Wednesday, 23 July 2025

WEDNESDAY, 23 JULY 2025

WEDNESDAY, 23 JULY 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Visitors

Members of the European Parliament

SPEAKER: Members, I’m sure you’ll want to join with me in welcoming to our Parliament members of the European Parliament (MEPs), led by MEP Seán Kelly.

Speaker’s Rulings

New Speaker’s Ruling—Oral Questions

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday, the Hon Kieran McAnulty asked me to consider the potential for misrepresentation of parties in replies to oral questions. The particular concern was that Ministers’ answers referring to “the other side of the House” might be taken to include all parties not in Government. There are rules and practices that address that possibility.

The first is Speakers’ ruling 205/5: Ministers shouldn’t bring parties not involved in the question into the answer. Unless the question is a blatant political attack, there is no reason to mention any party at all when answering a question. There is never a reason to bring a party not involved in a question into the answer.

The second Standing Order is 367, which enables members who have been misrepresented in an answer to a question to have their response put on the official record. This remedy is seldom used, and I accept that it is not likely to resolve a situation where the misrepresentation has occurred through the presentation of official parliamentary footage through social media.

There is, however, Appendix D to the Standing Orders, which provides remedies for using official footage to mislead. I refer members to Part 2 of that Appendix, 6, and 7.

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered three papers.

CLERK:

2025-26 statement of performance expectations for:

City Rail Link Ltd, and

Kāinga Ora, Homes and Communities

2025-29 statement of intent for Kāinga Ora, Homes and Communities.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:

2025-26 Estimates for Vote Tertiary Education, and

petition of Charlene Whyte

reports of the Environment Committee on the:

briefing from the Climate Change Commission about its recent monitoring and progress activities, and

petition of Alva Feldmeier

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:

2025-26 Estimates for Vote Audit

2025-26 Estimates for Vote Finance

Fiscal Strategy Report

Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, and

2025-26 Estimates for Vote Regulation

report of the Health Committee on the notice of motion to approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2025, and

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2025-26 Estimates for Vote Sport and Recreation.

SPEAKER: The notice of motion, the Estimates reports, and the briefing report are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Urgent Debates Declined

Cost of Living—Increases

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Barbara Edmonds seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the rising cost of living. In considering this application, I reviewed rulings by Speakers Harrison, Wall, and Mallard—and I quote: “A proposal to discuss a continuing problem … is not one contemplated by [Standing Order 399] in that it is not of a particular case of recent occurrence nor does it require the immediate attention of the House.” See Speakers’ ruling 221/2. The application is declined.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Regulation

1. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister for Regulation: Will New Zealanders benefit from the Ministry for Regulation’s work to remove unnecessary rules and regulations; if so, how?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): The answer is absolutely yes. New Zealanders pride themselves on being the nation of number eight wire and can-do Kiwi attitude and Hillary knocking off Everest. However, it’s hard to keep that national psyche going when New Zealanders too often find themselves bound by pointless and expensive compliance activity. That is why it is so important to have, within Government, a department that champions less red tape and regulation by removing unnecessary rules that currently exist, by vetting new proposals for laws, and upskilling the regulatory workforce right across Government. That is precisely what the Ministry for Regulation does.

Todd Stephenson: Can the Ministry for Regulation’s benefits be quantified?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Undoubtedly, they can. To give three recent examples: we have got rid of what turned out to be the pointless requirement for councils to go and inspect every hairdresser every year. That saves the average hairdresser around about $500, although often that cost was also being absorbed by the local council. I was thanked by a prominent mayor and former member of this House for that very fact at a recent Local Government New Zealand conference.

Hon Chris Bishop: Who was that?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: He was the Mayor of Nelson, who the member well knows. The agricultural and horticultural products review has estimated benefits of $272 million, while we’ve recently secured $90 million of medical conferences thanks to removing pointless restrictions that were preventing those.

Todd Stephenson: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hold on. Just wait—just wait. Carry on.

Todd Stephenson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What should someone facing outdated or unnecessary regulations do?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they should do what over 800 people have already done and go along to the Ministry for Regulation’s red-tape tip line where people who are annoyed by silly rules that tie them up, add costs, and don’t actually achieve anything for anyone in New Zealand can go along and report their problems. The ministry then analyses the rules that they complain about, often finds that they’re unnecessary, and, within Government, ensures that they are got rid of. This is dramatically reducing the amount of annoyance that New Zealanders experience.

Todd Stephenson: What sectors are benefiting from the Ministry for Regulation’s work?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As I mentioned, there has been a comprehensive review already of the rules around importing agricultural and horticultural products into this country, and we estimate that the savings from that will be over a quarter of a billion dollars. We’ve looked at hairdressing, which I’ve mentioned. We’re also in the midst of seriously transforming the rules around running an early childhood education centre. That will see the number of regulations fall from 98 down to two-thirds of that number, with most of the rules being severely simplified and the enforcement being made proportional, a move that is already seeing early childhood centres—

SPEAKER: That’s good.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —thank me for the improvements being made. We’re also doing sector reviews in telecommunications—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —and another two to be announced very soon.

Hon Peeni Henare: Haumi ē, hui ē, tāiki ē!

[It coalesces, it assembles, it is bound.]

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, the member’s already experienced once, in this House, the exit door. Interrupting like that could see it happen again.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to repeat the answer, which was clearly enjoyed greatly by the Opposition.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, there’s also a Standing Order about trifling with the House and the Chair; that comes extremely close.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, “The first thing that we’ve got to do is we’ve got to reduce the cost of living.”; if so, has the cost of living gone up or down under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m proud to report to the member is that inflation is down. We inherited a situation where it was running as high as 7.3 percent; today, it sits at 2.7 percent. That’s a function of really good economic management and a Government that understands the economy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “We are starting our 100-day plan with a laser focus on bringing down the cost of living”; if so, why, after 574 days, is the cost of living even higher and continuing to increase?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is exactly what we have been doing. We have been controlling Government spending, getting rid of the wasteful Government spending that was going on, and what’s the consequence? We’ve lowered domestic inflation, lowered inflation, lowered interest rates—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Prime Minister, thank you. There’s an unacceptable level of barrage—people just speaking for the sake of it. Interjections should be rare and reasonable.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I was explaining to the member, what we have done is we have made sure that we’ve got rid of the wasteful spending. In doing so, that brings domestic inflation down; that has led to interest rates coming down by 2.25 percent. That, of course, has led to growth in the economy—you saw the first-quarter numbers—and, of course, that’s actually going to lead, ultimately, to people getting more work in higher-paying jobs.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by Nicola Willis’ statement, “Prices coming down is exactly what we want to see”; if so, has the price of a typical family grocery shop increased or decreased under his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for his question and his interest in this area, because the great news is that food inflation is down to 4.6 percent from what was 12.5 percent. Just two years ago, actually, the price of eggs was up 67 percent, chicken was up 21 percent, pasta was up 12 percent, frozen veges up 16 percent—all under his Government.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the most recent Consumers Price Index revealed that 36 percent of the products monitored have come down in price?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can, and the two numbers that I want people to understand is that under the member’s previous Government, food prices were up 12.5 percent; today, they’re up 4.6 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he claim, one year ago tomorrow, that food prices have been falling under his Government and the cost of living was getting under control?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because they are. They’ve gone from 12.5 percent to 4.6 percent. We’re making good progress on inflation. We’ve got inflation back under 3 percent. We’ve got interest rates falling. I want to just say to the member that I really appreciate his interest, having created the cost of living crisis, in now wanting to help us solve it. I just say the biggest driver of inflation in this last week, as you would have seen, was council rates, and I’d love the member’s support to put a cap on council rates.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the purchasing power of someone on the minimum wage greater or lesser than it was when he became the Prime Minister, as a result of his Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage by less than inflation for two years in a row?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say to the member is that infinitely New Zealanders are doing better under this Government than they would have done under his Government. Inflation is down from 7.3 percent to 2.7 percent. Interest rates are down 225 basis points, putting $320 a fortnight into an average mortgage holder’s back pocket. They’re the people we care about, and we want to make sure they’ve got money so they can navigate the cost of living crisis. And we’ve got our economy growing, after he put it into recession.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he promise $250 a fortnight to families with kids if he can’t point to a single family that has received it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I really look forward to that member reversing some positions, because he didn’t support us on tax relief for low and middle income workers, adjusting the tax thresholds; he doesn’t support the FamilyBoost policy; he doesn’t support construction workers, by U-turning on his fast-track repeal—he should give that up immediately. I just say to the member: it’s a tough time for Kiwis; why don’t you get in behind and actually try to reduce the cost of living?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t he accept responsibility for his own Government’s actions given that, under his watch, the cost of living continues to go up, unemployment is going up, the number of people living rough on the streets and homeless is going up, and the number of people giving up on his Government and voting with their feet and leaving to Australia is at near-record levels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the member understands that he took the keys to our economy and he put it in a great big ditch. We’re hauling the car out of the ditch, we’re turning it up the right way, we’re getting into first and second gear, and we’ve got a plan. Our plan is working. We’ve got wasteful spending under control, we’ve got inflation down, we’ve got interest rates down, we’ve got growth in the economy—those are good things that support New Zealanders in a cost of living crisis.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Think very carefully about the supplementary. The Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Was the Prime Minister at all taken by surprise when he was asked about “taking responsibility” by Chris Hipkins, of all people?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something he can answer. I did suggest to the member that he think carefully about that question. It wasn’t in order, and I would suggest he doesn’t do it again, because he’ll be straight out.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, Stats NZ released the latest trade figures for June. These reinforce how well New Zealand’s exporters are performing this year. In the three months to June, we exported $21.8 billion worth of goods. This represents an increase of 13 percent over the same period a year ago. Go exporters!

Cameron Brewer: Which exports have been doing well?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand’s biggest goods exports are in the primary sector. Dairy, meat, fruit, and wood together make up over 60 percent of goods exports. These have all been performing strongly. In the three months to June, dairy exports were up 22 percent compared to the same period last year, meat exports were up 14 percent, fruit up 28 percent, and wood up 20 percent. I want to make a special shout-out to kiwifruit, which is now a $4 billion a year export industry; 12 months ago, annual kiwifruit exports were just $2.8 billion, so that is a significant increase.

Cameron Brewer: What is behind the increase in export value?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the value of New Zealand’s exports is a function of two things: export values, which is about how much we’re producing as a country. I am reliably informed that the Government’s efforts to remove barriers in the way of our exporters are paying dividends—for example, our renewal of the regional seasonal employment scheme has helped support that revival in the kiwifruit industry. It is also a function of the prices that exporters receive, which are largely set in overseas markets. The trade data released yesterday doesn’t do that breakdown, but an earlier Stats NZ release for the March quarter indicates that both export volumes and export prices have been rising.

Cameron Brewer: What does the future hold for New Zealand’s exports?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I am hugely optimistic for New Zealand exporters and, therefore, for the New Zealand economy and the prospects of New Zealanders. I have mentioned before in the House that international factors are likely to affect global demand compared to where it would’ve otherwise been. But Treasury forecasts in the Budget show both goods and services exports continuing to grow in the coming years. We make things the world wants to buy, and the Government—this Government—will keep backing hard-working Kiwi exporters. There is no better demonstration of that than the United Arab Emirates free-trade agreement enacted yesterday, so stay tuned for my colleague Todd McClay in question 11.

SPEAKER: Question—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary. Apologies.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: You’re welcome. Does she regret doing a Facebook video waving a block of cheese, complaining it was too expensive, only to see it increase under her watch?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, not at all, because what I was highlighting at that time was that under the watch of the Government I was critiquing, food price inflation went to double digits—double digits—up over 12 percent. Every week, I recall coming down to this House and saying, “Would you please ease up on the wasteful spending? It’s charging the inflation and Kiwis are paying the price.” And you know what? There was a little election about that. Guess who won! [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Does everyone want to go early?

Question No. 4—Disability Issues

4. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she agree with the findings of the Youth MP Parliamentary Working Group report that disabled people, especially disabled students, are consistently failed by our system; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Firstly, I’d like to thank all of the Youth MPs, especially Ryder Miller, who did an outstanding job representing the young people of Taupō. The disability working group engaged closely with the Ministry of Disabled People—Whaikaha, and I was really impressed with the work and the thinking demonstrated by the Youth MPs involved. Our Government is due to provide a formal response to the findings and recommendations of the working group by the end of August. I’m advised that Whaikaha is currently reviewing the recommendations in partnership with the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Disabled People has noted some parallels with ideas being considered as part of the work on refreshing the New Zealand Disability Strategy, which is a key focus for Whaikaha this year.

Kahurangi Carter: How will she respond to the findings that disabled learners remain an afterthought in resourcing conversations, and will she commit to the report recommendation to increase direct funding to learning support, assistive technology, and disability accommodations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my response to the primary answer, Whaikaha are working closely with the Ministry of Education on a formal response to the Youth MPs. But what I would say as a reminder to the House is that in Budget 2025, the learning-support budget increased by $745 million thanks to the work from the Minister of Education, recognising that too many children are missing out on education, and that’s why this funding boost is significant.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree that teachers and teacher-aides are inadequately resourced to teach disabled learners, and, if so, what is she doing to ensure that teachers and disabled students are getting the funding, support, and training they need to succeed?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If the member has specific questions around education and education funding, I would invite her to put that to the Minister of Education. But what I would say, again, is that the working group of the Youth Parliament was very considered. There will be a formal response that will be led by Whaikaha but supported by the Ministry of Education. The other thing I would reiterate, again, is that we are working on a refresh of the New Zealand Disability Strategy, of which education is a core pillar, one of the five. No doubt, many of the issues that were raised in the Youth Parliament will be lined up as part of that work.

Kahurangi Carter: How will she respond to the finding that disabled young people are often marginalised, isolated, or shuffled into segregated spaces in schools due to being ill equipped, insufficiently resourced, and lacking support, which is in direct contradiction with their legal rights?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Again, I will say that for detailed responses around issues of education, I would invite the member to address the question to the Minister of Education.

Kahurangi Carter: Will the response from Whaikaha to the Youth MPs include any commitments to implement the recommendations from our Youth MPs, and, if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my answer to the primary question, work is under way at the moment. Whaikaha is working closely with the Ministry of Education, and I’m pleased to say that we will be giving a formal response to the Youth Parliament.

Kahurangi Carter: Does the Minister agree that disabled people’s support systems are chronically underfunded across all stages of life, despite making up 17 percent of the New Zealand population, and does she find it acceptable that disabled learners’ voices are being ignored when fighting for less than the bare minimum?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m not sure if the question is intended specifically around education, but I have answered part of that in terms of the funding boost secured by the Minister of Education in the tune of $745 million in learning support. I would also put on record, again, the $1.1 billion investment in Disability Support Services last year, and another billion dollars this year into Disability Support Services. I accept that the challenges of those—particularly young people—with disabilities is still great, and that’s why our Government is focused on doing things that improve their lives.

Question No. 5—RMA Reform

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent updates has he given about the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): This morning, I gave an update on the fast-track consenting regime. Six months in, things are going great. In the first six months, 50 projects have made applications. By the end of this year, at least eight projects will have completed, or are expected to complete, the full end-to-end fast-track process, including final decisions. Kiwis are sick of red and green tape holding this economy back. We cannot afford to hold these projects up. We need to grow jobs, grow the economy, and grow productivity to deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders.

Catherine Wedd: How many applicants has the Minister referred into the process to date?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Projects that are not listed in the Act can apply for referral. I’ve referred seven projects into the fast-track process, meaning they can progress to the next stage of the process. Sixteen other applications are also under consideration. The latest three referrals I’ve made are the second stage of the Auckland surf park—which includes a large artificial intelligence data centre, a residential development of 400 homes, and a village centre—and The Point Mission Bay, which would see 252 new retirement homes and amenities for residents and visitors. These are the types of projects the Government wants to see under way and being fast-tracked.

Catherine Wedd: When can New Zealanders expect the first approvals to be granted?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I said, eight projects are currently before expert panels. We are expecting decisions on those projects by mid-September. If they’re approved, they will contribute billions to our economy. My understanding is that some will be under way very soon after approval. The fast-track regime is critical for New Zealand getting on with the job of rebuilding this economy after years of neglect.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does the Minister stand by her target of reducing jobseeker numbers by 50,000; if so, is the target closer or further away from being achieved?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, absolutely. Our Government is committed to having 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030. Jobseeker numbers have been rising steadily since 2022 and are expected to peak later this year. Unfortunately, the forecast has always been that numbers would get worse before they get better. That’s why we’ve created a more active welfare system to support more job seekers into work. It’s also why our Government is relentlessly focused on growth, so that businesses have the confidence to hire staff to create better-paying jobs and New Zealanders can share in the benefits of growth.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why is the Minister patting herself on the back saying that job seekers are moving into work when the number of people receiving jobseekers has gone up, homelessness has gone up, and Māori unemployment has increased every quarter since she’s been in office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said, rising unemployment is a lingering consequence of the economic times we have, and the numbers were always forecast to go up before they come down. That is the reality of where we are now. After years of high inflation, high Government spending, and low growth, jobs and employment are one of the last indicators to turn. But I’m really confident our approach is working, given that 98.4 percent of people who are on the jobseeker benefit are at green, which means they are taking the steps they need to in terms of their work obligations, and we’ve seen over 70,000 people exit the jobseeker benefit into work—a 19 percent increase on the same time last year. I think that’s pretty good news.

Hon Willie Jackson: How are people supposed to get off jobseekers when 753 people applied for a support worker role in the Waikato, 998 applied for one admin assistant role in Southland, and 740 people applied for a supermarket ad for casual work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said—and I want to just put on record, as I have previously, for those who have become unemployed—it is an incredibly challenging time, and the labour market is very tight. That is why our Government is focused on growth. We’ve heard—just the question before this—a list of the fast-track projects that are due to be approved, and some of them will start, we expect, before Christmas. That’s in addition to the announcement at the weekend around infrastructure projects. That will also mean more jobs. Our Government is focused. The jobs and skills hubs are doing a great job of ensuring that when those jobs are there, our people are ready and in line for them.

Hon Willie Jackson: How are Pasifika meant to deal with the rising cost of living crisis, when the amount of Pasifika on jobseekers has risen to over 28,000 under her watch?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I know that the number of Māori and Pasifika and young people are disproportionately affected when we have higher numbers on the jobseeker benefit, which is why we are focused on programmes that are successful, like by having 490 case managers working each and every day on the front line. That is the most intensive programme and the most successful programme. So I think the members should take comfort in the fact that there was an increase in the number of Pasifika job seekers exiting into work over the same time last year—1,500 more, a 21.3 percent increase—despite it being challenging out there right now.

Hon Willie Jackson: In terms of young people: why should young people trust this Government, when young people are filling 21,000 fewer jobs than a year ago?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my last answer: unfortunately, young people are disproportionately affected when the jobseeker numbers are high. That is why our side of the House is absolutely focused on a far more active welfare system, and we are unwilling to accept young people staying on welfare for up to 20 years of their life. That’s why the under-25s are such a focus of our Government and we are rolling Welfare that Works out further.

Hon Willie Jackson: How many more people losing their jobs will it take before the Minister admits and takes responsibility for her Government that is failing Aucklanders, failing Māori, failing workers, failing women, and failing New Zealand?

SPEAKER: That’s a question that could be answered in part, but not necessarily responded to.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m very proud of our record, despite there being challenging economic times, significantly more people exiting off to the jobseeker benefit into jobs than a year ago. This side of the House recognises that having an ambitious target to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit is achieved one person at a time, one job at a time, because that one life is significantly improved, as is their whānau and their community. That’s why we will not shy away from this target.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding school property?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): We are delivering the classrooms in schools that our students need to thrive. I recently announced that we have put an end to open-plan classrooms, we’ve had a major investment into more classrooms for the Auckland region, and the establishment of the New Zealand School Property Agency to improve delivery of school property across the education system. Last year, we reduced the average cost of a classroom by nearly 30 percent at the same time as delivering 30 percent more classrooms than the previous year. We’re building more classrooms faster at a lower cost so our funding can go further, and more students benefit.

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

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In response to Auckland’s rapid roll growth, we’re investing more than $120 million into classrooms that our students need. Through Budget 2025, we’re establishing a new school at Chapel Downs, and we’re building an additional 137 new classrooms across 24 schools, creating more than 3,000 student placements in the network. These projects are expected to enter construction in the next 12 months. We’ve also confirmed a site purchase for a new primary school in Pōkeno, because this is a Government of action and delivery.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What announcements has she made regarding school properties delivery?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: One of the recommendations from the ministerial inquiry into school property was the creation of a new separate entity to manage school property. We accepted this recommendation and will create the New Zealand School Property Agency. We will be bringing commercial discipline and oversight of a professional board to deliver better communication, better value for money, better transparency, and more warm, safe, dry classrooms for our kids.

Hon Chris Bishop: How does this contribute to the Government’s infrastructure pipeline?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Excellent question. Over the next six months alone, there is $794 million of investment in school property works that will be starting. That includes new classrooms, a new school, and new redevelopment projects.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she received on these announcements?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The response to the Auckland classrooms announcements has been positive. One principal said, “I’ve been at this school for 23 years and never before has our roll been this high or have we had the need to have classes operating out of our library, professional learning, and kitchen spaces until now. We’re very excited about this project and look forward to the arrival of our new teaching and learning spaces.” In response to the School Property Agency announcement, one principal said, “It is my view that this will provide the opportunity to ensure greater systemic efficiencies and reduce inequities.”

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister point to any progress in extracting better value for money in the cost per new classroom built?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As it currently stands today, we are providing classrooms for half the price that we did at the end of 2023. At the end of 2023, it was $1.2 million; today, to provide classrooms, it is about $630,000.

Question No. 8—Health

8. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Health: What specific Māori health outcomes, if any, will improve as a result of his proposed changes to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Our Government is committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. That’s why we’re passing the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, to ensure the health system is focused on delivery for patients, not bureaucracy. Following previous decisions to remove health targets and restructure the health system in the middle of a pandemic, patients are being left waiting longer for treatment, accountability has been lost, and outcomes have gone backwards for all New Zealanders, including Māori. We’re turning that around, and this legislation makes amendments to specifically put health targets into law, which will require every part of the system to focus on delivery, and this will be across all five of our health targets: shorter stays in emergency departments, increased immunisations, shorter wait times for electives and specialist appointments, and our faster cancer treatment targets. These changes are about improving outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What evidence does the Minister rely on to show that defunding Iwi Māori Partnership Boards (IMPBs) and removing Te Tiriti obligations will close the seven- to eight-year Māori life-expectancy gap rather than widen it?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, section 6 of the Act, which is the Treaty of Waitangi obligations, continues to provide the framework for giving effect to the principles of the Treaty.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Just to clarify, the question was: what evidence does the Minister rely on?

SPEAKER: Yes, I know that question asked about the removal of something, and the Minister basically said it’s not removed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which iwi, if any, asked to have their powers over Iwi Māori Partnership Board appointments stripped?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We went through a process to make a number of changes. We sought advice from the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, and that advice has supported us in the process of drafting this legislation.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. My question was: which iwi, if any, asked to have their powers over Iwi Māori Partnership Board appointments stripped?

SPEAKER: The Minister might like to expand on his answer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, we went through a policy process. We engaged specifically with the Hauora Māori Partnership Board, who provided us advice in relation to the changes. The legislation is now going through Parliament, and there is an opportunity for all iwi and IMPBs and other interested parties to put forward their submissions.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe my question was addressed. It was: “Which iwi?”

SPEAKER: Yeah, it was difficult to see how it was addressed. So if you perhaps just take another question, without loss of opportunity.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the Minister ignoring leading Māori health experts, like Professor Sue Crengle and Dame Naida Glavish, who have warned these reforms will cause direct harm to Māori communities?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in earlier questions, we engaged with the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee—many of those members appointed under the previous Government—on these changes, and, ultimately, the focus here is about improving outcomes for Māori. And all of those health targets which this Government has reinstated, which the last Government removed, showed that health outcomes went backwards for Māori when the health targets were not in place. We have reinstated those targets—

Hon Willie Jackson: Rubbish.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —and our focus now is on improving—I hear Willie Jackson say, “Rubbish.” Well, the reality is the rate of immunisations for our Māori tamariki went down from around 90 percent into the 60 percent under their six years in office. We are now focused on restoring the health targets and improving outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. [Interruption]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Just wait for a moment while the House composes itself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to why the most critical element to change the effect of Māori longevity is diet, and why have we avoided that discussion in the health system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s a range of issues which the health system needs to focus on, and the way that this Government seeks to focus that on is through the health targets, which ultimately seek to ensure the system is delivering for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is it correct that the Minister did not consult with any iwi?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There was no consultation with iwi during the process, but there is an opportunity through the select committee process for iwi and for Iwi Māori Partnership Boards to be able to have their say, and I encourage them to do so.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does the Minister reconcile his claim of improving equity, when Māori now have fewer rights, fewer resources, and less say on their own health than before this Government came to power?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I would put it to you, Mr Speaker, that when you look at the statistics as to what happened under the last Government, when the health targets were removed, the outcomes for Māori went backwards. Whether it’s shorter wait times in emergency departments—90 percent of Māori were being seen within six hours; when we came back to office, it was down to 71.6 percent. When it comes to immunisations for our tamariki, when Labour came to office, 89.3 percent of two-year-olds were being immunised; when we came back to office, in 2023, it’s down to 64.8 percent. The facts speak for themselves. By reinstating health targets and ensuring accountability of the system, we will improve outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Question No. 9—Infrastructure

9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What is his plan to ensure there is the workforce to deliver the infrastructure pipeline, and how does it address the fact that more than a quarter of builders say that they don’t have enough staff to meet future needs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): A week ago, that member was complaining about how the people in construction were losing their jobs; and a week later, she was complaining about how they don’t have enough staff. The member needs to figure out what Labour’s position on—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Sir, this is a primary question on notice and it is inappropriate for the Leader of the House, in particular, to start with a crack at the person asking the question.

SPEAKER: Yes, that is quite correct. So while it might be appropriate to refer to a previous answer or a previous question, the manner in which that’s done needs to be somewhat more judicious than was exercised just then.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s good to see that the member acknowledges the significant infrastructure pipeline that is coming. We have $6 billion of central government - funded infrastructure starting between now and Christmas, where there are many elements to the Government’s plan to ensure that there are enough workers to meet this. One is ensuring we have a realistic infrastructure pipeline of deliverable projects, which we’re doing right now. Secondly, we’re ensuring employers have access to people that they need. We’re doing that through, in other ways, enabling immigration settings. We have a five-year work visa for high-skilled roles; we’ve dropped the median wage requirements for accredited employer work visas; we also have a green list for roles with significant skill shortages—there are eight roles on the green list in construction, eight roles in trades, and 28 roles in the engineering industry—and, of course, we have fast-track; and we have Resource Management Act reform to ensure our planning system is enabling.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Civil Contractors New Zealand’s chief executive’s summary of his infrastructure reheat as, “We knew of the projects anyway, so there’s no [real] surprises there.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well the projects are public, so there’s nothing particularly secret about that. What’s different is that, unlike the last Government that announced them, we’re building them. The Middlemore Hospital recladding was first approved in 2019, and nothing was done. There’s a long list of other projects for which funding was approved, but no actual spades in the ground. So there’s nothing secret about the projects; the difference is that we put the pedal to the metal and they’re going to start construction.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Josh Galuszka, senior consultant at Key Skills Recruitment in the Hutt Valley, who said, “Governments tend to get involved. Infrastructure and education and health all have construction elements … but what’s happened is this government hasn’t done that. They’ve just pulled the pin on everything.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no—no I don’t. The member mentions the Hutt Valley, which she has some connection with. The Hutt Valley is seeing, in the next five to seven years, $1.5 billion of investment in the Melling Interchange and RiverLink project, which will create thousands of jobs for tradies and engineers and civil constructors in the Wellington region and the Hutt Valley. The New Zealand Transport Agency and the council—both councils in Wellington—are engaging with the Chamber of Commerce and with local employers in order to upskill the workforce so that locals can be employed on that critical project.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the chief executive of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, who blames his Government’s cuts to infrastructure projects across social housing, health, and education for the downturn in work over the past two years; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in relation to architecture—the member raises an interesting point—it is probably true that what the Government has done has led to a downturn in architecture. Let me explain why. In school property, for example, we are not building $1.3 million school classrooms and $100 million mergers of schools in Marlborough, which had bespoke designs and beautiful architecture for the school. In school property, we’re going back to basics, and, actually, that means fewer architects. On social housing, we are getting the build cost down for Kāinga Ora because we do not actually want architecturally designed, beautiful social houses; we want value for money. When it comes to roads, I’ve told the New Zealand Transport Agency, following on from the Hon Simeon Brown, to focus on building stuff. We don’t need the bells and whistles, we don’t need the gold plating, and we don’t need the architecturally designed artwork around the roads. What we actually need are roads built.

SPEAKER: OK, that’s one for everyone for the day because there’s too much noise on both sides of the House during that time. There’s one member on the cross benches at the back there who does need to modify his interventions a little bit.

Hon Erica Stanford: Can the Minister confirm that, last year, in school property, we built 583 classrooms compared to 2023, which was 444 classrooms, dispelling any myths that we are building fewer classrooms?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You cancelled $2 billion worth of projects.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in relation to that interjection from the member who likes to talk a lot, you can’t cancel a project that had no funding. The previous Government was good—this is my exact point—at saying, “Oh, yes, this thing’s going to be built in the future here.” They were good at appropriating money and not very good at building stuff. They were past masters at big, glossy announcements and useless at building stuff.

SPEAKER: Just wait for a moment.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who will carry out his infrastructure builds, considering Civil Contractors New Zealand’s chief executive says, “It’s going to be quite difficult to find people.”, now that more than 17,000 construction workers have had to pack up their tools, many of whom have headed offshore?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I pointed out at the start of the answer that the member has spent most of this year impotently raging into the void about the number of people who are losing their jobs in construction. She’s now claiming there aren’t enough workers. You can’t have it both ways. In answer to the question, the people who will be doing the work on the construction project in the next six months will be workers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the Minister finally admit that his Government’s cuts to public housing and hospital projects have axed 17,000 construction jobs, gutted the construction workforce, and self-sabotaged his own plans to deliver infrastructure that we all need?

SPEAKER: Right, we’ll just have a little bit of silence, and then we’ll have a very, very concise answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s hard to know where to start. Public housing building has continued, Kāinga Ora built thousands of houses in the last two years, and we have funded a future pipeline of social housing. Over the last 18 months, there has been a record investment in road maintenance, and the National Land Transport Fund is at record levels, and it is being spent alongside councils. The infrastructure pipeline, published by the independent Infrastructure Commission, shows that there are many projects in delivery both in the private and public sector. Right now, for example, Auckland Airport is building the biggest infrastructure project in New Zealand history. If the member wants to think that cancelling Auckland Light Rail, Lake Onslow, and Let’s Get Wellington Moving that were going to start construction, even under optimistic scenarios, in 2037, has led to a reduction in the number of construction workers right now, the member is entitled to that view—

SPEAKER: That’s quite enough.

Question No. 10—Foreign Affairs

10. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What new commitments, if any, has the Government made to protect Aotearoa New Zealand’s marine environment following the United Nations Ocean Conference in France last month?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I attended the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, France, last month. No such country turned up, nor is such a country a member of the United Nations.

SPEAKER: Sorry. Look, I ruled on this back in March. You can go against the tide if you want, but it is not inappropriate for members to refer to “Aotearoa New Zealand”. That’s a ruling that’s been made in the House and one that should be obliged. I’ll ask Teanau—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the name of this country in all the documents, and the membership of the United Nations, is New Zealand. We are not going to have somebody unilaterally—without consultation; without consulting the New Zealand people—change this country’s name. For a start, it’s not the name of the South Island, for a start, where the Māori are concerned, and we are not going to put up with this sham, bogus pretence that our name has been changed when the New Zealand taxpayer has never been consulted.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. No further on that. I’ve made a ruling. The ruling is there. I’ll make it available to the member once again, but I’ll have Teanau Tuiono ask the question one more time.

Teanau Tuiono: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will follow the Standing Orders and read it exactly as it is written on the paper. What new commitments, if any, has the Government made to protect Aotearoa New Zealand’s marine environment following the United Nations Ocean Conference in France last month?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because no such country exists, we made no such commitments. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Is everybody ready? Now, we’ve got a bit of a problem, because in the ruling that I made earlier in the year, I noted that the New Zealand Geographic Board also recognises and uses the term “Aotearoa New Zealand”. It would be utterly ridiculous for this House to ban such use if the Geographic Board itself is using that; it is a Government agency. If there is to be any change to the Government agency the Geographic Board’s position, it should be done by legislation by the Government. Ask the question again, and the question does need to be addressed in a reasonable fashion.

Teanau Tuiono: Again, what new commitments, if any, has the Government made to protect Aotearoa New Zealand’s marine environment following the United Nations Ocean Conference in France last month?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In all the discussions, all the debates, and all the papers before that conference, this country’s name was never mentioned in the way that that questioner has framed it. And I’m not going to be dishonest with this House and say that it was represented, because it wasn’t.

SPEAKER: Supplementary?

Teanau Tuiono: Did he share with world leaders at the UN conference that this Government has abandoned plans to establish a new ocean sanctuary, allowed commercial fishing in the marine protected areas, fast tracked seabed mining projects, and repeatedly blocked international attempts to restrict bottom-trawling on vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems in the South Pacific, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If by “this country”, that questioner is asking about a country called “New Zealand”, no, I did not share that information because it is a total falsity.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just grabbed off the Table in front of you the Budget at a Glance, published by Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa, which is translated, of course, as “the New Zealand Government”. Is it the position of the House now that it’s acceptable for any Minister to stand up and say, if questioned on the Budget documents of Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa, that no such country exists?

SPEAKER: No, and if you think about the last answer that was given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, he made it very clear that the term was not used as it was asked in the question. It was well answered, given the question that was asked—but we’re not going down that particular track. There are some semantics involved here, without a doubt. Teanau Tuiono, you had another question?

Teanau Tuiono: Am I asking the same question again?

SPEAKER: No. A new supplementary.

Teanau Tuiono: OK, cool. Does he agree with the former Minister of Foreign Affairs who said, in 2006, that “New Zealand has been prepared to support, in principle, the concept of an interim global moratorium on bottom trawling on the high seas, if such a proposal had sufficient global support”, and, if so, does he believe that New Zealand being the last country in the South Pacific to still allow bottom trawling constitutes sufficient global support?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Seeing as that member has raised a very insightful comment on 2006, yes, I totally agree, because we said “in principle” and we are still working on it.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister introduce legislation to allow our country to join 49 other countries, including several of our neighbours in the Pacific, in ratifying the High Seas Treaty to preserve biodiversity in the high seas, or is he willing to allow us to lag behind our international partners?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I dismiss the last part of that comment; it was totally out of order? He did not finish with a question; he just finished with a criticism, and you should rule it out.

SPEAKER: Well, to be perfectly honest, I didn’t quite pick that up so we’ll hear the question again.

Teanau Tuiono: Hear the question again—cool. Will the Minister introduce legislation to allow our country to join 49 other countries, including several of our neighbours in the Pacific, in ratifying the High Seas Treaty to preserve biodiversity in the high seas, or is he willing to allow us to lag behind our international partners?

SPEAKER: Well, a question can be asked with two legs. The Minister should at least address the first part of the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, addressing the first part of the question: since the third United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice in June, New Zealand has made several policy and financial commitments in the areas of sustainable fisheries in the Pacific, including in ocean science, management, and governance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Read it like you mean it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, like you, you mean?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I always read it like I mean it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Double-cross that bridge when you come to it. We have also launched an island restoration project and are building capacity across the entire Asia-Pacific in the area of seabird-safe fishing, and we will soon be updating New Zealand’s national plan of action to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and we’re not going to have a bonfire of the vanities when we have decided on this policy.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he stand by his statement that “As a maritime state with one of the world’s largest and most”—

SPEAKER: Sorry. To the member, would you mind saying again—there was a lot of conversation going on, making it difficult to ensure I know what you’re actually saying. Please, speak again.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he stand by his statement that “As a maritime state with one of the world’s largest and most biodiverse marine areas, New Zealand strongly supports a … system that secures the conservation and sustainable use of our oceans.”, and, if so, is he concerned about our international reputation, given that this Government has failed to announce a single new policy to protect the ocean?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That last statement is demonstrably incorrect. The Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana and south-east coast of the South Island are two clearer statements. I don’t know where the member was when all this work was being done. There is more protection in place now than there ever was.

Question No. 11—Trade and Investment

11. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What opportunities will New Zealand exporters have following the third reading of the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill yesterday?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): A $500 billion opportunity. The New Zealand Government has cleared the way for Kiwi exporters to tap into a $500 billion market that imports 90 percent of its food. This agreement delivers real benefits for New Zealand exporters by lowering costs, increasing market access, and securing a strong presence in the Middle East. Two-way trade between New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was worth $1.35 billion last year, and this agreement will accelerate growth by reducing red tape, boosting services trade, and supporting investment links.

Mike Butterick: What is the significance of a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the UAE?

Hon TODD McCLAY: This is the highest-quality and fastest-negotiated agreement by New Zealand that will immediately remove tariffs on 98.5 percent of New Zealand exports upon entry into force, rising to 99 percent just three years later. This high-quality trade agreement builds on New Zealand’s strengths and our FTA network. UAE consumers are actively seeking safe, fresh products from around the world and are willing to pay more for them, giving New Zealand exporters an opportunity to lead in this very competitive market.

Mike Butterick: How will the New Zealand - UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) boost New Zealand’s economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The agreement will see zero-tariff rates on entry into force for key New Zealand exports, including all dairy products, beef and sheep meat, honey, seafood, forestry products, horticultural commodities, and many industrial items. On entry into force, it unlocks $42 million of immediate savings and growing market access, which helps New Zealand double the value of exports over 10 years. Last year, New Zealand exported $84 million of services to the UAE; whilst a modest amount, this agreement grows two-way trade and has specific mention and focus on services, and business connections will quickly surpass the $1 billion mark in coming years.

Mike Butterick: How else is the Government strengthening ties in the Middle East?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand and the Gulf Cooperation Council concluded negotiations last year on a trade agreement that will unlock a $3 trillion regional economy and deliver duty-free access for 99 percent of our exports over 10 years. With the UAE CEPA combined with that, over half of New Zealand’s exports to the region will be tariff free from day one. Saudi Arabia presents a $1 trillion opportunity for New Zealand exporters. With 33 million people and 80 percent of its food coming from overseas, it’s a market where demand for high-quality, trusted products is growing. The Government will lead a trade mission to Saudi Arabia later this year to facilitate better trade for exporters and boost the economy, because when we grow our trade, we grow our economy, creating jobs, lifting incomes, and delivering better opportunities for every New Zealander.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does this amendment bill have the support of all the political parties in the New Zealand Parliament?

Hon TODD McCLAY: It has the support of political parties that believe in trade and want to grow the economy, so it’s every party in the Government, but no—to the Minister—disappointingly, there are still some parties in our Parliament that put politics before the best interests of growth and jobs for New Zealand.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: How have homelessness statistics changed in each major urban centre, according to the Homelessness Insights report he received in June 2025, both in absolute numbers and percentage terms, when comparing the most recent reporting period to the previous one?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): This Government takes homelessness seriously, and resolving homelessness is more than just housing. No one in this House wants to see fellow Kiwis living without shelter. The homelessness insights report confirms there are many people with housing need, but accurate numbers are hard to pin down, especially when you ask for absolute numbers or percentage terms across any centre.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Tama—the Hon Kieran Mog—Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s all right, we all know who you mean—it’s all good. Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, some people may not—you’re not that well known.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Ha, ha! I am in Eketāhuna, sir, so that’s all that matters.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I tell you what, it’s centre of the Earth.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Anyway, we’ll get on with it, shall we?

SPEAKER: Yep.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The question, again, was on notice and it was very carefully worded. It was asking for comparisons from the homelessness insights report that was released publicly today, to the previous one released in December. The Minister does not need to provide specifics or concrete numbers; he just simply needs to be able to provide the comparison between the two reports, as was outlined in each of them. He did not come close to that, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, the point is he did address the question, and whether or not the question is satisfactorily addressed is not for me to judge.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister confirm that the homelessness insights report finds it difficult to find data and relies on census data, and that will cause a challenge, given the Government’s decision to cancel the census?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This homelessness insights report has come about as a result of the new administration and over the last 18 months. The only official data and estimate of those living without shelter, and in other categories of homelessness, come from the census, the latest of which, of course, was Census 2023. As a result of this insights report, we know that there is a genuine need for housing, and many front-line providers have amplified that message.

Hon Peeni Henare: How can he claim his policies are working, when his own report has shown that homeless in Tāmaki-makau-rau has near doubled from 426 in September 2024 to 809 in May 2025?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There is no doubt that the various reports from council, community housing providers, and others have expressed and exhibited a genuine housing need, particularly in the areas of homelessness. But what the report also says is—and I quote—“It is not possible to determine the extent to which changes described in this report reflect existing trends and broader economic and social contexts or are attributable to policy changes.”

Hon Peeni Henare: Can he guarantee that the homelessness figures in the report he released a few hours ago have not been changed and has been released in full since he received them in June?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can guarantee that this Government’s solution is not putting another $1.5 billion into a dark and dank moral catastrophe known as emergency housing. What we’ve actually done is asked Government officials to report and advise on further targeted interventions for those living without shelter, to provide recommendations to better utilise the existing half billion dollars that is put towards transitional housing and a number of other programmes, and, of course, to engage with credible providers. [Interruption]

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Had had there not been those outbursts from that side of the House, making an inference against the Minister, I might have asked for the question to be answered again. Is this a point of order on that matter?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes. I seek leave to table the original homelessness insights report, as received by Ministers Potaka and Bishop, and the subsequent version that has been released today, which shows that there are no changes beyond—well, the members can judge for themselves, but there aren’t any changes to the data.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that cause of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Peeni Henare: Following the report, does he still believe the rise in homelessness is anecdotal, and, if not, when will he finally accept responsibility and admit that his Government’s housing policy is failing, making homelessness worse in our beautiful country?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we all know and, of course, is confirmed by this report—the homelessness insight report—there are a number of front-line providers who have confirmed there is a genuine need amongst many, many New Zealanders. What we are doing about it, of course, is taking action, whether or not that’s the announcements around Māori housing that we undertook at Waitangi Day, $200 million for an additional 400 homes; whether it’s the “going for housing growth” mahi that Minister Bishop is leading; whether it’s the half a billion dollars of taxpayer funding that is put through transitional housing, Housing First, and a range of other programmes for which we seek to understand the optimal utilisation around; whether it’s the community housing providers, the 1,500 extra homes that we’ve supported on an income-related rent subsidy basis and the various methods in which we can help finance and fund those organisations asking for advice; whether it’s additional meetings on the national homelessness data report; and a whole range of activities being undertaken in Minister Upston’s office down at te Manatū Whakahiato Ora around housing support products or housing brokers. I think that this Government is taking action and resolving some of the concerns, the catastrophes, and the cataclysms that were left behind by our former colleagues from the other side of the House.

SPEAKER: The time for oral questions has—

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. I apologise to the House. I seek leave to correct a statement I just made in relation to the tabling of those documents.

SPEAKER: Well, leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Chris Bishop: I think I said—

SPEAKER: Wait on—is there any objection? Carry on.

