliminated on some 98.5 percent of our exports immediately upon its entry into force, and I will briefly touch on the time frames involved because we’re excitingly close to the ratification and entry into force of this agreement.
The UAE, so far, has concluded agreements with 20 nations or economies, and so our agreement puts New Zealand exporters on a level playing field within that UAE market. Not only that, though, but I understand that the agreement is the highest quality and the most liberalising among those, so, if anything, our exporters will actually enjoy an advantage. So that’s a great achievement, and, again, I express thanks on behalf of the Government and, hopefully, on behalf of Parliament as well to all those involved in concluding the agreement and getting us to this near-final stage.
I’ll just share a couple of key figures that illustrate the potential scale of the opportunity, noting for a start that the UAE, along with Saudi Arabia, is New Zealand’s largest export destination in the Middle East, with the annual two-way trade now being valued at some NZ$1.3 billion. Our annual goods exports are now almost NZ$1.2 billion, including dairy, meat, fruit, and machinery, and, of course, these are major pillars of the New Zealand economy, domestic and export alike. The UAE is, meanwhile, the world’s 20th largest economy, with a GDP of over US$500 billion. It’s an economy that’s continuing to expand, and we’ll help them to do that in the way that free trade is wont to do. Their economy is projected to grow by 4 percent this year, driven by diversification into sectors such as tourism, technology, and financial services.
I do need to emphasise, though, in providing those different statistics, that the agreement isn’t just about trade volumes—important as they are—but it’s also about strategic positioning. This agreement is our first free-trade agreement within the Middle East, a region of the world which is already and will continue to be increasingly important to help New Zealand achieve greater economic prosperity for Kiwis. It’s the home of some of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds and logistics hubs. By securing preferential access for New Zealand businesses in this way, our businesses will be able to gain a competitive edge and will have increased connectivity in a region that is rapidly transforming and offering new opportunities.
It also reflects our values of having sustainable and inclusive trade, and I should also point out that most of the obligations within the agreement—the CEPA—are already met by New Zealand’s existing domestic legal and policy regime. However, of course, as is often the case, at least some amendments to our legislative and regulatory frameworks are required in order to ensure that we have the alignment necessary to meet the obligations on our side of the agreement. These include amendments to the Overseas Investment Act 2005, the related regulations, the Customs and Excise Act 2018, the Tariff, and the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996. I can see that members of the committee are almost as excited as I am about these, and they, no doubt, are very familiar with them all—again, as much as I am.
On 7 April of this year, the bill was introduced to the House in order to make the changes, and—to conclude—the purpose, of course, is to enable New Zealand to ratify this agreement by allowing our domestic laws to be aligned with the domestic commitments that we have made under the CEPA. So I look forward to the discussion at the committee and I emphasise, finally, that this represents a real moment of opportunity for New Zealand and New Zealand businesses. With the aim of the UAE being to double its GDP to US$1.4 trillion by 2031, New Zealand is well positioned to assist that itself along that way through this legislation.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you very much. It’s great to have the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk. It’s quite relevant, given that Part 1, which we are discussing here, is “Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005 and Overseas Investment Regulations 2005”. He will be overseeing the process, and, actually, I think in summary, the select committee saw the provisions in the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement as being sound. They extended from $100 million to $200 million, the threshold, but there was a qualification that the $100 million threshold remains for investments outside the relevant service sectors where the commitments have been made and do not impact our national security and public order. So I just applaud—the officials, in negotiating this, have kept a $100 million threshold for sensitive asset areas.
The question I have for the Minister, though, is that the Government is making changes in other areas of the overseas investment oversight. So while negotiating this bill was under the previous legislation, the oversight of those new investments will be with a different framework. I think in supporting this legislation, as we have at every stage, and facilitating through select committee, the questions we have for the Minister, in one area, handing over decision making to officials—so it won’t even come to the Minister. So maybe he can explain the thresholds there and what he is going to use as a justification for intervention. Because there is a lot of money in the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries—in fact, in the Gulf Corporation Council, which is the next agreement that will come through.
I think every New Zealander has the right, and, in Labour, we’re asking the questions: can we be assured that the officials will maintain the objective of certainty of the previous Labour Government that was to make sure that we did protect our sovereign rights, that we protected the rights of Māori, of iwi, and other sectors of our economy that are exposed? So the question for the Minister is: while we’ve had, in negotiations, protections at an official level, ultimately, because the oversight provision and regime will change under new legislation, can the Minister give us some assurances in that area?
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member of the committee, who was a Minister for Land Information so is familiar with the operation of the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) and as part of land information more generally, so I acknowledge the fact that his question comes from an informed space of wanting to test how the decision making will take place in that realm, as well as his former role in the trade space as a Minister, as well.
I take seriously the question that he’s posed, and I think it’s worth me providing the assurance that he seeks, on behalf of the Government, that we are very confident indeed that none of the changes that we’ve made, in terms of the way that decisions for the OIO are made by officials, as opposed to Ministers in most cases—we’re confident that those will continue to be made in an appropriate manner, considering national benefit—and I use that term in a pretty broad sense—but including with reference to questions of sovereignty and also other rights and interests that we, in New Zealand, are determined to uphold and protect.
I think the officials who have been weighing those individual decisions in a business-as-usual kind of manner, but also in relation to particular trade obligations, will continue to do so in a way that’s very appropriate. But I’ll also point out for the committee that it’s the case that Ministers—being the Minister of Finance or her delegate, the Associate Minister of Finance, David Seymour, and the Minister for Land Information, being myself at the present time—still have the ability to call in applications, should we think that it would be prudent to do so. There’s no particular specific test for that, except only to say that the aims of the Government, on behalf of New Zealand—for example, in promoting the exercise of free trade, part of which, of course, is the ambition to double our exports within the decade—are part of our decision making as to whether to call in an application and then, of course, the decision to approve or not at that point.
I’m confident that good decision-making will continue to be made, predominantly by officials but with ministerial oversight as and when required.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that clarification from the Minister for Land Information. I acknowledge that the deal also does not include investor-State dispute settlements, which was a concern—international dispute settlement criteria that would have allowed, and does allow in other negotiations around the world of trade agreements, private companies to sue Governments. That has been excluded; we applaud the Government for that.
