Wednesday, 30 July 2025
Volume 785
Sitting date: 30 July 2025
WEDNESDAY, 30 JULY 2025
WEDNESDAY, 30 JULY 2025
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
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.
Appointments
Assistant Speaker
SPEAKER: Members, I seek leave for Jenny Salesa to be appointed as a temporary Assistant Speaker until 6 p.m. tomorrow, 31 July. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK: Petition of Reuben Hilder requesting that the House urge the Government to create a special visa for relatives of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents within Gaza; form a taskforce to expedite visas; and engage in diplomatic actions to allow such visa holders to travel to New Zealand.
SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Department of Conservation strategic intentions for 2025-2029.
SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Eight select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2025-26 Estimates for Vote Labour Market
reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:
2025-26 Estimates for Vote Internal Affairs (excluding appropriations that are the responsibility of the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and the Minister for Ethnic Communities)
2025-26 Estimates for Vote Ombudsmen
2025-26 Estimates for Vote Statistics
report of the Health Committee on the briefing from Autism New Zealand
reports of the Justice Committee on the:
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill
Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill
report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2025-26 Estimates for Vote Tari Whakatau.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The briefings are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Hon Marama Davidson: Why did Te Whatu Ora only hire 45 percent of the mid-year cohort of nursing graduates last year when, at the same time, over half of all day shifts in surgical wards across 16 health districts were understaffed, putting patients at risk and increasing wait times?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say they are all understaffed today, and there’s 1,500 people that, sadly, aren’t getting their elective surgeries. That will cause a huge amount of pain and suffering for New Zealanders. What I’d just say on nurses is that we hugely value our nurses. They do an exceptionally, exceptionally good job. [Interruption] There has been good effort over improving remuneration over a number of years—
SPEAKER: I’m sorry, Prime Minister. If people have got a question, they should stand, seek the call, and then ask it, not yell it across the House.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I was saying, there’s been a concerted effort to improve the remuneration of nurses over a number of years. If you think back to 2011, nurse pay has increased, I think, 74 percent. That’s double what it has been across the whole of the economy. We have average nurse pay now at $125,000, including overtime allowances. It’s comparable to New South Wales, yet New South Wales is 35 percent wealthier than New Zealand. Then, equally, if you look at the starting nursing salary, it’s up almost 11 percent between today and what it will be in June 2026. So there has been work going on about seriously making sure our nurses are well remunerated, but what we need to make sure is that the unions need to get back to the table and negotiate, because it’s pretty unfair when 1,500 Kiwis are sitting there today having had their surgeries cancelled.
Hon Marama Davidson: Why has Te Whatu Ora said that financial constraints are the reason it cannot afford to employ more nurses to achieve safe staffing levels at the same time that his Government is giving billions in tax cuts and subsidies for landlords, international tobacco companies, and fossil fuel corporations?
SPEAKER: Just a minute, I’m sorry. If we’re going to get pedantic about questions—I’ve been asked to consider that by the Hon Kieran McAnulty—then it doesn’t matter which part of the question you might add a commentary in; it is not part of the question. It’s a statement that is largely found in your belief of how things are. Just ask the question, please.
Hon Marama Davidson: Why has Te Whatu Ora said that financial constraints are the reason it cannot afford to employ more nurses to achieve safe staffing levels?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to the member that, actually, Health New Zealand has hired 2,100 extra nurses since we came to Government. Importantly, retention of our nurses has improved, with attrition rates moving from 14 percent down to 8 percent over the last two years. We have made huge investments in health—the biggest investment in health of any Government in the history of New Zealand, up $17 billion last year, up another 7 percent this year, and a billion dollars extra going into infrastructure. We’ve been working on nurse remuneration, as I outlined in my answer to the first question, and we’re making good progress there. I’d just say to the union: get round the table, negotiate, and don’t put 1,500 people’s surgeries at risk.