Hon Chris Bishop: I think I said at the end of my seeking leave to table that no data had been changed. From memory, there are a couple of items: I queried whether or not a figure was correct, and the final document shows that the figure was wrong, and it was subsequently updated by officials. I didn’t want to mislead the House.

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This Government was elected on a promise: a promise to make life easier for hard-working New Zealanders. But today, after months of spin, we now know that that promise has been comprehensively broken.

I stood opposite Christopher Luxon during the leaders’ debates in the last election campaign, where he unequivocally promised New Zealand families with kids that they would be $250 a fortnight better off under this Government. A year and a half in, not one New Zealand family is $250 a fortnight better off under this Government because of their promises. But it gets worse than that, because then they said that 21,000 New Zealand families were going to get help through their FamilyBoost policy, with $150 every fortnight. That was $100 less than what they were told they were going to get during the election campaign, but it was still $150 a fortnight that would mean a lot to New Zealand families struggling with the rising cost of living. So how many of New Zealand’s 5 million people are actually benefiting from that? One hundred and fifty-three. That’s 153 down—4,999,847 still to go. They promised Kiwis they were going to be better off, and yet New Zealanders know that things are getting worse, not better, under this Government. One hundred and fifty-three families; less than 1 percent of those who were promised they were going to be better off under this Government are getting what they were promised.

What we see instead is a Government that distracts, that blames, that spins, that attacks—not a Government that’s focused on actually delivering the things they said they were going to deliver. Number one on their list was tackling the rising cost of living. Let’s be clear about exactly what it was they said—and I have a few quotes. Nicola Willis said, “The first priority should be to respond to the cost of living crisis.”—and yet the cost of living crisis is getting worse. Another comment from Nicola Willis: “my simple message is this: cost of living relief is on the way.” When’s it arriving? New Zealanders are still waiting for the cost of living relief that they were promised.

Christopher Luxon said, “The first thing we’ve got to do is reduce the cost of living.” “Reduce”—note the word “reduce” in there, not “Make it get harder, just a little bit slower than it was before.” He promised that he was going to “reduce” the cost of living, and yet today in the House he was celebrating the fact that the cost of living is still going up, and saying New Zealanders should be grateful for that, when he promised them that the cost of living was going to reduce.

Nicola Willis said, “National will take action to get food prices under control once more.” Yet food prices continue to go up. It has never been more expensive to buy a block of butter in New Zealand. And, you know, I start to wonder. I used to think they were really good at spin, but watching Nicola Willis at question time today, I wondered what had happened to their political radar. Of all the days to be boasting about high international dairy prices, I’m not sure the day after you met with Fonterra to berate them for the fact that the price of butter was too high is the day to be talking about how great it is that we’re getting so much money from selling our butter internationally. What exactly is the Government’s position? Is it that international dairy prices are good for New Zealand, or is it that butter prices are too high? Because they seem to think that they can argue both of those things at the same time. The Government simply don’t have a consistent position on that.

What have the Government been doing in the meantime? It’s been all about the theatre; it’s been all about attacking other people; it’s been all about apportioning blame. But I can tell you that’s not what it’s about for the mother who is skipping meals for the kids. It’s not about that for the pensioners who are turning off their heaters because they cannot afford to pay the power bills. This Government was elected saying they were going to serve. They said they were going to solve those problems for New Zealanders. We are now more than halfway through this parliamentary term and New Zealanders can see the results of this Government. It’s getting worse, not better.

New Zealanders, I think, are a generous people. They gave the Government time, and now they’re looking at this Government and saying that they aren’t getting what they thought they were voting for at the last election. They deserve better.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister): I’m here to listen to the Opposition. I hear them in question time and in the media, and I feel a little sad that they’ve lost sight of a simple truth that we are 5.3 million people with shared challenges, and what we share in common is much, much greater than anything that divides us. Yet too often, politics overlooks that very basic and obvious fact.

People get much more, or at least they could, out of a contest of ideas than the prejudice of identity, and yet, when I listen to the Opposition, when I listen to politics around the world, in fact, what I hear is too much zero-sum thinking. I hear far too much identity politics. It’s a toxic mix that is the enemy of unity and progress for all people.

This zero-sum thinking—we hear too much of it; we hear it every day. I heard it from one of the Green co-leaders on the TV this morning. She tells her voters that their problems are caused by someone else’s success, and that the solution to their problem is therefore another tax to take their money off them. Well, if we’re to truly solve our problems, then we need the opposite attitude. Every policy question in this House, for any Government in the world, should be: will this policy help create an abundance of wealth for all people? Not only should we cast off the idea that there’s only so much to go round and the way to get ahead is to criticise someone else’s success, as if that caused the problems we might face, actually, we need to get rid of the other side of that toxic mix that is identity politics, that tells us that the differences between New Zealanders—such as when their ancestors arrived on these shores—are greater than the commonalities that we Kiwis all share. Only then do we have a hope of creating the kind of society that makes the progress that we all sorely want to see.

I just so happen to be proud to be part of a Government that gets that, that thinks in terms of positive sum, and that thinks in terms of our shared challenges and identity as Kiwis, rather than zero-sum thinking and the division of identity politics. You only have to look at the array of policies that this Government is putting in place to see that. Take the simple question of: can the next generation afford a house? Doesn’t matter what your background is or your culture, what people want is a pathway to property ownership in a property-owning democracy. For too long, it’s been too hard. I’m proud to be in this Government. Chris Bishop’s here, Simon Court’s here. Together, they’re working together to make a resource management law that says if you own some land, the presumption is you can build a home.

This Government’s also ensuring those pieces of land are connected together with infrastructure that’s properly funded and planned by city and regional partnerships, to see central and local government working together. When you start to do things like that, opportunity starts to open up that people can actually own a place of their own in their own country. That’s not something that you get from zero-sum thinking. It’s not about attacking the landlords or those people or that; it’s about saying how do we build more together, because all of us face the same basic challenges.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that is committed to transferring a knowledge-rich curriculum from one generation to the next, because when people are able to navigate the 21st century and all of its growing technological sophistication by learning real science and real language and truly understanding the future of the century that they’re going to live in, then their own mana and esteem and ability to chart their own path in life is all the greater.

Then I’m proud to be part of a Government that is ensuring everything we do is lighter on the regulatory impact we make on New Zealanders. We’re removing the red tape so people can actually spend more time providing for themselves and their families and the people they care about in their community, and less time filling out forms and being told no by the umbrella people who stand at the building site, watching while other people work in the rain.

That is the vision we need, that it is possible to create more and all of us benefit, rather than ranking New Zealanders by the arrival time of their ancestors. Let’s build more together.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): It’s been a great week for infrastructure, jobs, and growth. On Sunday, we announced as a Government that in the next six months there are $6 billion of infrastructure projects starting around the country, and this is just a start. There are many more projects to come.

The response from the Opposition has been instructive, which is basically to say, “Oh yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.” Except for the fact that unlike the last Government, which talked a lot and put out a lot of press releases and set up a lot of working groups, we’re actually getting on with the job. In the answers to the Hon Ginny Andersen in Parliament today, I read out a couple of examples of projects—

Hon Members: Funded by Labour.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —which were first appropriated funding all the way back in 2019. Remember the Middlemore Hospital recladding? Remember the Middlemore Hospital? Jacinda Ardern, she made a big thing about it during the election campaign and straight after she said, “Oh, you know, National’s done such a bad job. There’s, like, poo running down the walls at Middlemore.”, and everyone probably assumed they were going to do something about it. That’s partly what the recladding project’s all about. Well, they put money towards it. Well, guess what! Here we are in 2025 and it’s taking a National Government to actually get on with it. We are as a Government building a credible infrastructure pipeline and fixing the mistakes of the past. It’s great to be part of a Government, as the Hon David Seymour says, that is building a brighter future for New Zealanders.

There are a couple of quotes from members opposite that I want to pull out for the House that I think deserve more oxygen and more ventilation. The first is in relation to Barbara Edmonds. Now, there’s quite a bit to talk about the cost of living. Fair enough, times are tough for many Kiwis. Let’s bear in mind that inflation three years ago was 7.3 percent. It’s now back within the band, thanks to the strong fiscal decisions of this Government and sensible economic management. We have got inflation back under control, but that’s not to pretend that life isn’t tough for many people.

The Labour Party’s going on about the cost of living; fair enough, I’d do the same if I was in their situation. But one might think they have some answers about the cost of living. Eventually, a journalist asked Barbara Edmonds this fact and said, “OK, fair enough. You’re moaning on about it. What’s your plan?” What did Barbara Edmonds say? “Oh, I’m not able to identify any specific Labour Party policy that tackles the cost of living.” No policy. No policy whatsoever. One might think, and one might ask, if the Labour Party is going to criticise the Government for the cost of living, that they had a plan. It turns out they have no plan, and to the extent they have a plan—which is based on borrowing, debt, and spending—it would make life worse for New Zealanders. The red tape that they support will make life worse for New Zealanders by driving up costs and flowing through to inflation.

The other quote I want to pull out is from Chris Hipkins, who’s put up a Facebook post or a tweet or something: “Nobody should have to leave the country to build a future.” Fair enough. Sounds reasonable. Slightly rich from the guy who basically stopped New Zealanders returning to New Zealand during the COVID years through the disaster that was the managed isolation and quarantine debacle that he imposed on the country. So a little bit rich, but he’s right. People shouldn’t have to leave the country to build a brighter future. We do want New Zealanders to stay here. But the Labour Party opposes every single thing that this Government is doing to create more economic opportunity.

I’ll give you a fast track. Now, the Labour Party has their own version of fast track, which has currently got some projects going through, but, of course, this Government has legislated for a much brighter and much more fulsome regime. The question for the Labour Party is: what are they going to do about it? Do they support it or do they not? Because a few weeks ago, they put up a Facebook post which said they would repeal it. Interestingly, that Facebook post has now been taken down, so one wonders what the official Labour Party policy is when it comes to fast track. They opposed it and voted against it on the way through.

There are now eight projects before expert panels, including, for example, the expansion of the Port of Auckland. There’s a project going through to expand the Port of Tauranga; 60 percent of New Zealand’s exports by value go through the Port of Tauranga. It is critical that that very important port is expanding. There are a range of infrastructure and housing and energy projects listed on the fast-track list that are going through. The Labour Party opposes it.

People leave New Zealand to go work in the mines in Australia, but the Labour Party opposes any liberalisation of our planning laws to make it easier for mines, make it easier for quarries, make it easier to build roads in this country. The Labour Party opposes Resource Management Act reform, which is the thing, as David Seymour says, that has been the millstone around the neck of this economy for 30 years.

So my message to Kiwis is this: it’s one thing to carp and moan, it’s one thing to put out endless press releases and fulminate against problems, but it’s another thing to actually have a plan. They don’t have one; this Government does. I’m proud of this Government and the work that we are doing.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is my first contribution in the general debate since the sad passing of our colleague Takutai Tarsh Kemp, so I say, hoki wairua mai—may your spirit come back amongst us here today.

I also want to acknowledge Ngāti Tamakōpiri, her people of Ngāti Whitikaupeka and of Mōkai Pātea, who received the country in mourning for our tuahine, for our colleague, and for our friend. I also acknowledge the good people of the township of Taihape, who saw an influx of people, influx of customers, who used it as their base to continue to farewell our tuahine. I want to mention in particular the Taihape rugby club, who welcomed me with open arms, presented me with a tie of Taihape, and wanted me to say, “Up the Hape!” I’m quite proud to wear this tie today, and I wear it to remember my tuahine and the kindness that her people showed to myself, my father, and, of course, everybody who attended the funeral of our colleague.

That leaves us in a position in Tāmaki Makaurau where a mandate needs to be sought. Today, we’ve heard in the House from the Government benches what is apparently going on in Auckland and what is going to lift Auckland out of the doldrums. It’s simply not enough.

What we heard from the Deputy Prime Minister in his general debate today is that he’s proud to say, “Now schools will teach real language.” What does he mean by “real language”? Well, what he means by “real language” is the diminishing of te reo Māori, the language of this land. He diminishes the efforts that many have made to revitalise te reo Māori. In fact, he also stands in contradiction to the words of his own colleague Erica Stanford, who stands up and praises her own efforts in trying to revitalise and support kura kaupapa in Tāmaki Makaurau and, indeed, across the country. We’ve heard from the Deputy Prime Minister today that he cares not for the Māori language.

I take the words of my good friend and colleague here Mr Shanan Halbert: “Who is the Deputy Prime Minister in this House to be handing out mana cards to people?” The person with the least amount of mana is handing out mana cards trying to tell us who we are as Māori and who deserves to be a Māori, not in this House but indeed right across the country. I think it’s shameful. It’s shameful that when there are real issues impacting families right across this country, the Deputy Prime Minister focuses on something like a “real language” and diminishes te reo Māori in this House.

The real issues are clear in this country. There is a cost of living crisis. The fact that this Government has, all of a sudden, turned their attention, not to address the matter, but to attack the Opposition benches on the critical matter of the cost of living crisis shows that they are trying to (1) remediate their failures in the past in dealing with this particular issue, because they promised in the campaign hustings in 2023 that they will deal with the cost of living crisis and they have not; and (2) it shows that they have no ideas to be able to bring us out of this challenge that is affecting so many people.

It’s winter, it is cold, and whether you live in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in the Far North, or in the Deep South, power prices have gone up exponentially. Our people cannot afford to warm themselves. Usually in Tāmaki-makau-rau, it’s warm; the other day, it was 4 degrees Celsius, and for somebody from the Bay of Islands, that’s freezing. But I want to be very clear: that impact is felt in every single household—whether you’re a young person, whether you’re a family, or whether you’re our kaumātua and kuia. Those energy prices are going up and up, and, of course, the wellbeing of our people is going down and down.

Our leader, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, rightly explained that all of the indicators that show wellbeing in this country—like the cost of living, like the cost of energy—they’re all going up. What’s clear to us, on this side of the House, is that the Government benches know that what is going down is actually their polling, so what do they do? They start the blame game. They blame Labour for everything. They blame us for absolutely everything. Well, I take the words from my 13-year-old daughter, who says, “Dad, I’m sick of the blame game because what actually is happening is the lame game.” They’ve come up lame on the cost of living crisis. They’ve come up lame on the extremely high energy prices that have caused heating prices in this country to go up exponentially. They’ve come up lame on opportunities to lift our country into economic prosperity, which we know will be able to help whānau right across this country.

We are in an important race. As we head towards the 2026 election, it’s clear that this Government has no answers, and I can tell them, in the famous words of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, “Help is on its way.”

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): Well, nobody will be relieved with the suggestion of that sort of help. But we’ll move on to things of greater substance.

Can I say that Chris Bishop said earlier that it’s been a great week for New Zealand infrastructure, and he’s absolutely right. We need to invest in infrastructure that grows the economy, that makes it easier for New Zealanders to move around. The reason that we are building more roads is because very few, certainly not enough, were built under the six years of the previous Labour Government. When you build roads, you get goods and services around more easily. You get goods to the port to get to overseas markets, but it’s fundamentally more simple than that. You free up time for men and women to go about their business more quickly, not be stuck in traffic, to spend more time with their families and a greater quality of family time. That’s a very important outcome when it comes to infrastructure.

Can I also say that not only has it been a good week for trade for New Zealand exporters because of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) free-trade agreement coming in, moving through the Parliament; it’s been a very good year for exports and trade and New Zealand exporters. I want to highlight a few of those, because behind every single one of these statistics, it shows greater trade overseas, New Zealanders who are better off, and more jobs.

The EU free-trade agreement entered into force a year ago—many, many months sooner than had been predicted, which we were told when we came to Government. There actually were opportunities for it to enter into force and be ratified by this Parliament before the election. But, sadly, that wasn’t a priority. In that period of time, in the 12 months under that agreement, our exports to the EU have gone up by 28 percent. It’s an extra $1 billion of goods exports for New Zealanders. Sheep meat is up 29 percent—an extra $216 million. Kiwifruit is up almost 70 percent—$316 million more. And, very important, machinery, of which a lot is agricultural machinery, exports are up 104 percent—an additional $173 million for the New Zealand economy. Every day, New Zealand is benefiting from trade agreements and from a Government that was quick to take action to get it in place so they could benefit so very much sooner.

The UK free-trade agreement, in place two years now—a 21 percent boost of our exports, up $644 million; services a 22 percent increase, which is important because although we are known for the highest-quality, safest food to be produced anywhere in the world that consumers all over the place in many countries want, there is a big opportunity in services. Goods exports are up 20 percent; meat a 46 percent increase—almost $500 million more over that period of time. Dairy, a 139 percent increase; fruit and nuts, 52 percent; tech services, 22 percent; and tech-related services are up 50 percent—an extra $221 million for the New Zealand economy.

Yesterday, the vast majority of parties in this Parliament voted in favour of the UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), and you heard me earlier in question time say that it is the fastest ever negotiated agreement and the highest quality, opening up unprecedented access for New Zealand exporters to a market worth $500 billion. The UAE imports 90 percent of their food. They don’t have the opportunity to grow it for themselves. They have choices as to where they import that food from, and they will now be choosing New Zealand, and whilst our trade compared to many nations is modest—we export a billion dollars to them—I predict that the trade in that market will go up significantly and so very, very quickly, because the two Governments have said that we want to do business with each other and we provide the certainty of a trade agreement for our business communities to grow and to flourish.

The NZ-Gulf Cooperation Council agreement concluded last year—there is a $3 trillion opportunity in that region. The size of that economy—the countries are all of significance to New Zealand, but Saudi Arabia certainly is the jewel in the crown. Over 10 years, 99 percent of our exports will be tariff-free and, on entry into force with the CEPA, it will be more than half of what we export, tariff-free. There is a huge opportunity in that market. The Saudis are transitioning their economy away from reliance upon petrochemicals to opportunities and growth in so many fields, from tourism where there are New Zealand companies already there helping them build their infrastructure, giving advice, architects, engineers, construction companies, and, of course, another market where they import 80 percent of their food—a great opportunity for New Zealand exporters. This is a Government that backs those exporters to do well.

Finally, we are negotiating with India. Our second round of negotiation has taken place and we are making great progress. I predict we will have a deal that is meaningful with India before the end of this term of Government.

SPEAKER: The honourable—sorry. Can I call Rawiri Waititi.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I love it when you address me like that, Mr Speaker! Ngā mihi nui ki a koe.

SPEAKER: Well, you know, you’re obviously an honourable man.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Tēnā tātou. Tēnā koe, Peeni, i ō mihi ki tō tātou tuahine i tēnei rā. Tika tonu, kei te mahana tonu tana wairua ki waenga i a tātou, me te mea hoki tika tonu kia mihi rā ki tōna hau kāinga, ki te nui o te iwi i tae ki runga i Taihape, ki Ōpaea Marae ki te tangi atu ki a ia. Me te mea hoki kei te tautoko i ō poroporoaki ki tērā o ō tātou tuāhine i tēnei rā.

Nō reira, Peeni, ngā mihi nui ki a koe, ki a koutou, Shanan, ki tō whanaunga, ki te tuahine rā. Kei te tangi tonu, kei te mihi tonu, ka poroporoaki tonu tātou ki a ia i tēnei rā.

[Greetings to us all. Thank you, Peeni, for your acknowledgments of our sister today. Very true, her spirit remains warm amongst us, and it is also very appropriate that we acknowledge her home people, to the many people that arrived in Taihape, to Ōpaea Marae, to grieve for her. And furthermore I support your eulogies to that particular sister of ours today.

And so, Peeni, many greetings to you, to all of you, Shanan, to your relation, to that particular sister. I yet grieve, I yet acknowledge her, and we will continue to eulogise her today.]

Just to acknowledge Takutai Tarsh Kemp in probably the first general debate I’ve taken part in since the passing of Takutai, and just to acknowledge the mihi today by Peeni Henare.

I want to just pick up, following the conclusion of the oral submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill, on the rhetoric that continues to be pushed by the ACT Party, supported by the Government. Over 95 percent of Aotearoa saw this bill for what it truly was: a power grab by the ACT Party to sell off Aotearoa to their rich mates. So let’s look at that in a deeper sense. Approximately 131,000 submissions; 95 percent of those were against it—95 percent of those. That’s telling you that Aotearoa has spoken. But I want to, today, focus on one principle in this bill and what it means for our women, for our senior citizens—our kaumātua here in Aotearoa—who are not part of the 2 percent that control 50 percent of this country’s wealth.

In the Regulatory Standards Bill, you will find the following principle: “every person is equal before the law”. On the surface, this sounds like a harmless or even noble principle, but while David Seymour and the ACT Party failed to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi through the Treaty principles bill, they have succeeded in redefining the meaning of equality. They have convinced the public that sameness and equality are the same thing.

This is the mindset that justifies cutting the school lunches programme while giving a $3 billion handout to landlords, because, according to this Government, we all have the same opportunity to become landlords. We will be all treated the same. Whether you are rich or poor, you will be treated as though you are rich. Holding everybody to the same standard, regardless of whakapapa, culture, gender, ability, age, and class, can only lead to inequality. This is particularly true in a country founded on the displacement and manufactured poverty of indigenous people.

I want to address one of the ACT Party members today: Parmjeet Parmar, an Indian migrant MP who is waging war on Māori, based on race-based scholarships, study spaces, and entrance pathways. I wonder if she has written letters to the universities about the three Indian scholarships: New Zealand Excellence Awards, worth $260,0000; the University of Auckland India High Achievers Scholarship; and the University of Waikato Vice Chancellor’s International Excellence Scholarship for India. This is hypocrisy—this is hypocrisy. If this is about—

SPEAKER: As the member knows, you can’t accuse someone of that in this House. So withdraw the comment and find another way to say that.

RAWIRI WAITITI: What comment am I withdrawing, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: You cannot refer to someone in the—I’m not going to repeat it. You can’t use that term.

RAWIRI WAITITI: So I know what I’m apologising for?

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve just accused someone of engaging in a practice that has perhaps got a—I’m not going to say it.

RAWIRI WAITITI: The “h” word—you can’t say the “h” word?

SPEAKER: No—OK? Now, you’ve got it.

RAWIRI WAITITI: I apologise, Mr Speaker. But that doesn’t take away from the fact—that doesn’t take away from the fact—that it’s double standards; it’s double standards and it’s rūpahu—that is rūpahu. Look, earlier today, women representing over 300,000—this is the other part, so we’ll leave that there for the member to think about it, and I look forward to seeing her letters to the universities addressing that particular issue. But we want to make sure, everybody, that this piece of legislation based on everybody being the same under the law—absolutely rubbish.

It’s absolutely rubbish, and I tell you what: my plea is to our elderly people out there, to those who are on the super—that is under threat. Your super card is under threat because it’s preferential treatment to elderly—it’s preferential treatment to the elderly—and we don’t want to risk those particular issues that ensure that they live with some dignity.

We absolutely support the SuperGold card, and we absolutely support those scholarships that I just mentioned. But it’s double standards when it comes from that party when they’re targeting one race, which is te iwi Māori—and I want to bring that up, right now. We need to make sure—and I talk to our elderly citizens out there—that they write to Winston Peters. This is his flagship policy. Write to him and ensure that that bill doesn’t go through this House, because it will put everybody on notice who needs the dignity to live. Kia ora tātou.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Emotions have been running high in this Parliament since question time, especially on that side of the House, where they don’t like this side pointing out their record on jobs for what it is. This is a Government that has seen 47,000 New Zealanders leave its shores because of joblessness, because of the rising cost of living, and because they can’t save for a home and buy one. This is a Government that will be remembered for 17,000 jobs in the building and construction sector, since they were elected, gone—axed. Where are they now? They’re in Australia, building their roads, their schools, their hospitals.

When this Government crows about its infrastructure pipeline, what jobs are they talking about? They know that in their electorate, not one person is saying, “Oh, thank you, National, for that infrastructure pipeline that is kicking in in 2026. Oh good, my apprentice, who I’ve had on for two years down at my construction site, whose training I’ve invested in, and who I was promised by that National Government I would be getting the Apprenticeship Boost for in the election—they’re in Perth. Aren’t I lucky that the Government is giving me an infrastructure pipeline in five years to look forward to?”

Meanwhile, 20 percent of electricians in this country will be retiring in the next year. With gasfitters and plumbers, the situation is the same: an ageing workforce, that this Government is overseeing, having no one to replace them. And they say they are proud of their pipeline of work. Who will do that work?

When workers are under attack by this Government, it’s this party, the Labour Party, the party of workers, who will be standing up for them. The record of this Government will be that they have overseen the mass exodus of young people, of Māori, of the women who got into trades under the Labour Government—out and off to Australia. Those important construction workers who came in on technical projects like the City Rail Link and like the Manukau SuperClinic—they have gone. Because it’s this Government’s slogan that “Everyone must go”, they’ve overseen the leaving of all of those people who we desperately need when our economy is back in fit shape, under a Labour Government, to build again.

We’re the party of work, and building and construction is good work. It employs one in 10 Kiwis still, despite the massive cuts that have seen them leaving. More than 17 percent of the construction sector are Māori, and one in five Auckland workers are involved in the building and construction sector. That means that this Government’s record on the building and construction sector slump, which is heavier and harder than the global financial crisis now, is hitting Auckland particularly hard, and it’s hitting my community of Manurewa. You know what that means? It means that I walk down to the Manurewa town shops with my kids, and two of the four places where we can buy food, we can stop in, we can talk to the community—they have shut up shop, at the moment. They cannot make a living out of it, as bakeries and retailers; they are overseas visiting family because it costs them more to open their doors at the moment. The tradies aren’t coming through, the workers aren’t coming through, and if they do have a job, they don’t have money to spend.

What does this Government say? They say, “Don’t worry about it. We’ve got something in the infrastructure pipeline.” It’s stuff that we already knew about; it’s stuff that kicks in in five years’ time. That is not a record to be proud of; that is a record of overseeing a huge downturn in our economy, which will create scarring for a long time. Scarring for who? Scarring for the people who can least afford it.

We’re lucky to have some of those community housing providers at the moment building houses in my area, in South Auckland. I’m told that they are, in fact, the only housing providers that are getting housing consents through the council at the moment, because they are the only ones who can keep the pipeline going—no thanks to this Government—even though its policy is that community housing providers should be providing those houses that my community desperately needs. One in three people in Manurewa live in a Kāinga Ora home, and then this Government is saying that they should be providing housing by community housing providers who it’s not helping to continue to build those houses. Why is it not helping? Because it’s not helping with the funding and it’s certainly not helping them with the builders that they need.

This isn’t a plan; this is economic vandalism. It’s hurting the people who cannot save themselves, who cannot create an economic buffer for themselves. The reason why Governments should pay attention to jobs in an economic downturn is because those young people who we need to stay here on our shores, to invest in their education and to learn, those are the people who are most affected by this. They are the people who will leave and we will not get back. They are the people who the Government should be focused on making sure are in employment. They should carry through on their promise about Apprenticeship Boost. They should be making sensible changes to the building sector, so that they have somewhere to learn and something to hope for. But this Government is hands off when it comes to jobs; it’s hands off when it comes to young people, and that will be its record.

MAUREEN PUGH (National—West Coast-Tasman): I want to talk about prudent financial management. We’ve heard a lot of speeches today from around the House about the problems that we have here in New Zealand. That issue has been well canvassed. We all know there are problems in this country, but what we haven’t heard are the solutions from the other side. So I want to talk about some of the solutions that this coalition Government has been undertaking.

Prudent financial management of the taxpayer’s money: I want to express why it’s important to me from the West Coast-Tasman electorate. This year’s Budget, as we know, was all about building the New Zealand economy, getting growth back into the economy, creating jobs, and lifting wages so that we can lift the prosperity of the cost of living so that it’s easier on Kiwis. But rather than focusing on the short-term sugar hit—which we all know if we feed our kids a heap of sugar, what comes at the end of that? The crash. So we don’t want the crash. We want long-term investment so that our country is set up for economic recovery and growth into the future.

Now, things like ensuring we lift the education standards in this country: there is nothing more important than investing in our students in our schools and universities, not only lifting the academic achievement but also building new classrooms so that they’ve got the most modern environment to learn in. Erica Stanford has done an amazing job at cutting in half the cost of building a new classroom. So what does that mean? It means we get twice as much for our money now. We’re getting twice as many classrooms for the same price as what the previous Government was spending. Now, it sets them up when they’ve got a greater education for higher-paying jobs. It gives them more future choices. But we’ve also got to stop the wasteful spending. This Government has done a huge amount in that space in the past, but we do know that we’ve got a lot more to do as well.

Growing our exports: Todd McClay has just expressed the important work that he’s been doing offshore. We don’t build those relationships and we don’t build those trade deals by staying at home and hoping people come knocking on our door. We have to be proactive about getting out there in the international environment and selling our country’s products offshore. And to know now that we have got access to a $500 billion market in the United Arab Emirates by the new trade deal, which was passed yesterday in this House, is a huge step forward, and the Minister has expressed what that means in economic terms.

But one of the most exciting opportunities for my electorate of West Coast-Tasman are the plans to double mining exports in 10 years to $3 billion. I’m very happy and enthusiastic about promoting mining, so I was very pleased to hear that, just late last week, another mining consent was granted by the West Coast Regional Council and Westland District Council for Westland Mineral Sands Company to begin mining just south of Hokitika. They’re going to be mining things like ilmenite, garnet, gold, and other rare earth minerals. They’re just below Hokitika—so a great opportunity to create jobs really close to a major town.

The other way that our electorate in West Coast-Tasman is doing well—and what we do well—is water. Hydro generation has huge potential for us on the West Coast. There’s no doubt that New Zealand does not have energy security going forward. I thought it was very rich today to hear from the Leader of the Opposition about how hard it is for our older people, that they have to turn off their heaters because the price of electricity is so high. I’d just like to remind the other side: who wrecked our electricity industry? Who wrecked our energy sector? Does anybody remember Lake Onslow? Lake Onslow was going to be an $18 billion or $16 billion project. So the industry players stepped back and said, “We don’t need to do this any more; the Government’s going to do it for us.” So we have now got a real gap in our energy infrastructure. No wonder the electricity price is going up, and the same with oil and gas. Thank God for the coalminers who are producing coal on the West Coast, keeping our processing plants running, because one captain’s call wrecked the oil and gas industry. I think this Government has done a fabulous job of laying the foundation stones for the future, and I’m very proud of the effort that West Coast-Tasman has played.

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Otirā e te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. This Government is failing one in 10 people in Aotearoa living with endometriosis. That’s more than 120,000 people, a figure likely to be much higher due to chronic misdiagnosis and impenetrable access to specialist care. And do not fall for this Government’s rhetoric, which seeks to embed anti-trans and misogynistic ideologies into our healthcare system. Yes, some woman can give birth, but so too can trans and gender diverse people, and the same can be said about those suffering with endometriosis.

This is a reproductive health issue, a human right, that has been ignored for too long by this Government. The silence and inaction must end, so whakarongo mai. We have heard, just this week in the House from the Minister of Health, that equity and targeted care based on social determinants like gender, sexuality, and whakapapa do not matter to this Government. The Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill is just one example of that belief, manifested in legislation. We have seen this consistently during this term: smoke-free laws have been repealed which will disproportionately kill Māori; rainbow and takatāpui - specific mental health providers have been left high and dry; gender-affirming healthcare guidelines are being unnecessarily delayed; and people in desperate chronic pain needing specialist care for endometriosis are being rejected by the healthcare system.

Successive Governments have allowed entrenched medical misogyny to go unchecked in the healthcare system for too long. It is a disgrace that endometriosis, a condition which only affects women, trans men, and gender diverse people, takes, on average, eight to 10 years to be diagnosed in this country. Let’s not fail to mention the utter dearth of meaningful investment from this Government in research, infrastructure, training, and care that has been called on by people with endometriosis for decades—all this against the stark contrast of the Australian Government, which recently invested $500 million in targeted reproductive care.

We must do better. There are countless stories of too many people suffering from the immense pain of endometriosis, pain that goes beyond the physical, that infiltrates mental and spiritual health, that permeates and impacts relationships, that causes extreme stress on financial wellbeing and employment opportunities. I’ve heard from women who are told by their doctors that they just have painful periods; stories of trans men being turned away from care due to cis normative medical practices. Stories of gender diverse folk being ignored, erased, and humiliated by a system which fails to recognise their existence. If the option of treatment does eventuate, the rights of patients are often fundamentally undermined by a patriarchal system which prioritises hypothetical conception over a patient’s bodily autonomy.

It has been five years since the Hon Julie Anne Genter shepherded Aotearoa’s first best-practice guidelines for the treatment of endometriosis—a groundbreaking step at the time—but which has been totally disregarded since, with no attempts to review or invest in the next steps to continue the urgently needed progress in endometriosis healthcare. It is time to listen to the experts and community; they know what’s best.

Endometriosis New Zealand chief executive Tanya Cooke recently said that the Government needs to take up the call for a national endometriosis action plan that can provide a coordinated response to endometriosis in New Zealand. We must also address the legislative gap which fails to recognise endometriosis as an official disability. By doing this, people suffering from these severe health impacts and the insidious discrimination that it should not—but disturbingly does—entail, would be guaranteed rights and protections, which they are currently left without.

To continue a regime of under resourcing and apathy towards meaningful improvements to care for people with endometriosis is simply cruel and inhumane, but this Government has proven it does not care about equity in healthcare, it does not care about trans and gender diverse lives, and it does not care about the reproductive health rights of all people in Aotearoa—

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

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Koinei te wā tuatahi kua tū ahau ki roto i tēnei Whare nō muri mai i te hingatanga o tō tātou hoa aroha, a Takutai Tarsh Kemp, nā reira i tēnei wā ka huri ōku whakaaro ki tōna wairua, te wairua i ū, i noho pūmau ki te rangimārie. Ahakoa te kaupapa, ahakoa ngā hōhā me ngā piki me ngā heke o tēnei Whare, kāore ia i ngaro i te ngākau mahitahi. E tino mokemoke ana tātou ki a ia.

Moe mai rā, Takutai, i te korowai mahana o ō tupuna. Ka maumahara tonu mātou ki a koe. Ia wā ka whai mātou kia pūāwai ngā hapori, ia wā ka rapu mātou i te huarahi kia kotahi ai, ia wā ka tū mātou i tēnei Whare, ā, ka taupatupatu ai ngā whakaaro me ngā mahere kia pakari ai te wairua o ngā whānau katoa. Mā mātou koe e maumahara tonu.

[This is the first time that I have stood in this House following the passing of our beloved friend Takutai Tarsh Kemp, and so, at this time, my thoughts return to her spirit, a spirit that was resolute and remained steadfast to peace. Regardless of the subject, despite the frustration and the ups and downs of this House, she never lost her collaborative heart. We miss her a lot.

Sleep well, Takutai, within the warm mantle of your ancestors. We will remember you every time we pursue the flourishing of communities, every time we search for the path of unity, every time we stand in this House and debate ideas and plans so that the soul of all families may be robust. We will remember you.]

On that day at Takutai’s marae, I was welcomed by a handsome MP wearing a Te Pāti Māori hat. He was seated beside Rawiri Waititi. Peeni Henare was his name. I caught a glimpse again, that day, of what this House is possible of, and of what Takutai brought. I thought it was a classic kupu whakarite—a classic metaphor—of what it was that she sought to foster in every interaction that I had with her, and so I want to acknowledge her today.

I want to stay on that theme. I want to turn my attention back to a conversation that I had that same week. It was with my Youth MP, Madeleine ’One’one, who has been here today with her fellow Tongan youth leaders from Onehunga High School. They were here earlier; then, they were watching these speeches from the Labour caucus room—I have some work to do, clearly. Right now, they’ve had to catch their shuttle to the airport, so, hopefully, they’ll be watching this later on. I wanted to mihi to them and acknowledge the passion that they have for our community. Mālō e lelei ‘a e fānau ako mā‘oni‘oni mo e kau taki ‘i he kaha‘u….lototo‘a These young leaders carry loto to’a - humble hearts and a dream to tautua to serve their community, as Takutai did. They are stepping up in debate, public service, and leadership, ko e ‘ofa, ko e lotu pea mo e ngāue, love, faith, and action. They are all alive in them, and it gives me some hope. I want to acknowledge the amazing leadership opportunities and development that is offered for so many young people at Onehunga High School, as it is in every one of our schools in Maungakiekie.

A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to be interviewed by a couple of young year 4 students from Onehunga Primary School who were doing a leadership project. Franco and Max were absolutely delightful. They asked such thoughtful, fantastic questions. I was tempted, at the time, to bring them to Parliament to coach MPs—perhaps not in the patsy questions. One of their questions was: what do you most appreciate about being a leader? I explained how much I loved the opportunity to turn the dial for people in our community on a daily basis. Those moves may not shift the course of the whole country, but for that person or for that whānau, it means everything.

Their next question was a more challenging one. It said: what do you most struggle with about being a leader? What do you most struggle with? I think I winced at the time. I said to them: “There are so many things that I wish I could change, both here and overseas, that are simply outside of my authority.” It’s something I’ve been reflecting on a lot lately—the limits of influence, particularly with so much injustice in our world. I told Franco and Max that wise leadership includes accepting those limits even when you wish it were otherwise, focusing each day on what you can do, and that’s why I celebrate the kind of leadership that’s fostered at our schools in Maungakiekie, at our charities in Maungakiekie, and our businesses.

A big shout-out tomorrow for the Onehunga Business Awards—because I’m on duty here, sadly I’ll miss it, but what a night it will be, celebrating the work, the care, the sacrifices that our local businesses make to create jobs, deliver services, and invest in our community. Those businesses, those community organisations, those schools, those whānau: they are the backbone of our community. They are the ones that call us to seek justice, to work well together.

Kia tau te rangimārie ki a tātou, kia whāia atu te kōrero tahi, kia whāia atu te whakapūāwai o tō tātou hapori.

[Let peace settle upon us, let us pursue discourse, let us pursue the flourishing of our community.]

Mālō ‘aupito, kia ora.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Since this Government has come into power, we have seen attack after attack after attack on workers, not just with the loss of jobs that we’re seeing just getting bigger and bigger all the time but with an attack on workers’ conditions, an attack on workers’ wages, and an attack on the rights of workers. I know that 6 May brought one of the darkest days and the biggest attacks on workers in this country, particularly those women who have been fighting for so long to ensure that they have a fair chance at their pay equity claims. That is the day this Government announced they were going to gut the pay equity schemes within this country. That was the day they absolutely gutted that not only by changing pay equity in the country but by absolutely cancelling out the 33 active claims that were in place.

Today, we saw hundreds of people once again gather together on the grounds of Parliament, out the front, on the lawn, to see the handover of the petition “Protect Pay Equity - stop scrapping equal pay claims and law”, which 93,924 people have signed since 6 May. What an incredible number of people to sign a petition in such a short time. Those people are sending a clear message that New Zealanders will not accept the Government’s gutting of pay equity, and they are fighting back. They are very angry, and they told their anger out there today. In fact, we heard from young people as well saying how demoralising it was when this National-led Government didn’t consult anyone around their changes. They made the changes under urgency and wiped 33 claims—active claims—off the books, forcing a law change that takes money out of women’s pockets. And what did we hear from that Government? What did we hear from key Ministers, like the Minister for Women? Crickets. Absolutely nothing. They were not prepared to stand up and fight for what was right for women and workers in this country.

This was just another blow for women, who are already suffering under the cost of living under this Government. We know the difference that those pay equity claims make. We have heard about that difference, time and time again, and I want people in this House to think about people they know—and I’m sure that every single person has somebody they know—and how those claims have made a difference in their lives and the lives of their whānau. We heard today, out there, about the care and support workers—the people who had the first successful claim, with Kristine Bartlett back in 2017—who fought for that successful claim through the courts. We heard about the difference that that made, and we heard about the difference that it makes to their whānau.

I have a personal interest in that. I have a disabled sister, and I have met the people who have given her support over the years. These are the people who support our most vulnerable, in their darkest days sometimes. Those people help my sister, who I love dearly, to lead a life of mana and a life of dignity. Why is it that we, in a great country such as Aotearoa New Zealand, fight against them having the pay equity that they deserve? Why is that Government prepared to pay them, and keep them being paid, less than their male counterparts that do work of equal value? That is what it comes down to.

Today’s petition shows that people in this country know women are not worth less. They are not worth less than men, and the people who signed that petition today gave a very clear message to this Government. I want to acknowledge that message and say it here again today. This is only the beginning. We will not rest until every working woman in Aotearoa New Zealand—

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

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This Government, we have seen scrambling in the past week, because the reality is that the decisions that they have made have led to a much longer and deeper recession, and huge cuts in the construction sector because of the large number of cancelled projects. While they’re out there promising that they’re putting money into infrastructure and that’s going to create jobs, the reality is that, overall, they have cut more than they are going to invest in. Most of the projects they announced last Sunday have been funded for years—literally since the previous Labour Government.

Let’s look at the numbers. Here’s the reality: an Infrastructure New Zealand survey found that 65 percent of firms have reduced staff over the past 12 months. I’ve got a graph here that everyone can look at. Make sure you can see this. This is a year-on-year comparison of insolvencies in key industries from 2024 to 2025. The orange is 2025. You can see the orange is going up in most sectors. That means there’s more insolvencies in 2025 than there were in 2024. This is, in large part, due to the Government’s response since they came into power. But the really large orange line here is the construction sector. This is January to March. In June of 2025, construction firms made up one-third of all company liquidations. As we can see, that has been increasing over time.

The Government came in, and they say, “Oh, we want cross-party support. We want cross-party consensus on infrastructure.”, and yet what they’re asking for is for the Opposition to support their 30-year strategy on infrastructure when, in fact, they cancelled a bunch of long-term projects that should have had cross-party support. What’s the perfect example? Right after they came in, they put a whole bunch of projects on hold from the Ministry of Education—hundreds of school projects. In the end, over 100 were confirmed cancelled. Kāinga Ora: 212 projects. Recently, 212 projects were confirmed cancelled. That amounts to 3,479 homes at a time when we have a housing crisis and the private sector is not in a position to be investing. While it’s the perfect time for the Government itself to be investing in housing, they cancelled housing. I know a builder in my own electorate who said he had $70 million worth of work over the next five years lined up, pulled out from under the rug or, in some cases, delayed by a year and a half even when those projects are carrying on.

Everybody knows about the ferries being cancelled, and supposedly this is fiscal responsibility. It’s absolute rubbish. Those ferries are a lifeline. They are fundamentally critical infrastructure between the North and South Islands, which now we have a whole lot of uncertainty for the next few years while we don’t even have a contract for new ferries. But it is also the case that construction firms, engineers, and others were all put out of work when the upgrades to the wharfs were unceremoniously cancelled. Could it have been reviewed? Could perhaps there have been some savings found? I would say yes. That would have been a much better deal than cancelling the ferries.

The Government cancelled the transport choices programme. Now, this removed safety infrastructure from the vicinity of 101 schools around the country. It hurt jobs, and it hurt safety around schools. Honestly, if there was going to be cross-party consensus about anything in this House, I would think that safety around schools would be one of those things, and yet the Government cancelled projects that would have improved safety around 101 schools, and then, of course, they forced local councils to put the speed limit up around schools.

I could go on. Obviously, the Dunedin Hospital rebuild was scaled back. Three waters: we couldn’t get all the figures on the three waters projects, but that three waters change had a huge impact on a lot of civil construction that had been lined up for the past year and a half. Now, coincidentally, we have parts of the country who are being told they have to be on a boil notice, potentially for years, while they wait for the infrastructure.