Can I just come back to the criteria around the investments because Invest New Zealand, which is a piece of legislation we’ve passed through the House, had very vague criteria about the objective of that organisation. They will now have access to a market in the UAE with a higher threshold. As the Minister says, there is ultimate oversight by two Ministers, himself and the Associate Minister of Finance—I trust that Minister, but unfortunately, I think the other Associate Minister of Finance would sell his grandmother if he thought he could make a buck. It is indeed quite a lot of pressure on that Minister, and we need to be sure that the money coming from the UAE, from this trade agreement, actually is for the benefit of New Zealand. Of course, there’ll be some benefit to the investor—but to make sure we have a balance in those results.
Again, a question to the Minister, given that he shares the responsibility, is to make sure that what we generally agreed through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will not be overwritten by some short-term objective of Invest New Zealand as an agency, and perhaps the Associate Minister of Finance, who is the ACT Party leader, and who has expressed time and time again a desire to just drive economic outcomes over and above any of the cultural and other social outcomes that we would always have—and we hope that the Minister in the Chamber has—in any trade agreement or any negotiation process. I think it has been kept, it’s been maintained through the conditions of this agreement, but when it comes to final decisions by the two Ministers over that investment, we need to have some assurance that actually there will be those principles maintained.
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. The question that the member poses, I hope to be able to provide assurance to along the lines that the criteria for Invest NZ, in his characterisation, are vague. I suppose I’d point out the obvious, that there’s always a tension between flexibility, which is helpful in the case of wanting policies and practices to respond to general aims of the Government on behalf of New Zealand, as opposed to being so prescriptive as to lock down or preclude opportunities being taken for the benefit of New Zealand.
I mean, reasonable minds can differ on the quality of decision making by any Minister, and I obviously don’t share the view that’s been expressed by the member in relation to other Ministers, but I will say that all aspects of Government—and I’m sure the Overseas Investment Office would want me to say on their behalf that they will continue to exercise their judgment in a thoughtful manner, as will New Zealand Invest, and, for that matter, in the converse, so to speak, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, also working diligently on behalf of New Zealanders for the export as well as the import opportunities.
Speaking for myself, at least, I’m confident that I and other Ministers will have regard to the best interests of New Zealand, which are economic in many cases, as the member’s quite rightly mentioned, but also bearing in mind more strategic considerations that go to the fabric of New Zealand society, including the opportunities that we want for our businesses, but also members of the New Zealand community more generally.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise on behalf of the Greens to ask a few questions of the Minister—actually, building on the contribution of the Hon Damien O’Connor. It is around that part where we’re looking at the increase from the $100 million to $200 million monetary threshold, which we see through the Overseas Investment Act 2005. I am looking specifically at clause 4 in the bill, Subpart 1, “Amendment to Overseas Investment Act 2005”—clause 4 “Section 61A amended (Regulations regarding the alternative monetary thresholds for overseas investments in significant business assets)”. If you drop down to paragraph (k), it says, “the New Zealand—United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement”.
It’s that particular paragraph in the legislation that draws in the agreement. I guess I am building on some of the concerns that were raised by the Hon Damien O’Connor, and that is around questions around how that threshold went from $100 million to $200 million, and whether there was any analysis on not just the cultural or social impact, which is of course incredibly important, but also around labour rights laws as well.
As was canvassed during submissions on the agreement part, which this legislation leads to, there were concerns around migrant exploitation, there were concerns about the differences in labour standards in terms of what we would consider acceptable here in New Zealand, and the incredibly different and very punitive labour regime that they have in the UAE.
My question to the Minister is linked to: how did you go from the $100 million to the $200 million, and was there any analysis, by moving between those two numbers, on whether that would actually exacerbate migrant exploitation in the UAE, or what impact, if any, it would have on workers’ rights and labour market concerns over in the UAE?
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very certain that the Government, including through its excellent negotiators and officials involved in the preparation and discussions around the agreement and ultimately its drafting, wouldn’t place in front of this House for ratification a deal that we would knowingly consider likely or even possible to lead to outcomes of migrant exploitation or other labour-type laws or principles being flouted.
As for the $200 million threshold, my understanding is that that’s in line with other free-trade agreements, so it’s a matter of consistency and certainty and alignment with those that that figure was reached.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just appreciate the Minister for Land Information answering these questions so diligently. For those of us who weren’t at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and everybody who’s listening to the debate this afternoon, I think it would be just good to get onto the record a bit more about the thinking behind raising that threshold to $200 million. I wonder if there was any cost-benefit analysis done of lifting it up to $200 million, doubling the threshold. I’m interested in whether there was any modelling or projections about the effect that it might have on levels of investment, comparing, for example, if it had been kept at $100 million or moved to $200 million, and what sectors that investment is likely to be going into.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I just wanted to pick up on a technical aspect here, because the questions we’re hearing are in relation to the monetary threshold. Now, that’s part of the consideration that the select committee undertook when it was first considering whether or not to recommend that the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and its accompanying bilateral investment treaty be agreed. That is a separate process and that is the appropriate time for questions in relation to the monetary threshold and other clauses within the agreement itself. What we’re doing here, though, is simply debating the legislation that then gives effect to that agreement that we’ve already completed and closed off discussion on that. Therefore, this legislation is tightly around the specific clauses that need amending, not the intent behind why they’re being amended, which has already been dealt with.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, look, we have a committee of the whole House stage. We have two stages, the select committee and the committee of the whole House, so that people can take the opportunity to ask further questions, whether or not they’ve been part of that process. I’ve just been advised that that’s OK.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order. Just to clarify, I’m not talking about the select committee in relation to this. The select committee does two separate processes. We did one process earlier in the year, looking at the treaty, the CEPA and the bilateral investment treaty, which was completed and finished, and now we’ve had a second select committee process specifically pertaining to the bill, to now give effect to that. Absolutely, we should be able to talk to the legislative select committee process and, therefore—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m told that this bill affects the threshold, so it’s still relevant to the process.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with the Minister in regards to, potentially, a few technical questions.
Just going to clause 4, which amends section 61A of the Overseas Investment Act, amended section 61A provides for alternative monetary thresholds. It, essentially, says that regulations made under subsection (1) may provide for alternative monetary thresholds under section 16. Under subsection (3), “The Minister must be satisfied, before making a recommendation under this section, that the regulations do not provide for an alternative monetary threshold that is higher than the amount provided for in the relevant international agreement referred”. My reading of that, Minister, is that the responsible Minister would, in effect, be able to lower the threshold via regulation. My questions, really, are in what circumstances that might happen—firstly, whether there was consideration of inserting the threshold itself in legislation, and whether that has been done in regards to other trade agreements.