Hon Marama Davidson: Then how are minimum-wage workers, nurses, and teachers meant to shoulder rising costs like household energy bills, which have gone up 8.4 percent in the last year, with pay increases of 1 percent per year or less?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just said to the member, if I just take her through nurses’ pay, it’s gone up 74 percent since 2011. It’s double what it has been on average across the economy. Nurse pay, now—we should be proud about—is at $125,000, including allowances and including overtime, and that’s comparable to New South Wales despite them being much wealthier. As I said, starting nursing salary goes from, I think, $75,773 up another $8,400 between now and June next year, and that’s an 11 percent increase. Inflation’s at 2.5 percent.
Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to Tracy Black from Whakatāne, who says, “Every day we look after someone’s mum, dad, auntie, koro, pēpē, sibling, but without enough nurses, we’re forced to make impossible choices.”, and how does he justify his choices to dish out billions in tax cuts?
SPEAKER: No, you can’t go on that. You’ve asked the question.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the first part of the question, the member is just plain wrong. We have spent more money on healthcare than any previous Government. We’ve spent $32 billion on healthcare. One out of every $5 of Government expenditure is going into our healthcare system. We have hired 2,100 more nurses and 600 more doctors, we have got clarity on the targets and what their outcomes are going to be for patients and made it a patient-focused endeavour, and we’re improving the efficiency of Health New Zealand to deliver those people and money, to deliver improved patient outcomes.
Hon Marama Davidson: When exactly will his Government recognise Palestinian Statehood?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’ve had a longstanding position, as the member well understands, about a two-State solution. It’s a question, as you’ve heard the foreign Minister say, of when, not if. But, right here, right now, in the next 24 hours, what we need the world and everyone focused on is making sure that Hamas releases hostages. We need to make sure that Israel gives unfettered humanitarian assistance and actually respects territorial integrity so it doesn’t undermine the conditions for a two-State solution. We need to have diplomacy and dialogue and a ceasefire. That’s what we need to focus on right here, right now.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Prime Minister, is someone who falsely claims that the Government is giving money to big tobacco a total economic illiterate?
SPEAKER: Well, that wasn’t actually asked, because it wasn’t an allowed question.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about competition?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): This morning, I announced that Kiwibank’s parent company Kiwi Group Capital (KGC) has been given approval by the Government to raise up to $500 million from New Zealand professional investment groups to fund the bank’s growth. This is the first step towards giving the bank access to the capital it needs to truly compete with the big four Aussie banks while retaining its intrinsic New Zealand identity. Advice to the Government is that an additional $500 million of capital could support up to $4 billion of business lending or $10 billion of home lending. That is sufficient to add competitive pressure to the market and potentially benefit customers from other banks as well Kiwibank.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is the Government looking to increase Kiwibank’s capital?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last year, the Commerce Commission completed a market study into competition in the personal banking services sector. The study found that the four largest banks—ANZ, ASB, BNZ, and Westpac—did not face strong competition and that competition between them for customers was sporadic. This is to the detriment of bank customers in New Zealand. The commission recommended better capitalising Kiwibank to enable it to be a disruptive competitor. The Government agrees with the commission and is giving effect to its recommendations.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: Is this an asset sale?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, this is not an asset sale as all the funds raised will go to Kiwibank to support its future business growth. There is no return of capital to the Crown. A future Government may choose to publicly list Kiwibank to raise further capital, but that won’t occur without an electoral mandate. Irrespective of any future decisions, the Government has approved measures to safeguard the bank’s New Zealand identity. These measures include maintaining at least 51 percent Government ownership of KGC for the foreseeable future, and through a Kiwi share to be held by the Crown requiring, among other measures, a majority of the directors of KGC to be normally resident in New Zealand, and Kiwibank maintaining its principal place of business in New Zealand.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: When will we know if an investment in Kiwibank is occurring?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Kiwi Group Capital has until 30 June next year to complete a capital raise. Giving it this amount of time will allow KGC to take account of market conditions, investor feedback, and the timing of Kiwibank’s financial results release. The capital raise will be subject to final approval of terms and conditions from shareholding Ministers and Ministers will only approve the transaction if risks have been appropriately managed and the transaction is consistent with the Government’s interests. Further announcements will be made when it is appropriate to do so, bearing in mind the commercial sensitivity of negotiations between Kiwi Group Capital and potential investors.
Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are pay rises for board directors a higher priority for him than paying teachers and nurses properly?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They’re not.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many New Zealanders are currently unemployed, jobless, or part-time, and looking for more work?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member will understand, there has been an increase in unemployment, and that is a function of reckless Government spending, leading to high inflation, high interest rates, putting an economy into recession. When you are a business and you are faced with high inflation and less demand, you get squeezed, and you end up having—sadly—to lay off workers. As we have said and discussed yesterday, that has peaked and is peaking about now. With the work that this Government’s doing to get our economy growing, we expect unemployment to continue to trend down as we go forward from here.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he know how many New Zealanders are unemployed, jobless, or part-time, and looking for more work?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Jobseeker numbers are about 206,000, from memory.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is he unaware, as Prime Minister, that over 400,000 New Zealanders are unemployed, jobless, or part-time, and looking for more work?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s a different question. I gave you the jobseeker unemployment numbers.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should Kiwis have confidence in doubling down on an economic plan that the International Monetary Fund predicts will see New Zealand have the highest rate of joblessness of all Asia-Pacific countries over the next two years?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just would love the member to acknowledge—it’s sort of like, as I’ve said before, it’s being the guy that started the fire and then complaining about the smoke. It’s sort of like—honestly, it is quite a perverse set of questions I get daily from here, from the other side. The reality is, we have unemployment because it’s the last thing that happens when you recklessly run the economy with high spending, high inflation, high interest rates and put it into recession, which you did.
Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that unemployment is tracking at almost exactly the levels that were forecast in the Pre-Election Fiscal Update, and, in fact, month on month, are a little bit lower than was being forecast by the previous Government?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I agree. The member knows that the forecast that we’re seeing and the numbers we’re seeing today are exactly in the forecast that he issued before the election. He’s just trying to be cute and trying to play politics.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the construction industry back on track, now that construction companies are collapsing at four times the rate they were before he became Prime Minister, with 758 construction firms going into liquidation in just the past year?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say that the real reason that the construction sector has faced some big challenges—and let’s be clear, construction hits the booms and it hits the busts harder than any other sector in our economy—is because it’s very reliant upon something called interest rates. When interest rates go high, you actually have to borrow for development, and, as a result, that ends up squeezing and putting huge pressure on our construction firms. But I just want to say to the member: I appreciate the member’s—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, does the member on the end of the front bench there have something that needs to be asked by way of supplementary question? Good, then don’t ask it across the House like that.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I really appreciate the member’s concern around construction workers and what’s happening in the sector. But I can tell him that we have $207 billion in the infrastructure pipeline. We have $6 billion of real projects, some of which were announced by the member’s previous Government, but we’re getting shovels into the ground before Christmas. The other piece I’d just say is: if he is so worried about construction jobs, why doesn’t he do something like support fast track or RMA reforms or get one position on public-private partnerships (PPPs)?