Now, the reality is that there are solutions, and the Green Party is talking about the solutions. We’ve put out a fully costed Green Budget that shows how, if we had a fairer tax system, we could actually address our infrastructure challenges, address climate change, ensure that everyone in New Zealand has a warm, dry home, and invest in smart infrastructure like rail. There is an alternative. New Zealanders are smart enough to see through the PR spin and stunts of this Government, who largely represents, and is funded by, oligarchs, the richest of the rich just looking to get richer. The idea that they care about New Zealanders and the long-term future of this country is a joke. New Zealanders, it is showing in the most recent poll.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for:

further consideration in committee of the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill;

the second reading of:

the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill;

the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill;

the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill; and

the States Amendment Bill;

the committee stage of:

the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill; and

the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill; and

the second reading of:

the Policing (Police Vetting) Amendment Bill; and

the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Voting

Correction—Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to record 15 votes for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in opposition to the first reading of the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none—so noted.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill.

Bills

Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments relating to investigatory tools (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. When we last considered this bill, we were debating Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 53, “Amendments relating to investigatory tools”, and Schedules 1 and 2. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was wondering whether the Minister would jump to her feet, given that a number of questions and clarifications were sought prior to this debate being interrupted.

As I prefaced in my earlier remarks, we really just want to work through the legislation and raise some issues and some clarifications—really, for the record, and to make clear where the line is drawn in terms of this important piece of legislation.

I guess the next point I had was—and I was referring to the amended section numbers in Part 1, new section 79I, which talks about preservation directions and the duration of those directions. It says that they stand for 20 days—and that’s just 20 ordinary days, not working days; a relatively short period—but then it’s got, in subsection (2), that where an application for a production order is made, it continues until that is determined.

Now, I guess my point there: firstly, is 20 days long enough? This might seem a bit strange—is 20 days long enough? And then, until the application is determined, there’s actually an indeterminate length of time. My question is: is it appropriate for it to simply exist for an indeterminate length of time, particularly when a production order can in fact go on for quite a long period of time if it’s challenged? So that’s my first point—I’ll see how many I can squeeze in; I’ll keep an eye on the Minister just in case she wants to leap up because something’s just occurred to her.

The other one is reviews. There is a preservation order that’s made, and the entity against which that order has been made has a right of review. I guess this is a rule-of-law point. The review is by exactly the same entity. It’s against the commissioner who made the decision and also reviews the decision, which does seem very odd. You would usually expect to go one up, which means that this is an entirely administrative discretion, and I would have thought that you’d want some independent oversight. Now, I guess if you don’t like the review, you can go to the High Court by way of judicial review, but that seems very heavy-handed and quite a wasteful approach, when a much more obvious approach would simply be to have a kind of quick-fire right of appeal to the District Court.

I also note that although the review is notionally by the commissioner, the provision, in fact, makes it very clear that it’ll be a delegate—so it won’t even be the commissioner him- or herself who decides that review; it’ll be some delegate, which really buries it into the organisation and makes it highly administrative in nature.

I see I’ve got a minute left and the Minister is not yet ready to respond to these insightful points, and I guess my next question, then, is about new section 79N, which is about pathway information. In particular, when it says that you’re required to produce pathway information, it’s got to be produced in usable form, and the person who’s asked for it has to assist any person nominated by the chief executive. Now, I haven’t had a lot to do with these kinds of investigations, but I do know that it can take considerable resources to do this kind of electronic forensic work, and it doesn’t come cheap. So if you’ve got a provider, and not all these providers are large, some of them are quite small—and that’s a good thing—who bears the burden of this? Because this is an enforcement obligation, and the entity who happens to be communicating this data is being asked to present it in usable form and to render assistance. So it’s a compulsion to, essentially, provide a service and to assist in presenting and developing that evidence. I see my time has expired. I’ll save my further questions.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am not sure, just before the break, there were already some questions posed, and I assume they’re still in the mix somewhere with the Minister or the Minister’s team. But I’d like to go to clause 10, if I may, new section 64A, “Record of information obtained, made, or generated by assistant”. This clause required anyone assisting in a surveillance operation to either destroy or hand over any information they record during that process. Speaking to new section 64A(2)(a), where the destructions of records are allowed, would the Minister consider whether an exemption or notification process where the data concerned Māori, including iwi, to ensure opportunity for data sovereignty? That’s one.

And if I can just quickly go to the second: will there be provisions, or can the Minister assure that there’ll be provisions, that ensure culturally significant information or data is not destroyed without consultation or oversight? These questions are on the back of that there’s very little recognition or, in our eyes, rigour as to how Māori data will be treated in any case. So the first challenge, I guess: should you or would you collect and for what good reason? And then, once you’ve got it, should you or could you destroy it and for what good reason? So there are my first questions in the first piece earlier this morning—posed the first set—and this is the second for now. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Like colleagues, I’m just recalling that there are some questions that potentially haven’t yet been answered by the Minister. I think the significant one for me is the one that was raised by the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the commissioner being not necessarily or not the appropriate individual to grant a preservation direction and that that should be covered by judicial oversight. Just a question about whether that submission by the Privacy Commissioner was considered.

Going to what is section 79C, inserted by clause 18, that sets out the form and content of applications that the commissioner would look at. It sets out a number of requirements, including that it has to be in writing—and I’ll speak further to that in a moment—but also the content of the application itself and a certification from the individual making the application that everything is true and correct. My question is in relation to the addition of new documents or new information within that one preservation direction and whether that is contemplated as a possibility. I haven’t noted anything specific in the primary legislation regarding that.

My concern is the following section—so that’s new section 79D—which allows the commissioner to accept applications made orally. There are a number of requirements for that to happen, but it would just seem to me that the evidence in that case would not be as reliable as if the individual had to go through the rigour of complying with all of new section 79C(2)(a) to (g), which are a number of criteria. So I think the question really is: what is the rigour around allowing that oral application? Is that a doorway for what would have been additions to the initial application being heard orally as separate applications; or is it considered that if there was truly a second application, that that would also need to be done in writing as well?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Madam Chair, thank you. I just want to respond to the questions raised by Vanushi Walters, on behalf of the Minister responsible. I believe the questions were around the Privacy Commissioner and the Police Commissioner and the variances between issuing orders rather than the judiciary. I’m advised that they did consider the commissioner’s suggestion but ultimately decided it would undermine the effectiveness of the bill. As is patently obvious, the bill grants the power to issue those preservation directions to the Commissioner of Police because it is likely to be the faster option, as opposed to the independent judicial authorisation. The point of that preservation direction, I’m advised, is for the rapid protection of evidence, and any delay, obviously, in issuing a preservation direction will subsequently have an impact. Also, I’m advised that the Law Commission’s 2017 review of the Search and Surveillance Act recommended that the power to grant a preservation direction does sit with the Commissioner of Police.

In response to some of the questions raised by the good Dr Duncan Webb around preservation directions not being conducted independently, I’ve touched on this a little bit, but anyone subject to a preservation direction is entitled to seek a review of the decision by a delegate of the Commissioner of Police, and that delegate cannot be the person who issued the original direction. A review by a delegate of the Commissioner of Police will be significantly faster than the alternatives, like the right of appeal in a District Court.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just expanding on—certainly not repeating—Vanushi Walters’ point about oral applications, which are quite unusual. I note in the provision she referred to, there’s a requirement on, I think, the commissioner to record the grounds and so on. But my question is: why wasn’t consideration given to a kind of after-the-event written application? That would be quite normal, because there are urgent situations where you’d want to run down, get your preservation order, serve it, but then go back and put on the record, in a sworn or affirmed way, the evidence upon which that was decided, because if, of course, it’s going to be challenged, you need to see it there very clearly. That would, in fact, be a lot more reliable and more authenticated than simply recording what was said in what’s, essentially, a meeting.

However, my next point is about the retention of documents. Obviously, it’s important that the documents are retained, but the obligation on the Police to retain documents—in new section 79W, inserted by clause 17, on page 25 and over to 26—is actually quite short: it’s the date of completion of any proceedings, or the date that is two years after the date on which the application was first retained, which, in terms of retention of legal records where there might be some suggestion of misbehaviour or poor conduct, seems to be quite short. So I’m very curious—and they’re electronic records, right? So my question there is: why so short?

Then, my next question relates to new section 79Y, inserted by clause 17, which is on annual reporting. Look, very good—I’m really supportive of there being annual reporting. But my question is: why is it not the case that the number of orders made—it doesn’t appear to be reported. I might have that wrong, and your officials might be able to point me to the clause there. I think the thing you want to know most, because this is an invasive order for preservation of documents, is why is there no requirement to say, “We have issued a thousand of these”—which I hope we won’t; that would seem a little extraordinary—or simply a hundred? That would certainly, in terms of public scrutiny, give some assurance.

Then, I want to ask a question about new section 88B, inserted by clause 19. We’re moving now into foreign enforcement authorities, so this is foreign countries saying, “I want to know some stuff.”, and we need an order—a preservation direction—to find it out. And 88B sets the threshold, and it says that “an investigation has commenced in relation to a serious offence”. Now, that seems to me to be a very loose term, and it may be that that has a meaning and is defined clearly somewhere in the legislation, but it doesn’t appear to be. Elsewhere in the bill, it talks about offences of imprisonment of two years or offences of imprisonment of seven years. You can argue where the line should be drawn, but it’s clear—or some of them actually name the offences. But simply to say “an investigation has commenced”—which is, of course, a low bar, right?—“in relation to a serious offence”. So what does that mean? That’s my question there. And that’s quite an important one.

But, arguably, not as important—if I’ve got time, and I might ask the indulgence for another 30 seconds if I need it—as where it says that the commissioner may refuse to grant an application on a number of grounds, including where the offence is of a political character, and other things. But it doesn’t do things like, I think, what my friend called “dual criminality”, where the offence is not in fact an offence in New Zealand. It might be an offence we’d find repugnant—homosexual crimes, for example. If someone’s investigating homosexual crimes in a foreign country, and we think that’s a terrible kind of idea, do we have the ability to say no, essentially on public interest grounds—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time—

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: May I have another 30 seconds, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. I’ll sit down when I make this final point. The other one is the death penalty. If someone’s investigating a serious offence and the punishment is death, is it the case that the commissioner can refuse to cooperate on that basis? So I did say I’d sit down in 30 seconds, and that was only 15.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I did want to just respond to a couple of those questions around new section 88A, inserted by clause 19, and the “serious offence” and whether or not it is subject to a threshold test and/or, indeed, the comments raised around dual criminality and whether or not serious offence is tested against what we deem as an offence here in New Zealand. Well, to confirm to the member: the purpose of the preservation direction is the rapid preservation of evidence. The more matters that have to be considered, obviously, the slower the process will be. Dual criminality—to respond directly to that question—will be considered before any actual evidence leaves New Zealand, alongside those broader human rights considerations. Indeed, I can confirm that the Attorney-General has vetted this bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and hasn’t identified any inconsistencies. But further to that, under New Zealand’s existing mutual assistance legislation, a request for assistance can be refused due to a lack of dual criminality, but it does not have to be. That is the existing law, and this bill does not change that.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re a long way from that I think, Mr Rutherford.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I just wanted to check before I take my call fully—I’ve had a quick look for the regulatory impact statement; if they’re able to direct us to whether that’s available, that would be helpful.

The point I would like to make in relation to this bill is the fact that it also amends quite important legislation, which is the Search and Surveillance Act, and also the new decision-making powers in relation to new offences in the Search and Surveillance Act. What these new powers, effectively, do is they create a limitation on the right of freedom of expression, and the bill grants the chief executive of the relevant law enforcement agency the power to make decisions about whether or not to lift that obligation. It does note that there are only limited circumstances in which the chief executive can decline to lift that obligation. I’m interested to know from the Minister what consultation was done in relation to that, because they are quite significant powers. I do note that we’ve got a section 7 report there, and that’s great, but the bill also does create new decision-making powers within the Search and Surveillance Act by giving the Commissioner of Police the ability to issue preservation directions. So if I understand that correctly, it means if a review of the decision to use a direction is sought, the bill also gives responsibility for conducting this review to the commissioner. So that sits with him as well.

So as a safeguard, the bill contains a delegation requirement to ensure that the decision is not able to be reviewed by the same person who made it. My question is—after my first one; my second question—given the nature of the preservation directions, whether or not these powers are likely to involve decisions that have a significant impact on rights and whether the Minister is satisfied that that checks and balances are satisfactory, particularly if you’re in situations where you’ve got the Commissioner of Police making that direction, and who’s going to be reviewing that. As the bill amends decision-making powers in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act so that only a High Court judge can issue warrants under that Act—and so, effectively, this creates new decision-making powers to issue those production orders and surveillance warrants. These powers all have the potential to engage the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

However, the point is that that decision-making power to the High Court creates a significant safeguard for the exercise of power, and it means that the ability to authorise search powers under the mutual assistance legislation is more constrained than similar search powers under the Search and Surveillance Act. So it will be interesting just to hear from the Minister whether she’s satisfied with that process in terms of the significance of the power and how those checks will be operating.

Finally, I would just like to touch on the provision creating a new decision-making power in the mutual assistance legislation by enabling the High Court to enable a judge to lift that obligation to notify affected parties before evidential material can be collected or sent offshore. So it’s, essentially, like a heads-up, and I’m assuming that that’s in place because it will be an investigation with police, and it’s a sensitive area, so there’s an ability for that to be lifted and to give that heads-up.

As the obligation has been included within the bill in response to a Supreme Court finding that notification is necessary to protect rights, dispensing of that requirement will naturally also have an impact on rights, in addition to limiting the decision of the High Court.

So, in those areas, I’m really interested to hear back from the Minister in terms of her satisfaction with where those checks and balances are, given there’s some pretty significant new powers that are being enabled through this legislation.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): I’m wanting to talk to Part 3, Subpart 2, and looking at, specifically, new section 88B, the “Applications for preservation directions”. I just want to point out that this is different to the new section 79B around preservation directions that previous members have spoken to; even though it says, “preservation directions”, it is a different part of the legislation that we want to scrutinise here.

I’m wanting to look at that new section 88B and understand why it uses mandatory language, requiring a constable to apply for a preservation direction upon receiving a request, and what that actually means—that mandatory use of the preservation direction—whether any discretions are in place, and what exists in practice there. We’re wanting to make sure that this legislation is in line with our own laws and the way we do things here in New Zealand. So it’s really important that we understand what this sort of mandatory language actually means.

Speaking to, again, that new section 88B in Subpart 2—and this is on page 30—can the Minister please explain what oversight mechanisms exist to ensure that applications for preservation directions under that new section 88B are proportionate and consistent with privacy and human rights standards? Now, I know that the Minister has acknowledged that the Auditor-General has said that this bill is in keeping with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is wonderful—we all want to make sure that human rights are upheld. What I really want to understand is: what is in place to ensure that that proportionate and consistent application of this legislation is in line with privacy and human rights standards? We know that surveillance is a big topic, and New Zealanders really want to know how this will affect their lives and the lives of their friends and neighbours. We know that there are countries that are over-surveilled, and we don’t want to join in that wave.

Still speaking to that Subpart 2, new section 88B: can the Minister explain the intention behind new section 88B(2)(b), and whether any independent verification is required before relying on information supplied by a foreign enforcement agency? Of course, verifying evidence is a really important part of upholding truth and justice; it’s something that, here in New Zealand, we take really seriously. When a piece of information comes in, when evidence comes in, when there is an accusation, we make sure that that evidence is verified. So if the Minister could just engage with this question about whether there is any independent verification, that would be wonderful.

Before the break—before lunch, when we started committee of the whole House—I did ask the Minister questions around Part 3, Subpart 1, and the interpretation of new section 88A, which is on page 28, which haven’t been answered yet. It would be wonderful if we could get some clarity around the term “serious offence” and whether there is a threshold test for the proportionality around that. Thank you so much.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I’m going to wrap those two questions from both members from the Labour Party and the Green Party together, if I may, but just to respond to the last question first by Kahurangi Carter. She hadn’t quite made it to the House, but I did cover, in my previous response, about whether serious offences are tested against what we deem an offence in New Zealand, so I feel like I have covered that.

The questions around how the bill protects human rights—first up, the expectation of this Government is that all bilateral agreements are assessed against New Zealand’s human rights law before we enter into them, and that our Parliament itself plays an integral role in that process, particularly in its undertaking of parliamentary treaty examinations before New Zealand enters into any of these international arrangements, as it did with the 2021 Budapest Convention.

To respond to some of the questions raised by the Hon Ginny Andersen, to confirm, existing protections in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA) and the Search and Surveillance Act are extended to new powers in this particular bill, and that includes provisions in the MACMA to refuse assistance to a foreign country if their request appears to be aimed at persecuting—I was going to say prosecuting, but persecuting—someone due to the likes of race, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, relation, nationality, political opinions, etc, and then also to confirm that surveillance device warrants and production orders will only be issued under MACMA if the existing requirements for these warrants under the current Search and Surveillance Act are met.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou. Just re-reading one of the obvious expectations of the Budapest Convention, which is the harmonisation of laws, it’s ironic, given that there’s about as much harmony in Aotearoa New Zealand across laws, which I would compare it to Heaven and Hell. So we’ve got a long way to go.

Let me, if I can, take you to clause 12. In fact, if I may, just before that, the questions that I posed earlier today around surveillance and traffic data, I’m keen to get some kind of a response from the Minister in the chair, please, if I can.

I’m going to take you to clause 12, “Section 71 amended”. This clause sets out the information that enforcement officers must provide when requesting access to documents from someone, including for ongoing access. It always makes Māori really nervous, just saying—but you can only know that if you read about that, if you understand that, and only then can you appreciate it, but clearly that’s not the case.

Can the Minister confirm why after clause 12(2), there is no consideration of Te Tiriti obligations or the potential impact on Māori data sovereignty before applying for an order? Again, I mean, I emphasised it this morning, and probably in every conversation—it must be repeated in the House, for the House to understand what the founding documentation means in every possible way.

Then, let me take you to clause 13, “Section 75 amended (Form and content of production order)”. This clause updates what a production order must say, especially when it’s asking for documents to be handed over more than once over a period of time. There are so many comments that I want to make to that, but I’m just going to move on—just to say the constant, you know; I mean, we all know how hard it is to be asked about the same story a thousand times, but anyway. In new section 75(1)(a)(ii), it says that documents may be collected on an ongoing basis. In this case, what safeguards exist to prevent excessive or indefinite monitoring of Māori, especially where data may not relate to serious offending?

Additionally, Minister, in regard to ongoing production orders, should there be a review by an independent body or a Māori oversight entity when they relate to Māori data? I opened up, earlier this morning, by saying that it’s easy to go from a no to a yes. We’re still in the “no” lane. I’m really looking forward to hearing some affirming, really, if not informative responses to the questions. Thank you, Mr Chair.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am looking at page 22, where we have new section 79Q inserted by clause 18, “Disclosing matters relating to preservation direction”. Of course, the Minister will know that this is the section that sets out the grounds for committing an offence as a person knowingly discloses to any other person that the direction has been made. It sets out some fairly serious penalties in subsection (3): so “(a) … imprisonment not exceeding 6 months; (b) if they are a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.”

My first comment is a positive one, because there are a number of exceptions listed in subsection (4) which I think are really useful in terms of clarifying that for those people they can still seek legal advice and, under a number of other circumstances—for example, if they’re complying with the enforcement or with an enforcement order, they can then go ahead and disclose. I think there’s, of course, a practical consideration of whether one would feel that one could seek legal advice in those circumstances and whether they would actively do that or whether they would feel a certain amount of pressure, but, none the less, it’s good that that section of exceptions is in there.

My first question is really around the definitions of who is affected by a preservation order, which is in subsection (5) of that new section 79Q. It defines the affected person as either “(a) the person against whom the direction was made; or (b) an officer, employee, or agent of the person against whom the direction was made.” My sense is that there could be other individuals whose privacy rights are potentially impacted by a preservation direction. I wonder whether there was consideration of broadening out that provision to recognise that there may be other associates who are not necessarily agents of—there could even be family members who would fall within that affected person’s provision. To what extent does the Minister believe that the Privacy Act would protect those people’s rights, given that they’re not included within this definition section?

Then, turning the page to page 26, new section 79R inserted by clause 18, which is where written notice needs to be provided by the chief executive of the law enforcement agency and they must give, essentially, written notice, but it also sets out a number of exceptions to that, which are all framed very broadly. So I’m looking at subsection (2)(a) to (e). I wonder, in terms of limiting the powers, whether it would have made sense to just put some limitations on those powers. Right now, they’re framed as broadly as “(d) would prejudice any international relationships of the law enforcement agency”. Reading that one on its own, in the context of the Minister’s comments about New Zealand retaining its autonomy before it sends information out of the country, I would just be curious as to which takes precedence? Is it the international relationship or is it the rule of law as we know it within the country?

Then I would look also at—let me just find it—new Part 3A, new section 88A(1), inserted by clause 19. So the definition of “foreign enforcement authority” is defined extremely broadly. I don’t think it really does give us direction as to who the other entity overseas would be who is making these requests. It sort of just says that that would be akin to New Zealand Police set out in section 9 of the Policing Act, but could potentially be more broad than that. So I’m just asking if that is correct.

Lastly, Subpart 2 inserted by clause 19, new section 88B, says that “(1) A constable must apply to the Commissioner for a preservation direction against a person if a foreign enforcement authority requests the New Zealand Police for a preservation direction against the person”. So while there might be discretion in terms of the sending of that information overseas in line with our beliefs of the rule of law, the legislation is actually very directive about the constable having to apply to the commissioner for a preservation direction. The preservation direction is, potentially, prima facie rights breaching as well. So I’m wondering whether there was consideration of giving some more flexibility and perhaps using the word “may” there.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I just want to acknowledge and respond to questions raised by the member for Te Pāti Māori. In between the political points attempted to be scored, I think the questions were really around data sovereignty and the safeguarding of Māori data. It’s really important to acknowledge that in bringing this bill to the House, this is the Government of New Zealand taking responsibility and taking measures that help protect all New Zealanders from harm caused by cyber-related crimes, and that includes attacks on data.

Speaking specifically to Māori data, I don’t think cyber-attacks acknowledge creed or race or ethnicity. Cyber-attacks risk harm to Māori data sovereignty. If a cyber-attack on Māori data was carried out, this bill would in fact provide the tools necessary to detect and investigate and, of course, prosecute that crime, ultimately. It’s a real shame that that particular party can’t bring itself to be supportive of the impetus behind this, because data sovereignty concerns all New Zealanders, and so, as the Government for all New Zealanders, we are concerned that these questions raised must be balanced against the need to protect all New Zealanders from harm.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a short question for the Minister at this stage. Now, I want to pick up from the previous speaker Vanushi Walters’ question. Specifically, when we’re looking at new section 79Q, which I believe is clause 18, new Subpart 2A of Part 3 inserted. And we’re looking at the exceptions. Specifically, when we’re looking at a person who is affected by a preservation direction and is able to make disclosure concerns, and they’re able to raise those kinds of concerns—it does list some of the criteria, but I want to check with the Minister in terms of the kind of consultation in this that was had with the ethnic communities, and particularly when we’re looking at it from the context of those who may not be able to speak English.

When something like this happens because of the fact that we do allow these sort of—particularly when we’re looking at foreign authorities and being directed by foreign authorities on certain elements, I did want to check that when something like this is happening, the person who is affected by a preservation order will be, at least at the minimum from the authority’s or appropriate enforcement officer’s perspective, eligible for translation services.

Just because of the fact that, you know, there’s one thing around translation, but there’s also another element. Sometimes, when we do look at direction from foreign authorities that we have that agreement with, that those who are affected here may not be able to express themselves or feel that they are able to challenge authority, because it’s not the standard norm from their country of origin.

So I want to check with the Minister that when we’re looking at this particular exception of new section 79Q(4) and that those two considerations have been made: number one, translation, and number two, the cultural and political needs of the people who are affected by a preservation order.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I had a couple of questions in relation to the preservation orders. In the actual convention itself, it says that New Zealand is required to implement these new search and surveillance tools, providing for the preservation of specific electronic evidence of criminal offending—and that’s exactly what this bill does—but the questions that I have are about how long data can be held for, and how long does this legislation require telecommunications providers to hold on to that data? We know that evidence is not deleted or modified before law enforcement agencies are able to obtain a production order from the court to have that information produced. But potentially, there could be quite a long period of time that would go on—it’s hard to estimate what that period of time would be—and given the rapid exchange of data that occurs in the current day and age, there could be situations where there is heaps of data that would be acquired under the production order.

So I think there’ll be some pretty valid questions from telecommunications providers or others impacted, where they would want to know how long they are required to be holding on to this data, and what are the implications if they’ve deleted it. So, say they did have a bunch, but it’s gone now—and, yes, there’s a request made for that data—what are the implications in situations such as that? An unlimited amount of traffic data is disclosed to law enforcement agencies so that other relevant service providers can be identified and served with preservation orders, if necessary. So it is also how do we define how wide that is going, and how does that work?

Of course, there are going to be quite clear implications in relation to the Privacy Act, which does require companies to delete personal information that is no longer required for lawful purposes. So I’m just interested to know: if companies aren’t able to hold personal information that is no longer required, but then subsequently a preservation order comes around, how do those two coincide in terms of the practicalities of how that might work? The regular deletion of data is a common business practice, particularly when a person closes an account, for example, and we know that offenders commonly close their accounts when they’re seeking to conceal or even to destroy evidence of their offending.

We know that the Privacy Act has an exception that allows companies to voluntarily refrain from deleting personal information if it’s to avoid the prejudicing of a criminal investigation. But it’s going to be really difficult for them to ascertain, when there’s large amounts of data, as to what to keep and what not to keep. So it would be interesting to know, with the passing of this legislation coming into law, whether there is any public engagement that the Government intends to undertake to talk to stakeholders who will be directly impacted by this—or will there be some guidelines for those businesses impacted on how to store their data and what to do with it, and is there any potential cost to these businesses for additional storage, to have to meet these obligations?

I do note—just saying that the Privacy Act exception allows companies to voluntarily refrain from deleting personal information to avoid that prejudice of a criminal investigation. This is not enforceable, and voluntary preservation is not adequate to meet the requirements of this convention. So I’m interested to know from the Minister how the practicalities of those preservation orders would operate—if they’re requiring entities to hold the specific information, relevant to a specific criminal investigation, to temporarily preserve that information on their systems, when an application for a production order or a request for mutual legal assistance is about to be made or has been made.

Like other search and surveillance powers, a preservation order would, I understand, override normal Privacy Act obligations. So I’m interested to know, from the Minister, if that is the case, whether a preservation order would override those Privacy Act obligations, and whether there is any guidance or communication that the Government will be entering into with all of those entities that will be impacted by the implementation of this legislation.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. I remember this bill, so I will address a couple—I’ll get some advice from officials on the specific questions around preservation orders and how long data needs to be kept for and the implications for deletion, but in terms of the interaction with the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act’s quite clear. As the member mentioned in her speech, the requirement is to keep personal information only for as long as is reasonably necessary for the purposes of that useful collation. Of course, if that information is then deleted or returned back to the individual from whom it was collected and then there is a preservation order put in place, if the information no longer exists, then the information no longer exists and there’s nothing to preserve. I’ll get some further advice on those first two points.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just going to keep going through the provisions of the Act, and I’m interested in the cross-border stuff now. I’m looking at new section 88G, and it talks about the duration of preservation directions when it’s a foreign enforcement authority that’s requested it. Now, you will recall that the preservation order sits for 20 days domestically with no particular right of extension. But when it’s a foreign enforcement authority requesting it, it lasts for up to 150 days, which seems a very long time to have a preservation order. If you turn the page to page 34, new section 88I, you can apply for a renewal four times. So that’s roughly two years that the preservation order can sit. Now, the only reason a preservation order might properly sit is to get a production order, and it seems to me that that’s an extraordinarily long time. That actually requires some justification, because, as we’ve just heard, there’re genuine issues about the holding of personal information, and it is, essentially, a precursor to a search. So that’s the first thing: why is it up to 300 days for the preservation order to be in place?

The other thing is kind of a “please explain” and it’s about new section 88H. It’s this really peculiar section where a constable, a “responsible constable”, it’s called—you’d hope most constables are responsible—but forms a belief that serving a preservation order would prejudice an investigation or would be unlikely to result in preservation. I guess you’re thinking—and I’m really inviting the Minister to give us the case—about if you think serving the preservation order would be a tip-off to someone somehow, then they’re going to delete the information, and then you’ve got to go back. It appears you’ve then got to go back to the foreign authority and say, essentially, “Are you sure?” It’s just a very odd section. I may have that right, but it seems very odd that you’ve been requested to issue a preservation order and, essentially, the constable thinks it’s a bad idea and then has to go back and say, “Are you sure you want to do this?” Then, if they come back and say, “Yes, we’re sure.”, it appears you must do that.

I’ll try to squeeze three in at a go. The third one is around—yes, still on Part 1 and clause 36, but I think we’re at that for now, which talks about the different offence triggers. I talked earlier—and I don’t think the Minister’s responded on what’s meant by “serious offence”, earlier in the legislation. But then, we get to requests for “obtaining a thing”, which is a pretty serious thing—so it might be a computer hard drive, could be anything—and it relates to a criminal matter in a foreign country that is punishable by imprisonment of two years or more. So you’ve got a serious offence, on the one hand; elsewhere in the bill, you’ve got a seven-year trigger; you’ve also got triggers of particular offences; and now you’ve got a two-year trigger. Can we, perhaps, have an explanation of why there are these kinds of very different measures across what are fundamentally the same kind of things—which are preservation orders, production orders, and assistance in obtaining a thing—but they’re all, fundamentally, search and seizure orders. So why have we got this different range for different orders across those different things?

I think I’ll probably leave it there and let some colleagues have a go, and I’ll come back with some more.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just finish off the questions raised by Ginny Andersen. In terms of preservation orders, how long does the data need to be kept for? Well, for the preservation order, for as long as the order itself lasts—or the application lasts for, once it’s successful; and then following a preservation order no longer being effective, then the other legal requirements around Privacy Act requirements, other corporate responsibilities around maintenance of data, apply. What are the implications for deletion? It is an offence to delete while a preservation order is in place.

Then, Dr Webb’s questions: the first one he raised was around why the duration of foreign preservation directions are longer than the domestic preservation directions. The officials provide that “The reality is that mutual assistance requests can take months or years. It’s an internationally recognised problem, and so, as such, the bill contains a longer period for foreign preservation directions to ensure the directions can be effective and do not expire before decisions are reached.”

Then on those last couple of questions around why the variety in the different measures for the offences: the official is going to provide some information shortly.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to first just remind the Minister that my questions around new section 79Q(4), inserted by clause 18, are still outstanding. There was a change in the Minister in the chair, so it’s fine if we’re still waiting to hear from that—that was: for a person who’s affected by a preservation order, has the Minister considered whether translation services would be offered, or taken into account the cultural and political context of the person who is affected by a preservation direction and where their country of origin potentially could be, especially if a foreign authority is involved in this?

I want to start by talking about new section 88A, inserted by clause 19. I really want to highlight two of my colleague Kahurangi Carter’s Amendment Papers. I would ask that the Minister would consider the two amendments, which are around two new sections being included.

The first one is the part that we’re looking at in terms of preservation direction and also investigation relating to foreign investigation or proceedings. It’s not applicable to a person who has been recognised as a refugee or is seeking protection on a political ground or has made a claim for such recognition, but it has not yet been finally determined. Now, the reason for this is that what we have seen in the legislation and through the select committee process is that there isn’t a sufficient safeguard from our end for these people who potentially would be prosecuted in their own country for something that we would consider as our inherent right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. How would they be protected under this legislation? We have seen news being reported where people have been able to express their freedom of speech here in Aotearoa New Zealand by right; however, they have been subjected to investigation with the cooperation of New Zealand authorities while they are here on New Zealand ground, so it’s really important that there are protections for those who are either refugees or seeking protection.

Now, the second Amendment Paper that I will ask the Minister to consider is also applicable to new section 88A(5), inserted by clause 19, which is that this part does not apply to a person who engages in conduct or activities that are part of a lawful protest or demonstration or that engages in acts primarily motivated by economic interests, including industrial action or economic boycott.

Now, again, the reason for that is just to protect or provide some safeguards around some of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sections, particularly around freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and freedom of association, so I would ask, as a starting point, for the Minister to consider those two Amendment Papers. They are crucial in terms of how the Greens would feel about this bill.

Now, the next thing I would like to address is around new section 88B, inserted by clause 19. I just want to check that when we’re looking at foreign enforcement authority—and forgive me; apologies if this has been covered already—what the scope of that is and how the commissioner on our end would potentially look into it when being requested by a foreign agency.

Now, moving further along in terms of section 88, the final question that I have is around new section 88V, which is when section 88U ceases to apply to affected person, but what we see in subsection (2) of this is if the commissioner gives written notice, before the date on which the direction expires or is revoked, to the person against which the direction is made. Now, my question is: under subsection 4(c), when we’re looking at something like “would prejudice the supply of information to the law enforcement agency”, what would be the threshold for that particular prejudice?

And we’re looking at new section 88V(5)(a), “keep under review the appropriateness of a notice given under subsection (2)”. What would be an example of that appropriateness? So there are a number of questions there for the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister’s engagement.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. We’ll just backtrack a little bit to Dr Webb’s question around the penalty thresholds. I’m advised that, in terms of the difference between two years and seven years, two years is the existing threshold in the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA) and the bill replicates that in its amendment to search powers, and seven years is the existing threshold in MACMA also for highly intrusive surveillance—so trespass surveillance and interception domestically—and the bill replicates that from MACMA as well.

Just to address Dr Xu-Nan’s questions around member Carter’s proposed amendments: we don’t support the amendments. We think there are sufficient protections in place already. So, for example, section 27 of MACMA applies to any mutual assistance requests—that’s around freedom of expression. That sets out that mutual assistance cannot be granted for political offences. It also allows requests to be declined on the basis that the activity would not be an offence in New Zealand. That addresses some of the protections in place and it’s why we won’t be supporting those amendments.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions, beginning from page 31—so this is new section 88D, inserted by clause 19, under new Subpart 3. It’s in relation to the commissioner’s ability to make preservation directions, but I think it’s drafted in quite an unusual way, because it’s drafted with a presumption against being rights protective, and I think it’s quite unnecessary. Section 88D(1) says, “On an application for a preservation direction against a person, the Commissioner must make a preservation direction against the person.”, and then it proceeds to outline circumstances where the commissioner may refuse to grant the application in new subsection (2). I would just question the drafting style in terms of the presumption that a commissioner must make a preservation direction as a subsection (1) statement and then moving to circumstances where the commissioner may refuse to. So I’m just wanting the Minister to respond to that.

Also, new section 88D(2)(b) states that “the foreign enforcement authority’s request for a preservation direction”—this is where the commissioner might refuse. It’s where a “foreign enforcement authority’s request … relates to the prosecution or punishment of a person for an offence that is, or is by reason of the circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed or was committed, an offence of a political character”. I can’t find the definition of political character, but just curious about the Minister in the chair’s comments that there was this sort of human rights lens, if you like, that was going to be applied. If it was, then I would question why we hadn’t used more broad language than simply using the words “political character”. However, it would be useful for the Minister, if the Minister would, to explain the scope of what is included within that.

On the same section—so 88D—there is also grounds to refuse the application if the commissioner believes “that the request has been made with a view to prosecuting or punishing a person for an offence of a political character”. So my question on this side, the lean is slightly different—it’s: who constitutes a person? The reason I ask that question is in reference to my second reading speech, where I quoted some of the work that’s been done internationally by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and others as well who reported on seeking information for the purpose of committing human rights abuses against family members of the individual concerned in a home country. So is that part of the considerations that would be taken into account under 88D, or is it purely in relation to the individual against whom a preservation direction is being considered?

I then go to new section 88E, “Form and content”. This is the section where, if the documents described in the direction are no longer in the possession or control of the person, then they have to provide information to the best of their knowledge as to the location of the documents to a constable identified in the direction. Of course, it may be, in some circumstances, that the documents were never in the possession of this individual, and I just wonder whether it would be prudent to make it clear that, obviously, they can just say they do not know.

Also, the section states that they have to disclose this information “by the time, if any, specified in the direction”. My question here relates to their ability to get legal advice, which we’ve spoken about earlier, but certainly, if they have a direction which specifies a rather short period of time, they may not be able to seek that legal advice. So I’m wondering whether the Minister considers that it would be reasonable to insert that into 88E(1)(c). Thank you.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): I’ll do my best to run through answers to a variety of questions. There was a question around why is it that the constable “must” make a direction and not “may”, and I am advised that although both foreign and domestic preservation directions are required by the Budapest Convention, the convention is more prescriptive about the circumstances in which a foreign preservation direction must be available. In section 88D, the new section provides that a request from a foreign country must be granted so long as mutual assistance request is required. So I’m not sure if that exactly answers the entire question, but, essentially, it is a requirement of the convention itself.

I’ll go to the question raised by Dr Xu-Nan around translation services, whether they would be provided. There is a general obligation in our criminal justice and in our justice system to make sure that anyone faced with legal rights or obligations are aware of those legal rights and obligations, so the expectation would be that translation services are enabled so that individuals can be made fully aware of their rights and what they are obliged to do—and of course, any court of law would enforce that.

Vanushi Walters asked a range of questions, one of which was: what is the scope of political character; how is it defined? The definition mirrors the existing mutual assistance law, which is section 2(6), of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—the MACMA—which sets out that an offence of political character does not include conduct which we have already agreed with another country will not be treated as such. Also, it’s hard to prescribe what political character would look like. We don’t prescribe this in the law because it would be generally considered on a case by case basis, and once we start prescribing it in legislation, we limit what that could or could not look like. In terms of who is a person—I understand this was in relation to new section 88D. If you look in new section 88D(1), it’s kind of a circular answer, but, essentially, a person is the person against which a preservation direction is made. So it is that person in the context of that section.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few questions. I’m actually getting through them, which is good. I guess my first question relates to replacement section 49A, inserted by clause 37, which starts on page 55. It talks about when matters are disposed of. Just clarifying in replacement section 49A(2)(b) and (c), first of all, that the matters disposed of when “(b) any proceeding in New Zealand that is commenced by a notifiable person and relates to the search warrant,”—so this is around those search warrants—“production order, or the proposed direction has been finally disposed of”. Now, I’m assuming that’s judicial reviews and appeal processes. Then the second leg of it is that “(c) the foreign country has given undertakings about any matter that the Attorney-General considers appropriate.” Now, I understand the Minister’s just identified that you can’t be too prescriptive in legislation about that; I accept that. But I think just an indication, for the record, from the Minister what those undertakings might be—I understand that it may well be, for example, the return of the property, it might be fair trial rights that the person will be given full ability to have counsel, or it might be that the death penalty won’t be imposed. So I’d be interested in that.

Then, the second question is about new section 49B, inserted by clause 37. This is quite interesting because it appears this is dispensing with the obligation to give notice. So “(1) The Attorney-General may authorise the New Zealand Police to apply for a dispensation from the Attorney-General’s obligation to give notice under section 49A of the … intention to direct that a thing seized … be sent out of [New Zealand]”. So if you’re Kim Dotcom and your hard drives are going to be sent overseas, you might think that that’s a very bad thing, and you might think that, in fact, it will be highly prejudicial to you or a third party, and you should be able to seek to stop it being moved. Now, that makes perfect sense to me, but this is the ability to send evidence overseas without the ability for it to be challenged; is that right? I mean, honesty, is that how it works? That does seem truly extraordinary that you’ve got, essentially, a secret and unchallengeable process. In terms of there being an exercise of State power, the stuff’s been seized, and then a further decision—a decision to send that evidence to a foreign power. Now, any exercise of State power should be challengeable, but you can’t challenge something you don’t know about.

So my question is: what’s going on here? Am I right about that, and, I guess, if I am, what the heck is the protection for the person whose evidence is being sent overseas from misuse of that evidence? If, as Vanushi Walters identified, the hard drive has family photos and addresses on it and all those kinds of things and that could be used for nefarious purposes—that, at the moment, the Government doesn’t accept, but you want to make that argument—you should be able to go to court and make that argument, and for it not to be sent overseas before that argument can be made. I want to leave my current contribution there because I think that’s an important point I’d like to hear addressed.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask the Minister that were sort of in relation to the economic effects of this legislation coming into force. So we know that cyber-crime, such as fraud, causes a huge economic loss for businesses, as well as for the Government and individuals. This is a big step forward for us as a country, for New Zealand—that we’re actually putting into place some important changes that will give our law enforcement agencies the ability to work alongside of other countries to be able to do this.

But I would be interested to know if any analysis has been undertaken as to what the potential gains would be for our economy by having this in place. We know that Search New Zealand has recorded approximately 4,700 security incidents—the last recorded was in 2019—and that had an impact of about $16.7 million in financial losses. The most common incidents were things like phishing for credential harvesting—which is stealing passwords—scams, frauds, and also things like unauthorised access. These are the things that concern Kiwis the most; these are things that people are constantly vigilant about in terms of protecting their passwords and protecting their financial security.

So, given the fact that we’re passing legislation that will make these changes, it would be good to understand what type of analysis has been done on the impact of preventing such crimes happening in the future. A half-yearly report from 2020 shows that cyber-security incidents have increased by 42 percent, compared to the same period in 2019, and that’s quite dated information that I found available. So is there any more recent information available to know this increase, because it would be really useful for us to start measuring the impact of this legislation on the increasing incidence of financial crime that is happening by cyber-crime?

The Reserve Bank themselves released a report back in February 2020, and that specifically focused on cyber-incidents in the financial sector. The rough estimate there was the average cost of cyber-incidents are around $104 million per year for the banking industry alone, and around $38 million per annum for the insurance industry. So there are quite significant implications. If those are the benchmarks we have now, it would be really good to know whether there are any processes in place, which Government department will be looking at this to see what the impact of this legislation will be, and what the benefits will be of being part of an international network of countries that are, effectively, working together, cooperating together, to be able to prevent cyber-crime.

We know that the National Cyber Security Centre recorded around 352 cyber-security incidents in the year it was last looked at, in 2020. And so, in addition to economic loss, cyber-security incidents have negative impacts for public confidence as well—public confidence in computer systems, for example, in relation to conducting business over the internet, and in providing personal information as we’re wanting to move into a digital age where digital identities provide a lot of our information online. People have real concerns, because they’ve had negative instances in the past, which have compromised not only their personal security but also their financial security.

So there’s been a lot of discussions—a global campaign in terms of deep “denial of service” attacks affecting a wide range of New Zealand organisations. New Zealand’s not alone in terms of its impact, and even our Parliament website has been impacted as well in the past. So in terms of making sure that we are, I guess, benchmarking where we are at now, what those financial impacts are, not only to businesses but also to individuals, and also to public trust and confidence in using the internet and providing personal information, I would be really interested to hear from the Minister in terms of what framework is in place to look at how useful signing up to something like this has been for preparing us for the future and encouraging, I guess, a society that has trust and confidence with using the internet safely.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): I’ll just touch on Dr Webb’s question—or examples, actually; pretty good examples of the kind of undertakings that the Attorney-General might seek from foreign countries. He also raised the question of what happens when you don’t know that you’re subject to a preservation order. The bill introduces provisions to require notifications precisely so that people have the opportunity to challenge them in court—but, of course, there are some times where notifications could seriously prejudice ongoing investigations. In that case, the Attorney-General can seek a waiver of notification, but that waiver will require approval of a High Court judge. So there are some protections in place from our judicial system. There are other examples of parts of the law where, from time to time, a court will make a decision in absentia of the individual that is being affected.