There were also some questions from the select committee about cumulative investments and how they were treated. I understand that the information to the select committee was that that judgment would be made by Land Information New Zealand. My question, just on the basis of that, would be: was there consideration of including some criteria within the regulations or within statute in terms of guiding that decision, which seems like quite a significant decision in terms of who gets through that non-monitored window and who doesn’t. I understand that there will be some monitoring of how this is used and how it’s played out, but I would just appreciate some guidance in regards to whether that is commonly done or not.
I’m also looking—while I have some time—at the regulations. Subpart 2—this is clause 7, regulation 85, which talks about inserting the type 5 investor provision into the definitions. Then it introduces a number of terms as well into the regulations under 85(1). I looked at the definition of UAE branch, which mentions both that the branch of an enterprise has to be located in the UAE territory but also that it has to carry out business activities in the UAE territory. I was curious about the definition of business activities, so I looked then at the regulation 96B(1) which is being inserted. However, that regulation also doesn’t define what a business activity is. It just repeats that provision.
I’m just wanting some guidance from the Minister in terms of where that definition is contained or whether there is flexibility in terms of an entity being able to make that decision just in regards to that higher threshold. I do think that there’s importance in terms of understanding the scope of who may have access and who may not have access to that unmonitored entity.
I do have a number of other questions—just to flag them for now. One is in relation to regulation 88 as amended, and that is at clause 9. I see the inclusion of “a Hong Kong individual” in the legislation, which is obviously broader than the title of the legislation in front of us, and that there are a number of changes in that regard that have been made. I’m just wanting to hear from the Minister the rationale of that expansion.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and afternoon, colleagues. It’s great to be here on what is a really important piece of legislation. Just coming through a number of the questions, I came in just at the end, but I’m pretty sure it was new section 96A about the $200 million threshold. Good.
The short answer is there are three questions there. First and foremost: precedent. Yes, the $200 million precedent is pretty much in most of the similar types of agreements that are in place between the Governments. This is consistent with that.
There were questions asked around what circumstances, potentially, that would change. I think the reality is very, very rarely or seldomly. The reason for that is because, in effect, to make that change, you’d have to renegotiate the agreement and undertake that process. The circumstances that would lead you to that point, again, would be very rare or seldom, and so, in reality, it is highly unlikely that one would actually change that threshold. But, of course, there are and there is a mechanism if those circumstances did evolve, which is possible, but I think just being realistic in terms of where we’re at around that.
I think the member highlighted regulation 88, in clause 9. I don’t think there was necessarily a question there yet, other than to signal that there might be one coming, so I look forward in anticipation to it.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Just for the benefit of the Minister, I just wanted to repeat the questions that I posed just before he took the chair. One of them is, just for the benefit—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Are you concerned that the questions haven’t been answered—
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —or are you just asking for another Minister—
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: They weren’t answered in the—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, so can you be specific about that. Thank you.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yeah. The first question was: when the consideration of alternative thresholds was made, was there cost-benefit analysis done? It looked at the likely scenarios between the hundreds of million threshold and the 200.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s fair. I think we swapped Ministers at that stage.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We did. That’s why I’m asking the question.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I can answer that question for the member if they’d like. The short answer is, yes, that was undertaken as part of the process.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): And further to that, is the Minister aware of what the projections might be of the likely investment amounts that might come in, in those two respective options? The third question was really about the sectors that we think investment will go into.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question to the Minister of Revenue regarding clause 4, but it also ties into the definition of “UAE enterprise” under clause 7. I think one of the things we did see, as part of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee process, that was brought up as a concern of the agreement was around labour-right issues in UAE, and I want to check with the Minister. Now, when we are looking at, for example, the kafala sponsorship system in the UAE, any company that has business in UAE, or with a UAE enterprise, technically is functioning under the law of the UAE, despite the fact that it may contravene international legal obligations. How would we then reconcile imports from UAE on something like that, which then potentially will contravene our domestic legislation around workers’ rights? I guess that’s the first part of the question.
The second part of the question is around those kind of circumstances when you do get countries where they potentially pay a significantly lower amount because of—for lack of a better word, if you’re looking at worker exploitation, or even in terms of the migrant issues that has been experienced by UAE, albeit they have been improving. The kafala system still has been raised as an issue internationally. If because of the fact that they’re able to produce certain goods at a lower cost than if we were to produce them domestically and we are importing them here, what sort of analysis or risk assessment have the officials or the Ministers done to check the fact that a similar product that can be produced domestically, albeit at a higher cost, will have that kind of competition or challenge against something that is being imported as a result of this particular agreement?
Now, the reason I raise this particular point, if you’re looking at another example, is when we import animal products—in the sense that if we have countries that have lower animal welfare standards than we have here domestically, then they potentially are able to produce things at a much cheaper rate which domestic producers here in Aotearoa New Zealand cannot. Therefore, it creates an imbalance that domestic producers will have to match domestic legislation, but international imports do not have to.
That is my second question: has there been any sort of risk analysis done on UAE enterprise that fulfils the requirement of UAE law but doesn’t fulfil the requirement of domestic New Zealand law, which then creates a competition to domestic producers?
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for his answer to my first question, which was in terms of why the threshold figure was in regulation as opposed to primary legislation. However, I do think a number of the other questions still remain unanswered, so I’ll just very quickly traverse them again.
The first was around whether there was any thought to giving some guidance about cumulative investments and how they ought to be treated, rather than leaving that to Land Information New Zealand to determine and then reviewing it post fact.
The second was in relation to clause 7. This amends regulation 85 and the meaning of “business activities” both in that clause as well as in the new regulation 96B(1), which also uses that language. I just couldn’t find what that definition was.
The third question was in relation to clause 9, which amends regulation 88. That was the inclusion of the term “a Hong Kong individual” in the legislation, and just getting some understanding of that amendment, given it’s just outside the scope of what I had thought we were looking at, but I’m sure that there’s a response to that.
Also, just staying with that clause, how does the Minister believe that the definition of a type 5 investor will be verified in practice to prevent misuse? Obviously there are criteria there. I’m just wanting some guidance in terms of how the Minister expects that that will be monitored.