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if everything the Government’s doing in construction is working so well, will he take responsibility for the fact that since he became Prime Minister, 18,000 jobs have disappeared from the construction sector, a number that continues to grow every month under his leadership?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this Government is doing everything it can. We have a $6 billion pipeline of Government projects between now and Christmas with shovels on the ground. We are building more schools and classrooms, we are building more houses, and we are doing more on hospital and health infrastructure. So we are doing everything we can to make sure that our construction sector is set up well, and I’d just say to the member: if you really cared about it—instead of the crocodile tears—get one position on PPPs.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If that’s so successful, why have we lost 6,000 high-skilled jobs, such as engineers, with civil contractors saying that they urgently need a lot more work to feed the industry because his Government has cut back on spending projects?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. This Government is committed to $6 billion worth of Government spending between now and Christmas. It’s spending more on schools, hospitals, roads. If the member cares about it, support roads of national significance; support Investment Boost.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So when he claimed earlier this year that he was “cracking open the construction industry”, was he cracking it open in the way that a wrecking ball cracks open a building?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Too cute by half, isn’t it? It’s a lovely metaphor. But, actually, son, let me just say: we’re getting the show on the road. We are picking up your mess. Unemployment’s the last thing, given your woeful economic mismanagement. And construction—we are doing everything we can to power up that sector, and we are going to do that.
Question No. 4—Transport
4. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Transport: What steps has he taken to reduce councils’ use of road cones in New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Well—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just hold on—hold on. You can’t start before he even opens his mouth. That includes the National backbench, as well.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: All New Zealanders are concerned about the overuse of road cones. Between 2020 and 2023, $778 million was spent on temporary traffic management and road cones; about two-thirds the size of Transmission Gully, in terms of expense. What we have done as a Government is we’ve got rid of this monster Code of practice for temporary traffic management—
Hon Peeni Henare: Kick it!
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —which is 583 pages—I may well kick it; just wait for the Instagram video—which specifies down to the nearest centimetre where road cones need to be when they’re working in the road space. We’ve replaced it with a guide which adopts a simple principle, which is: it should be risk-based and proportionate and based on common sense and pragmatism, rather than on overly prescriptive rules.
Catherine Wedd: What evidence does the Minister—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hang on! Now you can start.
Catherine Wedd: What evidence does the Minister have that a risk-based approach to temporary management will work to reduce the number of road cones?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve got good news. The amount of money spent on temporary traffic management has reduced on our State highways from 15.8 percent of maintenance cost, down to 8.8 percent—it’s about a halving—and from 6 percent of the cost of capital projects, down to just 2.3 percent. That’s on the State highway network. Now, what we’re doing is saying to councils, “You’ve got to adopt the guide, not the code, and if you don’t, no New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Government money will flow, because we want the benefits we’re seeing on the State highway network from NZTA to also apply on the local road network.”
Catherine Wedd: Why is the Government making these changes to temporary traffic management?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve got some figures from quarter 3 this year, which show that of 12,000 inspections of temporary traffic management on local roads, over 3,000—which is about a quarter—were found to be completely redundant. In other words, a quarter of the time, people were driving past road cones and temporary traffic management that had no merit or need for it at all. That, of course, drives people bananas and it slows people down and, of course, creates congestion, and, most of all, it’s a waste of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money. We are taking action.
Question No. 5—Foreign Affairs
5. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by his statement that “It is a matter of when, not if, New Zealand will recognise Palestine Statehood”; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes, we steadfastly support the establishment of a Palestinian State and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We have done so for decades. As a strong proponent of the two-State solution, we wish to see an immediate end to the appalling humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and for Israelis and Palestinians to be living side by side in peace and security. Very importantly, we have spoken to a range of countries all around the world, including speaking to the Palestinian Authority, who understand our position.
Hon Peeni Henare: Is now the time for the New Zealand Government to recognise Palestine as a State, and, if not, when?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: New Zealand has consistently said that we are willing to recognise Palestine—and that it is a question of when, not if—but we do need to see progress on some of the fundamental issues relating to a Palestinian State’s legitimacy and viability, including representative governance, commitments to non-violence, regional support, and security guarantees for Israel. If we recognise the State of Palestine, New Zealand wants to know that what we are recognising is a legitimate, representative, viable political entity.
Hon Peeni Henare: How will he match his evolving stance on recognition of a Palestinian State with tangible actions now, such as further sanctions or desperately needed humanitarian support?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality was that we have already had sanctions with respect to people both in Palestine and in Israel, and we’ve continued, to the best that we possibly can, through various agencies, our financial aid and support.