Questions from Ginny Andersen: I’ll look at some further advice around what kind of analysis has been done and how do we know how useful this has been. But of course, the thrust of this bill, as well as enabling participation in the Budapest Convention, is, essentially, we are changing the law to enable foreign requests for preservation and production orders in New Zealand. So the changes in this bill won’t actually do much to, I guess, affect the level of crime in New Zealand, but of course it enables for that mutual assistance to be undertaken in other jurisdictions, and we can get some further information on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Lawrence Xu-Nan. I want them fairly homed in now. We’ve covered a wide ground, but the Minister has just said that he’s going to get some further advice—so, really, just anything new. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a short question around clause 19, new section 88Z—also, this is in combination with new sections 88O and 88P. Now, one of the things that we do see is, from new section 88Z onwards, that would provide a level of immunities relating to functions of commissioner and reviewers in the case of issuing preservation directions. I wanted to check with the Minister, with new sections 88O and 88P, for a person who may not be satisfied with the decision that was made by the commissioner but the commissioner has immunities, are new sections 88O and 88P—the ability for someone who is affected by preservation direction the right to review—the only avenue that is available for them in those kinds of cases?

I want to check with another thing the Minister said before—and I’m very grateful to the Minister for responding to my question, which is that translation services will be available for people within the criminal justice system, but would that extend to when the review is conducted as well under new section 88P? Would translation services be available for people then?

So those are my questions, which are: commissioner and reviewer have immunities, so is the only tool for the person affected by the preservation order stated in new sections 88O and 88P, which is ability to review, which means the ability to have, in accordance with new section 88P(4)(a)(iii), the revocation of a preservation direction, and whether translation services will be available for this, because it’s technically not within the criminal justice system?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can see that Duncan Webb’s just got one more burning question while he’s waiting for the Minister to get his advice.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you for that indulgence. First of all, I just want to say I think the Minister in the chair, James Meager, answered a question I didn’t ask, because I actually asked about new section 49B, inserted by clause 37, which is not about preservation orders at all; it’s about sending seized things out of New Zealand. I get that you don’t have to notify preservation orders all the time, and they’re a kind of a low-level thing, because they don’t even give evidence to a third party. I was interested in not telling someone that you’re sending something that you’ve seized from them overseas. That seems very Star Chamber, to not let them know and not give them an opportunity to challenge what might be very sensitive information going overseas. So I’d invite the Minister or his officials to address that.

The other thing is this, and it’s about—you’re surveilling someone, or the Government or police are surveilling someone, for a foreign nation, and then, under new section 50U, it says something quite unusual. We love the Parliamentary Counsel Office, but they seem to love double negatives, because they say in 50U(2), of this evidential material that’s being gathered, “The evidential material is not inadmissible in criminal proceedings in New Zealand merely because the surveillance device warrant … issued in relation to an offence against the law of a foreign country.” I hate double negatives. I’m not sure if they’re saying the evidential material is admissible even though it was about an offence in a foreign country, but I do think that is a really important point to clarify what that means. If it’s saying it is admissible, that’s one thing; if it’s saying it might be admissible, that’s quite another. At the moment, it appears to say it might be admissible rather than it is admissible, because “not inadmissible” doesn’t actually mean admissible; it means something less. If I was challenging it, it would suggest that I can say, “Well, it shouldn’t be admissible for the following reasons: the warrant wasn’t appropriately given”—or whatever it might be.

But I do think that’s an important point, because there is a danger here. This is a search, and you’ve searched someone for one purpose and you’re getting evidence for another purpose. Now, that does happen, and certainly, under domestic law, you might enter a property on a domestic violence matter and find a stash of drugs, and that would be admissible. Now, if that’s the rule for searches and surveillance for foreign powers, I think we need to say that clearly and not by use of some strange double negative. So those two things: first of all, things taken out of New Zealand being secretly taken out, and, secondly, is this evidence admissible or not admissible?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr Webb answered his own question. Essentially, you could read it as being it might be, but you can’t phrase it like that. So there are a whole range of reasons why evidence might be inadmissible. What this subsection is saying is that—OK, here we go; without reading the clause out itself—you know: you can’t reduce the double negative, otherwise you’re right, it would say the evidence is admissible, which is not the case. What it is saying is that evidence is not necessarily inadmissible just because the device warrant was issued in relation to an offence against the law of the foreign country. It might be inadmissible for a whole range of reasons as per the Evidence Act, but there is really no other way of phrasing it, and I think Dr Webb answered his own question.

To his earlier question about notice or what protections are in place for when things are actually being removed from the country, that’s what I was referring to rather than the preservation orders themselves.

Then to Ginny Andersen’s questions around what impact this will have on crime in New Zealand. Well, we know that cyber-crime has a cost of about $1.6 billion, and so time will tell what impact this will have on that, but, hopefully, over time, we will see that cost impact being reduced. There’s nothing in the legislation, and very rarely is there in legislation requirements for reports or research or evaluation on things like this, but I would expect that any sensible Government that implements these kinds of rules would do so with some sort of cost-benefit analysis or useful analysis along the way so we make sure that things that we are implementing actually work in our country.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 333 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 19 inserting new section 88AA to provide that new Part 3A does not apply to persons who engage in conduct or activities that are part of a lawful protest or demonstration be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Quiet during voting, please! The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 19 inserting new section 88AA to provide that new Part 3A does not apply to a person who has been recognised as a refugee or is seeking protection be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 23A is out of order as being outside of the scope of the bill.

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

Part 2 Amendments to Crimes Act 1961

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2, and Part 2 is the debate on clauses 54 to 62, “Amendments to Crimes Act 1961”, and includes the debate on the proposed new Schedule 3, set out on the Minister’s Amendment Paper 333. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Madam Chair, thank you. Part 2 is a pretty brisk part which relates to amendments to the Crimes Act. The reason for amending the Crimes Act is to ensure that New Zealand law fully aligns with the requirements of the Budapest Convention relating to computer-related offending. For the most part, these minor amendments are to the status quo. That’s important because, of course, international conventions and treaties only have force of law in New Zealand when they are incorporated into statutes. So making changes in the Crimes Act is an important part of upholding that part of parliamentary sovereignty, which is that international conventions and treaties entered into are all well and good, but they don’t have force of law until they’re actually implemented in New Zealand statutes. So, like trade agreements, this is part of that commitment to our international obligations.

Just generally, along with some of those minor adjustments, two main things: the first one is that Part 2, clause 58 amends section 228B of the Crimes Act, which already criminalises a person “Possessing, selling, … disposing of goods designed, manufactured, or adapted with intent to facilitate commission of the crimes involving dishonesty”, just to also include procurement as an element. The other part of the part—Part 2—is that it splits the existing section 252 into two new offences. The first being “Designing, writing, or adapting software … if the resulting software would enable a person to commit an offence”, and also, “Dealing in or possessing software or other information for committing [a] crime”. In so far as the Amendment Paper, I think that’s pretty self-explanatory and speaks for itself.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question: I want to check with the Minister and I’m also just trying to see if there is a specific definition of “software” in the Crimes Act, because one of the reasons I asked this is, what is the scope of what is considered software? Would the Minister consider social media—for example, and particularly when it comes to apps, a software in the definition in this case? I’m curious about this because: what happens in this case if that is within the scope, that you have a social media platform that is being used to facilitate a person who commits a crime against sections 249, 250, and 252? So, just specifically, I am looking at clause 62, new section 253 and 254, and I’m looking at 253(1)(a) at this stage. So I do want to check that particular part with the Minister on whether the scope does include apps, because that’s one part of it.

I guess the other part is you often do hear that—particularly when it comes to the use of software—the liability is on the user as opposed to the developer of the software. This is something we do see quite often when it comes to app-based devices. Indeed, this is something that the Minister just before mentioned in terms of our trade agreements, and in the e-chapters we do have in trade agreements. This is something that isn’t something that can be captured or even honed.

However, I’m curious to hear what the Minister’s thought is around section 254(1)(a)(ii), which is “knows or is”—in particular—“reckless” has a completely different connotation as on what the tradition has been, using from the perspective of mens rea. So, in that particular case, if we’re looking at recklessness as an indicator, does that mean that those people with the software, if they or if anyone is using the software—and, in this case, if the scope expands to apps—is reckless or has developed their thing in a way that could be used recklessly, that that is considered an offence under this particular legislation now under a new offence that’s been created in the Crimes Act 1961? So it’s a very interesting, I guess, legal question in terms of the scope of software use, and I want to check with the Minister if he wouldn’t mind answering those two questions.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Without wanting to get into providing legal advice, generally, common interpretation techniques would say that you’d take the plain meaning of a term in its context and in the purpose of the legislation. Let’s just take the plain, common-sense definition of “software”—again, don’t want to get into providing legal advice—but an app, I think, would generally be considered to be software; it’s a computer program. Whether or not you’d include social media in that definition would be arguable. Social media is, essentially, code and computer programming written to enable individuals or communities to share information. Whether or not you’d define social media itself—as the concept—as being software, I’m not too sure. I think in any common-sense prosecution, you would apply the plain, intended meaning of the word in line with the context in which it is in the statute, and the purpose of the statute itself.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question about new section 254(2), inserted by clause 62, but as it relates to subsection (1). It defines who a person is who is dealing in software or other information and subsection (2)(b) includes a person who “offers or exposes it for sale or supply to any other person”, which is quite a low threshold, really, in terms of being within that category. While we’re talking social media, it could be someone who’s sharing a product, for example, or sharing an ad regarding an app. If you couple that with the lowest bar of guilt in new section 254(1)—the provision that my colleague was referring to—and someone was recklessly advertising somebody else’s product via social media and thereby exposing it, they’re potentially, then, caught by new section 254 and they’re potentially, then, liable for a conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. I guess my simple question is: is the intention to be able to capture a situation like that because of the use of the word “expose”, so that person doesn’t have possession of?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Again, without trying to get too much into providing legal advice for individuals, I point the member to section 254, which does include various mens rea elements, as Dr Xu-Nan listed before, and also that includes intent, knowledge, knowing, or being reckless as to whether or not an offence is committed. So you’d have to combine the intentionality aspects with the definition of whether or not a person deals in software or not. I would also note that this is a pre-existing section within the Crimes Act, and all this section does is split the existing section 252 into two new offences. So it is taking pre-existing offences within the Crimes Act with, presumably, a body of jurisprudence and common law sitting in behind it and splitting it into two new offences. There are no new obligations or offences or definitions being included in this piece of legislation, unless I am advised otherwise.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m looking at page 73, Part 2, clause 62, inserting new section 253. My colleague Vanushi Walters talked about new section 254, so I just want to be clear that I’m not covering that ground again, but looking at new section 253, which is “Designing, writing, or adapting software for committing certain crimes”. Now, we know that this is a really key part to this bill because we know that cyber-crime knows no borders, and it is important that we have a vigorous understanding of what it means to design, write, adapt software for committing certain crimes, because we don’t want that to happen.

Looking at new section 253(1)(a) and (b), we want to make sure that this is not going to be applied to anyone who isn’t actually breaking any laws. So I’m just wanting to ask the Minister in the chair: can you explain the intent behind new section 253 and how the drafting may avoid capturing legitimate or dual-use software developed for security or educational purposes?

It can be quite murky when we’re looking at cyber and software, so we know that, sometimes, people are developing these for security purposes or for educational purposes. I’m just wondering how this actual wording came to be and how it avoids capturing those legitimate dual-use purposes.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Yes, I can address that. If we go to new section 253(1)(b), inserted by clause 62, there is an intention element there. So the person must intend to use the software, or must intend any other person using the software, to commit an offence against section 249, 250, or 252. So, essentially, there must be an intention to commit an offence and it’s not an inadvertent use of or development of software for any other reason; it must be for nefarious purposes. Again, these two new sections are a reworking of existing section 252 into two new offences to clarify exactly how they apply.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to leave the House for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7.30 p.m.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is resumed on the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill before the dinner break, we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 54 to 62, “Amendments to Crimes Act 1961”, and includes the debate on the proposed new Schedule 3, set out on Minister’s Amendment Paper 333. The question is, again, that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister in the chair for the explanation around this. I totally appreciate the fact that the Minister is not providing legal advice but just, mainly, ministerial intent. I have one last, final, really small question on this part, which is around whether in the context—because I haven’t looked specifically in the Crimes Act 1961—the definition of a “person” here is a real person and not a legal person. Can I just ask the Minister to confirm that if it is a legal person, for example, who designs, writes, or adopts, then it’s a different connotation? I guess the other question is: with a real person, what happens if it’s not so much a person who designs, writes, or adapts software, but a company who does it?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): I’ll take some advice, but given it’s a Crimes Act definition of person, my basic understanding would be that it would be a legal human person, and not in the company sense. I’m not sure—I’m going to take some advice on that. Let me check some advice, but I’m just not as familiar with whether or not a corporation can be guilty of a crime under this Act—whether it’s the individuals acting in their individual capacity, but let me double-check.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much, and I just want to also thank the Minister for taking such a thorough approach to answering our questions—that’s all. Can I just check—I guess a clarification from the Chair: while the Minister is receiving advice, if we have no more questions around this, how do we proceed?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I mean, the Minister has just told me that he could make that answer available during the title and commencement debate, if that was fine with people.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, so it’s fine with people. The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 333 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended 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 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 333 be agreed to.

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

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended 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 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 333 be agreed to.

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

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended 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 as amended agreed to.

New Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting new Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 333 be agreed to.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. Title and commencement: very straightforward. The title of the bill is deliberate and clear. It sets out that it’s the “Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Act”, as it will eventually be. It’s very important because we need to be clear about what the Act will be called, because it implements changes to our statute law in order to give power to the Budapest Convention. For those who are looking for the legal foundation for matters agreed to in the convention, they need to be able to be directed straight to the piece of legislation which does that. That’s why it is called this, and I would suspect that any amendments would probably be not supported for those reasons.

When it comes to the commencement, there are, essentially, two dates that the bill comes into force. Subclause (3) of clause 2 outlines a number of sections that will come into force immediately, the day after Royal assent. Subclause (2) of clause 2 outlines that “Any part of this Act”—well, actually, let’s go to subclause (1) first. Apart from those provisions that come into force the day after Royal assent, all other parts of the Act will come “into force on a date or dates set by Order in Council.” However, there is a fall-back date where the entire Act will be enforced by 1 October 2025. That variable time or that time between now and 1 October as the last possible date is to provide Police the time to implement operational changes that they will need to make in order to give effect to the legislation. I’m advised that they are under way with those changes already and that they will make good progress, but, obviously, they have to wait till the bill comes into force before they can actually enact them.

That’s the reason why there’s a split commencement, but there is that fall-back date of 1 October 2025. Just to touch on Dr Xu-Nan’s question before, it is a—I don’t know what the description is—a human person, an individual person, not a legal person, for the purposes of the Crimes Act.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much for your response to that question, Minister. I really do appreciate it.

Just on the commencement date, thank you for setting, I guess, the parameters of why that commencement date came about. Again, I will do the first two, and particularly looking at clause 2(1) and (2). Can I just check what the rationale is for having the Act come into force by Order in Council. Minister, you mentioned, in terms of the fall-back date being 1 October, that it is to give Police sufficient time. However, we heard just yesterday, in terms of the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—that particular legislation—that the commencement date for that was set by Order in Council because there are certain agreements and that that’s the date that was settled on by both parties to that particular agreement. Can I just check: is this date being set by Order in Council a decision that we made because of domestic reasons—i.e., the preparedness of the Police—or is it because of international reasons, because there are additional agreements and, I guess, additional things we need to sign or coordinate internationally with various partners? That’s my first question in terms of clarification.

I guess the second part of my question is—I mean, all dates that are not the day after Royal assent are, in some form, arbitrary. I just want to hear the Minister elaborate on why 1 October is that date that was chosen. It seems to not be three months after. We’re looking at, what, one or two months. Nine weeks seems like an odd time to choose. I just want to get clarification from the Minister on the rationale behind the 1 October date.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Sorry, I’m just writing down the exact phrase. So the reason that there’s an Order in Council required to bring the bill into force—there’s, essentially, two ways that bills can come into force: you set a date in the legislation or you set a date to be determined by Order in Council.

Now, sometimes those dates are left open for a Government to provide an Order in Council at some point. Actually, sitting on the Regulations Review Committee a few months ago, we were provided with a list of regulations which had never entered into force because no Government had ever provided the Order in Council for it. So, actually, I think it’s a sensible thing to provide, that the remainder of that can come into force by Order in Council but have a fall-back date as well so that the Act’s not languishing.

It is two reasons, mainly domestic. So one is to provide Police the time to operationalise some of the changes they’ll need to make. The other is that to meet all our international obligations, we need to deposit the instrument of accession, and you can only deposit the instrument of accession after the instrument is passed. So after the bill proceeds through the Parliament to its Royal assent—that’s the instrument of accession—that gets deposited, and so there needs to be some time built in to allow for that process to come into play as well. So it is part of that first one, part of that second one.

But, essentially, the reason why the gap is a little bit long—before October—is to give Police sufficient time. They’re pretty certain they will have it done by October, because that’s the date the Act will come into force, but they want a little bit of time before operationalising some of those things. But for things that the Police don’t need time on—you know, everything in clause 3—that will come into force straight away.

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.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 333 be agreed to.

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

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended 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 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I move, That the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

We’ve said from day one that victims are our priority; returning them to the heart of our justice system underpins all our work to restore law and order, which we know is working. Stalkers have been able to evade real consequences for their actions for far too long. This bill will create a modern, futureproofed, and truly enforceable stalking and harassment offence to ensure this insidious behaviour no longer goes unpunished.

Around 600 submitters to the Justice Committee added their voices to last year’s petitioners’ call for this offence. I thank all of them and the committee itself for their contributions to this bill. The full list of the committee’s changes is available in their report. The Government supports all of these changes. Today, I will speak to the prominent issues and recommendations raised in the report.

To be convicted of the new offence, the prosecution will need to prove the person engaged in a pattern of behaviour towards their victim. The committee recommended a broader definition for the pattern of behaviour. The offence will now require two specified acts within two years, rather than three specified acts within one year. This broadens the pattern of behaviour by capturing fewer acts across a longer time frame. I agree that this change will better address strategies such as anniversary-based stalking. It will also make it harder for stalkers to work around the law. I’m satisfied that it will keep the offence proportionate to the significant maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

A further recommendation made by the committee was to add doxing to the list of “specified act”. Doxing is the publication of personal information such as addresses or contact details, including whether a stalker claims to be their victim. It encourages third parties to contact, threaten, and intimidate the victim. Stalkers can now abuse the reach and anonymity of the internet, making this addition an essential part of a modern and futureproofed offence.

The committee also added two further important amendments to the bill: firstly, to allow the courts to order the destruction of intimate visual recordings—this will ensure that stalkers cannot continue to breach their victims’ privacy after being convicted of the new offence—secondly, to allow a court to make restraining firearm prohibition and Harmful Digital Communications Act orders, where a defendant is discharged without convictions. This will protect victims even if the perpetrator does not receive a conviction. The committee also made a small change to the bill to clarify the stalking aggravating factor. This will make it easier to understand and better reflect the cumulative nature of stalking and harassment harm.

Now, I’d like to speak about some common concerns raised by the submitters. Submitters were concerned that the bill may not capture some stalking and harassment behaviours. I want to assure the public that the offence captures a comprehensive set of behaviours; the language in this bill is carefully drafted to do so—for example, submitters suggested that making threats may not be captured as a “specified act”. This behaviour is captured by the broad specified act of contacting or communicating, including threats made over the internet.

Others were concerned that the bill may not capture leaving offensive material where the victim will find it. This will also be captured by the contacting or communicating part as the bill recognises that this may happen indirectly.

I want to clarify the mental element of the offence, the mens rea. The mental element will be satisfied if the stalker knows their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress to the victim. This is drafted to capture stalkers’ many motivations and reflect the offence’s significant penalty. Submitters were concerned that the mental element might only be met if the stalker or harasser admits to their knowledge. I’m pleased to assure the public that the bill does not require this. Knowledge is frequently proved in criminal cases based on other evidence.

For the new offence, this might simply be a stalker or harasser continuing their behaviour despite text messages from the victim telling them that they are scared or distressed. Similarly, the committee heard concerns that a police notice will be required to prove the mental element of the offence. Again, this is not the case. A notice is a tool to encourage the stalker to stop and assist the prosecution by creating a presumption of knowledge for further behaviour. However, it is not required to establish a mental element.

I’m proud to bring this bill to the House today. The bill establishes a modern offence to hold stalkers accountable and to protect communities. The bill creates powerful tools like the police notice system, to create a practical pathway for enforcement, unlike its predecessor. The offence is not an empty threat. In short, this bill will contribute to the Government’s commitment to ensure that there are 2,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime by 2030.

Again, I’d like to thank everybody who has contributed to this bill so far—the petitioners, the committee, and the submitters. I’ve got a special thankyou for those who shared their own experiences of stalking and harassment with the committee. Your courage is making New Zealand a safer place. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the ability to take a call on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill. First and foremost, it’s important that we acknowledge the reason this legislation came about, and it was the murder of Farzana Yaqubi, who lost her life at the end of 2022 as a result of being repetitively stalked, to the point where she lost her life. Farzana went to the New Zealand Police and, for a number of reasons, those complaints were not taken seriously. The Independent Police Conduct Authority ruled that more should have been done, and one of the considerations was that if there was a specific offence for stalking, then action may well have been taken in this instance.

As a result of that, when I was the Minister for Justice, I took policy to the 2023 election that would create a new and separate offence for stalking in New Zealand. Once in Opposition, that same legislation was taken and put into a member’s bill that was then put into the ballot.

At this point in time, it is important to note that National said that it was not a priority at that time. Paul Goldsmith himself stated that it was not a priority to progress legislation. He said that we have clear commitments that we’ve made and we’re working through and we can’t do everything all at once. But what changed his mind, and what changed this Government’s mind, to take action instead of not taking action, I believe, was the thousands of people who signed a petition and brought it here to the steps of Parliament, demanding that this Government took action and made stalking a criminal offence in New Zealand. It was on the steps of Parliament, when that petition was handed over, that Paul Goldsmith committed to introducing legislation as a priority and within a year. So I commend the Government for taking a change and actually doing the right thing. I also commend all of those people who signed that petition and who brought pressure upon this Government to make this law change that we are debating today.

I would also like to acknowledge all of the submitters who came to the Justice Committee and told quite harrowing personal stories of their own experiences of stalking, either immediately impacting them or people within their family. I’d like to acknowledge the Coalition for Safety of Women and Children and also Aotearoa Free From Stalking. Both those groups have been staunch and tireless advocates for getting this law change, and they have been so helpful to continue to push for the changes that we’re seeing today.

One of the most important changes that was made at select committee, I would like to highlight, was widening the definition of “criminal stalking”. What the Government initially brought in the first reading, under the definition, was a minimum of three stalking-type acts in a period of 12 months. This was quite different to the member’s bill that I had put forward, and members of those advocacy groups and those within the sector all thought that that would not be adequate to be able to meet the needs of those people who were being stalked, or to be able to bring a successful prosecution. There were real concerns that someone who had been to prison for a period of a year or more would be outside of that time frame and it wouldn’t capture those people, and particularly for premeditated crimes such as stalking, where there’s a lot of planning and consideration, that the stalker would potentially wait for just over one year to then do another act and evade being prosecuted.

The other point that was made through the select committee process was that quite often, stalkers celebrate anniversaries. Whether it’s a time when people were previously together, a birthday, or a special event, these are commonly times where there are either gifts or extra messages or things brought upon that date, so having that longer than 12 months was essential. So I was really heartened that towards the end of that period, the Government members agreed to making that change, and that change is a minimum of two acts, not three, and over a period of 24 months, so a longer period of time. This has been welcomed by advocates in the sector, and it shows that at select committee, when we work constructively, when we look at evidence, and when we hear from people in New Zealand, we can actually make constructive, well-meaning, and good law here in this Parliament. It’s quite heartening to see that. The comment that we’ve received from people in the sector is that after that change, “This version is a better, safer, and more victim-centred bill than the original.” So I’m really pleased to have pushed hard for those changes and to see them coming forward and being made law.

However, there are still some concerns in this version of the bill. It is around those elements that were discussed at the first reading, around the mens rea, or the intent—the mental element to prove this crime. Currently, it must be proven that the stalker acted knowingly, that their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress to their target, so it means that the stalker has to know that their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress. Proving that intent of someone who is lying or is genuinely deluded about how another person feels about them may well be extremely difficult to prove in a court of law, and this is concerning. We heard quite good evidence in the select committee that there are people who are engaged in stalking behaviour who genuinely believe that the victim wants their advances, that they want their attention, and they visualise that they are reciprocating those actions. So trying to prove that someone acted knowingly, that their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress, when that person themselves is deluded as to the other person’s affections may well prove to be very difficult for prosecution in a court of law. We believe it would be better if the bill stated that the stalker knows or ought to know that their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress.

I would like to outline that I intend to bring some amendments that propose to make those changes, which I will speak to at the committee stage. The Government to date has been constructive and very willing to engage on making this law as good as it possibly can be, and I look forward to potentially seeing some additional changes at the committee stage. That would mean that those advocates in the sector who understand, at the coalface, the difficulty of this area, who have given that very clear advice right through the select committee stage, and all of those submitters who support this change—if the Government was able to make that change at the committee of the whole House stage, that would make this bill work even better.

I would like to conclude by stating that stalking affects far more lives than we ever see. It’s an invisible crime to so many people going about their daily lives, but it is actually a living hell for, particularly, women who get repeatedly put into a position where they live in fear. Those tactics that are repeatedly taken out are designed to intimidate and designed to make people’s lives an absolute misery. They’re an extension of family violence or control over others. That is completely unacceptable. Women deserve to live in New Zealand free from fear, free from violence, and to go about their daily lives without having someone else stalking every moment of their day and using every medium possible to make them feel that fear.

This bill is an excellent start at not only introducing a framework in our legal system, where people can be prosecuted and held to account in a court of law, but also sending a strong message out there to act as a deterrent. It is one area where I believe that this actually can work—that we will not tolerate people who intimidate others, that we will not tolerate this type of behaviour in our community, and we’ll stand together to make sure that our families are safe and that we can hold our heads up in New Zealand and feel proud that we live in a violence-free and a threat-free community. This bill is only a small step, but I hope it will go a long way in changing the culture, which causes so much harm in our communities. I commend it to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support at the second reading of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, because, right now, in Aotearoa, stalking is not a criminal offence. We are working together across the House to change this, because stalking is horrific, it ruins lives, it is dangerous, and we must have protections in place for women in Aotearoa.

Of course, I first have to acknowledge the survivors who both pushed for this legislation and who came forward during the select committee process, especially those who shared their lived experience with us at select committee. In June last year, a petition to make stalking illegal was presented on the stairs of this Parliament. A sign that I remember said, “Stalking is terrifying and dangerous”, and that is something that has stayed with me throughout this process. I do also want to acknowledge the Hon Ginny Andersen for listening to our communities and for pushing to bring this legislation to the House. The bravery of speaking out about truly traumatic experiences has shaped this bill for the better, and the Green Party supports the intent of this bill.

Strengthening our laws to better respond to stalking is long overdue. For too long, our legal system has failed to capture the reality of what stalking looks like and the fear it causes and the lives it ruins. This bill marks an important step towards addressing that gap. However, while we do support the direction of the legislation, we, in the Greens, believe further amendments are required to ensure it is both effective and survivor-centred.

Of course, we first acknowledge and welcome the select committee decision to reduce the threshold for a stalking offence from three times in one year to two times in two years. This was a real worry for survivors and advocates when the bill was first brought to the House. Overwhelmingly, most stalkers are ex-partners, and we heard at select committee the harrowing stories that a common excuse used by stalkers is anniversaries.

Now, Zeni Gibson had been stalked and sadistically harassed—and I quote her here: “In the scheme of stalking, 12 months is really no time at all. And so, in those earlier years, the person who stalked me, he’d pop up and harass me before disappearing for months. In the case of those being stalked by ex-partners, there might be anniversaries that trigger these stalking behaviours.”

This change to the definition brings New Zealand more in line with comparable international jurisdictions like Australia and the UK. It reflects what survivors and advocates have long been calling for and recognises the serious harm that can be caused after just one or two incidents. Requiring three separate acts to even be considered for legal protection would have been out of step with reality and furthered the traumatisation. I acknowledge that the select committee went back and forth, and we really were careful to get that advice from our officials and from advocates in the community. I really commend the select committee for listening and making this really important change.

More changes to the definition of “stalking” are required. Specifically, the Greens, alongside leaders in the community, are concerned with the current wording, which outlines the requirement of a person to know that their conduct is likely to cause fear or distress. In reality, that could mean survivors are left unprotected unless a perpetrator has received a formal police warning or that person explicitly admits they know their conduct is likely to cause distress, and that is a high threshold, which has a lot of gaps.

At the select committee stage, we heard that many victims make their distress clear—sometimes through a message, sometimes in person, often in fear—yet, under this bill, that might not be enough, and that is unacceptable. People should not have to endure further harm just to satisfy a legal technicality. The Greens believe that the bill should adopt an ought-to-have-known standard where someone may be liable if they knew or ought to have known that their behaviour would likely cause fear or distress. This would bring us into line with other jurisdictions and better reflect community experiences.

Now, through this time, I have learnt so much, and I have to say thank you to Leonie Morris from Aotearoa Free From Stalking, based at the Auckland Women’s Centre, for her life’s work in protecting women and working on this stalking and harassment legislation. I also have to acknowledge the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children and Awatea Mita, who has taught me so much with her gentle ways and her fierce advocacy for survivors and women. Those one-on-one sessions that she has and the way that she holds people and makes them feel heard and safe is so, so important. I also want to talk to acknowledge the Fired Up Stilettos, a stripper-led labour rights movement, formed in response to years of injustice in strip clubs, who advocate for sex workers. Sex workers and strippers are not convinced that this legislation will protect them. We know that they have been ignored by Police and the system over and over again when they have been harassed and stalked, and I want them to know that we are listening to you, we hear you, and we want to have laws that protect you and make you feel safe.

I also want to acknowledge the whānau of Farzana Yaqubi, who lost her life to murder because she was not taken seriously by police and because this law was not in place. I hope that her family feels some solace that we are bringing this law. I wonder to myself if Farzana, if she had lived, would have been submitting at the select committee. You know, today is for people like Farzana, for people like Zeni, and for the countless others who haven’t come forward, because they don’t feel like it’ll make any difference.

I want to talk as well about how punitive measures are not enough. We need to stop the harm from happening before it occurs, and that means that we have a responsibility to ensure that this legislation is part of a broader system that supports rehabilitation and addresses the root causes of stalking behaviour. Experts and survivors were crystal clear that access to mental health and addiction support, early intervention, and stalking-specific support services are essential to ensuring that the harm is not even a thing and that it is stopped before harm even occurs. The dynamics and drivers of stalking are vast and different; so too must be the solutions. As such, the Greens support embedding stalking-specific education and intervention into existing community-based rehabilitation programmes, including those run by prevention-focused sexual violence services.

The Greens will continue to support this bill through the remaining readings, but we urge the Government and this House to adopt the amendments that have come from survivors, that have come from experts, and that have come from advocates—the amendments that I’ve outlined here today. We will bring those to the committee of the whole House stage. Women should be able to live their lives without fear, and, today, this one is for all those survivors and victims who didn’t have this law and for all those survivors and victims who this law will protect.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to be able to stand here today and speak on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this legislation.

I’ve spoken to this issue a couple of times in this House, but what I would like to say is that often somebody in the general public listening into Parliament and hearing about legislation in this House may not understand the technicalities of the law itself. What I’d like to do is not go over again what previous speakers have spoken to, in the context of the legalities of this bill, but speak about what does this mean in reality for an average New Zealander who is suffering at the hands of a person who is stalking them—what does the reality of this look like for a victim out in our communities who has often felt very distressed, alone, and quite frustrated at the lack of response when they’re going through this. So, Mr Speaker, if you will allow me, I will go a little bit into what this looks like for a person on the ground.

I’ve seen firsthand not only from speaking to community organisations in the role that I have as Minister for the Prevention of Family Harm and Sexual Violence but also before coming to this House, growing up in an environment where you witness in your community how this affects those that you care about, your friends, sometimes family—and, sometimes, friends and family can also be the perpetrator. So it can often be very difficult to come to terms with how to deal with this on both sides. I’ve seen firsthand that this doesn’t just damage the immediate victim that is going through the stalking process and going through the process of trying to seek help; it affects everybody around them.

One of those that it affects the most is often children who are witness to not only the behaviours but are witness to a parent or somebody they love going through the worst moments of their life, and having to do what many children shouldn’t have to do, and that is grow up very fast and, often, become support people for those victims. It can be very distressing for those children and young people witnessing that, growing up and dealing with things that they really shouldn’t have to, and their innocence being taken away from them by the act of a stalker. I think I’ve said this before, but it’s very relevant—when you see the light disappear from the eyes of a victim who has lost hope of tomorrow being a better day, who has lost hope of somebody coming to rescue them, who has lost hope of the very people who are supposed to come and support them, not having the tools in place to be able to do anything about it.

We often talk about victims or people speaking about how the police have often ignored harassment or not been there or shown up to some of these incidences, but we must be fair here; often police were policing with one hand tied behind their back. They didn’t have the tools to enable them to enforce and actually do something about it, because it actually wasn’t against the law. Many stalkers are very smart, understand the laws, and understand how far they can push that boundary where nothing could happen to them. An example of that would be they could stand at the top of your driveway, knowingly intimidate you, stand there all night long, but as long as they don’t step foot on your property, they’re not breaking any laws.

This is unacceptable and we as a Government have made a commitment to focus on victims and to make sure that our communities are safer—not only for women, I might add; many men also suffer from being victims of harassment and stalking behaviours. We must start acknowledging that this is a problem. Unless we speak about these problems, we can never solve them. Unfortunately, this is a bigger problem that many people actually realise in this country. I’m hoping today will be the day that we have shown we’ve put our foot down and that enough is enough and that we’re not going to tolerate this any more. People deserve to live a safe, happy life in this country, with the support of people in this House to help enable that to happen, but in order to do that, Police have needed some tools, courts have needed some tools, and we are implementing that today.

I feel very honoured and privileged to be in a position to be able to stand here and actually speak to these issues. Often, I get asked, “Why did you put your hand up to come to Parliament?” This is one of those reasons; where we as a Parliament, across both sides of the House, can come together and create a piece of legislation that will better hundreds, if not thousands, of lives moving forward. It’s an absolute honour and a privilege to stand here today and to be part of that process, knowing that we in this House have made some contribution for a better life for many women and men going forward.

I would like to thank the committee members, the submitters who had the bravery to come forward and speak to often some pretty horrific circumstances, but I’d also like to shout out to those who may not necessarily have felt safe in coming forward and speaking to this issue. What I would like to say is “We hear you in this place. You do not have to physically come into this House and tell your story, because many brave women came and did that not only for themselves but on behalf of you. They care not only for themselves and what they went through; they don’t want to see it happening to anybody else.” So we hear those who often have felt silenced.

We hear those who may not have had the opportunity to come forward. We may not even necessarily understand exactly what that might feel like, but many of us have had circumstances where we have witnessed what that pain can feel like and what that absolute—I cannot think of the word, just that absolute frustration of not knowing where to turn to, but now knowing that there is an avenue that you can go down to stop this kind of behaviour.

Stalking is unacceptable in any circumstance and I’m hoping that this small but powerful change will make a real difference in the lives of men and women around our country. Thank you very much. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill. I’d first like to acknowledge the Minister for bringing a piece of legislation that is an important step forward in our commitment to reducing the numbers of serious crimes reported, and to demonstrating a strengthening of our law and order and protection for victims.

The stalking and harassment bill sounds simple when we talk about it in this House, but the reality is that stalking and harassment places its victims in prison. They are isolated, they are afraid to move about their lives, they are robbed of their liberty, they are robbed of their freedom. Therefore, to talk about it in a term that we use so frivolously—harassing and stalking—it just sounds easy to say, but the reality for the victims is enormous. It is that loss of liberty, that loss of ability to live your life as you should be able to live, and that is why it has been an important piece of legislation to bring forward.

I would really like to acknowledge the Justice Committee, and I know that there has been thorough and detailed and robust discussions around how to make this piece of law, as it’s brought before the House today, as workable and effective as possible. It is a recognition of all of the committee in the way they have engaged and recognised some vulnerabilities where the law can be strengthened and have addressed that by extending the time allocation and reducing the number of instances under which the offence can be founded.

What is important, I think, is to recognise that, most importantly, this piece of legislation is an empowerment. It is a protection and an empowerment to those who feel vulnerable and feel isolated and feel imprisoned in their lives. It is a strong message to say we are taking action and, as has been said repeatedly in this House, we are listening. The process of operationalising a piece of law for police, for enforcement agencies, for the courts is a difficult one, and I think the presenting of this legislation with an opportunity to consider and continue to review its impact and effectiveness is a good initiative.

This is a long time coming and I can appreciate the frustration for those who have lobbied to have their voice heard. There are complex areas of law when we’re dealing about the victims and vulnerabilities and we have prioritised—I think, rightly so—the relationship offences. But what we’re dealing with here is offences that occur when no relationship exists, as well as when a relationship exists—when there is only imagined connections and imagined relationships. That makes it all the more horrifying for those who are trying to live a free and happy life.

I think this is recognising that we are offering, here, a tool of empowerment. We are offering, here, another opportunity to hear those that are vulnerable and made vulnerable by those who have such bad intentions. I am very grateful for the legislation being put forward today. I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I look forward to it working its way through to becoming law and that we can finally take some action against the perpetrators of this type of offending. I commend the bill to the House.

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

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Similarly to a bill that I spoke to—it feels probably too familiar—just last week, around violence and domestic violence and family violence, and so it feels like some of this might feel and sound similar. It does reflect—again, I think I said this last week—Judge Recordon, when we were first trying to find out, and he said in court that day, “So what is this thing, family violence? We have to really figure it out because we don’t know what we’re looking at.”

I reflect again in this instance what that means in terms of stalking, because then that became a thing. Once you name something like this, you can figure it out. So if that’s the word, how do we identify it, and how do we know it and how do we manage it and how do we keep people safe? Those are the reflections as I speak today.

E mihi atu ana ki te whānau o Farzana. Aroha nui ki a rātou mō ake tonu atu.

[I acknowledge the Farzana family. Much love to them, for ever.]

When you say that name, and others, by the way, we then realise where we failed and where this House failed to not do more, and, generally, that seems to be because we don’t listen well enough. We don’t appreciate and recognise the truth when it’s spoken, and we carry on as if our own ideas are the only ones. So e mihi atu ana ki tērā whānau [I acknowledge that family].

Young women are entitled to feel safe—all women are entitled to feel safe. Wāhine Māori, mokopuna Māori, kōtiro Māori, tamāhine are entitled to feel safe, and they should, but we do not and they do not. This is why this is good—an idea still growing, I would say.

Much of my discussion—again, as you’ve heard me say before—is having worked in this field for a very long time and understanding the harm and the tragedy and the things that women suffer—different to men; that they suffer it differently to men: deeply, longer, and more enduring. I’m amazed sometimes how tough and brave we are when those things are forced upon us on a daily basis.

This point to require the offender to have known the behaviour was likely to cause fear or distress, it’s a dangerous but not—it’s a dumb thing. It’s a dumb thing. To think that you’re going to get any sense of a smart thinking-through consideration from an offender who’s already been doing the dumbest things. To think that you can leave that idea with them and go, “OK, do you get this? Do you understand the harm? Do you understand the trauma?” Look, I get that what we’re trying to do is to improve it, but I don’t know whether our swings are big enough, to be completely honest. I don’t know how long the harm has to be sustained on women, and therefore the children of these women, right? How long do we have to wait for this? I think bigger swings and I think braver moves is my view.

The other part of that is that, again, it minimises—and I mentioned this last week—the truth, because, too often, women in situations such as these are not taken seriously. Members will know, and our historical literature shows that we were called crazy and neurotic, right? The minute those words were used—and it shows in a lot of our history that when you’re called neurotic, who’s going to take you seriously? “She’s just another crazy wahine.”, right? So who’s really going to listen and take one seriously to get it to the point of this? Well, clearly Ginny Andersen, the Minister of Justice, and others in this House—particularly the women others in this House—have done that, and I recognise you and I see you in this instance.

Now, I’m going to speak to the boys and the men in this House and say that, OK guys, you need to buck up and speak up and actually have a look at your own, work on your own—work on your lot; on your men lot and your boys lot—because we’re doing all the work. I love some of you, at least, obviously—as I do in this House—but do the work and do the work with your men, do it for them. Do it sometimes, like a real damned good hug—but do the work so we don’t have to carry the load and keep doing the work.

I support this, obviously. I support the smart, good, full-hearted women and the full-hearted men in this and I honour it and I commend it. Kia ora tātou.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): “Greg has told me how he is going to rape and kill me endlessly. It is devastating that until he acts on this, I am not protected under New Zealand law.” These are the words of Zeni Gibson and, because of the way that our laws are currently written, she had and continues to be violently stalked by a complete stranger that she had a handful of polite, civil interactions with—a smile, a nod, a quick hello—here and there when she was 16, which turned into a full-blown intense fixation. This happened just down the road from where we sit today.

He used every method he could to stalk Zeni. He harassed her social media accounts, he sent her persistent emails, which could be more than 1,000 emails in one week. When she blocked him, he would go on to websites to send newsletter sign-up forms and she would receive emails that said, “Hi, Zeni, check your message requests.”; “Hello, hey, in case you didn’t see the other messages.”; “Kia ora. Cut your throat.”; “Hey, I need to slice your smile off of your face.”; and even this last one: “43 [redacted street] rape your Mum.”, which was her mother’s address, which he somehow got a hold of.

This gives you a brief insight into the graphic, sexually violent stalking that Zeni had to endure, but does not even begin to touch on the real-life actions, including this person putting human faeces in her family’s mailbox. All of this unpunishable by our law, unless he acted on his heinous promises. “It’s hard to explain how insidious and all-consuming stalking is. Greg was with me while I was eating dinner with mum; while I was showering; while I was driving with my friends. I couldn’t lock my door and feel safe. He was there, wherever I was, every day, describing my sexual torture in bloody detail.”

I have spoken to Zeni over the last eight months, over Instagram messages. I’ve spoken with her family members and her testimony brought me to tears because I know firsthand, as a young woman in this place, that rape and death threats and stalking literally follows you everywhere you go. Many women know how this feels because, in this day and age with the internet, Zeni is but one of many women who have contacted me and shared their stories with me. Thanks to working with Zeni, I was able to get New Zealand Transport Agency to enable an email confirmation as part of their sign-up functions; they have removed the free-type name field and their newsletters no longer address recipients by name. Sir Brian Roche, our Public Service Commissioner, has also engaged with me on public websites being used to stalk others.