Still looking at new section 96A, inserted by clause 11, I did note the inclusion of protections against an associate of a person who’s able to invest if they have a beneficial entitlement to the investment or power of control, so essentially excluding someone who’s just working essentially as a vessel and what protection there will be against abuse of the system in terms of identifying what “beneficial entitlement” is, which is the term that’s used.
So just, again, I’m curious where I can find a definition of “beneficial entitlement” to understand how we’re going to protect around that vessel-type use of investors who don’t fit within the definition of the investors who we are attempting to give a privileged provision to. Perhaps I’ll leave it there, but I do potentially have some other questions as well.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thanks very much, members, for your questions. Firstly, for the Hon Phil Twyford’s questions in regards to investment components: Land Information New Zealand keeps the record of those investments, so that’s on the public record, and that would be, in effect, the area repository to be able to access information. Also a question around what sectors: the service sector is the key area which is focused here.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan asked a question in regards to imbalances, particularly around labour. There is a labour chapter within the agreement, and in effect, that provides a mechanism for bilateral discussions in regards to any issues in the matters in which the member has noted.
The member Vanushi Walters noted, in regards to cumulative investments: in effect, the short answer is that that doesn’t impact what we can do domestically, so that is not an issue.
The question in clause 7 around business activities—it’s the same question that the Hon Phil Twyford asked, which refers to services—and the last part of the question that was referred to in that context is something that we will come back to you.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a quick question. It’s a clarification really around one of the answers that were given around moving from—this relates to Part 1, Subpart 1, clause 4. It is around the monetary thresholds moving from $100 million to $200 million. I think the remark was, if I can recall it: “It was because it was what we’ve done with all the other free-trade agreements, because they’re similar.” I want to get some clarification from the Minister about what those similarities are, and I want the clarification to be within the context of the concerns that we’ve raised around migrant exploitation and the kafala sponsorship.
I do note that the Minister did mention that there is a mechanism there to deal with those issues, and that is noted, but I would like to know why it went from $100 million to $200 million and whether the concerns we’ve raised around workers’ rights and around migrant exploitation and the contradictions that could be there between our domestic legislation and international legislation in terms of the way that we do things, because it seems to me that if the answers are only, “Well, it’s all about the economics.”, then I think we should be a lot clearer about that.
I ask that because I look and think about the EU free-trade agreement comparable Parliaments where there are more protections—there are climate protections, more workers’ protections—and so that makes sense. If the Minister could give us some clarification in that area around the $100 million to $200 million monetary threshold and how that links through or doesn’t, and the reasons why it will if it does or does not.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): It’s a fair and reasonable question in the context of those scenarios. To the point the member raised before, in terms of concerns with labour laws between jurisdictions, there is no financial threshold for the mechanism in which countries can actually undertake dialogue in regard to those issues, so in matters such as that, a fiscal threshold is not specifically relevant. It’s in the context of, if they want to have a discussion, the mechanism is within the agreement to have a discussion on those matters—so that deals with that component.
I covered the points around the broader threshold, in terms of the consistency with other legislation—it’s generally inconsistent with other agreements that we have in place.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me a quick question. I will keep this very brief. It relates to the costs of implementing this agreement. I consulted with my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, and he assures me that this matter hasn’t yet been canvassed during the select committee process, so this is something fresh.
I’m referring to page 89 of the international treaty examination and section 8.3 where it talks about costs to Government agencies of implementing and complying with the treaty. My question is which agencies are anticipated to bear costs as a result of implementing and complying with this treaty, and is there a breakdown of the costs per agency of complying and implementing with this treaty, and is there a breakdown of exactly how the costs are actually going to be incurred? Is it in the nature of hiring interpreters? Is it in terms of interpreting the regulation legislation?
I am just interested around this issue of cost as the public services spokesperson for the Greens. I promised to keep my question short, so I’m going to sit back down now.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 20
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Amendments to Customs and Excise Act 2018, Tariff, and Customs and Excise Regulations 1996
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 21, “Amendments to Customs and Excise Act 2018, Tariff, and Customs and Excise Regulations 1996”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a small question for the Minister in the chair regarding certificates of origin, which is clause 14. Now, under the Customs and Excise Act 2018, section 435 is around certificates of origin from the perspective that the origin is from Aotearoa New Zealand. I wanted to check with the Minister what some of the conditions and precautions or discussions are that have taken place. In terms of certificates of origin, it is from New Zealand, but when we are introducing it to particularly, let’s say, the United Arab Emirates as a Gulf Cooperation Council country, and also considering there are rules around halal etc., what other consideration has been taken in terms of the certification being able to fulfil the requirements of those additional areas?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I mean, clause 14 of this agreement primarily deals with the powers that the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service has to, in effect, certify that goods originate in New Zealand. The detail question that the member is asking about goes into operational matters generally between a supplier to supplier type agreement. This clause only deals with the certification around where the goods originate for the purpose of the free-trade agreement. It also allows the authorisation certification body to be designated in respect of the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. That’s what clause 14 covers.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a few other questions regarding certification because, under the agreement, the categories are fairly broad. As the Minister will know, firstly it can be goods that are wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of the party, but it can also be those that are produced entirely in the territory of the party, using non-originating materials. These rules are really established to indicate a level of production that needs to be taken. There’s a big question about the nature of non-originating materials and to what extent they’re able to be aggregated products themselves, and whether there are rules or policies we have in that regard or, again, whether that’s a decision made on a case by case basis?
I also had a question around how self-certification works, and whether it is akin to the self-certification that happens in relation to the Australian certification process, and how dispute resolution will be handled in the UAE if there’s a challenge to a New Zealand certificate of origin, as well. I looked somewhere—I can’t point specifically to it, unfortunately, but I did see that there was an agreement that after the agreement comes into force, that then the UAE would look at offering New Zealand a similar certification process. I’m just asking the Minister whether there is an update on whether that will happen, or if there’s an indication that that will happen? I understand there’s quite a substantial period of time during which it could happen—something like five years—that allows for a review of the certification process.