I have many complex views on this bill, but my major two points boil down to this. First, we rely on the Police getting this right. In Zeni’s case, the police made a number of mistakes that could have led to her death, including delivering her stalker with a notice which restricted him to enter the suburb of Mornington where she had just moved into a new flat, exposing her location. These mistakes cost lives. Farzana Yaqubi, who my colleague Kahurangi was talking about, was a 21-year-old woman in Auckland who was stabbed to death while getting off the bus, after a litany of police failures, as outlined by the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

I have met with the Minister of Police to bring these issues to his attention and I am hopeful that police notification after just one incident of stalking will have the same effect that it has had around the world in different international jurisdictions. Sadly, a stern warning from a man in a uniform with status is more authoritative than a woman who says no.

The second point is that imprisonment cannot be the only tool to eliminate stalking. In Zeni’s own words, “I completely reject the conversation around harsher penalties. I believe that my experience brings to light a lapse in access to mental health support. At the same time, I believe there needs to be a better way to protect victims of harassment and stalking and to prevent this from happening in the first place.” For some stalkers, imprisonment terms may make them more violent, more hostile, while they become even more fixated. An example of what that could look like in prevention is giving greater resources to the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre, who are a preventative service focusing and specialising on fixated people who have an obsessional preoccupation with a person, place, or cause which is pursued to an irrational degree.

Finally, we must believe people, we must believe and protect women, and a reflection that we might not be there yet is the fact that it took decades of campaigning to get here today.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill at the second reading. I’d like to start off by saying rest in peace, Farzana Yaqubi, Allah yerhamik.

Farzana’s violent death by her stalker has been the torch of change flashed in New Zealand’s eyes, and it has turned tragedy into action. I’m really proud of the fact that, through the select committee process, we have, as has been mentioned, strengthened the bill to crack down harder on offenders and would-be offenders, particularly by changing the number of acts as to when the law will be triggered to two in 24 months. Victims are finally being put first. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I do want to absolutely acknowledge the serious harm that stalking causes. I just want to recognise that this is part of a significant shift in our law that has happened over the past few years—that, for a long time, our law really focused on physical harm, and it was very rare indeed that psychological harm to another person was seen as giving rise to any kind of criminal responsibility.

This is a further extension of things like the offences under the Harassment Act and the Harmful Digital Communications Act. I guess I want to take a slightly legalistic approach, because it does throw up some real challenges about how we approach that. Before we do that, I want to also recognise the advocacy around this from numerous people and groups—far too many to name—and the fact that their work has led to this legislation coming before the House. I think it’s really heartening, and those people can feel rightly proud.

I also want to recognise Ginny Andersen’s work in this space. She also worked tirelessly with those advocates, and, in taking action, including drafting her own member’s bill, and I want to be clear that but for that member’s bill, the Minister of Justice would have continued to say that this isn’t a priority. It’s a really good example of how, in Opposition, we can have change and create change. But good on the Government, and I want to also recognise one other thing: as we sat around that select committee table, we all agreed in principle that this was a terrible state of affairs that needed to change, and we worked on making it better, and made substantial changes to the legislation as it went through the committee. So all of those are good things.

The stalking offence that this creates—I want to point one thing out—is a very serious offence. The maximum imprisonment for it is five years, so it puts it very much at the upper end, not up with serious violent offending, but very much in the upper echelons of offending. So we’ve got to be really clear that, yes, engaging in harassing or stalking behaviour is very bad, but we need to set the threshold for what that is, at a level that is commensurate with putting someone who’s a serious offender in jail for five years. It’s not a trivial offence; it’s a serious offence. So we need to recognise that.

If you look at the conduct—what’s the technical term?—the “specified acts”, some of them are obviously troubling: loitering and following home, or obstructing a person; things like that. But equally, others are things that people would do not as a matter of course, but things that nasty people would simply do to be nasty, such as sending electronic messages, or the like.

That’s why there’s quite an interesting provision here, and it’s quite a challenge, and that’s the mental state required. People who engage in stalking behaviour sometimes have a tenuous grasp on reality, you know? Sometimes, they are of a view that what they’re doing is either not a bad thing or will get them back together with an ex-partner, or something of that ilk. The test is that there’s a pattern of behaviour, and the person engaging in that behaviour knows that it’s likely to cause fear or distress. So it’s that “knows”—it’s not “ought to know”, or “a reasonable person would know”; it’s a test of actual knowledge, and I think that’s something that bears further discussion.

One of the reasons in new subsection (3) of the key section there: you have a warning framework where a police officer can go to a person who’s engaged in this behaviour and say—and Tamatha Paul just referred to this—“Hey, look, what you’re doing isn’t OK, it is causing distress, and it would be a stalking event. Now that you know this, you’re on notice.” So when that happens, people can’t then turn around and go, “I thought she liked it when I sent her these sexual messages.”, or whatever it might be, when they’ve been clearly told that that’s not the case. So that’s why that is in there. That’s an important part of the knowledge element. But I think we need to discuss that knowledge element—mens rea, if you want to use the legal term—a little bit more, and ask the question in this House whether we’ve struck the right balance there.

I do want to say this about this piece of legislation: we agree on this side of the House that creating a stalking offence is the right thing to do. But let’s not kid ourselves that it will solve the problem. The problem runs much deeper, and we don’t effect societal change by creating a criminal offence. We don’t effect a change in the way people see what appropriate behaviour and what a healthy relationship is and how to behave when the world doesn’t turn out the way they want, by creating a criminal offence. I think, as leaders in this House and elsewhere, we need to also be clear that we’re leading more than just a legislative change but also a cultural change, but that will be how we keep women in particular safe.

The other thing I’d note is this bill actually deals with some other things that are being bandied around in this House, and in subsection (2) of the proposed section 216P, dealing with specified acts, it talks about the use of artificial intelligence. I know there’s been a lot of discussion around deep fakes. I’m always concerned when we define things too narrowly and we end up having a long list of things that are included and things are always falling outside of it. I think this legislation would capture the use of deep fakes as a tool of harassment.

In terms of the deep fakes in the member’s bill that has been bandied around in this House, the bill actually talks about sexualised images. Deep fakes can be offensive without being sexualised, they can be harassing without being sexualised: they could be an artificial image of the stalker and the victim that’s totally fake. If that was posted on Facebook or simply emailed to the victim, that is stalking and harassing behaviour, and it is captured by this definition. That’s one of the reasons I think this is quite well drafted, because the prohibited behaviour is drafted quite widely, and the test for the behaviour isn’t exactly what you do; it’s the effect that it has. There’s two elements to it: that it has an effect of causing fear or distress, and that it was known to do that. It doesn’t even have to have been intended to do that, as long as you knew that that was what it was going to do.

I think in taking that approach, saying, “If you engage in a behaviour which you know causes distress, that’s stalking; here are some of the kinds of behaviours.”—in a very open-ended way—that’s actually a really good way to draft it. It’s not good drafting it like “You can’t stand outside someone’s home. You can’t send deep-fake images. You can’t send angry texts.”, because a list like that’s never going to work. So what we have here is a good piece of legislation; it’s not perfect.

The other thing I’d just say as a closing remark is that we have a patchwork of legislation in this space: we have domestic violence legislation, protection orders, the Harassment Act, the Harmful Digital Communications Act, intimidation under the Summary Offences Act, and now we have stalking Under the Crimes Act. It’s not satisfactory, and, at some point, we’re going to have to sit down and say that we need to think very carefully about wrongdoing which is about harassment, about fear, about intimidation, about coercion and control, and we need to have a carefully thought-out and unified approach to it. But this is one step in that direction.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to pick up on the comment the last speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, made about effecting change. Ultimately, there are a number of challenges in this space, but, actually, this is a critical step to helping to restore the balance of real consequences for crime. We are not prepared to accept an apologist approach like we saw under the last Government. This bill is about rebalancing law and order issues in this country. I want to thank the Justice Committee for their diligent work and their proposals to amend some of the clauses within this, because, actually, I think they’ve reached a good balance on that. We’ve heard too many sad stories of horrific situations of stalking and harassment, so this bill is a great way to progress that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in favour and support of this very important bill. I’d like to thank the Government for moving this through on the foundations of Ginny Andersen’s advocacy—her tireless advocacy, really—in terms of this area and in terms of other areas relating to sexual violence and intimidation against women.

In 2022, on 19 December, I was the electorate MP for Upper Harbour and I remember hearing the news that Farzana Yaqubi had been murdered in the electorate. The following day, Ibrahim Omer and I went to the place where she had been murdered, and we walked around the corner to where her house was—it was so close; so impossibly close—and sat for a time with her family before we went to her burial the following day.

This was a family who were grieving in just the worst kind of way—the absolute worst kind of way. They could not believe that she had been taken from them. But I think they were also really reeling from the fact that she—as they found out later through the Independent Police Conduct Authority process—had made a number of complaints and she had raised these issues and she’d done all the right things. Despite that, she hadn’t had the help that she needed.

On 25 October 2022, Farzana made her first 105 online report to the police and she actually sent screenshots of the messages that had been sent to her; she provided the police with information. On 3 December 2022, she updated her online report and she told police that she was extremely fearful that the man may pose a threat to her life. On 6 December, she filed a formal statement at the Henderson Police Station and was told that the file would be forwarded, but, essentially, it hadn’t progressed any further at all.

Then on 19 December, she was murdered. The astonishing loss of life—a young Auckland University of Technology law student—I just find impossible to think about. I do want to acknowledge her family, although what they said to me the day after still rings true: that nothing can be done to bring her back. I think that’s true for every woman who faces violence of this nature, and therefore we must pay attention to all the things that happened before that.

I do think that this legislation is a step in the right direction, but I do think, like other speakers have mentioned, we must continue to monitor it to make sure that it’s operating as it should. We had a number of submitters, including the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ submission and WAVES—Waitakere Anti-Violence Essential Services—who argued against that sort of repetitive pattern of behaviour, and that led to a change taken on board by the Justice Committee, which eventually got us to the two Acts in two years. However, as others have spoken to, there remains some dissatisfaction with the mens rea element, which is why Ginny Andersen has put forward her proposed changes.

Much like Duncan Webb has highlighted, the college of psychiatrists suggested that much more needed to be done, and they talked about developing sector guidance, education, resources. They talked about support frameworks for victims. I think about other programmes that are just in sort of seedling stage right now that this whole House needs to get behind in terms of supporting them, because one of our biggest problems is that women often don’t report when they’re subjected to acts of intimidation, stalking behaviour—they simply don’t report. There is a new tool that’s going to be launched in August or September called Tika. It is an app tool where you can register an instance of sexual violence, and if the same individual is identified, it flags that to you so that you can then say, “It’s not just me. I do want to go ahead and report now.”

I would just strongly, in my final comments, encourage the House that this is an area where we must all continue to work together. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I too want to commend the Justice Committee for the substantive changes that they have made in toughening up this stalking legislation. I too, quickly, want to pay tribute to Farzana Yaqubi, the 21-year-old law student whose life was violently cut short on Royal Road, in Massey, in Upper Harbour in 2022. Her death is not in vain. I thank the committee for all its work, and I look forward to the third reading and for this to be enacted. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Madam Speaker, thank you. First of all, I just want to commend the words that I’ve heard from many of the speakers tonight, particularly Vanushi Walters’ account of the terrible story of a woman’s death, because we weren’t adequately addressing this issue. Also, I’m mindful of other members of the House who have spent their lives working in this field, and I just want to acknowledge the very good place that people come from when they look at this legislation.

What we’ve made here is a difficult change, and we have had a system that’s failed because of some things that are very good in our system—some things where we are trying to make sure that we are always aware of the mens rea in a situation—and it hasn’t worked for us. It’s actually let a whole lot of people down, and we have to be flexible enough to see that our system hasn’t worked and move on from it into a different space. I see this is a well-formed piece of legislation that will need review—we will need to look at it again—but I think it is one where we’re taking stock, and we’re thinking, “We are a different world.” This was a world where, really, we underestimated the impact of events like this on people, and we did that probably because women didn’t have the power that they should have had in our society. We just weren’t, as a society, aware of the impact it was having on them.

I’m hesitant to use this example because I do not want to underestimate the true cost of this kind of stalking for other people, but I had a touch of this in my own life when I had somebody come to my law firm who had decided to track me down because my husband, in his career, had offended them. They were a member of the Special Air Service, so they had been somebody who was quite capable of killing someone—they’d been imprisoned. They had to close my office as a consequence, and, after several years of phone calls and being very fearful of a situation, I went through the process of standing for Parliament and, lo and behold, guess who turned up! I got that ominous call. It’s a special kind of fear that enters you when you get that call, and it’s because you’ve got children, and you’ve got a whole vulnerability that people just don’t get unless you’re absolutely in those boots. That would have been an example of a situation where it was after a two-year period—in fact, I think it would have been probably more like three years.

I think we do have to look at these things from time to time, because we may need to look at the balance between each act being something that, maybe, is lawful but its culmination being something that causes other people deep distress. I think it is very important at the committee stage of this bill that we talk about whether we’ve got that balance right, in terms of the test of knowledge and whether, in fact, we have to take a long, hard look at the area in a pragmatic way and say, “Maybe we need to alter that a little in favour of the victims of this kind of violence.” I think we can underestimate how much fear is part of the psychology of human beings. We need to be aware that people are fearful, and they need to be looked after in that state.

I just want to come back to the situation I went through and talk about one of the things that I think is a very strong part of this particular piece of legislation. That’s the signal to our community that this is just not acceptable—the signal to the perpetrator, and the signal to our police force, because, in the situation that I had, I had a man who’d just been released from prison, my office had been shut down, and the police actually were very dismissive of what was going on. The man was bailed to my area without any regard for the fact that my children and I had to move into another area as a consequence. It was extremely scary. The police officer said to me, at one point, “I saw this man at the Anzac ceremony”—because he’d skipped bail—“but I didn’t arrest him.” I just don’t think that that police officer understood the seriousness of what that man was engaged in. And it wasn’t just me; it was also the fact he’d been in prison because he had been very violent to his wife. These things are connected.

I think this piece of legislation is the signal; it’s saying, “We take this stuff seriously.” You may manipulate in this way: you may say that this is just a bunch of flowers. You may say, “I just know your address.” You may say, “I’m just playing around”, with some sort of image on social media. You may say these things, but we don’t believe you. We actually need to believe the people who are fearful—because that’s most of us. Most of us get fearful in those situations. Most of us are vulnerable. Our job as legislators is to make sure we change the norms and values of our society sufficiently when required—when that’s reasonable. It’s reasonable here. It’s reasonable that we look through the bunch of flowers, we look through the texts and the texts and the texts, we look through the violence, and we don’t say, “You’re being melodramatic.”; we say, “That kind of threat that makes you frightened, that’s not good enough. You can’t do that.” That is actually going to put into force the support that is the Police, that is the State. We are going to look after our own, and that’s a very, very important symbol. I think that’s the thing that this law has got right. I think it’s sending out that signal. It doesn’t mean that other stuff isn’t important; it absolutely is.

I’d like to end with talking about the bit that I think’s missing. I’ve picked up the sexual and family violence portfolio for the Labour Party, and I am very concerned that, currently, our sexual and family violence strategy has been prioritised in a way that ignores education. We need proactive education in this country. We need people to know about this law. We need them to know that it’s not acceptable to harass people in this way—that we won’t put up with it. We need them to know that the norms and values of this country have moved. We still have a situation where most women, if you survey them tomorrow, in this country, would not understand or be able to define what sexual abuse is, what rape is. That is where we’re at in this country. We’re not alone; that’s true of most countries. In most countries, that is knowledge that is not yet really assimilated into our populations. We need to put some serious money into educating our population on what we expect of them—what is OK, and what is not.

This law could be our chance to do that. We need to make sure that people are aware of where they stand with this law. It’s not just our police force; it’s our population. We need people to understand this, and we know—the science says—if we educate people, if we say it’s not OK to do these things, actually, the population will change in its norms and values, and that’s going to be very important. Our young men need to know about this law. They need to know what’s acceptable and what isn’t. This is one of the things we need, but the other thing we need to do is that sometimes we need to spend some money on areas like this to keep people safe, because that will mean less victims.

While there is a hue and cry about wasted spending, I don’t believe that this, in anyone in this House’s opinion, would be a waste of money. There was no money put into the sexual and family violence strategy this time in the Budget. Whether the Labour Party’s in Government or there is another Government, I urge people in this House to take this area seriously. It’s incredibly important that we support this with funding and education, because otherwise this law won’t work. It needs that support. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

NANCY LU (National): Every New Zealander deserves to feel safe in their communities and anywhere in New Zealand. Stalking is very scary, and particularly it’s risky for victims and can escalate very quickly to very serious physical harm but also mental harm. I commend those people who have submitted in the submissions but also those who have emailed me your personal stories. We hear you and we feel you, and I have to say I feel you because I’ve also been stalked.

That is why a National-led coalition Government is introducing this new stalking and harassment offence in this bill, because we promised to reduce crime, we promised to restore law and order, and we are delivering on our promises to all New Zealanders. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I move, That the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill was introduced on 12 November 2024, the day that the Prime Minister apologised on behalf of the Crown to survivors of abuse and neglect in care. The Government knew that the apology would be hollow without action. This bill is an action that demonstrates our ongoing commitment to respond to the abuse in care royal commission of inquiry. Work on this bill was quickly progressed by the Minister for Children, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Internal Affairs in response to the royal commission. It’s an example of the cross-Government work to analyse the royal commission’s recommendations and to respond to them. This bill is aligned with several of the royal commission’s recommendations. It directly addresses some of them and addresses the intent of others. The Government is determined to strengthen the safety of children, young people, and adults in State care, now and into the future.

I want to acknowledge the survivors who shared their experiences with the royal commission, and I also want to acknowledge the survivors who submitted and spoke to the select committee on this bill. They gave important context to the work of the committee. There were 42 individual submitters on the bill—at least seven of whom were survivors. Some were also members of the deaf and disabled community. There were 27 organisations that submitted on the bill. This included organisations with survivors who spoke to the committee during its hearings. Thank you to all of you.

I also want to thank the other individuals and organisations that made submissions and contributed to the committee process and to some improvements in the bill. Overall, the sentiment of most of the submitters was in support of the amendment bill, with very few submitting against it entirely. The bill amends four pieces of legislation. The first amendment provides the workforce restrictions in the Children’s Act, preventing people with certain overseas convictions from working with children. The second amendment to the Crimes Act includes a reference to disability in the definition of a “vulnerable adult” in the Act to make our obligations to disabled people in care explicit. The third amendment is to the Oranga Tamariki Act to change the search powers and clarify the time frame for secure care to improve safety and wellbeing in Oranga Tamariki residences. Finally, the fourth is updating the Public Records Act to encourage improved record-keeping and ensure an appropriate response where poor practice is identified.

The bill will strengthen the children’s worker safety regime in the Children’s Act. This change aligns with the royal commission’s recommendation 58. The changes will strengthen protections to safeguard children from potential harm by those working with or caring for them. There was widespread support for this change during the select committee process. No person or organisation submitted against it. Core workers are children’s workers who have primary responsibility for a child while working with or caring for them. Core workers are employed by the State sector or a Government-funded organisation to provide regulated services. Under this bill, it will be unlawful to employ a core worker if they have an overseas conviction for an offence that is equivalent to a New Zealand offence or a conviction for certain offences involving harm against minors in the Prostitution Reform Act. This will mean people who have been convicted overseas for offences of serious harm—including harm against children—cannot be core workers. However, there will be review and appeal rights for people to seek an exemption. This must be on the basis they do not present an undue risk to the safety of children. I’ve directed officials to undertake further work to identify options for improved safety-checking requirements as part of our response to the commission’s recommendations.

Safety and wellbeing in secure youth justice residences will be improved by the amendment to the Oranga Tamariki Act authorising universal searches. Currently, visitors, staff, and contractors cannot be searched on entry to these residences. This change enables searching of them for harmful items. Oranga Tamariki will communicate the new search powers to visitors, staff, and contractors so that they understand the new rules when they come into effect. Submitters on the Oranga Tamariki changes supported the introduction of an approved search plan, developed with children and young people, and the removal of the authority to strip-search children and young people in residences. Search plans will now take account of a child or young person’s need and preferences and their experiences. Children and young people will now be able to request that their plans be updated. Doing this aligns with the royal commission’s recommendation 78 to have fit-for-need and individualised care. The changes to the Oranga Tamariki Act will also clarify the maximum time a young person can remain in a secure care unit without judicial oversight. A minor clarifying change to this amendment is also being made as a result of the select committee. To be clear, the first day a child is in secure care is counted as one of the three days they may be in secure care before judicial oversight is required. Oranga Tamariki and the select committee heard from care-experienced young people about these changes. I want to acknowledge and thank them for contributing to the select committee process.

As recommended by the royal commission, the Crimes Act will be amended to add disability to the definition of a “vulnerable adult”. This change directly responds to recommendation 26 of the royal commission’s final report. In the Crimes Act, someone is a “vulnerable adult” when they are unable to remove themselves from care. The vulnerability is created by the inability to withdraw from the care or charge of another. It is not about any inherent characteristics of the person in care. The Crimes Act change will make it clear, for those caring for disabled adults, that they have a statutory duty towards them. The royal commission and the select committee heard the concerns raised by the deaf and disabled community about the use of the term “vulnerable”. The commission recommended the change, understanding these concerns, and the amendment has been supported by the select committee.

Care-experienced people place significant value on information about their time and care. It helps them understand their history, their experiences, and who they are. Many survivors have shared stories about the poor experiences when seeking access to their care records. The select committee heard these stories. They provide important context to the changes being made to the Public Records Act. The bill will introduce new powers for Archives New Zealand and the Chief Archivist to support improvements in record-keeping practices. These changes also received widespread support. There were no submissions that were against the change. Submitters suggested there should be more transparency around the action plans and performance notices that will be put in place using these new powers. A change to the Public Records Act will see these things reported in the Chief Archivist’s annual reports. Public reporting on action plans and performance notices will provide additional incentives for agencies to improve their record-keeping. The committee also heard that powers of the Chief Archivist could be strengthened—for example, by enabling audits of contracted providers. Work to improve record-keeping aligns with recommendations made by the royal commission in both its redress report and its final report. The work is ongoing.

Thank you to everyone who made a written submission and who spoke to the select committee. This was an important step in the progress of this bill. Thank you to the select committee for their consideration of the bill and for the minor amendments to improve the bill. We appreciated the good-faith engagement on the introduction and first readings of this bill, and we hope this can continue across the House today as I move that this bill will be read for a second time. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill—Green Party Vote

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Apologies for interrupting the speeches this evening. Earlier today, I received leave to record the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand’s vote in opposition to the first reading of the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. I intended to seek leave for 15 votes to be recorded on the second reading of the bill and now seek leave to make that correction and record our opposition to the second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Thank you.

Bills

Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, back to the second reading of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This bill is a missed opportunity. Submitters described this bill as piecemeal tinkering and a squandered opportunity. The hundreds of thousands of people who survived abuse in care have a right to feel disappointment and hurt due to the Government’s lack of action in response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care was New Zealand’s largest and most complex public inquiry. Across five years, commissioners heard nearly 3,000 survivor accounts of abuse, neglect, and trauma and conducted wide-ranging, wide-reaching research and analysis. It can’t be said too often that the findings are horrifying. We were together here in this House last November at the first reading of the bill to apologise to survivors for the harm, neglect, and trauma that they experienced at the hands of people who were supposed to provide them with love and care.

As I said that day: “E kore e taea te hoki ki te whakatika i ngā hē kua oti, engari ka taea e mātou, e tātou te whakatika ngā mahi o nāianei kia kaua rawa anō ēnei ngārara e ngau kino anō i tētahi ā haere ake nei.”

[“We will never be able to go back and correct the wrongs that have been committed, but we, all of us, can correct the actions of today so that this horror may never again assault anyone else from now on.”]

That translation was provided by our wonderful interpreters here.

The recommendations from Whanaketia provide a plan of action to correct actions of today so that we can make our country’s care system safer and to stop abuse, neglect, and trauma from ever happening again. Yet this Government has done so little to take up this call to action. Their redress announcement in May this year ignored the fundamental request of survivors and recommendations from the royal commission—that is, that survivors weren’t required to go back to their abuser to seek redress. An independent system was what was called for, not simply funnelling more money into systems that have wronged survivors and continue to do so.

Their announcement also completely excluded survivors of abuse, neglect, and trauma in faith-based institutions, again totally ignoring a royal commission recommendation that faith-based institutions were included in the redress system and ignoring the terrible harm that survivors experienced in these institutions. Their response plan kicks the majority of recommendations down the road. The Government has declined to accept, or not even started to consider, 84 of the recommendations, and survivors continue to wait while 38 recommendations are considered further. The Government have only fully accepted 19 of the 207 recommendations in Whanaketia and the He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu report.

In this light, the bill before us offers some small progress, and that’s why Labour supports it, because it is at least some legislative action this Government is taking to address the findings in the royal commission into abuse in State care. We support the removal of strip-searches and the clarification about the use of “secure”. We also support providing the Chief Archivist with greater powers to enforce record-keeping standards and steps to improve the people working with children. We support those aspects that are in this legislation, yet we have reservations about other aspects of the bill. So we are in a difficult position here tonight.

I want to start with the fact that there was no proper consultation for this bill. The Minister kept saying that the royal commission itself was good enough consultation, but survivors were not consulted on the royal commission’s recommendations. That is not a criticism of the royal commission; that was not their duty. They were very clear in their recommendations that the development of any redress and the response to recommendations should be done working together with survivors, and that did not occur with this bill. That came through in submissions before our select committee.

This bill demonstrates why consultation is so important. The select committee process highlighted that the bill will introduce a flawed definition of “vulnerable adult”. The bill, as it stands, will put a definition in legislation that the disabled community has significant concerns with. The Minister said that the select committee supported these recommendations, but I do note that it was the majority; therefore, the Government members. There were those of us from other parties who had issues with some of the recommendations, including this particular definition. We asked the Minister to pause, to remove that particular provision from the legislation, and to work further on it with the community, and that did not happen.

There’s another provision in there that we have a huge issue with, and that’s regarding the use of force in care settings, even if it is limited. The basic fact of the matter is that there should be no need for force, and it shouldn’t be used at all. So putting it into legislation and limiting it to—oh, I think it’s like something “absolutely necessary” or words to that effect. That created concern for some of us in the committee. There is a wealth of evidence about de-escalation practices that are effective in managing this type of behaviour. This bill is a missed opportunity to mandate the use of modern approaches to behaviour management that are rehabilitative and not potentially harmful.

I will be bringing amendments to the committee stage to address some of the issues that I have spoken to today and others that have been raised by submitters, and we invite the Minister to consider them clearly. One of the issues with putting things through in an omnibus fashion is that of course there are things in here which we support and have no issue with, like the ones that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. But there are others, due to a lack of consultation or outright concern with and not aligning with the recommendations of the royal commission, that we have issue with.

So we are supporting this bill this evening but with those concerns, and we will be bringing forward amendments that we hope the Minister will give proper consideration to in the next stage. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I start by quoting a survivor of abuse in care, Keith Wiffan: “We are called survivors, but firstly I would like to acknowledge and honour the very many who have not survived—their families and whānau—many taking their own lives, many having their lives shortened by the serious health issues related to being abused in care, many not surviving the ill treatment. Their spirits are with us today.” Abuse in care “has ripped families and communities apart, trapping many into a life of prison incarceration, leaving many uneducated and ill-equipped to cope in the outside world … The public of this country have invested heavily in this inquiry and like us they expect outcomes.”

I want to thank Keith for that quote. I want to start by acknowledging survivors and centring their voices. They are survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. You’ve waited for decades for justice, for even the most basic assurance that the harm done to you will never be repeated. I want to honour and thank you for your courage. Your stories, which we read in Whanaketea - Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light—survivor experiences for the survivors, by the survivors. Your stories, your advocacy, and your persistence are why we are here today. The Green Party supports the intent of this bill, which will, hopefully, start a raft of legislative changes required to multiple systems and Government agencies to ensure the abuse suffered at the hands of the State is never repeated or felt again. We support efforts to strengthen protections of those who have suffered abuse in care. However, while this bill is a slight—very slight—step forward, it falls short of what is required to truly honour the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. It fails to centre survivors, it fails to deliver the systemic change that is being called for, and it fails to uphold the Government’s duty of care to those it harmed.

I want to be clear that the Greens support this bill progressing so that it can be improved. Again, though, let me be very clear: we will be seeking significant amendments, particularly around the use of force in care settings, the definition of “vulnerable adult”, and the need for truly independent survivor-led review of this legislation at the committee of the whole House stage.

The Greens have participated, in good faith, at the first reading, through select committee, and second reading stages ,and will continue to fight for this legislation to be better and more survivor-centred than how it is currently drafted. The Greens remain deeply, deeply concerned by the inclusion of the section 384KB, which permits the use of force in certain care settings, even under so-called limited circumstances. Let me say this in the most plain terms: there should be no place for the use of force against children and young people in care; not now, not ever.

The royal commission was unequivocal in its findings: force, restraint, and punitive practices are a continuation of the very abuse we are trying to reckon with. Yet here we are considering a bill that, as currently drafted, potentially leaves the door open to some of those same practices. We know from decades of research, from lived experience of survivors, and from the international best practice that young people in care, particularly those in youth justice settings, often have significant trauma histories, complex needs, and mental distress. Meeting those needs with force only causes more harm. We should be embedding trauma-informed de-escalation practices in legislation, not legitimising physical restraint.

We have raised this in our differing view at the select committee stage but what remains troubling is the way that the currently drafted legislation leaves the door open to a third party—private providers—to use force. That is a serious red flag; a red flag we should all be concerned about. It raises enormous accountability and safety concerns, and it directly contradicts the recommendations 70 to 75 of the royal commission of inquiry, which called for a fundamental shift away from punitive models of care. Whakarongo mai.

We will be seeking a raft of Amendment Papers at the committee of the whole House stage to remove this provision entirely from the bill. We also remain concerned that this bill reinforces institutionalised models of youth justice, particularly through the expanded search powers and imaging provisions. Section 384KA may improve oversight in some cases, but at what cost? It risks contributing to a culture of surveillance and control, solidifying institutionalism in these rangatahi and young people rather than supporting healing.

Retaining images generated by imaging technology for up to 24 hours is unnecessary and potentially unsafe. The bill does not justify why this retention period is even necessary. Every day that an image is stored increases the risk of misuse, breach of privacy, and re-traumatisation—something we should all be focused on eliminating. We urge the Government to reconsider this approach and shift focus towards its community-based, whānau-centred, and culturally grounded alternatives to youth justice institutions. We want to move away from institutionalising children, and care for them instead.

Clause 12 of this bill introduces a problematic definition of “vulnerable adult” under the Crimes Act. This definition raised significant concerns with many in the disabled community, as we heard at the select committee stage. We heard from submitters that the current wording defines disabled people through a deficit lens rather than recognising them as full, equal participants in society. This language is not just outdated, it is actively harmful and undermines the intent of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. At the select committee stage, we asked the chair to formally request that this clause be paused until proper co-designed consultation with the disability and deaf communities has occurred.

Something that survivors said over and over and over in the royal commission of inquiry: “nothing about us without us” must mean something in law. Perhaps the most frustrating failure of this bill is the lack of meaningful consultation with the very people it affects. Survivors, disabled communities, the deaf community, tangata whaikaha Māori, takatāpui, and others have been vocal about their concerns. The select committee process is not meaningful—not meaningfully listening to these survivors and listening to their experiences and learning from them—because, over and over, they tell us the reason that they are going back over these awful childhood memories is so that no child ever experiences what they did when they were children. Unfortunately, we know, right now in New Zealand, that children are still being abused in care every day, and that is not good enough.

So, to conclude, the Greens will support this bill at second reading, but we do so with serious concerns and clear expectations around the amendments being sought to uphold the royal commission of inquiry recommendation. This must not be the final shape of the legislation. The use of force must be prohibited; survival leadership must be embedded; definitions must be empowering, not stigmatising; and consultation must be meaningful, not tokenistic.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to stand here on behalf of ACT in support of the second reading of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill.

Let me start with why this bill was presented in the first place. It was in response to recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. It was also done in a time frame around the apology to survivors of abuse in State-based care and faith-based care. That day still sits in my mind now very, very clearly.

I kind of have two feet in this camp—one with the experience of growing up knowing what it is like when the system fails you, when the system doesn’t step up and do what they should do to make sure that a young person is safe. I never really had an understanding of how important an apology is. I would just like to take a moment to thank Minister Stanford in the efforts around making sure that that apology was done in a genuine manner, a respectful manner, and in a way that may not be able to take away what happened to survivors in care, but at least it’s an acknowledgment of what had happened to them. So I just wanted to take a moment. I never really had a real understanding of how much that apology would mean to me myself. So I just wanted to speak to that.

In response to that, this is just a small part of a work programme that the Government is currently working on in response to the recommendations of that bill. Nobody has ever said that this is the magic bullet that’s going to fix absolutely everything; it’s just one part of the puzzle, and there is a lot of work to do. I’m really proud of the work that Ministers have done around this space, of actually working together and getting agencies to work together with the ultimate benefit of making sure that young people and anybody in State institutions are safe. My responsibility is not only to the young people that are in Oranga Tamariki care or residences but also to the safety of the staff within those residences. That was taken on board when we were looking at ways that we could make residences safe, not just for the young people but for the staff who are working with these young people.

I’ve heard some commentary around the use of force and the concerns around use of force. I’d just like to give an example of what that could look like and an understanding that it will be the last resort. But there are circumstances where young people are getting hurt and harmed within residences, not necessarily by the staff but by other young people. If two young people are in a circumstance where they are physically fighting, one is harming another, are we to say that a staff member cannot physically restrain that young person for the safety of the young person they are attacking? We have to have the ability, under exceptional circumstances, to allow staff to intervene for the safety of a young person. So I will not apologise for putting something in place that will give staff a tool to enable the safety of a young person when they are in danger of hurting or harming themselves or hurting or harming another young person or a staff member.

I’ve also heard concerns around third-party provider use of force. I would just like to clarify why that was even considered. I would also like to give another scenario of what that would look like. In the same sentence, the member that expressed concern about third-party use also mentioned that they would like to see the Government going back to community-led approaches and community, holistic approaches to dealing with our young people, rather than a residential care setting. This provision will allow that. Under current legislation, a third-party provider would not be able to take on these young people and would not have the ability to, like I said, keep their staff safe and keep the young people safe when they are in the care of a third-party provider, which could be an iwi provider or any community provider. This will allow us more options at looking at community-based care. I just think these are very small, simple changes around Oranga Tamariki - specific changes within this legislation that just makes sense.

In no circumstance whatsoever should strip-searches be allowed on young people. So it just made sense that there was something sitting in legislation that, obviously, has not been used in a long time but should not sit within legislation. So we will be repealing that and not allowing a young person to even consider that being a possibility. Survivors shared experiences of horrific, violating searches happening to them within care, and we do not have to have a piece of legislation that even reminds us that that could be a possibility. Submitters also talked about never feeling safe when they were in a residential setting and that we needed to make sure that young people are safe and cared for. So a lot of these decisions were made with that in mind, and search powers will enable that.

In the six months to February 2024, 390 unauthorised items were found in one secure youth justice residence alone, and that was without the ability of having a scanner in place, so we don’t actually know the true number. Of these, 21 were large-sized rocks, 14 were shanks that could be immediately used as a weapon, and there were also unauthorised items such as vapes and illegal drugs. Now, these vapes are also used to create shanks, which is incredibly dangerous for the young people and for the staff. So we have to have the ability to make sure that people that are visiting the residences—and this includes staff and contractors—are not bringing things into residences that would put these young people at risk. I have had feedback from young people and from people working with the young people that this will give them more sense of security and safety within what they call their home; and they should feel safe.

We’ve put provisions in place so that if an unauthorised item is found, it will be returned to the person who has brought it. They can take it back to their vehicle and choose to do so if they would like. We will be explaining this procedure thoroughly, and staff will be trained on how to implement it. They will be trained how to implement all the changes that are happening in this space.

As far as use of force comes, I do agree de-escalation is really important, which is why I was very concerned around there being no standard operating practices within youth justice. Professionalising the workforce has a massive budget boost for Oranga Tamariki for that very reason. We will be professionalising the workforce, making sure staff are trained, understand processes and de-escalation, and understand how to work in a trauma-informed way with young people that often have had a pretty poor start in life. So I commend this bill to the House, and I really look forward to the day that this gets Royal assent and that we can just get on with it.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Any time I speak on a topic relating to abuse in care, I draw from personal experience of what my mother suffered. For me, tonight, to speak to this bill, I take heart that, as a Government and as a Parliament, we are taking action in a positive direction.

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care—I had the privilege to make a contribution to that, and I’d just like to draw a couple of notes from what I spoke about in that first reading. The inquiry reveals shocking details, stories that are incredibly harrowing, that have impacted large numbers of people, their families, and communities. Abuse in State care—that abuse became normalised and integrated in the culture of so-called care. It’s a gross inversion of the purpose of healing and restoration and is a shameful stain on our nation.

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the second reading of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First, because this responds to decades of systemic abuse against children, young people, and vulnerable adults between 1950 and 1999. Its purpose is to begin implementing some of the commission’s recommendations while broader reforms are developed. It has been mentioned in the House tonight that this bill does not go far enough, but it is the beginning of a larger piece of work. This bill comes after the deeply traumatic findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. It does acknowledge the harm inflicted upon generations of New Zealanders in institutions that were designed to care for them, that were designed to protect them.

As I mentioned, this bill is a significant start. Further change is still needed, however. New Zealand First supports this bill. I commended it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to this bill, and I just want to first begin by acknowledging my colleague in front of me, Kahurangi Carter, for her compelling, moving speech and commitment to tamariki in care and in custody, as this bill addresses.

This bill, as others have outlined—my other colleague Willow-Jean Prime had a really important and strong introduction about what this is all about—this is all about the at least quarter of a million tamariki who were abused and tortured in State care and religious institutions from the years 1950 to 1999. I think, although we’re supporting this bill because of all of the reasons that Kahu outlined, there are obviously still gaps in this bill. We need to talk about those, because until we talk about those, nothing will ever change, and we have to acknowledge that there are still remnants of that system in the system that we have in place today.

This bill makes a number of different tweaks. Some of those are bigger than others, but it is tweaks to a system that aided and abetted that abuse over decades. Abuse in care did not stop in 1999; it continued beyond that, and we know that because we are in community with people younger than myself who experienced abuse in State care. I want to use an example: a case study from the Whanaketia report about Te Whakapakari boot camp programme that was run on Aotea, Great Barrier Island. We all know what happened in those boot camps, because it is outlined in this report. But three of the reasons why this abuse happened were: (1) a lack of institutional safeguards, (2) the fact that these were run in isolated locations, and (3) the presence and power holding of untrained members of staff. I am afraid that these three elements are still present in our youth justice system, in State care, and that they are not being addressed by this bill, because we see that in the boot camps that are happening today, and that will be legislated under a different bill around responding to serious youth offending—but this bill, too, entrenches some of those stalwart features of an abusive system.

This bill talks about youth justice residences, and I want to continue building on those points around institutionalisation. I’m really scared that some of the things that are in this bill will mean that whānau do not go to visit their tamariki, because of fear of being searched, having to be scanned, all of these different elements. I understand—it’s a fine balance to strike, that you have to make sure that people aren’t bringing in contraband, that they’re not bringing in anything that can harm Tamariki; but, at the same time, sometimes, that uneasiness around institutional authority can be enough, if you have that trauma, to not go. It can already be a challenge going in the first place if that youth justice residence is far away from where those tamariki come from.

That’s why the Greens have been persistent in saying that we do not believe in youth justice residences as they exist today. We believe that these need to be far smaller, in situ homes in communities so that tamariki are not ripped from their communities, where their families have to travel across the country to see them and then are subjected to some of these checks and balances. We obviously support provisions around removing strip-searches. No tamariki should ever be subjected to a strip-search—that would make anybody in this room feel deeply uncomfortable and horrified by that. But, again, I want to build on this idea around the use of force—and just really hammering home the point that use of force—if you use that against tamariki, in some ways, you are teaching them that it is OK to use that as a tool in their future. That use of force also can lead to further trauma and further use of violence.

So there are lots of different parts of this bill that I think my colleague articulated far better than I have, but just to say that we are committed to the journey and the teamwork that it will take to turn our youth justice system around. Kia ora.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a contribution on the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill on the second reading. As the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, I’ll just make a few comments and I’ll have an opportunity to say more in the third reading, so I’ll just limit the comments I make here to some themes that came through on this bill at hearings.

I just want to acknowledge the 69 submissions that the select committee received, the 20 submitters who presented orally—including many survivors of abuse in State care. Thank you for letting us know, in very visceral terms, the issues they’ve faced and continue to face and the importance of this to them, something that we also consider to be very important.

Some of the things that our committee heard is that some didn’t think this went far enough and wanted all of the recommendations the royal commission implemented. I note that this is the first step, and is an initial legislative response to the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. There are many more steps to come, and a lot of work has been done by the Government to respond to that, but this is the first thing and some critical initial things that the Government could move quickly on and is doing.

I just would note a couple of points. One was the recommendation that came from the royal commission to specifically include disability within the definition of a “vulnerable adult”. Some submitters were concerned about that terminology, and our committee very carefully considered that. An issue that was brought very clearly to our attention was that an unintended consequence of changing that definition would mean that it would actually have issues in the Crimes Act and it would probably result in fewer prosecutions. I acknowledge those submitters who raised concerns about this, but that is the reason why we have not recommended any change in respect of that—as we do not want less prosecutions of people who should be prosecuted.

In terms of the Children’s Act, this is extending workforce restrictions to include equivalent overseas convictions. We obviously want to ensure that people who have overseas convictions should not have the opportunity to be around young people and have an opportunity—that they should not have—to abuse them.

In terms of the Oranga Tamariki Act, I note the concerns that were raised by some around the search powers. It is important to note this is removing the power to conduct strip-searches. What it does do, instead, is allow scanner and pat-down searches upon entries of others to these facilities, to ensure that nothing is brought in—weapons or other contraband—and it permits the use of force only where reasonably necessary. We really interrogated that point and we got a lot of information to our committee about how they’ll be very, very carefully used and there will be very careful provisions put around that and reports that would have to follow if there was an occasion where it was deemed it was reasonably necessary.

There’s a number of other points that we probably can go into further, but I just want to say that we considered this very carefully. This is the first step of many steps to come. Thank you again to those who came and shared their experiences with our committee. We will talk again in the next hearing on this.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Just wrapping up this kaupapa, I thought that my colleague and friend Willow Jean Prime summed up the position very well in terms of our doubts with regards to the bill. It’s a sad state of affairs where you know that there’s still a lot to do. In fact, there’s so much to do, but you really have no choice in terms of supporting a kaupapa because something’s better than nothing.

Systemic abuse is shocking and, at times, hard to see or to believe for a lot of people, but it’s true and real and will always be, and that’s just a fact. And we’re talking here about the systemic abuse of a quarter of a million people, and many have acknowledged that—but a quarter of a million; it’s almost beyond belief. I think that many of us in the House here are still stunned when we think about the pure evil that was rolled out by people and organisations that many of us thought we could trust. We never thought for a moment—and I won’t mention any of the organisations tonight at all; that would not be right, but I think it was a stunning time back in November when we traversed this, when we addressed this.

I, like others here, was very pleased with the different kōrero that came around the House; particularly pleased with, obviously, our leader’s address, but also the Prime Minister gave a very, very good address—which was good, but many people were also saying, “Well, what does that actually now mean?” In terms of a real and practical sense, what can be done now—because the kōrero was good but what people want to see is real effect from their kōrero. They want to know what’s next, because the tough part of this is you’ve got a system that’s not working. Do you turn that whole system over or do you just put tweaks in there and roll it along?

We tried hard as a Government to change things. We addressed things in terms of Oranga Tamariki, we changed the whole board, we put a new chair in, we put a whole Māori board in, and we tried. Why did we go down that track? Because we were told that a by Māori, for Māori approach was the right way to go, and we started to get results. However, obviously, we got turned over as Government, and what we had put in place was not continued by the current Government.

I just wanted to make this short contribution before you cut me off, Madam Speaker, to say that the big question—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wasn’t going to cut you off, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The big question in terms of what survivors are saying is the system hasn’t worked for us. The system hasn’t worked for us, so we need more than a few tweaks. We need the whole system turned over, and that’s something that I think we want to address in the third reading, because it will take bravery, it will take courage, but at least we’ve made a start and the framework is in place. I look forward to addressing some of that in the third reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 23 JULY 2025

(continued on Thursday, 24 July 2025)

Bills

Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good morning, members. When the House suspended last night, we were up to the second reading of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. We are up to call No. 9, a National Party call.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and speak to the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. For someone who does not have lived experience, one can only imagine the great difficulty and the horror of having to relive and give testimony to the abuse and neglect suffered—for some, quite a while ago; for others, not so long ago—and so I want to begin by commending and praising the bravery of the nearly 2,400 victims of abuse who have come forward to give testimony to the royal commission. In addition to that, once again, they have had to relive and redocument their sufferings through their submissions to the Social Services and Community Committee. It is, for myself, totally unimaginable, because I do see a lot of suffering and anxiety in other things, but not in this, for myself.

The bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to change—true, legislative change—that will mean that, hopefully, there will be no further similar situations going on into the future. The bill aims to better protect people, especially children, in the care of the State.

I also acknowledge all the members who have contributed yesterday and last night and who will contribute today, and I commend their determination to bring the voices of the many into this House. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. With this legislation, we need to remind ourselves of the survivors and put them front and centre. They are those who have gone before and, sadly, are no longer with us, and those who are still with us and who have participated in this process, but they are also those who didn’t because it was too raw or too hard, or life just meant they couldn’t.

Three weeks ago, I buried a friend of mine. Her name was Susan, and Susan was a survivor of State care. As I look at this legislation and as I listen to the debate again today that we’ve had from last year, from the select committee to now, I can’t help but reflect on the life that Susan had and on what must happen so that what happened to Susan doesn’t happen to anybody else. We’ve heard people say that we don’t want this to happen again, we want to make sure that this is something in the past, and we’re washing our hands of it and moving forward, but as we deal with this legislation, we need to be aware and we need to be vigilant of the fact that abuse still exists and still happens.

If you think this is in the past and that we’re talking about something that’s happened 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago, yes, it did, and we’ve got better. But we haven’t got there yet in terms of ensuring that there is no more abuse by the State or by the Church of those who, through no fault of their own, end up in the system.

I look at this legislation and I look at what was done in the past, and, for me, as I read it and I look at it, it was very much about making it easy for us, making the system easy for the State—making the system easy so that we could just pop people away somewhere, wash our hands, and know that we’ve done our bit. They’re fed, they’re watered, they’re clothed, and they’re housed, but it goes far deeper than that.

When we look at this piece of legislation, yes, we’re going to support it—we must support it. But it does not go far enough to ensure that the State, which is the caregiver or the parent of a child, or of someone who is in an institution for mental health reasons or for other reasons—that they are cared for in a way that means abuse doesn’t happen again, and, unfortunately, we aren’t there yet.

We look at the recommendations of the royal commission, we look at them and we see those 200 recommendations that sit there, and they’re challenging for us as politicians, they’re challenging for us as lawmakers, and they’re challenging for us as people who hold the purse strings, because it will cost us—it will cost this House—to do the right thing. We need to do the right thing and find a way through, where we don’t just sign up to 19 of those recommendations but we actually look and we search deep within our hearts and our souls and find a way to do what is right for those who are survivors of State- and faith-based care, and, for those who are currently in the system, we need to ensure that this does not happen, because that reflects on us, on our nation, and on the kind of people that we are.

I reflect on the life of Susan. She went to Victoria University and graduated when she was 22. She graduated when she was 22, and she was doing OK. Life wasn’t easy. She had a history within her whānau of schizophrenia, and, sadly, as she matured and her brain developed, schizophrenia became her lifetime companion—which no one wants—and what did we do? We popped her into Porirua Hospital for 25 years. We put her into a hospital, we left her there, and we let her be. That met her daily needs, but if you look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we didn’t get beyond the shelter, the food, and the water—that’s as far as we went. That is abuse and it must not happen again, and, sadly, when I did her funeral a few weeks ago, I discovered, as we got the death certificate, that her mother had died in Porirua Hospital. She was another survivor—or she didn’t survive—of the State.

We must do better. We must get this legislation right to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): We are here this morning discussing the second reading of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill follows an apology from the Crown, which follows the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. This bill enacts the changes that arise from the royal commission of inquiry. It is a start and it is a good first step.

I’d like to acknowledge all the previous speakers from across this Parliament who have shed light and continue to shed light on the stories throughout New Zealand of the tens and hundreds of thousands of those who have been impacted and who continue to be impacted by abuse in State care. I’d like to acknowledge Minister Erica Stanford for taking on this work amidst her other important ministerial portfolios. I’d like to keep this contribution short. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a bill which Labour is supporting, as it should support any step forward that tries to protect children from further abuse when we know that the consequences have been so heavy and there has been such a good-faith, thorough look at what has gone wrong. But it’s been made very clear by the Labour Party that we’re really concerned at the timidity of this piece of legislation and that it’s just simply not going far enough. I think there are 19 recommendations out of the 200 that have been adopted by the Government.

Now, I appreciate that this is a piece of legislation that is looking to stop some of the really crass things that have happened that have really caused harm, and one is strip-searches, for example. There is an attempt to be more nuanced in that approach.

I was appalled to find that the first part of the bill was looking at extending to the existing workforce restrictions on core children’s workers with convictions from overseas offences that were equivalent to some of the most heinous offences against children. Isn’t it incredible that we were living in a situation where it was possible for somebody with those convictions to be working with children in this country?

It does show a degree of neglect, and it is pretty incredible that we were in that situation at all, and so it is very important legislation. I don’t mean to disregard it, but I also think it’s really important that the Government listen to the amendments that are going to be made by my friend the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, whose primary portfolio for the Labour Party is the welfare of children, and they will be made in absolute good faith. She won’t be putting up things for the sake of opposition; she’ll be putting up things that should deserve a cross-party, good-faith look, because that’s what really is important about the work that we do in this House—it’s what’s going to stick. It’s what’s going to work for children in this country to stop abuse.

It couldn’t be a more critical issue on which to look at all the contributions in this House and get this as right as possible. It doesn’t mean we will get it entirely right. Some of these are really hard problems, and it’s hard to solve them, and what do you do? I think we had the comment from the Green Party earlier where there was talk about the strip-searching when people are coming into the places where children are being cared for. What do you do when people come in, in terms of searching them, etc., in order to preserve dignity and in order to make sure that people visit when their children are alienated from them in that way? How do you balance those things? Those are tough questions, but that’s why we absolutely need to solve them, and the public need us and want us to solve them by doing cross-party work in areas like this.

Now, I also would like to take the point that my friend Glen Bennett has made. This is an area where the cost is huge and the cost of redress is huge, and we cannot afford to just simply kick the can down the road on the worst possible things that have happened in this country.

We’ve had children tortured and we have had devastating consequences. We talk about gangs, we talk about methamphetamine use, and we talk about imprisonment, and, mostly, it’s the very same kids who end up in that system, and we have not addressed the critical recommendations in this report. Yes, there are 200 recommendations, but there are also some where the survivors of this were actually most forceful in what they thought.

One of them is about the independence of the group that was going to look at redress, etc. There was a request for independence, and we haven’t met that yet; in fact, it’s been decided not to do that because it’s too expensive. I mean, I don’t think that we could think of something that is more important for the people who are impacted by this kind of terrible abuse by the State and faith-based organisations than their trust in the system that we create. They have to believe in it—it is so important.

We have a problem out in our community with disengagement from the State and from this process in this House. People are feeling utterly, utterly alienated from this House, and so I think it’s really important that we spend not only the money but the political capital putting in place systems which are a bridge to people who have been completely alienated, because they have absolutely every reason to distrust both the State and the religious organisations, which—let’s face it—are supposed to be the organisations that talk to the soul. They are supposed to look after the spiritual wellbeing of people, and they have breached that trust.

We have examples across the world of this kind of problem occurring. We are not alone. We have countries like Australia and Canada, where our indigenous populations in these countries have been particularly severely impacted, and it is worrying that in many of those countries we have the same problem of disconnection. Actually, despite these inquiries, which I believe are absolutely in good faith, we hear the stories of people, and despite the fact that we have volumes of terrible stories, we still have not reacted across the globe in a way that means that people are accountable for their crimes. That is a problem for me.

I look at Canada and I look at what has happened there and how few of the priests involved in the abuse have ever been prosecuted. I was listening to something recently on this and it was a description of what had happened. There was the closing of the files, the private settlements of these matters were happening, and, in fact, none of those priests had been prosecuted in the criminal system, whatsoever—none. That’s an institutional problem—that’s a will problem.

We not only need to listen to these stories and to record these stories, but when people tell us these stories—when they tell a royal commission these stories, which are devastating—they entrust us to actually follow through. So while I see this law as a tiny step in the right direction, I don’t get up here to make political hay when I say that this is not good enough. We cannot “Pollyanna” it, and the most important thing that we need to do is recognise that this abuse isn’t just in the past.

Paying the price for the past is the first step in actually moving forward genuinely in a direction to stopping this happening any more, and it is happening now. We know that this continues to happen. We know that it has not stopped, and until we are prepared through our will in this House to work collaboratively to make sure that the right kinds of responses are in place, that there is consensus on them, and that we are paying, yes, sometimes a financial price but also paying respectful prices like actually getting rid of the control of things into an independent body—until we do that, we have got no right to expect the people who were involved in this and who were hurt by this to trust us.

We have a responsibility to follow through on the recommendations as far as that is possible and to look at this widely. Yes, it’s going to be painful for us, but it’s not going to be half as painful as it has been for those in our population who have been hurt. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to be the final speaker in this debate on the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill at its second reading. The report from the royal commission was a devastating and weighty tome of horror that we worked our way through. It’s a piece of work that should resonate with and haunt this House for the rest of our days.

As has been acknowledged, the apology was part of the response, and what we’re doing in this House is we’re making the first step now. It’s a small step. We acknowledge that these are the things that we can do that are pragmatic. This stops some of the most egregious abuses of rights—for example, the strip-searches—and puts in place a way that protects people who are in care but also allows us to make sure that dignity is upheld.

Another thing that not many people have talked about in this debate is the record-keeping. There is a change to the Public Records Act which means that there can actually be a notification and there can be more onus put on record-keeping, because many of the survivors—and I want to acknowledge all of those who did contribute to the discussions and to the royal commission of inquiry, because I know that for every one who did, there were thousands of others who didn’t, and a few of those, at least, I have met in my time as a GP. I know the impact that that had on their lives. It was devastating throughout and it changed the trajectory of their lives, and not being able to access timely and accurate records was a frustration. In a way, it appeared that their experience had been denied, which was another way in which they were not believed. By strengthening and clarifying our Public Records Act, we will ensure that in the future, records are more available and that process will be more timely and accessible.

All that we can do is continue to improve and to protect the vulnerable. This is a first step in us doing that, and I commend the bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mōrena, Madam Chair, and thank you. It is a duty to take the final call on this take [subject] for the bill’s second reading, and mōrena ki a tātou. What I recognised in the speeches from last night and, in fact, over the while was that the further we get away from an apology, the easier it becomes for us to—whether we recognise it or not—forget.

When the apology took place in this House, there were many in the gallery, and I certainly remember making a statement that the fact that we’re apologising does not mean that the survivors have to forgive. That is still very, very true today, after I read a statement being released by He Kura Mōrehu, a group of survivors who are deeply, deeply—and this came out just this morning. They are reporting that they are deeply disappointed by the way in which this has been dealt with.

Despite the sentiments that I’ve heard this morning and last night, it does not make any sense at all when we use words like “horror”, “small steps”, and “egregious”, and then suggest that this is enough. It makes no common sense, let alone intellectual rigor, to talk like that as if that is enough. It is absolutely not enough. I don’t agree. Te Pāti Māori disagrees completely, though we’d want to get this right—as a party, we’d want to get this right. Out of any of the pieces of legislation that we debate in this House, this has to recognise in reality and make the changes.

Again, back to the survivors’ report this morning, or their discussion: survivors expect change, and this doesn’t cut it. Recognising that there was the apology, and then there’s the process of admin and payments and so on, they’re looking and expecting something much more fundamental and much more recognising that when we discuss it, it is a debate. It is not just the changes in their lives that this harm caused but the trauma it caused and the trauma that exists with each one of them today. The more we put aside the report and we pop it on the right of our desk, which I do not—when we keep doing that, we make distance, and then we refer back to the things that we’d much prefer to talk about, like fast track, growth, and so on, which I don’t think are things that we should completely ignore, either. But this matter? This is where we could do better, because this House has failed.

This House has failed all of these survivors, and I know this. This is the work that I’ve been involved in. I know this very well and I heard it being discussed last night as well, and members were even relating it to some of the other discussions and debates in the House regarding domestic violence and family violence. All of that trauma—unless this House recognises what it means for individuals and their families and recognises the generational harm, we continue to fail every single survivor who gave their story to the House and asked the House to do better.

We cannot support it. It’s worse than tinkering—I don’t know what another word is right now, but I’ll probably think of one by the time we get to the third reading. I would implore members sitting to my left that maybe today, you need to go back to that report, pick out some of the literature and read it, and we can remind ourselves of the trauma in which our families—each of those families—exist today. Today—they still carry that trauma today.

Te Pāti Māori cannot and will not support this at this point, if at any—when we get to third reading. He Kura Mōrehu, as well—I talked with Tu Chapman; I will be talking with her again today—are deeply, deeply concerned and feel completely ignored, and so we need to do better. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications: I present a legislative statement on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) 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 SCOTT SIMPSON: I move, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill will remove advertising restrictions from section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Section 81 currently prohibits broadcast television advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and both television and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Section 81 is no longer aligned with the way in which audiences consume content and, in a challenging economic environment for New Zealand media companies, it is actively hindering broadcasters’ ability to earn revenue from advertising.

Since section 81 was first introduced in 1989, technology has changed significantly. These days, fewer people engage with content through those traditional formats. Instead, New Zealanders use more on-demand and streaming services like YouTube, and they are not subject to section 81 restrictions. In fact, New Zealand On Air data shows that in 2024, YouTube was the most popular platform in the country, reaching 44 percent of the population of New Zealand daily. By repealing section 81, the bill removes this disparity between different media platforms. In doing so, it would help modernise the Broadcasting Act and allow New Zealand media companies to realise additional advertising revenue.

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has finished its consideration on the bill and recommended to the House that it be passed without amendment. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their work and diligence on this piece of legislation.

During its select committee scrutiny, the bill received submissions from those who would financially benefit or otherwise be impacted by the repeal—including as a listener or viewer or radio and TV content provider—and those with an active interest in the media. The majority of submissions from our media broadcasters were supportive of the bill, saying that it will level the playing field for media advertising and provide a much-needed revenue injection into the sector. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made a submission to the committee to help the committee come to its full consideration of the bill.

We know that the media sector is going through a tough time and operating conditions are challenging at present. This, however, is not a challenge that is unique to New Zealand media companies. All around the world, they are facing the effects of reduced advertising revenue and are struggling to remain financially viable.

This Government is doing what it can to create a sustainable environment where the media can create an environment where they can continue to succeed. Part of that is having a strong, growing economy where media companies can effectively monetise their content and give advertising companies the confidence to invest. This bill is but one of the steps we are taking to modernise media regulation and to support the sector.

Recently, public consultation concluded on a suite of proposals for more extensive reform, and there will be further announcements about this soon. I commend this bill to the House.

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

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker Where to start? Is this really what we call “immediate action”? To revisit what this bill does, this bill will repeal section 81 of the Broadcasting Act, which restricts broadcast television advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and both television and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.

This is about levelling the playing field, right? But, really, 73 words make up this bill—73 words. That’s all the Minister has been able to give New Zealand’s media sector. Yes, the bill is about fairness in the digital age. We know that advertising on digital platforms is not restricted to certain days. Online platforms can enjoy unrestricted advertising throughout the year, 24/7, so this does level the playing field for our linear media broadcasters.

The Government estimates, of this bringing an additional $6 million per year to the media sector, are completely unrealistic. We know that it will not do that. But most importantly, this is not immediate action. This is something that was already part of a suite of changes that Labour, in Government, were going to bring through. It’s the only bill the Minister has gone with in the year since he became the Minister and claimed that he would take immediate action for our media sector.

Let’s have a look at what has happened since: on 2 July 2024, Paul Goldsmith—our broadcasting and media Minister—released a media statement claiming that the Government was taking immediate action to support the media sector—

Jenny Marcroft: Back to the bill

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Exactly. The call is “back to the bill”, and the bill is only 73 words: the only immediate action the Minister has taken. But while the Minister is doing next to nothing, writing 73 words, here’s what else has happened: on 5 July 2024, Newshub closed down and 200 jobs were lost; that’s 200 people that don’t have a job any more. On 7 November 2024, TVNZ announced plans to axe 50 jobs—

Jenny Marcroft: Back to the bill.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: You can heckle all you like, but we’re talking about hundreds of jobs gone in the media sector, and a Minister who, in response, can only generate a 73 word repeal to an outdated Broadcasting Act that will yield very little for our media sector.

On 13 November—and this is where it gets really interesting—RNZ reports that the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, the very piece of legislation that is set to balance the playing field, balance the ability for our local media sector to derive income from the content that they generate, is all of a sudden in limbo. Goldsmith, at that point, our Minister—

Jenny Marcroft: Who? What his name? Full name.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Minister Goldsmith says that he hasn’t given up on having the bill in place by the end of the year, that year being 2024. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it’s not 2024 any more.

On 14 November, New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME) announced plans to close 14 regional community newspapers before Christmas—another 30 jobs lost in our media sector. I don’t know if you’re keeping count, but it’s going up. In December, this bill—all 73 words—was introduced by the Minister. On 12 December, following lobbying from Google and Meta, the Minister announced that he was going to “basically postpone our arrangements a little bit”—“basically postpone our arrangements a little bit”—and at that point in time, NZME’s chief executive Michael Boggs says, “Another delay to progress on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is disappointing.” About a month later, NZME, the very organisation he heads, proposes a further reduction of 40 roles in the local media sector—40 more people who don’t have jobs.

All of a sudden, on 21 May 2025, this Government scraps their work on the digital services tax, an effective handout of $479 million per year over the next four years to the very tech companies that are profiting from New Zealand media content. On 22 May of this year, Minister Goldsmith announced $18 million in cuts for RNZ over the next three years. So the local media sector not only is only getting a 73-word bill that does very little but it’s also having millions of dollars cut from its budget by this Government.

Now, if this is really what you call “immediate action”—I just find it hard to believe. It’s like the building is on fire and all the Minister can offer is a drip—a drip, nothing more than a drip—to address the fire in the media sector. Hundreds of people losing their jobs across the last year, the promise of immediate action, and nothing delivered. So on the anniversary of that bold media release promising immediate action, I sent our Minister for Media and Communications a cake—a cake celebrating immediate action. The Minister received that cake; he takes the cake, is the word on the street in the media sector, because throughout this whole time, there has been a Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, a piece of legislation sitting there that the Minister could have picked up and run with, but he’s flip-flopped, he’s weaselled around it, and he hasn’t picked up that bill, instead painstakingly typing out the 73-word repeal that we are talking about today.

Now, the Minister thanked me for the cake. The media sector has nothing to thank the Minister for, because this is it—this is the bill: 73 words. At the same time as the very platforms that profit from the local media content, that the Minister is taking millions of dollars away from in funding, receive $500 million of tax relief from this same Government. The question really here has to be: what is standing in the way of the Minister doing more? Who is the Minister afraid of? Which of the coalition partners is blocking the path of more progress for our media sector at a time when it really needs it?

Is it the ACT Party standing in the way—the ACT Party who celebrated the cutting of funding to RNZ? Is it New Zealand First, whose leader, on RNZ, when he didn’t like interview questions on Morning Report, suggested that he would cut their funding? Or is it the big tech companies that the Minister has met with, who all of a sudden are not faced with $500 million in taxes that they ought to be paying for the content that they use, and for the audience that they take by using content that they’re not paying for? Who is the Minister afraid of? What is stopping him from delivering more than 73 words to simply repeal a part of the Broadcasting Act? If you promise immediate action, you need to deliver it. The only immediate action we have seen is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders losing their jobs in the media sector, and a Government and a Minister who are not prepared to do anything about it.

So whilst we support this bill, we do not support the complete inaction from the Minister. We ask the Minister to support the media sector, because that is something, so far, he has proven he is unable to do.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just before I take the next call, can I remind members to focus on what is in the bill, not what is not in the bill.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It is said that through this new legislation, a $6 million lifeline will be thrown to local broadcasters to repeal all advertising restrictions on Sundays and public holidays. So let’s think about that. That’s all Sundays, public holidays, including Anzac Day, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Gone will be the little bit of peace and quiet that we have from the hectic modern world, which is what Gareth Hughes shared in 2015 when National last tried this.

When I think about Sundays, I enjoy my coffee with a bit of Praise Be and Q+A, and I think about our mokopuna who enjoy What Now or Home and Away without the noise of the Warehouse, or Briscoes, or Maccas being advertised to them. Many in the House might forget that What Now still exists, but our mokopuna still watch it, despite everyone saying that viewing trends have changed. There are still those of our mokopuna, with their Nutri-Grain, sitting at the coffee table watching morning TV on Sunday.

The Green Party has significant concerns around the exposure of tamariki mokopuna to ongoing commercial advertising. Why do we have to do that? Why, on a Christmas Day, when we’re enjoying time with our whānau, do we have to see adverts for Instant Finance, Briscoes, The Warehouse, or My Little Pony? Because that’s the thing—you’re offering, in this legislation, a mere $6 million as a lifeline. The Government is offering a mere $6 million as a supposed lifeline to the broadcasting industry, when the Government has cut nearly $10 million from Whakaata Māori, cut nearly $18 million—that’s the forecast—from Radio New Zealand, and when TVNZ is looking for some $30 million in additional revenue.

The $6 million projected to be new revenue for commercial advertising on these sanctified days, our Rātapu and our public holidays like Anzac Day, will only generate a mere $6 million. Let’s not joke around and think that this is the lifeline that’s needed—no, no, no. This Government has absolutely turned its back on public broadcasting, because they’ve favoured $2.9 billion of tax cuts to landlords instead of our public broadcasters.

Let’s not counterfeit and argue that somehow $6 million of commercial revenue through a bit of broadcasting on Anzac Day is going to do anything to deal with the larger issues in terms of public broadcasting and what the Government is not doing to support a sustainable local public supply of broadcasting and the fourth estate’s independence. Oh, yes, let’s talk about a clear direction on that. Let’s talk about protecting the fourth estate. Let’s look at coordination and sustainable funding for public broadcasting. But, no, no, it’s only $6 million that we will see that will take away the quiet opportunity for us to watch Tagata Pasifika or Marae or Home and Away on a Sunday, because now we’re going to be filled with Briscoes, Instant Finance, Maccas, Burger King, and Pizza Hut, because the advertising is going to come thick and fast. Let’s look at what we will be exposing our tamariki mokopuna to as well.

The fundamentals of what’s happening here is that it’s a mere tinkering around the edges, and that’s what we’re seeing—the fact that the Government is merely opening up a window for funding a small section of additional revenue on a Sunday and public holidays, yet we know that the industry is being cut and jobs are being lost. Tonnes of jobs are being lost. The Green Party does not support this legislation. We have grave concerns around the commercialisation of advertising targeting our tamariki mokopuna, and we are arguing that, actually, it’s about sustainable, long-term funding for public broadcasting, which includes Whakaata Māori and iwi Māori radio, and the Government has failed to do that.

This legislation does not address the wider issues that we are facing. Yes, you might argue that viewer trends have changed and the way that people are consuming their TV is different, but at the end of the day, many of us do watch Sunday TV and enjoy a bit of Jack Tame Q+A or Marae or Waka Huia, and those with mokopuna might watch What Now or Home and Away or Britain’s Got Talent, or whatever is going on on a Sunday morning.

To consider what the public broadcasting opportunity here is, it’s for us as a House to really consider what we do to support sustainable public broadcasting, and that’s not being addressed in this legislation. We are unclear on what the profit will be to broadcasting. We’re really sceptical around the use of commercial advertising that will now target our tamariki mokopuna. Why clog up a quiet Sunday or public holiday—Christmas, Anzac Day, and Easter holiday weekend—when you can spend time with whānau and just sit in front of the TV and maybe have a coffee?

While some in the television industry might say, “If we don’t have access to this revenue, this $6 million, it makes it hard for us.”, the bigger question is: where is the dollar in the first place? It’s the priorities of this Government that have shown that tax cuts for landlords is a bigger figure, a bigger priority, to the Government than the broadcasting industry. So we’re now going to open up for our Rātapu viewing, taking away the tapu of the Sunday, and opening it up for commercial advertising. The Green Party doesn’t support this legislation. Kia ora tātou.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. This bill makes a very simple change, but a very important change, to the Broadcasting Act 1989. We know, as it says, “Act 1989”—we can see that it’s outdated in some aspects, and one of the aspects that is outdated is section 81. So this bill is to repeal section 81. It doesn’t do anything that we have heard from the previous speaker. It doesn’t give any funding to any media outlet. What it does is it gives the opportunity to traditional linear TV and radio broadcast to go out and compete with other platforms to generate the revenue that they can through advertising.

On this side, we don’t mind sitting with our cup of coffee in front of TV or radio, listening to radio or watching TV when there are some ads being played, because we know that that’s how they are going to generate revenue. On this side, we also believe that taxpayers should not be funding any businesses—because media companies are like businesses, any other businesses, and so we should not be funding these media outlets through taxpayers’ money, and then taxpayers’ money should not be bailing out any struggling media companies. It’s up to them to go out, create value—create value for their customers, for the audience, to attract advertising.

We want to make sure, because of the advancement of technology that we have seen—there are so many different types of platforms available now for people to watch news, to watch programmes, and section 81 doesn’t apply to those platforms. We want to see that it becomes fair for traditional linear TV and radio as well, so that they can also generate revenue through advertising. Yes, the estimated value is around $6 million, but it’s up to them. They can go out, compete, create value, generate as much as they like in revenue through advertising.

It’s very important, also, to note that this is about modernising our Act—this is about modernising our Act. It’s not about anything else that we have heard from the previous speaker.

Now, as the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I want to thank everybody who was involved in the consideration of this bill. I also want to thank all submitters. We received 41 submissions and we heard from six submitters, which—I would say 41 submissions on this bill is a very good number. As it happens, we had a range of views from submitters. Some submitters thought that the restriction should be extended to all platforms, which we know is not going to be feasible. Some thought that maybe it should be a partial restriction. But we have to also take into consideration the cost of that, and that’s why we have decided that it should be a full repeal of section 81. It makes sense. As I said, media companies are like businesses—any other businesses that we have—and taxpayers should not be bailing out any struggling companies. It’s up to them to go out and generate revenue, and they will generate revenue if they are able to attract audience. We support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an unusual thing, it’s an unusual feeling, to actually be in agreement or in alignment with the Green Party. But, on this particular issue, New Zealand First stands on a conservative platform, and, therefore, in terms of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, we do not support this piece of legislation and the removal of section 81, because it currently restricts broadcast TV advertising on Sunday and Anzac morning and both TV and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. These days, we believe, are special days.

New Zealand had a very strong Christian foundation at the time that a boundary was drawn, carving out these days as meaningful for religious observance and as meaningful to acknowledge those who served our country in wars overseas. Many Kiwis, though, may no longer be particularly religious in terms of their participation in formal services of worship and celebration, but this does not mean that they are not spiritual and that we should see every day as the same. The boundaries that we draw around our working lives and our special celebrations, we believe these are extremely important and we should uphold these. We would be all the poorer without them.

The submissions on the bill were fairly evenly split for and opposed. I’ll speak to some of those that were opposed to this piece of legislation. They basically said there was frustration currently at an overabundance of advertising already; immense spiritual and cultural significance for Pasifika communities, and that’s why they oppose this piece of legislation—that’s the National Pacific Media Trust; the disrespect this bill has towards our fallen soldiers and Christianity. Those were some of the themes coming through that oppose this piece of legislation. One of the submissions which I particularly enjoyed reading was from Tom Frewen, who has a deep understanding of the media sector. What he said was that any extra revenue generated by allowing advertising on these particular days goes directly to the television broadcasters, directly to the radio stations, and not the programme makers, particularly when we’re talking about TV content, the ongoing production and distribution of local content. The repeal of section 81 restrictions will, in fact, have the opposite effect. They will not receive any extra money for content making.

Sunday mornings have become the time for screening special-interest programmes, and my colleague Hūhana Lyndon outlined a number of those special programmes that attract minority audience of little value to advertisers, although don’t tell Jack Tame that. Sunday mornings, as we heard in a quote from Tom Frewen, “This is now a home for important series such as Tagata Pasifika, Attitude ([that’s]for people with disabilities), Q+A (political current affairs),”—if you didn’t know that—“Praise Be ([our religious programme]), Neighbourhood ([for] community diversity) and What Now ([for] children).” Those are really important programmes, and if there was commercialisation pumped in around those programmes, the value of those time slots would change, and those programmes might be pushed out to where there’s absolutely no audience or might be gone altogether. Take a look at Sunday. The important role of television in connecting to marginalised niche or other non-commercial audience should not be overlooked. Sunday morning has become a place to do that.

It’s thought around $6 million, or maybe a little bit more, will be generated by freeing up advertising on these special days. Now, this is based on assumption. This is based on what the industry had said. They may charge out at a rate card rate for those particular advertising slots. But what is not known is whether this is new money coming in from advertisers, or will they just cut their advertising pie to spread it out across those days and so not actually generate any new revenue going to the advertisers? There is no guarantee of new money coming in. Advertising budgets will be spread over additional days. That is what I believe will happen, because advertising budgets are already constrained. They’re not going to necessarily find brand new money to add into these extra days.

I’d just like to address, finally, comments made by the Labour member Reuben Davidson criticising the Minister. Well, it’s not my job to defend the Minister. He can do that himself. However, what I would like to point out in terms of what Labour did when they were in Government, spending a whole lot of money on a failed merger of RNZ and TVNZ—$20 million. It was going to be more than $300 million to merge those two entities. But, at the very last minute, just weeks before the legislation got passed through, what did they do? Their leader, the Prime Minister of the time, Chris Hipkins, pulled a big handbrake on it. What a waste of $20 million! That is your legacy in terms of supporting the media industry—not to mention the $55 million that was pumped into the media, which really broke the trust of our media entities. Public have really pushed back. They do not trust media. They do not trust news. All you have to do is look at every survey which shows that. In fact, they are avoiding the news like the plague. That $55 million for the Public Interest Journalism Fund did not help that, so, Labour, take a look in the mirror. I do not commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mōrena. Thank you. So it’s second reading round. I’m going to take a short call, probably to match the size of the bill.

Jenny Marcroft: How many words?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Seventy-something, I think—anyway. I think 2.5 pages if you print it one-sided, but anyway. There were a couple of comments that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs made this morning, and I just want to speak to those.

One of them was the playing field. What I want to say to that is it must be a very tiny playing field when you’re talking about a 73-word bill. Why would we bother, you know? What’s the motive behind that? Well, we know what that is—and I think that’s been expressed and probably in the third reading we’ll express it even more. What is does match, I think, in terms of levelling the playing field and the tiny field that it reflects, is it’s more like the size of a Facebook and Instagram caption. You’ll probably find more in that than you might in the bill.

The other word that was used, and then contradicted by the ACT Party this morning, was—the Minister did use the word “modernise”. It was stated. I want to say to that if modernising means cramming, bombarding, pushing, forcing all of that propaganda and all of that advertising every single day, that can’t be modernising. That’s just making—a bombardment every day worsens it. Surely, why wouldn’t you just leave a good idea alone? Leave that idea. Leave the Sundays alone. Leave those special days alone. Those days have a history. They have a good history and they’re a good idea.

Again, I don’t want to go too long, because I want to match the size of the bill. I’ll just say leave it alone. In fact, keep it sacrosanct. In fact, support it. To suggest that $6 million is going to do terribly much I think is, again, the same size as the bill—not a lot of size to it, nor a real recognition of the missing bits that really need support in the advertising world.

Leave Sunday alone for me, because that day we do—we’re not particularly religious, but we are deeply spiritual, and we read things on a Sunday like the Pedagogy of the Oppressed and such, like really good, ordinary reading that would open the minds of people and things like that. Just leave the Sundays alone, damn it, and let the minds of our mokopuna, our tūpuna—leave them alone and stop this bad idea, Minister. Anyway, ka nui tēnā. Obviously, clearly by my discussion we will not be supporting this bad idea. Kia ora tātou.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Gosh, five minutes is not enough for me to talk about this bill. We’ll start with the fact that the Green Party does not support this bill. Let’s talk about and address the problem statement of this bill, which is what we’re seeing is a chronic underfunding of our public media. They’re hoping the repeal of section 81 of the Broadcasting Act is going to plug that gap.

Well, it certainly isn’t, because as we see in the departmental report, there is a hypothetical $6 million in revenue—hypothetical. They actually don’t know. It could be nothing. As we heard from the previous speaker, Jenny Marcroft, there is no telling if this is just going to be spread over the other days or in terms of the advertising revenue that it’s just going to be balanced out. In fact, by doing this, we may not get any revenue or the broadcasting sector may not get any revenue, and that is stated in paragraph 21 of the departmental report.

At the same time, what we are seeing, instead of funding our public media sector, is $2.9 billion for landlords. That is almost 500 times this hypothetical revenue that might be gained for repealing section 81, not to mention other wasteful spending that we see from the Government, such as additional blue and yellow tape, like the Ministry for Regulation, with a budget tag of $20 million and not very much to show for it, that overlaps severely with some work that the Parliament is already doing. So that’s one of the problems that we are seeing.

I think the bigger question that people should be asking when they are looking at bills like this, which has the broader ramification of a Government that wants to see further privatisation of the media sector—because the public sector will actually put their policies and their leaders on line and on the hook and justify to the New Zealand public the decisions that they are making and also the positions that they are taking. It’s what media should be doing and it’s what good public media should be doing. Again, this is the Government trying to also address an interesting exothermic conundrum where what happens when you have hot air and snowflakes at the same time. So that’s one part of the problem that we’re trying to deal with.

The other part, talking about consistency and modernisation—this is something that the Minister himself has talked about. Yes, we do see a change in our media landscape. Yes, the departmental report does mention that streaming services and also TV on demand are not subjected to section 81, and also certain areas on the radio as well are not subjected to that. Interestingly, the Minister used the example of YouTube, and I would actually ask the House and also just members here in general to observe that, in fact, YouTube does not have advertisements on Christmas Day and also does not have advertisements on Easter holidays, because YouTube, as an American company, also understands the importance of those days. Yet, even though it’s been quoted by the Minister, the irony is that we are repealing this so that we can have advertisements on those days as opposed to bringing up the standards altogether and encompassing them. According to the departmental report—again, paragraph 60—that seems to be too challenging to do.

What we do see is a cop-out. Rather than bringing everything up—and we have heard from the previous speakers about the importance of those days as well as the importance for our children not to be subjected to advertisements and also the marginalised communities. We’re not seeing the Government taking an accountability approach to this. So the Green Party will not support this bill, and we also encourage others to not support it, like the Greens and New Zealand First.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, it’s a pleasure to be able to speak on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill in its second reading. We went through an excellent set of hearings from submitters, from those who are impacted by this bill. I thank those who’ve made submissions and also the rest of the committee who took this through in a diligent manner. It is a small bill, but it does make some changes that will mean that it increases the competitiveness across the system slightly. Even a small amount of money for broadcasters in this day and age is worthwhile, and I commend the bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. The Labour Party is supporting this legislation, but you will have heard Reuben Davidson talk about it as a drip rather than what we need to support this sector. I know that there’s been lots of beautiful analogies today—snowflakes; I think my favourite is the snowflakes in hot air—but my own analogy is we’re just fiddling while Rome burns. We have a situation here where we know that an important part of our democracy is our fourth estate and, in this situation, our response is woefully inadequate.

We are bringing a piece of legislation to the House, today, which repeals a section where the total cost or benefit to the media sector is $6 million, and that just isn’t very much money at all. As my friend Reuben Davidson pointed out, the job losses are huge in this area, but I want to contribute to this debate my concern that what we have here is an utter erosion of our democracy. We have an absolute need to look at this problem in a wider way than we do today. While we support this legislation—because it is a drip, and we hope that there may be some more water added to the bucket in the next little while, which is what the Government is supposed to do. It’s supposed to lead in this area. It’s supposed to support things and recognise the crisis that we have and address it.

We have heard people throw stones at the Labour Party and what it didn’t do. Well, I have news for the Government: it is supposed to lead. Recently, what we’ve heard is a lot of criticism of Labour from the Government when I’m not sure that the Government realises what its job is right now: it is to lead, and it needs to be brave. Government has a role, and we all recognise that. That’s why we’re in this House, that’s why we’ve given up our other jobs and we’re in this House. It has to lead. It has to be bright and smart and lead.

What I see here is a complete lack of leadership, because we’ve got a tiny bill—a tiny drip—when we should be getting more. I just want to go back to one of those other analogies that Reuben Davidson talked about. I understand he gave a cake to the Minister, because there had been big promises of fixing this area and that hadn’t been done, and he was celebrating that fact. I wondered if that cake was a sponge cake, because in this situation it seems like it is full of air and very little substance. I hope it was a sponge cake and I hope the analogy was understood.

If this Government wants to build something better in the sector, then, absolutely, we will be supporting it. We’re taking a different position from our friends in the Greens and New Zealand First on this one. We do recognise what they’re saying. We recognise that this is an erosion of something that is peace and quiet for people; it’s non-commercial.

Hon Member: Tinkering.

HELEN WHITE: Absolutely. In a perfect world, I would love to be able to support that position, but we’ve taken a pragmatic decision, because we can see people are desperate in this sector, and this is something—this is something. This is a drip. So we’re supporting the drip here. We’re trying to make sure that we support any action, but it is so little action that it is of alarming concern. We have a population that relies on our media, and we are allowing it to be gutted. There was an attempt by Labour to try and address these issues, and we are no longer in Government, so we cannot be the people who fix this this time, and time is of the essence.

This is a crisis, this erodes democracy, this changes the way that things work in this country for ever. It couldn’t be a more important time to act. We have changes in the media that are super significant, and yet we are not seeing that plan. We’re a bit desperate, on this side of the House, to see change take place. We know that the voters chose this Government to do that.

My challenge to this Government is: add to this drip. We’re giving you our support for it. Add to this drip. Make sure that you’re adding some substance to the cake. Make sure you are not fiddling while Rome burns.

What I am concerned about is that it’s not the only area that I’m seeing this in. I am seeing this happen across portfolios because of an ideology that says, “It’s the market; we’ll just step back.” Well, it can’t just be the market, because we’ve got the market, people, and look where we’re at. We’ve got a market in a changing world, and we are failing our people in this country.

When we have something as important at stake as our democracy—and we do. We have social media coming out with garbage. People are believing it over what should be our trusted media. When we gut hundreds of jobs, we are gutting not only the jobs but the knowledge, the commitment to broadcasting standards. Those people disappear. They also change, they morph. If you leave it to the market, what you get is a bunch of people who are just looking for click bait. They are no longer going to be as qualified. They are no longer going to be as committed to values. Some of the brightest people I have ever met are journalists. They are often highly knowledgeable, and we have been basically ignoring the need to support that depth in our community.

We call it the fourth estate for a reason. It is incredibly important as a pillar of democracy and it is no accident that we have seen democracies eroded in other countries as our fourth estate has been eroded, has been undermined. These are bright people. We need to support them. They aren’t alone. There are other areas that are under attack too. There are people like our scientists who absolutely need the same kind of leadership from Government. I’m not saying they’re the only crisis, the only fire in town. We have a few fires in our Rome, but this is a very important one. It is a plank of our democracy, and where are we? We are at a point of crisis.

We have decided to add our voice to supporting this bill but not because we think it is going to address much at all—because it is a start. There is a difference, and there is a reason why I am not in a party with the values or the way that the Greens and New Zealand First are in—there is a difference. I belong to a party that I consider pretty pragmatic and that is prepared to do this kind of thing—and I hear the laughs from the National Party. I’m just wondering whether, in fact, they are actually able to take into account that value in having a pragmatic Opposition that is mature and is prepared to support them in this bill, or whether they’d like us to join a more extreme position.

That’s what they ask for when they laugh, when I say I’m supporting this bill and I’m actually talking about the bill in a way that is nuanced. That’s what they invite. They invite people to move to an extreme position, because that’s what that arrogance gets to. It gets to people getting desperate and moving away, so I hope that the member of the Government who’s laughing at the present time thinks about that. That arrogance also gets you unelected pretty damn fast. That kind of smugness gets you unelected.

It is the Government’s job to come up with better ways to help the broadcasters in our society and it needs to start to take that job seriously instead of relying on the old drivel of “We’ll leave it to the market.” and abandonment of this sector. Otherwise, there’ll be a change of Government next time. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Before I take the next call, I just want to remind members to focus on what’s in the bill. It is a narrow bill and it does repeal section 81 of the Broadcasting Act. I know that members have been talking about that, but just as a reminder as we move forward.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that guidance. We have heard a lot of hot air around this bill, but I stand to support the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. Yes, it is a very small bill. Since the Broadcasting Act 1989 came in, technology and audience consumption habits have changed. The advent of internet smartphones and the emergence of on-demand and streaming services has meant that fewer people are engaging with content through traditional, linear forms. This amendment will actually make sure it’s a level playing field so media companies can actually also compete with those streaming services.

Also, if we look at society, when this bill was enacted, we didn’t even have Sunday trading. Things have moved on. This is a pragmatic bill. It fixes up a problem. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker It’s a pleasure to take a call on this particular bill, which focuses on one relatively small section of the Broadcasting Act. I have just been reading this particular section—I know your direction, Mr Speaker, is to focus on this particular Act.

I think what it’s important to remember here is the perilous time that we’re in, in relation to trust not only in Government but also in the news media. One of the reasons for that is the fact that they have had a lot of trouble maintaining the provision that they have with the amount of money that they have. This bill provides a small amount of money to the news media to be able to do that fundamentally important work that is important to democracy. Like other speakers, I recognise that there are different views in the House in relation to this. This is because some of the days that we’re talking about have special religious significance to some people in this House, and I think that’s a valid perspective, and that’s a valid point of view. On our side of the House, on this particular bill, in the Labour Party, we have decided to support this bill because of the very, very important situation and the need that we have for support of our news media in this country. I think that’s the first point. Firstly, the reason we support it is because of the importance of our independent media and the important democratic role that it plays.