Also, there is a provision in the national interest analysis that references tolerance. On my read, it looks like at least 15 percent of the agreement could allow a tolerance arrangement. I just wasn’t sure whether that means that there isn’t certification—or just wanting an explanation of the tolerance principle, as well as the “Cumulation of inputs” principle as well, which allows the two parties to cumulate materials during a production process. Questions about how that impacts the certification process: whether that would count under New Zealand’s certification process, whether that would count under the UAE’s, or whether that’s a standalone grouping that therefore wouldn’t need certification? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister considers my colleague Vanushi Walters’ question, I have a question around the Schedule—this is new Part 14 inserted into Schedule 1AA of Overseas Investment Regulations 2005. And this ties into clause—oh, sorry, my apologies. That ties into Part 1. So I—
Hon Simon Watts: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, the member’s got the call.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: No, please continue. That was Part 1.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I’ll help the member Lawrence Xu-Nan while he works out what part we’re on.
Just in answer to Vanushi Walters’ questions, the key point to note is that the certification points under clause 14 are consistent and similar to other certification clauses with other jurisdictions, so the question in regards to how they compare to Australia, for example—they are consistent with other agreements.
Similarly, the member asked in regards to tolerances and other cumulative detail points. Again, the points of detail in regards to the certification aspects are generally consistent with the way in which other agreements are operated.
The question around, well, there’s provision for a review—will we do a review? I haven’t got my crystal ball on my desk here at the moment, but provisions are there. Those decisions have not been made.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 20
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Part 2 agreed to.
Schedule New Part 14 inserted into Schedule 1AA of Overseas Investment Regulations 2005
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 20
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to our final debate, the debate on clauses 1 and 2—“Title” and “Commencement”.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister on clause 2, “Commencement”. I would just like some clarification from the Minister on why, for this particular Act, since we already see that the agreement is, in effect, signed, but the Act only comes into force on a single day set by Order in Council as opposed to the day after Royal assent. I wanted to check—a couple of questions—number one, what is the rationale for having it by Order in Council and not by Royal assent? What are the precautionary measures that have been taken to determine that? Is there any indication of what that single date by Order in Council would be? I think the third part of the question, which is something I was going to ask that ties into the Schedule, is around the no refund: how would people who have made an application, who then would not get a refund, know when that single day by Order in Council would be; and whether you will see people trying to either apply before or apply after, so that way they are not affected by that no refund clause in the Schedule?
Those are my three questions: why by Order in Council and not the day after Royal assent; is there an indication of what that single date by Order in Council would be; and what are the criteria for determining that single date; and also around the no refund?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much. Quite simply, the reason for the Order in Council process is to enable bilateral discussions between New Zealand and the UAE to agree on the date on which the agreement will come into effect. At this point, that hasn’t been done, but it’s a mutual process at which the parties will come to some agreement. That, in effect, answers your second question, and in the process, hopefully, answers the third.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 20
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Clause 1 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 20
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Bills
Patents Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Patents Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I move, That the Patents Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At an appropriate time, I will move that it be directed to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for a consideration period of six months.
This bill supports innovation competition in New Zealand as part of our Government’s Going for Growth plan. It does this by amending the 2013 Patents Act. In a few minutes, I will say more about the bill and the issue it addresses, but first I’d like to give the House some background on patents and how they support innovation, manufacturing, and, ultimately, economic growth in New Zealand. Patents provide the right to prevent anyone else from making, using, or selling an invention for up to 20 years, and patent holders may, of course, license others to use their invention. The law around patents gives an incentive for inventors to develop new technologies that benefit society. Businesses have the opportunity to be financially rewarded from the sale and licensing of their invention before others may lawfully use that invention for commercial gain. By giving inventors exclusive rights, patents also help foster a competitive environment where companies are encouraged to develop new ideas.
To be worthy of a patent, there are criteria an invention must meet. Firstly, it must be a novel idea. Secondly, it must have what is called an “inventive step”, and this means that it can’t just be an obvious variation on an existing product or technology. Lastly, it must, of course, be useful. New Zealand has a long, proud history of granting patents. The first patent for an invention here was granted in 1861. The Intellectual Property Office grants around 2,000 patents a year.
Since patent legislation was first enacted in 1860, there have been several significant reforms made to it. The most recent reform, and the one most relevant to this bill today, is the Patents Act of 2013, which replaced the Patents Act of 1953. For simplicity, I’ll refer to the 1953 Act as the old Act and the 2013 Act as the new Act. The replacement of the old Act modernised a 60-year-old system and it introduced stricter criteria for the granting of patents. Stricter criteria were introduced to ensure only deserving inventions could qualify for and therefore benefit from a grant of patent.
Earlier, I mentioned that in order to be patented, an invention needs to be novel, inventive, and useful. However, under the old Act, the examination of a patent application does not require an inventive step, meaning patents could be granted for inventions that are merely obvious variations on existing technology, and this can disadvantage local businesses and hinder competition by preventing them from commercialising products that do not obviously improve existing technology. It can also unnecessarily increase the price consumers pay for those products. Although the old Act allows third parties like business competitors to challenge the grant of a patent for inventions, the lack of the inventive step process acts as a cumbersome and expensive procedure. It also creates uncertainty—the legal risk for those third parties.
Currently, applications for patents under the old Act and subsequent applications related to the original patent are still dealt with under that old 1953 Act. These related applications are called divisions and are most often filed where an application really consists of two or more separate inventions. There are currently around 80 applications still pending under the old Act. New divisionals filed from these outstanding applications could hinder New Zealand’s business from developing, manufacturing, and selling products, in fear of infringing any subsequent patents granted for them, and this could lead to unnecessary costs as businesses try to innovate and protect their intellectual property.
My intention today with the introduction of this bill is to bring the treatment of all new applications related to the old Act into alignment with the new Act. This bill supports competitive business settings and that pillar of our Going for Growth plan. It does this by ensuring that the patents law regulatory settings provide businesses with the confidence to innovate, manufacture, and sell new products that benefit Kiwi consumers. And on that note, I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That is why this is called a first reading—Minister Simpson needs a new pair of glasses so he doesn’t have to have the paper quite at his nose next time. But not to worry!
Look, we support this bill going to select committee. We agree with the Minister that good, functioning intellectual property law is an important part of our economy. I mean, this bill—let’s face it, it’s not the most exciting bill. It’s really just smoothing out an inconsistency where a new scheme was introduced. The old scheme was, essentially, grandparented in, but the tests are different. I see that the number of patents that are outstanding under the old scheme have been diminishing over time, so, in fact, this amendment won’t affect a large number of patents. I think it’s around 80.
As the Minister said, under the modern law, patents have to be inventive. That is to say, they have to do something a little surprising. I mean, there’s an interesting question around what the distinction between a kind of obvious improvement and a kind of innovation is, but that’s for intellectual property lawyers, not for us. But having two different tests was problematic. The irony is that it didn’t necessarily lead to a lower standard overall. It led to a challenge to that patent being made and it being clarified, but that’s just a waste of time in many senses and a poor use of resources.
Of course, the other thing to note is that the old patent framework isn’t consistent with international obligations and intellectual property law. Probably more than any other, it has to meet international frameworks because intellectual property is, essentially, borderless, and we’re not in tune, if you like, with the European Union in this regard.
So this work—I must say, we’d better support this, because we started this work. It was actually the Labour Government that kicked this off. But it is important that we are consistent with our main trading partners, and, of course, with the EU free-trade agreement, we have obligations to make sure that our intellectual property law is up to a particular standard.
So, really, this tightens up some standards for those old divisional applications, so that’s a good thing. It gets rid of that loophole where, if you took the divisional application route, there was apparently a lower threshold, and, of course, it protects parties who have competing intellectual property claims as well.
So yes, this is good intellectual property law. It’s necessary. This is a useful tidy-up, domestically. It’s an important piece of reform to make sure we’re internationally consistent, and we’ll be supporting this legislation.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I want to acknowledge that the history of this bill comes from the fact that we did have the Patents Act of 2013 that did create a bit of wiggle room for people to keep applying the Patents Act of 1953, basically, as part of having transitional rules to allow older applications to be considered under that former Act—that was the idea of preventing an unfairness where people who were still going through the process would then not be able to continue doing so. But now, after more than 10 years, we do have—as other speakers have noted—that loophole that exists that people can, basically, continue using that transitional rule, and it’s good that we are looking at closing it.
Back in 2013, the Green Party did support the bill that was going through the House and we noted that it was well overdue for review. We also specifically noted at the time that we supported the tougher absolute novelty test and some of the specific exclusions from patent protection. So that’s important to note, and part of that is because now that we’ve been a party in Parliament for over 25 years, we’re able to actually pull the Hansard and note some of those quite historic positions we took.
The member previous to me, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, noted that patents have to be invented under modern law. I think, to me, that also raises the issue that, as we modernise our patent laws and close loopholes, the idea that we want to support people to be inventive and innovative requires also a Government that is adequately investing in, for example, our science sector. So as we look at closing some of these loopholes, if we want to have modern patent laws that predominantly are centred on supporting people who are inventive and genuine innovation, I think this should be, in my view, compounded by adequately resourcing our science and innovation sector and our scientists, who, at the end of the day—and, actually, creatives—
Francisco Hernandez: And polytechs and unis.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you for the talking points, my fellow colleague. Ha, ha! But the tech sector also is an important part of it. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition to see, I guess, such a unanimous agreement here in the House for this—well, what so far seems to be unanimous agreement for this bill, despite cuts to the science sector that in and of themselves hinder innovation.
I also wanted to acknowledge something that has been said before, but it’s worth noting that this bill has its history rooted in the work that the previous Government was doing at the time. I think there’s been some bills that have been brought forward by this Government that have that. That doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be an inherently cynical talking point. I think sometimes there is worth in actually acknowledging that if good work was started by a previous Government, there is no reason for the current one to drop it. I do, at the same time, wish that Government members could front-foot that, rather than that being an Opposition talking point or a sort of “gotcha” moment. Because we have seen other incidents where, for example—whether it’s in the housing space or otherwise—the Government is talking about thousands of Kāinga Ora homes being built, but there’s an acknowledgment that it was something that a previous Government was actually starting.
Finally, I want to note as well what was already noted around this helping us being in line with our trading counterparts. That is important in order for people in the tech sector—whether it’s scientists, etc.—to feel like their inventions genuinely will hold up to the standards that we’re expected to at the international stage hold true. It’s important that they have confidence in a Government that is genuinely modernising our patents law. In this case, while I agree that this bill isn’t the most transformative bill when it comes to patent legislation, it does close a loophole that required addressing, particularly because if we have these transitional rules for over 10 years, one can see why this needed addressing.
I did find it curious, though, that this was introduced as part of the Budget week process, under a period of urgency. I think that, to me, was a bit of a quirk, especially because we’re only debating its first reading now. So, yeah, I did want to note a bit of the sort of process that was followed here in relationship to using the Budget urgency process to introduce this bill that in my view did deserve select committee scrutiny, and I look forward to it.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise and speak on the Patents Amendment Bill. Look, I think we’re happy on this side of the House to acknowledge that this work was started under the previous Government, and I think, as Mr Menéndez March has noted, actually having a set of laws that everyone can sign up to—which patent law has actually been going on for a very, very long time, and making sure we’re modernising is not something unusual, so I think we should embrace that. As the Minister outlined, actually having a strong patent system ensures that we are actually able to bring forward innovation, and that companies actually do invest in it.
You might be interested—Madam Speaker, you’re probably not—but I actually did toy with being a patent lawyer when I was at university. My highest law mark, actually, in my law degree was in intellectual property law, but hence I chose a different career path, and I’m here with you today. But this is—while it is, really, a technical bill, just aligning our previous law with the new law, it is very important that we do get this done. Patents are very important, and, in fact, in my previous career in the medical industry before coming to Parliament—again, patents play a very important role in ensuring that we have new medicines and treatments for when very serious diseases develop. So I commend this bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill, as well. It’s great to see the collegiality around this. Hopefully, what that means is that the bill will go through the House not only quickly today but through all the stages of its process quickly and efficiently, so we can get on with other business as well—so there’s a challenge for the Opposition, in particular.
Look, it’s great to see the collegiality, as I said. I want to thank the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for what was a very, very clear explanation of the bill and the purpose of the bill. What it is about, for me, is making it easier and clearer to protect intellectual property (IP) for the divisions, effectively, as you say—from those pieces of invention which might be a little bit more dated before 2013.