The second point, really, is that, since this particular section 81 was passed, times have changed, and the way that we consume media has changed. I think everyone in the House, no matter how they’re supporting voting on this bill today, would recognise that. I watch many of the programmes that were mentioned in the House—I watch Q&A on a Sunday. I watch it on my iPad, and I do get advertising that pops up on that. I hadn’t appreciated that, if I’d turned on my television, maybe I would have had an ad-free experience. I think, probably, that’s the experience of many people in New Zealand. This bill does modernise and keep up with the times, really, in terms of our consumption of media.

The other point that I wanted to note that I haven’t heard—but may have been mentioned in some of the initial speeches—was just to focus on the fact that, currently in our legislation, if there’s a broadcast that is broadcast primarily for audiences outside of New Zealand, the provisions of section 81 actually don’t apply anyway. It’s totally possible to be watching television or listening to radio and, if the purpose of that broadcast is actually to be wider than New Zealand, there would be advertising. I think that’s probably slightly a loophole and probably—in terms of the way that we consume media in New Zealand—actually something that we need to be thinking about closing. I think that’s a positive aspect of this bill—that it levels the playing field in terms of the people who are broadcasting from overseas and our New Zealand distributors as well. Those are the clear points here.

Is this enough—is this enough?—to support our news media and to make sure that that essential fourth estate is able to keep holding us in this House, the people with power in New Zealand, to account? No, this isn’t enough. It’s a small amount—that we think is worth supporting, even though it’s small, but we also think that more needs to be done. I think you’ve clearly heard that through the advocacy of our spokesperson in this area, Reuben Davidson. He is passionate about supporting New Zealand journalists. He’s passionate about supporting New Zealand journalism. We here recognise that although sometimes journalists will make our lives more difficult through reporting on things that we do in ways that we don’t necessarily appreciate, the fact of them being there and doing that role is essential to our democracy.

My father was a journalist, growing up. I have an immense amount of respect for the vast majority of journalists in New Zealand. I think they do a fantastic job, and I think they are often overtly criticised for not doing that when, actually, what they do want to do is just report and do their best to do their job. It might not always be what we as politicians want to hear, but it’s essential to a country that is democratic. News media is absolutely essential, and they do need more support, and we do need to rely on them if we do want to continue with our strong democracy that we have had for a long time. We support this bill, and we urge the Government to go further.

NANCY LU (National): I stand to support the bill, obviously, but I want to raise a new point, which is that this bill will allow advertisements on TVs on Sundays—that is, 52 Sundays in a year. That is an extra 14.2 percent of possible revenue and opportunity for TVs to have ads. That’s where the National Government is supporting, because we are allowing businesses to have that freedom, to have the opportunity to grow new revenue that they’ve always been restricted on. That is a very, very important field. To be honest, this bill, when it was first enacted in 1989, that was before the internet, before cellphones, before all of these portable digital devices that we actually all use on a Sunday. So fast forward 36 years later, I think it’s time now to be modernised. Therefore, I support the bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kei te tū au ki te kōrero mō tēnei pire e pā ana ki ngā pānui hokohoko i runga i ngā rā tapu. Ahakoa kei te tautoko mātou i tēnei pire, he nui aku whakatūpatotanga hei whakaarotanga mā mātou o tēnei Pāremata.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on this bill regarding advertising on our sacred days. Despite our support for this bill, I have several cautions for the consideration of us of this Parliament.]

I rise to support the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. While I support it, I come with some cautionary whakaaro for us to consider as a Parliament. Back in my day, if you wanted to watch a programme—say, Sons and Daughters—you had to be sitting down at 5.30 p.m. Ads were a time to make a cup of tea and maybe quickly go and hang out the washing. Nowadays, it comes to you, whether you like it or not. You can be scrolling, and advertisements, while you’re watching on-demand, just pop up on your devices.

The reason, as I’ve stated, that we are supporting this bill is to try and level the playing field for a struggling broadcasting sector. Six million dollars—does it go far enough? Absolutely not. That wouldn’t even be enough to support programming on one channel of television here in New Zealand. It is a drop in the ocean or, as Reuben Davidson so aptly put it, a drip on the fire. If it’ll bring some reprieve to our struggling broadcasting sector, then it is something we will support. But what really needs to be happening is more support from the Government for this sector.

Heoi anō rā, ka hoki au ki ngā rā tapu. Tēnei te mihi ki ngā hōia o roto o Aotearoa whānui, heoi anō i roto o Ikaroa Rāwhiti, ngā uri o C Company and D Company.

[However, I return to our sacred days. I hereby acknowledge the soldiers New Zealand - wide, and indeed within the Ikaroa Rāwhiti, the descendants of C Company and D Company.]

In the Waiapū Valley, Anzac Day is the biggest calendar event of the year. People make the pilgrimage home to our Returned and Services Association (RSA), as they do at RSAs across Aotearoa, to remember our fallen soldiers. These are the cautionary tales I think we need to consider, remembering the sanctity of these days and what they mean to so many whānau across the country. While we support this, there must be some consideration about the dignity and the standard of advertising that happens in these slots.

I personally have enjoyed a career in broadcasting, and the discussion here today is about dollars and cents. What it should be about is people and stories. What good-quality funding does for our broadcasting agencies is it allows people to hear their stories and see their faces. Good-quality broadcasting allows us to preserve whakapapa, celebrate our people, and report current affairs as they affect whānau. That’s why we need to take this legislation far further and we need a commitment from the Government to increase funding for the preservation of our stories. Good-quality broadcasting allows us to hear, for example, our reo Māori in real contexts.

We’ve talked about people who have lost jobs. This bill doesn’t go far enough in terms of financial support for the industry. What is it funding? There’s no commitment, and there’s certainly no commitment to preserving pāpāho Māori, Māori broadcasting. Not only is the storytelling, the retention and the preservation of our stories, our reo, and our whakapapa, and the celebration of New Zealand stories, New Zealand faces, New Zealand - made content not mentioned and not guaranteed; it also doesn’t go far enough in encouraging people into careers in broadcasting.

We’ve talked about YouTube. These days, like I said, when I have conversations with previous colleagues from my broadcasting days, broadcasting is not so much an attractive career option for rangatahi Māori now. People are becoming TikTok famous. They’re developing YouTube channels, and while kei te pai tērā [that’s OK], sometimes in that, production values can be lost. That’s why we need to support good industry and support good investment, and, like I said, while we support levelling the playing field, this bill does not go far enough.

Mātauranga Māori is something that we risk losing being captured by our good-quality broadcasters without investment and, as I say again, maintaining the sanctity of our rā tapu while preserving our stories. It’s not just kōrero Māori and kaupapa Māori but New Zealand stories. People want to hear and see and feel their own faces and stories and whakapapa broadcast with dignity.

Nā reira, once again, as I said, we do want to support this bill merely for the fact to try and make the playing field fairer for our broadcasters, but it does not go far enough, and we call on the Government to increase funding to support the industry, not just at its current state, and to secure a future for good-quality broadcasting here in Aotearoa. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Hey, it’s a pleasure to be the last speaker in this debate and to echo the sentiment in the House, which is that times have changed, and the media has to change with it—no more so than our public media. So my message to the media, and it’s been our message, which is clear: adapt to the changing times, don’t expect the Government to continue to bail you out, make sure you’re meeting the needs of New Zealanders, and you’ll be, I’m sure, rewarded handsomely through market mechanisms.

This bill makes a very simple change that does give some relief—$6 million is not insignificant—but it doesn’t change the bare-bones reality of the sector. So with that I’ll just end by saying I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill was a subject of a conscience vote for its first reading, so I’m prepared to accept one for this reading if members wish. This is the process we’re going to follow. I’m going to put the question. I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member may ask for a personal vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 94

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

Noes 28

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Statutes Amendment Bill.

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

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

As the House will be aware, statutes amendment bills are legislative vehicles that make small, technical, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. These bills allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. This bill is a great example of regulatory stewardship and ensures our legislation remains fit for purpose and up to date. The amendments covered by the bill include correcting drafting errors, updating language, and clarifications.

The bill, as reported back, amends 41 primary Acts, administered by various Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill has received unanimous cross-party support. The bill was reported back to the Governance and Administration Committee on 16 April 2025. I’d like to thank the committee for their careful consideration of the bill and the submitters for their contributions. The committee made several recommendations that clarify and refine the bill.

The bill as introduced includes an amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act that intends to clarify that address verification is only required in higher-risk circumstances. The committee recommends an amendment to make it clear that address verification is not required as part of a standard customer due diligence process but only as part of an enhanced customer due diligence process. This clarification will provide immediate regulatory relief to businesses that have been conservative in their interpretation of address verification requirements, resulting in over-compliance. The change reflects the original policy intent that address verification is only required in high-risk scenarios, while also addressing submitters’ concerns that the original drafting left too much room for interpretation.

The committee also recommends an amendment to the Privacy Act 2020. This amendment clarifies that the six-month limitation period for a claimant to bring proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal starts only when the Privacy Commissioner or Director of Human Rights Proceedings has made final decisions about all related complaints and matters and has notified the complainant about those decisions under relevant provisions in the Privacy Act 2020. This will assist the Privacy Commissioner’s endeavours to settle substantive complaints and reduce the likelihood of adversarial behaviour between parties.

The bill also includes an amendment to the Oaths and Declarations Act to allow oaths to be made and declarations to be taken remotely. The proposal makes permanent similar changes that were enforced during the COVID lockdowns to reduce accessibility barriers. The committee recommended changes to the proposals in the bill that relate to the Oaths and Declarations Act. The main change is to ensure that the administrator can see the person taking the oath or making the declaration, to reduce the coercion by requiring the video to be on at all times.

Lastly, the committee recommends removing the amendments to the Racing Industry Act 2020 and some of the amendments to the Conservation Act 1987 from this bill. The amendments to the Racing Industry Act and proposed changes to the Conservation Act were considered as part of other pieces of work.

Part 20 of the bill amends the Incorporated Societies Act 2022. The committee has recommended that the House note that a number of changes were proposed by the New Zealand Amateur Sport Association which were substantive in nature. The committee did not propose any amendment, as the proposals were out of scope of the bill, but they did suggest the issue be further investigated. I have already taken the step of writing to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, highlighting this matter for further consideration.

The bill will come into force the day after Royal assent. In summary, this bill will provide much-needed changes to the statute book. The amendments will ensure New Zealand’s legislation operates efficiently and effectively. Again, I thank the committee for their work on the bill, and I welcome their recommendations. I look forward to the passage of this bill through its remaining stages and working constructively with parties as similar bills are put together in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an exciting piece of legislation. It is actually an interesting function of Parliament to go through and take recommendations from all departments and Ministers as to what are, essentially, tidy-ups. It’s important to understand the parliamentary procedure here, because statutes amendment bills are, pretty much by definition, not substantive amendments. Substantive amendments belong somewhere else, quite often in an omnibus bill. Then we have the kind of bills we’re more used to seeing, which are really weighty subject-matter bills. This bill, essentially, is part of the function of Government and Parliament in good regulatory stewardship. The suggestion by some parties that we don’t have a system of good regulatory stewardship doesn’t really hold water.

This is a good example of Government departments ferreting away, combing through the legislation for which they have responsibility, identifying bits where the language is outdated or where another amendment means it’s no longer entirely consistent, and where clarifications are needed. There is a genuine moot point about when something stops being a statutes amendment tidy-up—a modernisation, perhaps—and when it starts being a substantive amendment. There’s a very strong convention that if a member identifies an element of a statutes amendment bill that they consider is substantive and should be separately dealt with, or dealt with in a substantive piece of legislation, it should come out.

I know my friend and colleague Camilla Belich, who sat on the committee, will probably talk about the oaths and declaration amendments. It is a good example where something is at the threshold where there were changes as to how oaths and declarations could be made. I understand these changes were made on an interim basis in COVID when, obviously, face-to-face interactions with lawyers and other people who were authorised to take declarations weren’t possible. We had this kind of audiovisual idea. I do want to say that there are concerns, because we sometimes are a bit flippant or offhand about oaths and declarations, but a lot of what we do rests on the trustworthiness of information provided, so it is important to have, essentially, the solemn moment where you say, “This is my affidavit” or “This is my statutory declaration”, even “This is my passport photo”, and say, “I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that it’s true”, that it is a true likeness, rather than sort of saying, “Oh, there it is”.

Going online is one thing, but the suggestion was that you could have an audio, I think, rather than an audiovisual interaction. Basically, you could be on the phone and say, “Have you got this document in front of you? Is it true?” Now, it’s a bit loose, so, quite rightly, that was reviewed, and the members of the committee addressed it.

Now, I’ve got another six-odd minutes left, so I thought I’d just list off all of the amendments—or not. No, look, it’s a bill that we’re all behind. I did want to make those points around the functions of statutes amendment bills and the importance of members looking at them genuinely and making sure that they do the job and that they don’t overstep the mark of genuine statutes amendment bills. With that, I’ll leave it, and obviously we’ll be supporting this bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Statutes Amendment Bill. I think, like the previous speakers have mentioned, this is a really interesting function and particularly a really interesting bill. Over the last few months, what we have heard is a number of regulatory system bills which make those sort of—I guess in some ways—mechanical changes and minute changes to a number of legislations as an omnibus bill, which is essentially a combination of these amendments to multiple bills at the same time.

However, the Statutes Amendment Bill has an additional function in this case, which is that the bill should have unanimous approval by the Parliament. It’s also important to point out that in this particular amendment bill, for those particular members of particular parties that are not represented on the select committee—in this case, we do thank the Governance and Administration Committee for their consideration of this bill. But for those members or parties that are not represented on the select committee, they are also kept in the loop of the progress of this bill in order to achieve that unanimous support from the House of Representatives on this omnibus bill.

Now, it has been mentioned as well that although the introduction of the commentary of the bill talks about making 96 amendments to 42 Acts, it’s important to note that as the Associate Minister of Justice stated in her contribution at the beginning, now it is only 41 Acts and not 42.

Some of them I will highlight. I won’t be going through all 41 Acts. I will highlight some of the important aspects of these Acts. To start with, it is mentioned that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act (AMLCFT) is one of the key elements of this particular omnibus bill. As we have heard also just this week—and also as we have seen in the Justice Committee—there are a number of bills that are currently relating to AMLCFT that are going through the House right now. As we see from the financial task force in their report, this is an area that requires updating.

A number of those updates ostensibly are substantial and deserve amendment bills in their own right. We have seen the second of those amendments being introduced in the House this week, with a possible third one on the way, as indicated by the Minister in charge. But in this case, the omnibus bill that we see here makes a minute change that sets out customer due diligence requirements that reporting entities such as casinos or financing institutions must fulfil, as well as amending areas such as addressing verification of a customer, beneficial owner of a customer, or person acting on behalf of a customer is only required according to the level of risk involved in the transaction, which offers a level of flexibility that we see that is required for this bill.

A second part that is substantial in the Statutes Amendment Bill is around the Oaths and Declarations Act. One of the key adjustments—and I’ll talk more about the ability for Government to make such changes to regulations and also the flexibility of their offers and updates and modernisation that is required a little bit later. In the specific context of the Oaths and Declarations Act, what we are seeing is that it allows oaths, affirmations, and declarations to be administered and oaths to be taken by audiovisual link or audio link. Although this seems minute, it is an important step in allowing accessibility to the way that we look at our affirmations and declarations, particularly in light of the pandemic, where if we do have situations that people aren’t able to do it in person, they’re able to have that flexibility to do it online. We’re happy to see this being introduced as part of the Statutes Amendment Bill to offer even more and even greater accessibility and inclusion to people who are making affirmations or declarations.

Thirdly, another substantial change of this bill out of the 41 Acts that are being amended is the Privacy Act. In this case, this is inserting a new clause 132A in this amendment, which would amend section 98 of the principal Act—which is the Privacy Act—and sets out when a person can commence proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. It specifies that a person must commence proceedings within six months of being notified of the decision by the Privacy Commissioner or Director of the Tribunal. It also further clarifies, in the cases where there are two or more related complainants, that the six-month limitation period will begin only after decisions for all of the related complainants have been made and notified, which is, again, an important step in allowing for that flexibility but also it makes sense in the case, which currently isn’t allowed under the existing legislation.

One final point I would like to make in terms of some of the bigger changes that are noticed within this bill is around changes to the Defence Act, and particularly around certain changes as recommended on the inclusion and using a more gender-neutral term of aviator as opposed to the existing terminologies that are in the legislation. We do recognise the amazing diversity of the people who are serving our country as part of that.

Those are some of the major changes that we see in this bill. However, it is also worth noting that two particular areas have been removed as a result of the select committee process. Although there are few submissions on this bill because it is a technical bill in nature, we do thank everyone who has submitted on the bill. It is worth noting that there are two particular legislations as a result of the select committee process that have been removed from this because of other considerations, the first one being the Conservation Act. The reason that clauses 25 and 33 have been removed as a result of the select committee process is because it is considered under the broader consultation and changes to that principal Act, which is currently taking place.

However, I would note that there are certain areas of this—particularly in light of the defence to a charge “if the defendant can show that the discharge of the contaminant”, which is in removed clause 33 and is something that is worth greater attention as part of that consultation process, because of the fact that there is a genuine concern from the Greens around the way that our Conservation Act works and the way that it has been, ironically, diluted. That potentially has the potential to allow more contamination of the natural environment. That is something that is definitely worth further attention.

It is also worth noting that although the majority of the Conservation Act in this case has been removed, clause 34 has been retained, which is around taking indigenous freshwater fish without authority. This is specifically to do with a person must not take indigenous freshwater fish from any fresh water, except in accordance with certain sections of that primary legislation. Anyone who fails to comply will be considered as an infringement offence, and it is important for this adjustment to the Conservation Act.

In terms of the Racing Industry Act, it is important to note that the original Part 33 of this bill on the Racing Industry Act has already been incorporated as a part of another bill that’s already been introduced in the House and, therefore, it is redundant for us to introduce it here in this bill.

For the final little bit, I would like to mention that bills like this show the incredible work that this Parliament and the House of Representatives do in order to update our regulations and legislation in a way that doesn’t take a lot of additional resources and in a way that is done with the support of the entire House. It’s a part of the normal function of Parliament. We see these sorts of changes all the time through regulatory system bills or omnibus bills such as this. We don’t need to look for other avenues to make greater changes. So the Greens support this bill.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I just want to highlight very briefly the key changes. Obviously, it has the conservation and racing amendments, because conservation’s being done separately by that Minister. Racing, we have already passed that Act, so that doesn’t need to be included.

On the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, it is an area where I think we’ve brought some clarity. Some of us would like to go further; however, in the nature of a Statutes Amendment Bill that needs to be small, minor, non-technical, and non-controversial changes, there wasn’t the ability to go any further.

I would like to highlight the amendments to the Incorporated Societies Act got a surprising amount of interest, because there are a number of changes that groups like the New Zealand Amateur Sport Association Inc. would like to see made, but I do note that has been picked up in a member’s bill which is in the ballot under the name of Laura McClure, and I commend her for the work that she’s doing there.

I’m sure everyone would have noticed that the legislative statement in paragraph 10 mentions a change to having audio link or audiovisual link. Can I just highlight that, actually, under the Oaths and Declarations Act, it is only an audiovisual link, so you can give that surreptitious wink if you are being held hostage while you sign your will.

Finally, changes to the Privacy Act—another area that received a lot of questions around this ability to stretch it out to six months on the last claim. Can I just highlight—because this was a question I asked—that it’s the last claim relating to one incident. So if there’s an incident where someone puts in a claim that a decision was made with the wrong information and something was released publicly that shouldn’t have been and maybe something else, it’s the last of those claims that earns the six months. But if you then put in a different claim about a different incident or a different department, that will be treated separately. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Statutes Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, these are minor technical amendments from New Zealand First’s point of view. They’re common-sense changes that cover over 41 different Acts, and they must be by consensus. On that, I commend the bill to the House.

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

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana au, ki te reo Māori ēnei kōrero. E tū ake ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō te pire e kīia nei, e kōrerotia nei, e wānangahia nei e te Whare.

Nō reira, pēnei anō, kāre au mō te tārua tonu nei i ngā kōrero a tēnā, a tēnā, engari ko tāku i te ata nei kia kawea ēnei tū āhuatanga ki te reo Māori nā runga anō i te whai pānga ki tēnei Whare.

Kua rongo tātou kāore he tino āmaimaitanga o te whakakaohanga mai o ēnei pire e whā tekau mā tahi nei. Tika tonu kia whakatikahia ngā mea kua roa e tārewa ana—e, tēnā koe e Todd i tō kapo whakaahua, ka nui te mihi.

Heoi anō ngā mea e tārewa ana. Taku rua tau noa iho nei ki te Whare nei, tērā ētahi ture kua roa nei e tārewa nei te whakatika, te whakahou rānei e hāngai pū ki ngā mahi o te rangi nei.

Nō reira e tautoko ana mātou i ērā tū āhuatanga katoa, tae atu ki te kupu whakataunaki, te kī taurangi o te Whare, arā e mea ana ko te oath i roto i te reo Pākehā. Ērā tikanga kia whakaaehia te tuku o te oath mā runga i te ipurangi, i te Huitopa rānei. E tika ana, e tika ana. Kei te 2025 ināianei, e tika ana kia āhei te tangata ki te tuku i ana whakaaro, otirā te whakatairanga i āna e kī taurangi ai i roto i te oath.

Me tā mātou e āpiti nei ki ngā whakatikatikahanga, ngā whakaaro nui mō te oath nei, tika tonu kia uru ko te Tiriti o Waitangi ki roto i te kī taurangi o tēnei Whare nā runga anō i te kōtuituitanga o te Kīngi o Ingarangi ki tā te taha iwi Māori e noho nei i raro i te taumaru o tēnei Whare. Ana, whakakotahihia ērā whakaaro katoa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, koia tonu ko te tūāpapa e noho nei i raro iho i te tūnga o tēnei Whare.

Nō reira ko tā mātou, me whai wāhi te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i te kī taurangi o tēnei Whare, puta noa i ngā pāti katoa e whai wāhi ai te mana o te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i ngā kawenga katoa.

Nō reira huri noa, tātou, tēnā tātou, kia ora tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand, and these comments will be in the Māori language. I stand to express the opinions of Te Pāti Māori regarding this bill that is mentioned, discussed, and debated by the House.

So, similarly, I will not merely repeat the statements of each of us, but instead what I intend this morning is that these functions be conveyed in the Māori language due to the relevance to this House.

We’ve heard there is no real concern about the collection of these 41 bills. It is absolutely appropriate that these things that have been unresolved for so long be corrected—ah, thank you, Todd, for taking a picture, many thanks.

Anyway, the things that are unresolved. In my mere two years in this House, there is some legislation for which the correction or amendment has been suspended that is directly relevant to today’s activities.

So we support all of those features, including the affirmation, the Oath of the House—i.e., known as “the oath” in the English language. Those practices to permit the delivery of the oath over the internet or via Zoom. It is appropriate, it is appropriate. We are in 2025 now, and it is appropriate that people be allowed to deliver their opinions, and indeed to uphold what they pledged in the oath.

We would add to the amendments, the major concepts for this oath, it is appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi is included in the oath of this House due to the partnership of the King of England to the Māori people that remains under the shelter of this House. Now, bring all of those ideas together with the Treaty of Waitangi, which is truly the foundation upon which this House stands.

What we propose is that the Treaty of Waitangi should be included in the oath of this House, so that across all parties the power of the Treaty of Waitangi is included in all business.

And so to all of us, greetings and thanks to us all.]

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I rise to support, at the second reading, the Statutes Amendment Bill. It was a pleasure to be on the Governance and Administration Committee, ably chaired by Rachel Boyack and then Camilla Belich. We were consulted, as a party, in 2023, because the amendments needed to be minor and non-controversial. I’d like to thank my colleagues for a good process—some quite incisive questioning when the submitters came in.

Some of it is about modernisation. My colleague Dr Xu-Nan picked up on the “airmen” to “aviators”. There’s also the removal of “imbeciles”, which is probably a good thing, particularly in this House! Secondly, we have a huge amount of work here. Yes, the elected members work well. Yes, committee staff work well. But my biggest thank you is to the staff who looked through all of these, collected them all up, tried to marry the language so that we don’t have inconsistencies in our legislation that either mean people don’t understand what the law is or expose people to lengthy court processes. Thank you, thank you, thank you for that.

I’d also like to thank the submitters. Most of them were very much on one or two out of those 41 reduced Acts. The Minister mentioned the New Zealand Amateur Sport Association earlier on. I’d just like to say, in the work that proceeds after this, it seems very important that it’s not about what the incorporated society does, if we’re looking to make things a little simpler in the future. There are plenty of small conservation societies, or other special-interest societies that would feel very much the same as Amateur Sport, so I think it’s very important that it’s about how a society works, how its officers are held accountable, how we know that they’ve actually put the money where they said they were going to put the money, that the members voting for something actually are members—all of those issues should not be dismissed as too difficult for a small society.

There were some helpful and detailed matters raised. The other modernisation, as well as some of the language of “imbeciles” and “aviators”—what a wonderful combination; it sounds like it could be a good bar name, really: “Imbeciles and Aviators”—is in the issue about addresses, and where you have to do address verification. We actually heard, quite strongly, that some of the organisations that have to do address verification these days—and this goes along with the whole difficulties of postal voting for local government—address verification is considerably more time-consuming and difficult, perhaps, than it used to be.

Also, we have minor changes to the Local Government Act, including putting all of the annual report requirements into one place. I would just say, that reminds us how much reporting local government already does. I urge parties that were not on the Governance and Administration Committee to actually note how this process has worked well, how the staff present a whole list of things, consult early with the parties, bring it to the public in case there’s something we’ve overlooked, and decide we’re going to do it like this or we’re going to proceed and request that Parliament follows up on some other matters. Thank you. The Greens support this.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’ll be very short. Ninety-six proposals which amend 42 Acts administered by 14 Government agencies—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, sorry, was there a point of order?

Camilla Belich: No, it’s just a Labour call.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, can you show me? Because I’ve just come into the seat. Sorry, can we please start the member’s time again while we just sort this out? Thank you.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Can I?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you can take your call.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill contains 96 proposals which amend 42 Acts administered by 14 Government agencies. All of this Parliament supports the Statutes Amendment Bill, but I just want to mention one particular thing: the amendment to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, basically, has derogatory terminology about women, and it actually says, “subnormal woman or girl”, and that is being changed to “certain persons”. I think that is a good thing, and I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you. A pleasure to take a call on this. This is an important bill for Parliament because it changes minor things that would otherwise possibly not be, politically, the focus of Ministers bringing changes to the House. So this bill changes I think 41, now, particular bills—that’s what the legislative statement says, anyway. It makes minor changes. I just wanted to focus on a couple of those because, obviously, I wouldn’t have time to go through all 41 changes.

The one that I wanted to start with was just the oaths and declarations changes. This change was put forward as a way of modernising the way that oaths and declarations are undertaken and allowing those to be done by Zoom or by whatever medium you want to use—FaceTime. The key change that the committee made here from what was originally proposed was actually to make sure that that was an audiovisual link and not an audio link. I recall my time as a junior lawyer, and one of the major jobs that you would do is if anyone wanted to do an oath or a declaration or an affidavit—even if it was a substantive affidavit—it was your duty as a lawyer to go through that affidavit and make sure that the person took their oath and signed all of the exhibits. It was extremely time-consuming, but something that, I think, when you’ve finished your professionals course and when you’ve just newly qualified, you do take extremely seriously. I think that it’s important that all lawyers—or all people, not just lawyers—who are able to take oaths and declarations do take that really seriously. The concern that we had around the audio only was really that when you are required to take an oath from someone in person, you want to make sure that that person is doing so genuinely in good faith, without coercion.

For us, it made sense to modernise it in terms of accessibility—people who are in remote locations, people who may be ill, emergency situations like we had in COVID—to allow the audiovisual change. But the audio on its own seemed a step too far to be able to not see the context of where that person was; to not be able to read their body language; to make sure that they were, indeed, taking their oath or declaration with sound mind, and also without fear of interference or coercion. So I think that was a good change that the committee made, and I want to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee.

As you’ll see from the report, I was involved for a part of this but also want to acknowledge Rachel Boyack, who was the chair of that committee at the beginning of this process—although I do note that this particular bill has had a genesis in, actually, the previous Parliament, as well. Both Governments have participated in this bill, and, actually, it’s taken this long to get these changes before the House, and that might be something that we can reflect on in terms of making these changes more quickly, because they are minor changes.

The other thing that’s really unusual about this bill is it requires agreement from every single member of the House. If there was a single member in this House who disagreed with a particular provision in this bill, that provision would need to be removed, otherwise this bill could not proceed. I think that it’s great that we have some bills like that, where each individual member, especially when we do have a Parliament which probably has more party discipline than many other common Westminster systems—that we do have a system where any member of Parliament can look through this. If they haven’t done so, I encourage you to, to make sure you are happy with these changes, because these are going forward, as they are only small changes, and they are going forward in your name, essentially, not just in your party’s name. This is something that each individual member has the authority to have a view on.

With that in mind, it was something that I know the Governance and Administration Committee—and I want to acknowledge the staff of that committee, who really were the ones who shepherded this bill through the select committee stage. They made sure that the communication—and the elected members made sure that this was happening, but it was the staff who actually undertook a lot of the consultation to make sure that other parties who weren’t represented on the Governance and Administration Committee also had the ability to see what was going through and have a view on that and to make sure that they are all happy with that. I think that was New Zealand First—no, it was the Māori Party and ACT. We see we have Andy Foster, who is very actively involved from New Zealand First on the Governance and Administration Committee.

It does go through a number of different provisions. We did have submissions from some members of the public who would have liked the bill to go further and to do more substantive changes. Obviously, that’s not the purview of a Statutes Amendment Bill—it needs to be smaller changes that are not substantive policy—but I think it’s always helpful, and I am encouraged by members of the public who did want to make those submissions. You’ll see that, in particular, in relation to incorporated societies, those submissions became a part of our report, and so that submitter has not—although their changes have not been incorporated, their views have been represented in the second reading report to the House. So that time has not been wasted, and it’s been raised in a really constructive way, I think, by the committee, to be able to look at moving forward.

I won’t use all of my time on this, as this is not something which is, by its nature, political. It’s something that we do in this House because we take our responsibility as legislators seriously, and we want to make sure that the Acts that govern our country have pragmatic and updated changes from time to time. I want to thank everyone who’s been involved in putting this together over two Governments—probably many different select committee members—and the select committee staff who have worked on this, and also the people at Government departments who have suggested changes for the Statutes Amendment Bill. It’s, I think, in a good state at the moment. Obviously, we’ll be interested to look at it a bit further in the subsequent committee stage and third reading, but I think at this stage it’s something that we can all be proud of that we have put together and will, hopefully, make the wheels of the country turn a little bit faster. So I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Just before I take the next call, I just wanted to clarify so the speeches are in order: when an ACT Minister takes the Minister’s call, then National takes call four, so everything is flowing as it should be. Just to clarify that there’s a change in order when a New Zealand First or an ACT Minister actually are in charge of the bill. Thank you. I call Dr Hamish Campbell.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill. We’ve heard a lot in this debate that this is a vehicle for these minor, technical, and relatively non-controversial changes to these Acts of Parliament. Some of these pieces of legislation have been on the books from the 1950s and 1960s and really do need to be modernised. I think one example was the Housing Act 1955. It talks about a £1 fee for an easement certificate, so I think this just shows one of the reasons why we need to put these sorts of bills through Parliament every now and again. It is to make life a lot easier. It does modernise it. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t know if we’re still the fastest lawmakers in the West, but the way this Government’s been pushing large amounts of legislation through the Parliament with scant regard for the basic principles of the democratic process—that there should be space in lawmaking for select committees to do their work properly, to give members of the public and experts a chance to have their say on bills—has been worrying.

Bills like this are a very important way that the Parliament can not only modernise and update the minutiae of our statutes over time but also clean up some of the messes that are caused by over-hasty lawmaking—things like the regulatory systems amendments that we put through from time to time—and, certainly, statutes amendment bills like this are a very important way of cleaning house and making sure that we’re constantly updating and improving the law so that it can better serve New Zealanders.

Labour is supporting this giant compendium of often very minor and arcane amendments to 42 different Acts. I won’t take any more time of the House but wish this bill well as it makes its way through the House.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill in its first reading. This is an omnibus bill that amends a whole raft of minor amendments that are agreed on across the House. I commend the bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. As I’ve heard my colleagues on this side of the House say, we will be supporting this bill. As we’ve also heard, it’s an essential tidy-up—by definition, not substantive amendments—across 42 Acts, because it’s good regulatory stewardship. It’s been very helpful listening when we were in the Governance and Administration Committee. I do want to thank the officials for their tremendous work in terms of when they were shepherding this, and thanks also to the public submissions to help committee members understand.

Particularly, I will just talk a little bit about the oaths and declarations. In a previous role, I did a number of citizenship ceremonies. It’s really important when people are taking oaths, and there’s a bit of a challenge when you’re doing that online. Government members and members of the select committee—we asked a number of questions through the public submission process. It was really helpful to understand the dos and don’ts, and particularly around the risks. So we had very good information, and important information, that the public officials raised at that time.

Also, I want to thank the submitters who were able to be part of the process, because it’s important for scenarios around Aotearoa that we understand, as committee members, what is relevant and what needs to be raised as risk, particularly in those provisions and proposals.

I won’t take all of my time. Labour supports this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to be the last speaker and round off the debate in the Statutes Amendment Bill second reading. The Government whip often says, “Dull but worthy speeches.”, and I think this is a bill that is characterised as dull but worthy. There are lots of small changes in this bill. I can see the unanimous support in the House. Thank you to the officials. Thank you to the Governance and Administration Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1

Amendments to Disputes Tribunal Act 1988

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come first to the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill and to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 7, “Amendments to Disputes Tribunal Act 1988”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): A very good morning, members. Great to be here and to be discussing this important Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill.

In summary, the changes that are being effected by this Government are: increasing the financial threshold from $30,000 to $60,000, and a number of other aspects in regards to that. The primary purpose of these changes is to improve access to quick and low-cost disputes resolution so that people can resolve those disputes and those claims as fast as practicable.

The assessment, in terms of the range that has been set, was considered by an independent group and has informed the setting of where that threshold is. It is the view of the Government that this is an appropriate level in which to maximise the benefit from that. With that, I very much welcome questions from the floor.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. We are absolutely supportive of increasing the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal to $60,000—and a shout-out to all those hard-working dispute tribunals referees who resolve numerous civil disputes.

I guess my questions really revolve around missed opportunities and also safeguards, I suppose, because $60,000 is a lot of money, in short. One of the challenges here is—and it was raised with the Minister of Justice relatively informally and discussed at the Justice Committee, but to no avail. One of the challenges is that Disputes Tribunal referees are often lawyers but are not required to be lawyers. In fact, the legislation itself refers to a suitable qualification such as law, medicine, or dispute resolution, or words to that effect. I’ve always found that to be a little odd. One of my questions to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, is whether it was considered appropriate to have people not qualified in law making legal decisions that in fact significantly affect people’s property rights and wealth, because $30,000 is a lot of money for many people—in fact, if you think of the lowest-income New Zealanders, those on perhaps jobseeker benefits, it’s pretty much the whole lot. I’m a little concerned that we’re increasing the powers of the Disputes Tribunal—which is appropriate—but not increasing the safeguards in a commensurate manner.

The first question is on the qualifications of Disputes Tribunal referees. Should we have Disputes Tribunal referees who are not legally qualified determining disputes which are $60,000? That’s a decent annual income for some people. You know, it’s a really genuine question. Section 7 of the Act deals with qualifications.

The second question is this—and I’ve got a tabled amendment in this regard. It’s around the fact that disputes in the Disputes Tribunal are resolved with regards to the law but not on the basis of the law. That is to say, a Disputes Tribunal referee, you’ve got this dispute around, say, a car—although that would go to the motor vehicle Disputes Tribunal, so I can’t use that one—a dispute around a boat worth $60,000. The Disputes Tribunal referee can look at the law and say, “Well, I know the law of misrepresentation and I know the law of contractual mistake. I’ve taken it all into account, but I’ve decided, in this case, not to apply it.” So you lose. Now, that’s what the legislation says. You look at the law, you think, “Does that lead to a result I think’s fair?” When you’re getting into this space, you can’t have people, you can’t have referees, applying their own views of fairness. We need Parliament’s view of fairness, which is called the law.

On the Table, we have an amendment that says that when you get over $30,000, that doesn’t apply—your sense of fairness doesn’t apply; the law applies. I think that’s a really useful change to make it clear that the law of New Zealand is the base moral code in civil disputes, not the reckons, however informed they may be, of our good Disputes Tribunal referees. So there’s two points, perhaps, to start.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much to the member Duncan Webb for the question. I think the point that’s being raised in the context is whether the referees are qualified to make decisions in regards to the higher value to which the thresholds have been adjusted. I mean, it is very much the view of the Government that the existing appointment criteria that is in play is sufficient for requiring those suitable candidates to ensure that they are appointed as referees. It also maintains the flexibility.

To be specific about the number of individuals that we are talking about, we are talking around 62 individuals that fulfil these roles. Of those, approximately 58 are lawyers and have the qualifications of that context, and the remaining four, in the main, have greater than 10 years’ experience in this area. So it is the assessment of the status quo that seems to be appropriate in the context of the personal attributes, knowledge, and experience of those referees, and on that basis, we’re comfortable with where it’s at.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for responding to that question, but I think the question that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb is raising is a really good one. The Green Party does support his amendment on this bill—particularly the one around clause 7(b), new section 18(6A) of the principal Act. I think that’s a really important safeguard for what this bill is trying to achieve.

I just want to check with the Minister in terms of what we’re seeing in the regulatory impact statement around the policy intent of this bill. I want to specifically focus on what we see in Part 1, which has multiple sections around increasing the threshold from $30,000 to $60,000. Part of the reason for this is so that we are able to ease some of the burdens around the function and some of the issues that we’re seeing in terms of the District Court. But, again, like what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned, the Disputes Tribunal does fulfil a very different role in comparison. What we’re also seeing here is, in terms of the limitations and constraints as expressed in the regulatory impact statement, that the scale of the problem is unknown in terms of the increase of threshold from, let’s say, $30,000 even up to $100,000.

I guess my first question to the Minister is: if the scale of the problem is unknown, what expectations would the Minister have—maybe via the officials—that this is something that is genuinely going to serve the purpose as intended by this legislation of increasing that threshold from $30,000 to $60,000? That’s my first question.

I also want to check with the Minister whether, as part of, again, the regulatory impact statement, other things have been considered and have been ruled out as a result of this as well.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions of the Minister, because I, of course, do agree with moves that are taken to ensure greater access to justice, which I think is a good thing.

My first question is a bit of a general one and it’s in relation to the Law Society submission, which talked about the value of increasing access to justice. However, their view was that it doesn’t set aside the need for a more comprehensive review of access to tribunals and the Disputes Tribunal in particular. They made a number of proposals for change. Their suggestion was that there was a need for a first principles assessment of the tribunal. The first question is a general one about whether that was considered at any stage.

The second question is in regard to the threshold itself. Obviously, colleagues have spoken to the needs for safeguards as we increase the threshold, but when the Rules Committee was considering improving access to civil justice, their report suggested an increase to $70,000. I wonder whether that was based on data in regard to the abandonment of a portion of the value of a claim, or whether the data demonstrates that actually that abandonment portion really fell up to the $60,000 threshold, which was the basis for going with $60,000.

Then also, in relation to the Law Society’s submission, they noted that there was an issue in terms of narrow appeal grounds and that the Rules Committee proposal had suggested both an increased threshold but also that there was potentially a need for an appeal right to exist as well—whether that was something that the Minister had considered, even if it was a limited appeal right of some regard.

Then my last question for now is in relation to clause 5, which amends section 14, and that concerns the abandonment of a portion of the value of the claim to bring it in line within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal—so within the band of the new $30,000 to $60,000. My question is really a monitoring one: is there is an intent to review the new abandonment provisions to see whether there’s justification to shift the threshold even higher in terms of what, I believe, the Rules Committee had suggested, either going to $70,000 or to 100,000? Thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks to members for those questions. In regards to the questions by the member regarding clause 5—and also broader questions in regards to increasing the financial threshold higher than $60,000—that was considered; however, in the context of the public interest, we were not of the view that the Disputes Tribunal model was appropriate to be hearing higher-value cases. It is appropriate, obviously in the view of the Government, to increase it from $30,000 to $60,000, but not beyond that.

On points raised in regards to the Rules Committee, submitters to that Rules Committee, as part of the Disputes Tribunal model, noted that it may not have suited to hear higher-value claims, where parties would benefit from a right to appeal and legal representation. In that context, I believe that answers it.

There were other questions, initially, from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan in regards to threshold changes. I’ve provided that overview in my opening statements, as to why we have moved from $30,000 to $60,000 in regards to efficiency. That covers off those questions.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t think the Minister has yet addressed my question relating to section 18 of the principal Act in respect to which there is an amendment on the Table. I’ve just grabbed a copy of the bill. Section 18(6) says, “The Tribunal shall determine the dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and in doing so shall have regard to the law but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.” Now, my view is that once you’re getting into this kind of number, the legal rights and obligations are pretty handy, and we should be actually applying them. I have no doubt that 95 percent plus—maybe 99 percent—of the time, that’s exactly what tribunal referees do. But I don’t think we should have a forum where you can just say, “I reckon that the substantial merits and justices of the case are this.”, because the substantial justice and merits of the case are what the laws says it is, not what a Disputes Tribunal referee thinks it is. I’d appreciate the Minister’s response on whether he thinks you should be able to decide civil disputes for up to $60,000 on a basis other than the law.

My next point actually flows from that, and that’s on appeal rights. The small claims tribunal was started off for $500 disputes, and it was a quick-fire, no-appeal dispute resolution. That was fine at that level, but now we’ve got up to this level, we’ve got a question about what appeals are allowed. Section 50 of the Act deals with appeals, and the only ground of appeal is that the proceeding was conducted by the referee in a manner that was unfair to the appellant. Now, that’s a way of saying a breach of natural justice. It’s not that the decision is unfair, not that the legal conclusions are unfair, not that the factual findings are unfair, but that the proceedings were conducted in a way that was unfair. A classic example is where the respondent rings up and says, “I’ve had a car crash. I can’t make it on time.”, and the referee doesn’t adjourn. It proceeds without hearing from them and decides against them. They didn’t get a fair hearing.

That’s a classic example of being proceeded unfair and a good ground of appeal. What about if they get the law wildly wrong? What about if they say, “I’ve had a look at the law of misrepresentation, and I think it says this, and, therefore, you lose.”, and they just got it wildly wrong? That’s a classic error of law. As long as they have regard to the law, it doesn’t matter if they get it right or wrong. In this section, as long as they look at the law and go, “I’m going to look at the law of misrepresentation.”, an error of law is not a basis for an appeal, because what subsection (2) of section 50 says is “the Referee fails to have regard to any provision of any enactment that is brought to [their] attention.” You can have a regard to it and entirely misconstrue it, but it’s not a ground of appeal. Now, I’ll tell you what. If I had a referee who just had a bad day and got the law wildly wrong and then said, “You owe that fellow $60,000.”, I think I should have a right of appeal to someone who is able to correct that error.