I just want to finish off by saying: why is IP important? Because we, as a country, know we need to grow our economy. We grow our economy by innovation, by invention, and by creativity. Without that, we are not going to be able to grow our economy, and we’re not going to be able to get better, smarter, and more efficient. So it’s absolutely essential. We are a nation of inventors. There are many, many things that New Zealanders have invented. I’m not going to go through a great long list, because I know we want to get on to the next issue, but whether it’s being pioneers in flight, boating, a lot of medical research, all sorts of areas, New Zealanders are pioneers—world pioneers. The people who do that work, the people who have that creativity, deserve to have their intellectual property, their intellectual effort, protected and supported, and that is what this bill is all about.
As I travel around our country, I see so much more innovation, so much more creativity that we need to support. That’s what we should be doing. This, effectively, is supporting the people who were the creatives of days gone by, and that’s important. So I commend this bill to the House.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the Patents Amendment Bill. This is an important piece of work to improve the integrity and trust within our system so that people can see that when there are patents that are applied, they are all of equal kind and standing. I have many inventors and fantastic businesses in my electorate who I know care deeply about intellectual property, and I’d just like to mention two of them: Argus ManuTech and Chiptech, who have incredible inventions and I know care about intellectual property. I commend the bill to the House.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. I noticed that my colleague Todd Stephenson referenced the fact that patent law has been around for some time, and I pulled up this quote that says, “the issuing [for] patents for new discovery has given a spring to invention beyond my conception.” That was actually a quote from Thomas Jefferson, so patent law has indeed been around for some time as a tool to spark innovation.
I think there’s a little bit of irony in the fact that, in terms of the way patent law has developed in regards to divisional patent applications, there is the risk that that overuse will limit innovative practice and innovative design. So, essentially, this bill is trying to find the appropriate balance between protection for patents and that intellectual property, but also allowing innovation to occur.
Divisional patents are interesting. I did not believe that I was going to be a patent lawyer, but I’ve learnt rather a lot about it in the last wee while. They contain subject matter from a previously filed or a parent application, and in many cases they will retain the date that the parent application was filed on. So they have multiple terms—some will refer to them as cascading patents—and you can have multiple—it’s not necessarily just one, but actually multiple divisional patent applications. I believe, in the last round of legislative change, they were referred to as daisy-chain divisional applications, as well.
Now, some people might say that rather than limiting the scope of divisional patent applications, the better way to manage this would just be to allow legal challenge. But I do think we’ve seen an alarming trend internationally where it’s been recognised that, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, there’s been a strategic use of divisional patent applications to, essentially, delay generic or biosimilar market entry of other pharmaceutical products. I think we saw, even in the last year, the European Commission found Teva guilty of abusing their dominant position in relation to their multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone. Last year, they ended up fining them €462.6 million for their breach. Teva’s behaviour included behaviour such as filing multiple divisional patent applications and then withdrawing them—essentially, kind of creating this haze of what they had ownership of and what they didn’t have ownership of, which made it very difficult for competitors to get into the market. Essentially, it was a delaying tactic. So there is a very valid reason, in my view, for us to look at how divisional patent applications are used.
I just did want to respond to my colleague Andy Foster’s comment that we’re seeing consensus in the House at this first reading stage and that’s good; hopefully, we’ll see it continue—yes, and maybe no. I think it’s important for the House to behave as a House, and listening to submitters on bills is important, which is why it’s good to see this bill come out of urgency and be placed on a normal time frame.
I look forward to hearing from submitters, including from the Law Society, whose intellectual property policy team actually commented on the exposure draft. Their comment was actually just a very short letter. They attached their submissions to previous attempts to pass legislation on this through the House. They objected to some of the proposals. They made some proposals around inclusion of things that had been included in the 2013 round and, I think, beyond, that aren’t included in this proposal, as well. So I do think that we need to be open to hearing those very valid submissions from intellectual property lawyers, as well. But at this stage, I am happy to support the bill through to select committee, and I commend it to the House.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to support the Patents Amendment Bill. This is really a necessary reform, to ensure that New Zealand’s patent system is modern, fair, and internationally credible. We’ve heard a lot in this room about people who wanted to be a patent lawyer. My career before this was on the other side, as a scientist, and this is very important to actually drive innovation here in New Zealand—and innovation is, of course, the backbone of progress. It helps drive our economy, it fosters creativity, and it ensures that businesses can invest in new ideas.
We’ve already heard of some businesses in New Zealand that have done that very successfully. I think of some in my electorate. There are plenty that pop to mind, but of course Tait Communications is probably one of the bigger ones. These businesses have really benefited from patent law, and it’s really important that we continue to protect the innovators in New Zealand. We are an innovative nation. We just need to look to the fact that now, our advanced aerospace industry is actually worth more than our wine industry. This is really important to make sure that we have a modern and fair system. The old Act had needed to be tidied up. This is closing the loophole and, therefore, I commend it to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I was looking into intellectual property and what it actually means. I love the definition: it refers to creations of the mind that, obviously, don’t just stay in your mind, but they leave the creator’s mind and create inventions—they create great artworks, they create beautiful books and poems and designs and symbols, and they’re used for everything from the arts to commerce to science and everything in between.
It’s good to reflect on the fact that intellectual property is something that we do have laws and protections around, and, obviously, this legislation has been traversed already. It is around tightening those up. As my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb said, when work was first done on it, there were at least 700 pieces. We’re now down to about 80. So, obviously, work has been done; it is being progressed. But none the less, we’re here and we will support this legislation.
Very much, it’s about looking—as it goes into the select committee process—into the people that it affects and impacts, and getting the balance right of the intellectual property owners, those innovators and creators. So as it leaves this House, as it goes through the select committee process, let’s ensure that we get the balance right—that those innovators, those designers, those creators are front and centre when it comes to ensuring that when the bill comes back to the House, it’s in better shape than it is now. Therefore, this side of the House, in Labour: we will support this bill.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): As a scientist, I know firsthand how vital patents are—that’s what Dr Carlos Cheung told me earlier when we were discussing this bit of legislation. I don’t know if my mathematical physics degree will quite qualify me for that. He was talking about, from his scientific career, how important it was to protect their ideas, their intellectual property, to give inventors the confidence to share their discoveries. Of course, in return, we all benefit from the knowledge and the work that they do.