Now, findings of fact are different. “I’ve listened to you both. I think I believe you and not you.”—that’s a finding of fact. I can accept that you can’t appeal on those things or that it’s a much higher threshold for appeal, because findings of fact are always going to have an element of the first-instance decision maker having a better opportunity. But making a gross error of law—turning your mind to it and getting it wrong—should be a grounds of appeal. That’s what my tabled amendment deals with. It provides that that for claims over $30,000, an error of law should be a ground for appeal.

Now, if the Minister would like to stand up and say, “No. Even though they make an error of law and get the law wildly wrong, I think it’s OK for someone to get a windfall of $60,000 and the other person to lose out entirely unjustly and at variance with the law to the tune of $60,000.”, I’d be interested to hear that, but I’d much prefer him to say he’d support my tabled amendment.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your response to my questions, and I also do think that the previous speaker who raised some really important questions. Yes, the Minister has mentioned it, but the threshold as noted is not a small amount, and we see in the regulatory impact statement. It’s quite a substantial increase from recent years and actually since the history of the threshold for the Disputes Tribunal.

One of the things that the Minister mentioned, and I just want to pick up on what the Minister said before, is in terms of the threshold being set at $60,000 in terms of also—I think the Minister mentioned—the public interest. I really want to get the Minister’s thoughts around what we see in the regulatory impact statement for paragraphs 55 to 57, which is that there is what would be, I guess, the negative implications of increasing that threshold in terms of the public’s confidence in the Disputes Tribunal and also the impact to natural justice.

As we heard from the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, because of the significant increase in amount, this may have implications around natural justice if the error of law and misrepresentation is not considered thoroughly, which then will have the adverse effect of eroding public confidence around this. It would be really good to hear from the Minister on that in combination with what we’re seeing as reported in the regulatory impact statement.

Now, another thing I would like to pick up on is Schedule 1, which is the sections attached to clause 7 in Part 1 of the bill. One of the things around Schedule 1, inserting into Schedule 1AA new Part 3, “Provisions relating to Disputes Tribunal Amendment Act 2024”, is that clause 3(2)—noting that there might be conversations later on around the commencement date, but the commencement date is said to be three months after the Royal assent. Subclause (2) says “If the claim has not been disposed of before the commencement date, the person may not, on or after the commencement date” amend or withdraw the case. Basically, this allows people a three-month period where you may get people withdrawing their case, which is currently with a threshold of $30,000 and reapplying for up to $60,000. Is there an anticipation by the Minister or by the officials of the extent that this may happen? That would be my second question to the Minister on Schedule 1.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks again, members, for those questions. Just in response specifically to new clause 3(2) of Schedule 1AA, inserted by Schedule 1, primarily, the change there is to stop someone from, in effect, amending a claim during the process in order to allow them to take benefit from the changes that are going—so it means that claims that are already in play need to continue under that model. So that’s the response around clause 3(2).

To the points raised by the Hon Duncan Webb in regards to decision-making mandate, appeal rights, and other components, at a fundamental level, the decisions that are made are obviously a core aspect of the model that is being implemented and intended in terms of the principles around fairness, common sense, and efficient decision-making. Now, the referees, in this case, are required to make decisions in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case while also having regard to the law, as opposed to having to administer the law and give effect to strict legal rights or obligations. So, therefore, by making any changes, that could risk undermining the tribunal’s access to justice benefits such as timely resolution or finality of the decision—then that is the reason in that context.

Why are the appeal rights limited? The primary consideration there is that limited appeal rights, in principle, provide finality for the parties. However, there are mechanisms—you used an example of coming in, bad day, how would that play through? Well, appeals from the Disputes Tribunal to the District Court are obviously at play. There is judicial review by the High Court also. But in an instance of an individual such as the case, the party to a claim, or a person who is party to a claim, who is unhappy with the outcome is able to apply for one rehearing. So I think in the context of the issues raised, practically, that’s the process through.

We do not support the tabled amendment in regards to clause 7(b), and to be honest—I’ll cut to the chase—clause 7(a) and clause 9 as well, but in regards to clause 7(b) specifically, we don’t for the reasons outlined.

The counterfactual to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s points around access to justice: well, the reality is that by not increasing the threshold from $30,000 to $60,000, the assessment is that there is potentially about 2,000 claims that would not have access to justice. The benefit of increasing the threshold means that more New Zealanders have access to justice, and the counterfactual of not increasing it means that those people would not. I think, irrespective of position, more people having access to low- and affordable-cost justice is a position that we want to be in.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment inserting new section 50A is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment inserting new subsection (6A) in section 18 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 8 to 10, “Amendments to other enactments”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand that Part 2 amends the Disputes Tribunal Rules, and I must say I was very surprised to have those amendments ruled out of order, because they all dealt with situations where the limit had been increased. In fact, my other amendment deals with the Disputes Tribunal Rules and, in particular, the fees. What we have is an amendment that inserts a new fee of $468—a filing fee—“… in respect of which an order of the Tribunal is sought under the claim is $30,001 or more.” The filing fee in the District Court, which can be waived, is $260.

This is an access to justice point. If I’ve got a claim—if someone has caused me damage, in some way—of $35,000, but I don’t have $468 to file, I don’t get to go to the Disputes Tribunal. Poor people don’t have $468 in spare cash to pursue people who cause them harm. My amendment is to say that where there is a claim over $30,000, a Disputes Tribunal referee has the power to waive the application fee. It may be that it should be in whole or part, but, in any event, you can imagine, if you’ve been defrauded, scammed, out of your savings and you find the scammer and you want to try and get it back, but, crikey, your bank account has been cleaned out, you haven’t got $468, and you’re not going to get it from instant finance. My view is that, if you’re going to have genuine access to justice—and, arguably, this is all about access to justice—you need to be able to say, “In this case, this fee is waived.”

Now, I know that there’s now a new power on a Disputes Tribunal referee to order that the filing fee be repaid if you win, but that’s not the same. This is about getting into the tribunal, not getting award coming out of the tribunal. It’s really important that we recognise that. It’s not good enough to say, “Well, if you win, you get your fee back”, because you’re never going to get there. You’re not even going to get to ask the question unless the tribunal says, “All right.” It’s hard enough for many people to have the wherewithal to do what’s a pretty legalistic process. I totally appreciate that it’s low form—nothing like the District Court or High Court—but for many people this will be the first interaction they have with the justice system. They’ve got to do all the form-filling and come up with $468. The idea that you can waive a District Court fee for $260 but not a Disputes Tribunal fee for $468, frankly, is a nonsense—it absolutely beggars belief.

Again, this was raised at select committee and wasn’t something that I was able to persuade members to make a change about, but now that we’re here in the committee of the whole House and the Minister is there—and I know he’s a thoughtful Minister, and a Minister who’d want to see people have access to justice and doesn’t want to see people who don’t have $468 precluded from bringing their claims—maybe he’ll be able to accept that. Of course, if he wants to go and improve the drafting, I’d be happy for us to report progress on this bill so that could be done as well. I think we should take our time rather than rushing through it. It is a serious point, and it’s a real one, because there’ll be plenty of people who don’t have that money and will be denied justice. I’d be interested in his response to that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think just to add on to that, one other thing that has been discussed with officials as part of the committee stage was the fee setting of $468, as we see here in clause 9, is a simple extrapolation of the doubling of the baseline amount of $30,000 to $60,000. The assumption that was made with no evidential basis as we saw during the select committee is that people with a $30,000 claim will have $234 to be able to file as a filing fee, ergo people who have up to $60,000 claim will be able to pay for that.

I think the other consideration there that needs to be mentioned is it’s not simply that that is a scale from $30,000 to $60,000—that is, if your claim is $30,001, you see a doubling of filing fee as opposed to a progression—so I just want to also check with the Minister in terms of the rationale for something like that. Why was there only one band that was considered, which is doubling the fee, but not, I guess, a progression or proportionality, if you’re looking at, let’s say, within $100 or $1,000 brackets, as a result? I think that does, as the previous speaker the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, further limit people’s ability to access justice.

I want to raise another point on top of this. One of the things is in terms of what we see in the regulatory impact statement, on the final page, around cost breakdown. Now, the cost breakdown here is also based on the estimation of the $60,000 increase, including the total estimated filing fee revenue. As the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned, if people have to, essentially, take a leap of faith and put down the filing fee or potentially there’s an option for them to have the filing fee deducted if they won a particular case in the tribunal, is the estimated filing fee revenue that is on page 34 of the regulatory impact statement correct, or are we also anticipating that we will not get to that amount either because this won’t have the projected benefit and revenue generation opportunity because not that many people will have that amount of money to file? Or will there be a greater reduction because people will not be able to pay for those filing fees, which are then just generated as potential debt?

That is, I guess, one question further on from what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned, and the second question is around the estimated filing fee revenue in the regulatory impact segment.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, members. I think both questions are really focusing on the point around whether the higher filing fee will be a barrier to access in the context of individuals, and which noted—first and foremost, the reality, as the Government sees it, is that it is appropriate for users of the tribunal to pay a fee in order to recover the costs of running that tribunal. That is because, actually, a $30,000 or up to $60,000 investment does provide significant private benefit in using that tribunal to resolve a dispute. It is also a significantly more efficient mechanism in order to bring proceedings than, say, through the District Court process, due to other aspects which are obvious but particularly around court fees etc.

I think the point in reference to particular individuals who are in a financial sense going to find that threshold is above their means from an affordability point of view is that, separately, the Government is considering a proposal that is progressing through the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, which will basically enable referees to put in place that the respondent pay the cost of the filing fee back to the party who is a successful applicant. So that mechanism in order to ensure that that repayment is made is something that has been considered as part of that process, and that will ensure—I think, to the points raised in some contexts—that the costs do not fall on those that have been wronged and will remove a further barrier to access injustice.

So, in my view, that covers questions on clause 9(2), inserting new paragraph 5(1)(d), and the points raised by the two members.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 9 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just make a comment that many times votes have been changed in this House, so individual members who are new should not feel that they are isolated.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 259 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1

Amendments to Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 and secondary legislation made under that Act

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, so now the House is in committee on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. I’ll just give the Minister a moment to come into the chair. We start with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 25, “Amendments to Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 and secondary legislation”, and Part 1 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that there are many changes to this piece of legislation, albeit some minor and technical, we do think it’s a good idea to traverse and ask some of the questions of the Minister, particularly for those people at home who will be completely glued to their televisions, wanting to know what we are doing in this space.

So my first question to the Minister is with regard to Part 1, clause 4(3), which replaces section 2(2) with (2)(a), (b), (c), and (d), where it says “(2) The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in Council, for the purposes of this Act, (a) declare any substance, mixture of substances, or biological compound to be an agricultural compound; or”—and then it goes on to (2)(c), where it says “declare any entity to be a pest; or (d) declare any entity not to be a pest.” So my first question is: what criteria will be used to determine whether an entity is or is not a pest, or was once a pest but no longer, or was never a pest but is going to be a pest?

The other question I have for the Minister is with regard to new clause 4A, where we amend section 9, “Application for registration”, where it states “Subsection 1(b) does not apply to a substance, mixture of substances, or biological compound that is exempt from registration as an agricultural compound under section 8A for a limited period of time.” Can the Minister describe for the House or those watching at home under what circumstances or why a substance, mixture of substances, or biological compound may be exempt from being registered as an agricultural compound? If it’s not an agricultural compound by reason of the exemption, what might a substance or mixture of substances or biological compound be classified as instead?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you to the Chair. My question is also around clause 4 and section 2, which is the “Interpretation” section. I’m particularly interested in whether the Minister can help us by giving some examples of what the newly defined agricultural compounds would be that are involved with “(ix) mitigating adverse impacts on the environment; or (x) mitigating emissions that contribute to climate change;”.

My apologies, I don’t have the principal legislation in front of me, but I’m assuming that what happens with clause 4—section 2 amended, and new section 2(1)—is that now there will be a type of agricultural compound that relates to the mitigation of adverse impacts on the environment, and another one on mitigating emissions. As I’m reading this blind at the moment, if the Minister could give some examples and explain why it is that they should be within this agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines regime, I think that would be helpful.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Look, thank you very much. Again, on Part 1 and the issue of inhibitors, which is a new area of science in our products that many people across agriculture are looking to for—they might see them as magic bullets, but they certainly see them as part of the progress in terms of reducing emissions from agriculture. So it is a little bit confusing. In clause 2(2), “Subpart 3 of Part 1 comes into force 12 months after [the rest of the bill] … under subsection (3).”, and it ends the one-year transition supporting amendments to include inhibitors under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 (ACVM) and its secondary legislation.

I understand the complexities, and this really was sparked by—I think it was—Bovaer, or it was a compound developed in Europe mainly for indoor farming systems, but there was talk of it being very useful. Indeed, one of the processing companies in New Zealand had approved it in principle, but the process through the ACVM Act had not been completed—and indeed, actually, the company hadn’t applied for it.

So the question I have for the Minister is—of that particular inhibitor we know the case study, but how many more others are likely to come through? Indeed, do these changes protect farmers, processing companies, and exporters from the risk that we saw in the past, from dicyandiamide, where it ended up being in the supply chain? These regulations are critical. I think the exemptions in this piece of legislation are designed to, I guess, create some competitive tension and some innovation in the system. But I do need to know, or we should hear from the Minister, as to whether we’ve got the right protections in place to ensure proper scrutiny and that exemptions under registration work positively for farmers in the long term, not just open up a commercial opportunity that puts the whole export sector at risk. I look forward to that answer.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): I want to just move on to the “Renewal of registration” piece at the moment—new section 22A, for the Minister—where it talks about the decisions to grant an application for renewal or a new registration. Whilst I understand that there would be reasons, perhaps, why a renewal wouldn’t happen, for clarity, though, I want to know—because, obviously, when you go through the process of renewing a registration, depending on what it is, it can be quite time consuming, and there can also perhaps be a bit of cost to it. I wanted to ask the Minister, under new section 22B, “Decision on application for renewal”, where the director-general may or may not grant an application made under new section 22A “if the Director-General is satisfied that—” X, Y, Z—but it does go on to say that “If the Director-General is not satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1)(a) or (b) have been met, the Director-General must refuse to grant the application and the registration expires”.

What I would like to know from the Minister is if the criteria or requirements haven’t been met, will there be, or was there, consideration given to perhaps allowing someone just a bit of leeway of time to get whatever it might be in order, or does it just get declined and then they have to complete or start the whole process all over again? Is there a cost to that, or would there be a time limit set, whereby they can look to reapply and ensure they’ve got everything in order? Just for a bit of clarification, I think that would be helpful. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. On this question as well—and hopefully the Minister will answer us on Part 1—

Hon Todd McClay: I haven’t had a chance—you keep asking questions!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I welcome you to stand up, so I will keep this short for you, Minister. I’m looking forward to you answering the question about what I was asking about in terms of the definitions clause, talking about mitigation of adverse effects and mitigating emissions. We’ve heard from Damien O’Connor about the inhibitors, and clause 14 has the definition of “inhibitor”. There is a change, at clause 14, to the regulations with the phrase “inhibitor”, which links back to those things that mitigate the adverse effects. If you can comment on what the change here is doing, that would be lovely.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chair, thank you, and colleagues, thank you for those questions. A lot of this, I know, was traversed or covered during the select committee, but important that we bring it here. At a higher level, I’ll give the explanations, the assurances that are required, and I apologise if I don’t get them in the order that they came out in.

In as far as, I think, Jo Luxton was talking about pests—was that you, Jo? Yeah. The bill does not amend that. It is in the existing Act, so it doesn’t make any change at all. It’s just the way that it’s listed where the other change is, it keeps pests there. There is no change to the legislation as a result of this bill. The definition of what’s a pest and how it’s considered and how it’s dealt with remains the same as under the existing law. So that doesn’t change.

Damien O’Connor talked a little bit about some of the inhibitors and proof of safety and will it have an impact upon exports and so on—very, very important points. What the legislation does and says is that in some cases there are products that don’t need to be regulated or can’t be registered, and this will now allow that to happen, but it doesn’t speak to how you register. That’s a separate piece of legislation. This is merely recognising that there will be compounds of things that may well be used overseas, or, you know, those who want to bring them and use them in New Zealand—they don’t have the ability to. For instance, there’s not the ability to get permission to have a trial for some of these things, or not the ability to seek registration for new compounds—and he’s mentioned inhibitors. In effect, this means it will be possible to register, but the process to go through to seek registration and proof that they are not harmful in any way to production in New Zealand—or elsewhere—doesn’t change by that Act. That remains elsewhere in other Acts.

Then, finally, in as far as—where are we—new sections 22A and 22B, inserted by clause 6, are concerned, around the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines legislation, the Act does not provide for renewing trade name product registrations that have expired. Instead, applicants are required to undertake the necessary process of completing a new application. The amendment through this bill provides for renewals where registration details are current and the product remains compliant with conditions of approvals of registration, reflecting how the Ministry for Primary Industries is addressing the problem through administration. Ultimately, if the product registration was valid, the information is still there, its authorisation can be renewed without having to go through the whole full process again. I think this is something that keeps the level of protection that is required in all of these areas, because it doesn’t alter it. It just actually takes away what is viewed as unnecessary bureaucracy but doesn’t weaken protection under law.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Look, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s response to some of that. I’m not trying to be overly dramatic here, but I guess the Minister refers to the secondary process whereby these inhibitors, for example, will have to go through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. They’ll be registered. Farmers will know about them in the pipeline.

As we saw with Bovaer, there was groundswell of demand from the primary sector to get access to these new goods. I guess the question to the Minister is to give us an assurance that the process of approval will indeed remain robust, because I think it is critical.

Then, the one other issue around continued registration of a trade name—you know, things do move forward quite quickly, and so there is an expiry date for a reason, and then just rolling over the registration seems, on the face of it, to be sound. But the question might be that because New Zealand farmers and horticulturists are very innovative and they push the boundary sometimes on the use of chemicals in particular—there is a lot of off-the-label use, which I don’t want to expose unnecessarily but to say that once a product is in the system, the temptation to use it off-label, and in a world that is increasingly focusing on residues—we just need to have from the Minister, and I’m sure he probably will, but I think it would be important for him to say, that, actually, the approval process, the monitoring, and the re-registration will require a scrutiny of the systems to make sure they’re up to date with what is an ever-increasing international level of monitoring.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): I just want to recognise the Hon Damien O’Connor’s support of Groundswell there! He said there was a “groundswell of support”, and I think he meant he “supports Groundswell”. He got it the wrong way around.

This bill before us doesn’t deal with the issues that he mentions. It only says that something is possible. It doesn’t say how it will happen in another piece of legislation. More broadly, his point is a very important one. New Zealand’s an export nation. We produce very high-quality, safe food the world wants. Our regulatory systems are better than many. In fact, they stand up to scrutiny all over the world. We see, from time to time, when something may inadvertently get into a supply chain, that it is found, often by the processor, and they take action quickly. They too, as do all New Zealanders involved in food production, understand the importance of the rules and regulations that back up the claims that we make overseas. This legislation doesn’t change that at all. It merely says that there will continue to be evolutions of things that may well be advantageous for farmers and food producers to have in New Zealand. His request about whether or not the system of verification—ensuring it is fit for purpose and won’t harm food production in New Zealand—remains, I would hope, across successive Governments into the future, that remains an absolute priority.

I’ll give one more example of why I think this is very important. Damien O’Connor is correct that there will be a number of products from around the world that aren’t developed in New Zealand that farmers may want available to them to help them meet their obligations to reduce emissions. As an example, in Australia, they have innovative products that help them reduce emissions in their dairy herd. We shouldn’t be in the place where they’re not available to New Zealand, because it puts us at a disadvantage. It puts up cost, and it takes away a tool that farmers may use. However, that they have, in Australia, accepted a product for use in the production of milk is not a reason for us to automatically accept it here in New Zealand. The reason for that is we have a greater trade consequence if there is an issue than Australia would. The reason for that is we export the majority of the milk and dairy protein we produce. Australia consumes the majority that they produce, and if there was an adverse effect, it would not have the same impact upon their trade around the world and access to markets as it would for New Zealand and to the detriment of New Zealand dairy farmers.

I would argue that our regulatory system of looking at new products to become available in New Zealand is, to some degree, more rigorous—I’m not saying that in Australia it isn’t rigorous—than other countries’. It is by necessity, because of what we produce in our trade profile. There are times when the companies who want to import it, or the processors or the farmers themselves, are frustrated that it takes longer than they would hope it might or think it should so that they can have a level playing field with, say, Australia or the European Union. To them, I say, I understand, but we work as fast as we can so we can give the assurance, because, actually, we are a trading nation. I think the points that Damien O’Connor is making, around ensuring that our regulatory system makes decisions almost to the point of being more cautious than sometimes others would be, is not unreasonable for us to expect to be recognised in legislation.

Again, this legislation doesn’t change that. It merely says that there are compounds that are available and that they might want to use in New Zealand. They can be registered, but they will have to go through the process of verification through other pieces of legislation. This doesn’t alter that. It doesn’t make it easier. It doesn’t make it harder. It merely says it is possible for them to be registered.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Sorry to go back to this point about the mitigation of the environment and of emissions and in relation to inhibitors, but is the Minister saying—is the point here—that an application can be made, and those are new criteria, being the environment and the reduction of emissions, but there are no changes to the overall regulatory process? That’s just what I’m trying to work out—what the hook is.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Sorry, I guess what I was saying is that the process isn’t weakened, but, yes, they are in addition. Yes.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to new section 76A, inserted by clause 11, with regard to the director-general, subsection (8) where it says, “In addition to complying with the Legislation Act 2019, the Director-General must, if the Director-General considers it practicable, cause a notice that is secondary legislation to be brought to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it by notice or publication in any newspaper or trade journal, or by any other practicable means”. What is the Minister’s thinking with regard to what does it mean if the director-general “considers it practicable”? What does “practicable” mean in this particular situation? What criteria must the director-general use to consider whether it’s practicable or not practicable?

The other thing I wanted to ask about, and it might seem a bit silly and a bit strange, but under subsection (10) it says, “The Director-General must—(a) notify the persons affected by the notice individually in writing, whether by post or facsimile”. Do we still have faxes? I don’t know, and I just wanted to check on that as well. It might seem small and trivial, but if we’re updating the legislation, we may as well update it properly. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Yes, we’ve found a fax machine. In essence, it describes the ability to provide the information. More broadly, elsewhere in Government, I don’t think there’s a body of work that says, “How do we most easily update the way that we must communicate things?” Rather, if you look in legislation, it prescribes it, and when we go back, there are some bits of legislation that say, “It has to be by telex or a registered letter” or so on. In the end, I am advised that as long as it is provided to the person—and it can be by written letter or facsimile, which can have a broader implication than that—then it still works within the Act. But you are right—there are not many fax machines left anymore.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Animal Products Act 1999 and secondary legislation made under that Act

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to the debate on Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 26 to 60, “Amendments to Animal Products Act 1999 and secondary legislation made under that Act”, and Schedule 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): For the most part, Labour supports the legislation across the board, but there are some questions that need to be asked, particularly in this area. It’s not about the Animal Products Act or the products. It’s actually the sales, distribution, and application of these things.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister, tied up with the compounds, but actually it comes through the Animal Products Act, and that is that veterinarians, traditionally, were always the sole distributors and outlet for most of these animal products. Of course, that changed and the doors were opened to other companies. Livestock companies are able to sell many of these products.

The question I have for the Minister is: in making these changes here, did he consider whether we should take a slightly more precautionary approach and introduce some other guidelines? We have some products that actually can be distributed in bulk to farmers. There are some requirements; however, the monitoring of those application requirements is sometimes a bit loose and a bit vague, and so there are some risks with that. The question to the Minister is: what consideration took place alongside, I guess, the streamlining of these animal products regulations?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Well, to be honest, I didn’t look to the same degree of detail at this as the member who’s just asked, Damien O’Connor, although I did seek assurances that it would achieve the things he has asked about and that actually, in the case of where veterinary medicines are provided, maybe in larger form, there isn’t additional risk.

But, actually, I think I found a note somewhere—from the time that the legislation was worked up and introduced to the House—where the Minister had absolute assurance that this part of the legislation would work well. It was signed by the Hon Damien O’Connor, who brought the legislation to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. We’re talking here—the conversation that has just been had—in part about Schedule 1 of this bill. The clause is clause 49, about categorisation as a primary producer, and then Schedule 1 of this bill introduces new Schedule 1A, “Operations that characterise person as primary processor”.

It’s a very interesting schedule for a bill. It talks about “Avian eggs”; “Deer velvet”—you get words like “slicing” and “drying” in there; “Fish: on-shore processing”, and again, it talks about the “tubing of squid”; and “Fish: processing at sea”. If the Minister can comment on why it is that these four different sets of operations are now categorised as “primary processor” and how that will be helpful for those regulations, it would be useful. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Just to follow through on—I may have slightly misled in early discussions around animal products, indeed, not just being products for farmers, but actually products that we’re exporting. I guess that my colleague has pointed to areas of finfish, and I guess if you were to go through the kind of oversight that this piece of legislation is looking to improve—and we accept that, that the objective is to improve—there are a lot of things in there: compounds, devices, documents, equipment, identification. These are quite complex systems, and they govern our exports. So ensuring that the director-general’s oversight, whose export and official assurance is required in terms of export—these are right at the leading edge of the protection of our reputation internationally.

Again, just seeking an assurance, because I think it’s an opportunity for the Minister to promote the objectives of this piece of legislation. But as we’ve seen with amendments brought to the Primary Production Committee—two different lots of amendments from the Minister—the question of, you know, “Is this sufficient?” or “What else are you going to change?” or “What would you like to change?”, it is an evolutionary process. Not you, Madam Chair. No, no, you wouldn’t change anything, no. But for the Minister: beware, in a rapidly changing world, the trade agreements that we have negotiated require ever-ongoing improvements. Are we satisfied—is the House, as a committee, satisfied—that the changes here are going to, indeed, uphold those protections?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): The answer is yes, I am, and they will. In essence, this is a regulatory settings bill. As broad as this one is, it’s an opportunity for us to look to update, to take account of these changes—some of the things that are now required as far as giving certainty, particularly when it comes to trade.

I think the Hon Damien O’Connor’s point is a valid one, that actually the work that has been done here by the House at the moment doesn’t finish with this piece of legislation. It is actually ongoing. From a regulatory point of view, we should always be looking for ways to make things more efficient and more effective but also to achieve the outcome that we need. As a food-producing nation, it is very important we have a regulatory system that keeps up with evolution and changes and advancements but also with the protections that we need when it comes to how we produce food and the assurances that we give, and so the changes that he is alluding to do achieve that. But no, I wouldn’t want to give the impression that this fixes it and therefore the work should not continue.

As far as the questions around Schedule 1 are concerned, the only change is that rather than these three or four areas being dealt with through Order in Council, we now will have the ability to do it in regulation, and so it’s making it uniform. All other processors are dealt with through regulation. For some anomalies, these are Order in Council, so we’re just actually lining up to making it the same. That doesn’t, again, change the nature of what we want to achieve. It is making it the same for all processors. It’s just a simplification of regulation so it’s done in one way and it becomes uniform and standard, as opposed to having to deal with different processors who have the same obligations or requirements upon them in different regulatory ways.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Just one more short question on this, and that is around the amendments. I have got the principal legislation, the Animal Products Act, in front of me as well. I just can’t see why there’s a change here around the definition of “animal”, which means any member of the animal kingdom and includes any mammal, bird, finfish, shellfish, reptile, amphibian, insect, or invertebrate—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Can you just say which part or which clause you’re referring to?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, sorry. I’m on clause 56, which is “Section 4 amended (Interpretation)”. It relates back to the principal Act and the definition of “animal”, which has this phrase that you can “declare a creature or an entity to be an animal for the purposes of this Act.”, which I think is fascinating in terms of what that creature might be. I do acknowledge that that is already in the principal legislation, so I’m just wondering why these changes are in the bill.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): It is not changing the definition of what an animal is. It’s just clarifying what a declaration is. So this is a declaration—I think, from memory or advice, it takes it from one Act and brings it over to this to say “This is what a declaration is.” The definition of what an animal is hasn’t changed since the Bible.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Repeal of Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to the debate on Part 3, which is the debate on clause 61, the “Repeal of Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I think it would be right for the Minister to briefly touch on why it is that this Act is being repealed.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. There are two answers. The first, most straightforward one is the previous Government decided it was important to do so, and I accepted that advice when I became the Minister, right? It hasn’t happened often, but since we’re all supporting this, I thought I would. The second thing, though, is we often find pieces of legislation that are redundant—they are usurped by advances or other areas and so on, with other pieces of legislation coming in to replace them. In the case of many parts of this legislation, members should view it as a tidying up of the statute book, which creates certainty and is easier for businesses in the private sector to be able to use.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to Animal Welfare Act 1999

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to the debate on Part 4. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 63, “Section 36 amended (Obligations relating to traps)”. Now, in this country, we hold our heads up high with our high standards to animal welfare, and that when we go hunting or trapping, we do things in a humane way. With this new subclause (2A), “A person who, without reasonable excuse”, I’m interested to know what a “reasonable excuse” might be. Also, “fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $900.”—I’m interested to know how that figure was come to, $900, when we hold ourselves to such high esteem with regard to our animal welfare and control of pests in a humane way. Nine hundred dollars—“not exceeding”. So it could be $200. Why is there not a specific amount there? Why only $900, when we really should be wanting to put people off doing things in an inhumane way?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chair, thank you so much. Indeed, it’s not only $900; it’s a tripling of the fine. At the moment, it is only $300 under legislation, and it’s tripling to $900. It says “up to” because you allow the courts, in the case of a court case, to make a determination as to what should be relevant rather than saying, “It must be this”, because there could well be—I can’t think of any—mitigating circumstances.

Often in legislation, we’re saying, “unless there is reasonable cause or reason to do so”, which means that it’s not an absolute infringement or crime. Again, it would be for a court to determine whether or not that was the case. I don’t believe the legislation has gone through to say what it would be or it wouldn’t be, and the reason that wouldn’t make sense is people would say, “Well, I’m just going to go and do it this way, because obviously this is justifiable.” But, it is a tripling of the fine—in effect, showing the significance of the view of the House as to a tripling of the penalty as to what was previously in legislation.

Secondly, it is always important, when looking at what a penalty would be, that we line it up with similar sorts of effects elsewhere where somebody may be committing a crime so that there is some degree of uniformity and penalty across the statute book.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I was around, but I can’t recall all the details of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It was a piece of legislation heralded through by Pete Hodgson, actually, who was a vet. It was very progressive, but there are amendments here, of course, that are being proposed.

One amendment is to section 43, “Consideration of application”. I’m guessing that’s an application for an export licence. It says here—the proposal is—“any history of breaches by the applicant of conditions on an animal welfare export certificate:”. It’s a very useful time to ask questions of the Minister as to what he’s doing with the live export situation. I’m guessing that the changes here relate to their possible reintroduction—that our previous Government banned—and I’m assuming that this may relate to new legislation he has in the pipeline. If so, when are we likely to see that? There are different exports of live animals: there are some chicks, there are some goats—most of those are flown. We have banned cattle going on ships. Does this relate to the so-called reintroduction of live exports of cattle on ships that the Government has talked of? We haven’t heard too much about it—and I think it’s absolutely stupid—but the Government may be wishing to proceed in that area.

Does this provision here mean that those exporters, where there have been breaches of standards and there has been a process, and the Minister can maybe clarify, of reporting back from live exports leading up to the ban—there were reports that were supposed to come in. I think the Ministry for Primary Industries probably weren’t as good as they should have been at getting those reports. But where there were identified breaches in any way, or bringing the animals to consolidation prior to export, does this change here mean that those are the very people who may be eliminated from receiving a live export certificate?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): No. I mean, the member is trying to make a link between two parliamentary terms. This proposed amendment, in clause 64, to section 43 was in the proposed legislation during the first reading when he was Minister, so it, actually, has come across that period of time and it remains there.

Indeed, section 43 lists the matters that the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries must have regard to when considering an application for an animal welfare export certificate. The policy intent is that any breach of conditions put on the previous certificate is considered as part of the assessment of a new application. When the Hon Damien O’Connor, as Minister of Agriculture, brought this legislation to the House in the last term of Parliament, this clause was there. It merely says that if there has been a breach, that is considered when somebody puts in an application for a new certificate. I would just point out that I take issue with one thing. He said the previous Government banned live animal exports. They didn’t. Live animal exports still take place under the legislation they put in place. They narrowed or restricted a certain part of exports when it comes to ships.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak to clause 65 under Part 4, “Section 81 amended (Effect of this Part)”. It’s to do with research, testing, or teaching in use of animals, and relates to the welfare impacts of that.

There is a challenging history in terms of how vivisection has been used, and perhaps many of us know the worst examples of it, where cosmetics are rubbed into rabbits’ eyes and, over a course of time, people see whether shampoo is harming the rabbits day on day on day. It’s pretty grizzly, and fundamentally cruel for the animals. This is to do with how animals are treated in terms of application of testing and research. What I wanted to clarify from the Minister is how this change affects the overall approach that we take in“The limitation imposed by subsection (1) on the application of Parts 1 and 2 and regulations made under this Act does not apply—(a) in any case where any animal is used in research, testing, or teaching other than in accordance with this Part or other than in accordance with the conditions of any project approval; or (b) if regulations prohibit an activity or a procedure from being undertaken in the course of research, testing, or teaching.” I wonder if the Minister can explain the impact of this change on the current framework and the parameters around that issue.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Both in legislation and regulation, I think it’s fair to say there is some confusion. It may not be broad or wide, but it is not as clear as it needs to be about what is permissible and what is not within New Zealand regulation when it comes to teaching, testing, or research on live animals. This merely clarifies that. It sets out very clearly what is permissible but, equally, what practices are not.

I would note for the member that any research, teaching, or testing activity requires approval of an animal ethics committee before it can take place. That doesn’t alter it. The amendment merely clarifies so that there is no confusion under legislation or regulation what is already the view of Parliament as to what’s permissible and what is prohibited under law, but the role of an ethics committee as to deciding what should take place remains.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Just on this point, I was looking at the principal Act as well, and it is just really (b) that has changed in a reference to regulations in subsection (2), which I think the Minister just referred to. Most of the clauses are already in the principal Act. The change here relates to regulations. Are there other changes, or is the Minister considering that there will be new regulations or that this just refers to the existing regulations, if there are any, and that this is just the clarification around the regulations applying?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): This area of law regulation is not something I have responsibility for. I’ve delegated it. However, no, we don’t expect there will be new regulations. It merely is in respect of existing legislation.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I go to clause 64A(3), “Section 71 amended (Public notification)”. It relates to actually one of the most important parts of our animal welfare system, and that is the independence of NAWAC—the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. It develops codes and it’s still working through these codes, and they are quite complex. They, I think, are respected for their independence, and I think any Minister would be somewhat foolish to step away from that independence and trying to have more input into that. There has been, at times, a frustration around the process. This amendment here will limit the submission period to 30 days, as I read it: “which must be a date no earlier than 30 working days after the date on which public notice is given”. Now, if the Minister of Agriculture could clarify that date around the submission process and ensure that—I guess it might be an attempt to kind of speed up the process, but, actually, these are really, really complex issues. So I seek clarification of the notification submission period for NAWAC and its draft codes.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. No. Already existing is, in legislation, no less than 30 days. What this clause does is changes notifications. At the moment, it says notification through publication in a newspaper, no less than 30 days after that; this is merely saying “public notification”. So it doesn’t have to be a newspaper. It can be in a range of ways to inform the public. The period of time, which is a minimum period of consultation, of 30 days has not been altered.

Part 4 agreed to.

Part 5

Amendments to Biosecurity Act 1993 and regulations made under that Act

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to the debate on Part 5, which is on clauses 80 to 123, “Amendments to Biosecurity Act 1993 and regulations”, and Schedule 3 and Part 3 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): KPMG NZ put out an agribusiness agenda every year—and have done for getting close to 10 years, it must be. I think for pretty much the vast majority—if not every one—of those years, biosecurity has been acknowledged as the number one concern for agribusiness leaders across our country. So we tread cautiously in this area of biosecurity—both legislation and regulations. I know that there were some, again, amendments that were brought to the Primary Production Committee by the Minister of Agriculture at the last minute. I’m trying to work my way through what they were here. Indeed, it’s probably less significant. I think the select committee’s probably looked at them thoroughly.

Just a question to the Minister as to whether he considered that this change here, this opportunity that we have, indeed is making the adjustments that we need to continue to upgrade our biosecurity systems to meet the ever-increasing threats to our borders. People say, “Well, why is that?” Well, we do have more imports and more exports, so there are more products coming into our country, but indeed, climate change is shifting the risk profiles. Our ability to inspect, our ability to seize—as are some of the provisions in this legislation here—the ability for people to intervene, and the right people, is critical. Firstly, a basic question to the Minister: does he consider he’s had the best advice and that we’re making all the changes given the opportunity in front of us?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Yes, I do believe I have the best advice. Indeed, I think the Ministry for Primary Industries is an exceptional agency that always gives us the very best of advice. But what I would say is the changes here are modest or moderate. They don’t alter the Biosecurity Act significantly. They give more certainty to us in as far as the meaning of law in some cases. For instance, one example is a clause in the Biosecurity Act clarifying the changes to time limits for compensation so that we can see very clearly what needs to happen in the case of there being an adverse effect or around a ship notice of a craft’s intention to arrive in New Zealand. You should really see it as an updating of provisions that actually make it easier for both those that engage with biosecurity from the outside—import or export—or, equally, biosecurity themselves to be able to do their job properly.

I think, though, the point that Damien O’Connor was moving towards is the importance of the security of our border and biosecurity. Ultimately, that comes at a cost both of time and of resource. There are occasions where New Zealand businesses in the primary sector are extremely frustrated by the laws and the rules we have in place around biosecurity. But it is very important, because New Zealand is a country that produces, and the primary sector is of such importance to our economy that we have to ensure that we have very modern systems and up-to-date systems to deal with the potential of an incursion. I think, across Government, our biosecurity officers have done an exceptional job. There are occasions when things happen, and they deal with them very, very quickly. We have largely been exempt from the problems of imported harm, not by luck but because of how professional they are and how closely we work with the primary sector.

But, no, to give him the assurance, the changes here are not to weaken or necessarily to strengthen. They are just to modernise and make it easier for us to do our job and give certainty on the side of those who, from the private sector, engage with biosecurity.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 105, “Section 130 amended (Declaration of restricted place)”. Subclause (3A) states, “The notice must be given by serving a copy on the occupier of each place included in the area of the restricted place or by delivering a copy of the notice to the occupier in accordance with section 164A(1) (which includes delivery by … email to the person [or] fax).” I would like to know what happens if there are some emails sent, fax, or post, but the occupier denies ever having received this notice? What is in place to follow up to ensure actions are taken, to make sure that the occupier of each place receives a copy of the notice? Is there a declaration or something that they need to sign or fill out to say that, yes, they have received it, and they adhere to whatever is in place in that notice? That would just be good to know, because, you know, some people get a bit afraid of what notices and things might mean for them, so they may try to avoid them, I guess. I’d be interested to know what the Minister has to say about that.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I go through to, again, on the basis of the importance—there are many questions here, and, generally, as uneasy as it is for me, going through this piece of legislation, I actually have to agree with the vast majority of it. It is very, very good, and I can see why some of these adjustments have been made.

But there is one here around “Notice of craft’s intended arrival in New Zealand”, and it kind of improves, I guess, the requirement for—and it will be a lot of yacht owners. It probably won’t be the big cargo and container vessels, I’m guessing, but people who are coming to this country in yachts—and there may be more of them, as we see disruption around the rest of the world, wanting to come down here. There are requirements there that a change of port—you know, they say they’re coming into Whangārei, and then they have to go down to Gisborne or something. But what I can’t read in there: there are obligations clearly to notify the director-general—it doesn’t necessarily say how. Is that able to be done electronically, or are there other systems? Because if any Kiwi tries to ring a Government agency, you get an 0800 number, and if you’re out on a yacht and you’ve got limited communication—given that this is a bill dealing with technical issues, the question of the Minister is: how do people on yachts notify the director-general of a change of port when they come in?

People might think it’s a kind of frivolous thing. Actually, the potential risk with these yachts is huge to our biological agricultural systems. It is important we get it right, and when we’ve placed these obligations on the master of the craft, making sure it is possible to ensure biosecurity officers are in the right location to meet that vessel is absolutely critical. I still find it somewhat astounding that we can have vessels come in and park up and wait for a day or two until a biosecurity officer might clear them, given the risks they might be in the sails, in the cargo that might be on deck, or whatever. So perhaps the Minister can answer—you know, just the process. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): I’ll deal with Damien O’Connor first and then with Jo Luxton. Indeed, the director-general will be able to decide themselves how best that should take place—the notification. So we leave that to the director-general to make sure that this is practical, rather than having it in legislation. In this case, though, it only applies where a ship or a vessel—a yacht, as an example—has already entered New Zealand’s territory but it is impractical or impossible to then go to the port that they have notified. Therefore, the director-general will be able to set out how, under that limited circumstance, they should inform him—although it’s the agency rather than the director-general sitting there waiting for the notification—so that we can ensure that, one, there is not undue risk to perhaps a yacht coming to New Zealand, but there is not undue risk or greater risk to biosecurity in the country.

In as far as Jo Luxton’s questions around clause 105, amended section 130—again, this is a clarification in law. It merely says that every practical step should be taken to inform somebody. It can be in person, it can be by facsimile again, it can be by email, but in the case that that has not worked, it is also reasonable that where a letter is sent and that the authorities deem the letter has been delivered or has the likelihood of being delivered, they can then take action. The reason for this would be if there is concern about biosecurity and we are not sure that we have been able to provide the advice notice to the person we need to because we want to put a restriction in place, then what action should be taken. It is in the case that one example is the letter has been sent and it is reasonable to believe that that has been delivered—whether it is opened or not is secondary, but this would be only used in the case where other, more traditional means to ensure somebody’s notified have not proven to be successful.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested, and want to note how great it is, that we are all in agreement about how important biosecurity is. But just noting at clause 119 there’s a new section 166B inserted, which is “Making instruments that make minor amendments or correct minor or technical errors”. I was hoping the Minister for Agriculture could comment on the need for this new section, if it does seem to be an insertion, if it’s a change from—if there’s a need for new instruments or if it is a rewording.

Then, also, when I first glanced at it, I was thinking of biosecurity, and the word “instrument”—I was imagining something that would be in the water, sampling for some biosecurity risk. So my question is whether or not, in the Biosecurity Act itself or somewhere else, that “instrument” is defined so people will know that in fact we are talking about a legislative instrument rather than a scientific instrument.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): No, it’s certainly not a scientific instrument. This should just be viewed as a cost-cutting amendment to allow delegated legislation to be amended without triggering a full statutory process of consultation and decision making if the amendment would be no more than minor or to correct a minor error or technical error. It means that we don’t have to go to full consultation to change something that is very easy to do. But, for anything of significance, of course, this would be applicable.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry if there’s another question. I have to report progress now. It is time to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m.