Now, I see this firsthand on the Kāpiti Coast. I think of a local business that I went to visit, like Stanmore Farm. Now, these guys are fantastic. I think of Harry and Kate and Tim that run this family business that is, effectively, a nursery for all the vineyards not just across New Zealand but they’re also exporting around the world. While you might not naturally think of Te Horo as being the centre of the New Zealand wine industry—in fact it is, and probably every glass of New Zealand wine has a connection right back to Te Horo, as they grow from scratch, and graft, and all the technical stuff that I don’t tend to know about—and I leave that to Stuart Smith—these vines which then get sent around the country; they have to be replaced every few years. In return, as they grow and produce some marvellous wine that’s part of our export plan to double the value of our New Zealand exports, that is a part of the story, not just in the root stock that they send overseas but also, of course, the wine it produces.
How is that connected to patents? Well, one of the reasons they’re successful is because they’re a great, Kiwi-owned business. They have come up with some really clever technology—and I’m trying to be a little bit careful here to pick my words, because, of course, there’s a competitive advantage to them as a business and they’re clever in what they do. They took us through and showed us some of this technology that they have developed that helps them and the way that it has been able to set them ahead, the way that they do things that no one else in the world can do, and of course we want to make sure that this is protected.
As I’ve travelled around as part of the select committee and seen other places, I think of the Turners and Growers packhouse that I went to with Catherine Wedd over in Hawke’s Bay, and the technology that they have on the production line. They have developed new technology and new processes not just used in Hawke’s Bay but also used all around the world as they export that. Now, we want to make sure that we are protecting their work in an appropriate way, that we are aligned with international best practice, that we are protecting their work and giving New Zealand the best competitive advantage.
These technologies, often, like I saw with the Turners and Growers packhouse, get sold around the world now into North America and into Canada. It’s not just that it’s made them more effective and more efficient and get a better value for money but then they sell that overseas. It’s like a version of a double-edged sword where it gives in two ways, because we get the advantage here and then we sell it overseas. That’s why this legislation is so important. That’s why I commend this legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Patents Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.
Bills
Legislation Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I present a legislative statement on the Legislation Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Legislative Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 18 December 2025.
The purpose of the Legislative Amendment bill is to promote high-quality legislation for New Zealand that is easy to find, use, and understand. These goals are not lofty; they are both achievable and, importantly, necessary to New Zealand being a free and democratic nation governed by the rule of law.
The bill seeks to improve access to secondary legislation by amending the Legislation Act 2019. Secondary legislation is law made under a delegation from Parliament. It includes regulations, orders, rules, exemptions, bylaws, notices, and instruments with many different names. This type of law is made by Ministers, departments, occupational regulatory boards, and the like. As the current and former members of this House will be aware, it is much harder than it should be to find a lot of secondary legislation. This lack of access is significant. If we can improve access, we can improve trust in our institutions, promote adherence to the law, and maximise social cohesion. If we don’t take these steps, we carry the risk of costly regulatory failures, retain inefficiency, and also enable misinformation.
There are also big opportunities in the new digital age and with digital services, through the creation of new high-quality data sets of primary and secondary legislation. Legislation is more than words in a book; legislation is data. If this data is available in a reusable format, then there are clear opportunities for the market to pick up the ball and run with it, and with all of that, it contributes to a growing economy. This might include simple things like high-quality chatbot advice, or more efficient Government services to businesses and citizens.
This bill establishes the New Zealand Legislation website, managed by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO), as a single point of access to legislation and information related to legislation. The website already includes all Acts, bills, Amendment Papers, and secondary legislation that is drafted by the PCO. The big gap is that most secondary legislation is currently drafted and published by a range of departments, Government entities, and even some private agencies. Some is published online on the agency’s website, some is published in the New Zealand Gazette, some in newspapers, and even some secondary legislation is not published at all. There are currently more than 100 different agencies, and that does not include local Government, so obviously this is a problem.
The bill is a significant step in a series of reforms which began back in 2014, off the back of two inquiries: the Regulations Review Committee inquiry into oversight of certain types of secondary legislation, and the Productivity Commission’s report on regulatory institutions and practices. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson KC, Attorney-General under the previous National Government, for kickstarting this work to improve access to the law during that time.
The bill will require all secondary legislation that is drafted by agencies to be published on the administrating agency’s website, with very few exceptions. Agencies will also be required to publish information about legislation along with it, such as what Act and provisions and powers it’s making, and which agencies are responsible for it. This will enable a technology solution to identify that published legislation is made available on the New Zealand Legislation website. The technology solution being adopted for this purpose is open source technology originally developed by the Department of Internal Affairs and the National Library. We are taking advantage of existing investment and process to reduce costs, while also, importantly, improving the quality and access to legislation. This will, over time, turn the New Zealand Legislation website into a one-stop shop for legislation. My vision is that the public will only need to visit this one website to find all New Zealand legislation and related information, and I can hear around the House the support for that vision, which is great.
An important feature of this bill, also, is that agencies will continue to be responsible for the publication of legislation that they draft. They’re already doing this, and many are doing a pretty good job at it, but all the bill will require them to do is to adjust their practices to meet standard requirements set under this bill. This approach has enabled us to leverage existing investment and minimise the costs and disruption to agencies and users for implementing the new system. In the future, I anticipate the New Zealand Legislation website’s collection expanding to include local authority bylaws—a current exemption in the new system—with other information relevant to legislation.
We’re also not sitting on our hands, of course, waiting for this legislation to pass: a demonstration of the new New Zealand Legislation website, which includes a host of new features and a trial of the secondary legislation service, is already up and running. Anyone can sign up to experience the new site and provide feedback, and we would welcome that to support the new system. There’s also a new function for the PCO to maintain a record of administrating agencies for legislation on the New Zealand Legislation website. This is a key improvement. There is currently no source of the truth about which agency is responsible for legislation.
The bill also makes a number of improvements to the operation of the Legislation Act 2019. These include changes on how the revisions process works to make it a more effective and efficient tool to bring old legislation up to date. We’re also proposing to refine the PCO’s editorial powers under the bill, which is another key tool for improving the ability of users to find, use, and understand the law.
Finally, the bill proposes to repeal several Acts identified as spent or redundant. This is the first step in a larger programme, under which we are reviewing hundreds of older Acts that may no longer be relevant.
One final note: new research shows that the New Zealand statute book is growing at a rate of around 2.5 percent every year, and this—the weight of the words—is making it near impossible for anyone to truly have a sense of what the law is in New Zealand. This bill is one piece of the solution, by bringing all legislation together, by removing what is redundant, as we have hope of seeing the wood from the trees. This bill is a major step forward in approving access to legislation and I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 July.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.