Hon Peeni Henare: Is New Zealand ready to provide aid to Gaza immediately, in the case that Israel lifts its blockade, and, if not, what measures is he taking to make that happen?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.
Simon Court: Would recognising the State of Palestine before Hamas—
Tākuta Ferris: Oh, e noho!
SPEAKER: Sorry, stop. Just stop there. Tākuta Ferris will stand, withdraw, and apologise. You don’t interfere with the asking of a question.
Tākuta Ferris: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Start again.
Simon Court: Would recognising the State of Palestine before Hamas has returned the hostages and laid down their weapons constitute a reward for acts of terrorism, and what, if any, conditions should be associated with New Zealand’s recognition of such a State?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to the first question is: that’s most likely how it’ll be interpreted. And the second part of the question is: that very condition is part of the request that we are making by way of demands—that they give back the hostages.
Hon Peeni Henare: Would New Zealand’s recognition of a Palestinian State have even further conditions on Israel agreeing to a ceasefire; and will it be in line with that of the United Kingdom, or would it be unconditional like other partners?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are not going to adopt the colonial mindset of some MPs. We remember the Statute of—
Chlöe Swarbrick: You just said it was conditional!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We remember—listen, you might learn. We remember the Statute of Westminster 1933, adopted by this country in full force in 1947. Those are the facts. Get an education. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, sorry. That’s uncalled for on a matter like this—quite uncalled for.
Question No. 6—Prime Minister
6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why have Auckland Council outreach teams recorded a 90 percent increase in people sleeping rough if not, in the words of Auckland councillor Angela Dalton, recent Government policy changes have “made it harder to access emergency housing.”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I’d say to the member: no Kiwi wants to see New Zealanders homeless. That’s why this Government spends $550 million a year in different social services organisations. We’re hoping to see whether there’s anything more that we can do to get more efficiency from that spend and more results, but, of course, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) remains open to support people who need help and assistance in housing. But I am incredibly proud that we’ve moved 2,100 kids out of motel accommodation, which seemed to be the policy of the last Government.
SPEAKER: Just wait till there is quiet across the House.
Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly did the Prime Minister think would happen when his officials told him that his Government’s emergency housing changes would “create rough sleeping, people living in cars, and overcrowding.”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m incredibly proud of the work that we’re doing to make housing more affordable for New Zealanders. We are in a situation where rent is stable; it’s probably come down about $5 a week versus being at $180 a week when we came to Government. We’ve taken 6,000 people out of the State house wait-list and got them into proper homes, and we’ve put 2,100 kids into homes by prioritising them if they’ve been in motels for longer than 12 weeks. We know that there’s still work to do on homelessness, but we have services available to support, and we’ll continue to look at that.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does someone prove that they did not “contribute to their own homelessness”, as his Government now requires people to do in order to get help to stop them being homeless?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, MSD will have some criteria by which it engages with people who need assistance and help, and will work that through. But I’m just saying to the member, we know we have more work to do on housing, but it is actually about a supply of housing; it’s about making it more affordable. The good news is that, actually, rents are stable for people who are renting; people who are on a State house wait-list, that wait-list is coming down after having been driven up four times by the previous Minister of Housing; and, actually, we’ve taken 2,100 kids in 1,000 households out of dank, dark motel rooms because we want to make sure they’re in proper homes and houses. We continue to spend half a billion dollars with support organisations that can work with people with very complex needs—often in mental health, often in addiction—and will continue to do so.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister yet “considered in the context of my diary” the many invitations that I have made with him to visit Auckland Central and meet the people that he has made homeless?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can just say to the member that the Minister for infrastructure and housing was there last Friday, meeting with the commissioner in Auckland, and very open to looking at better ways to deliver better outcomes. But as the member would well know, under a previous Labour-Greens Government, homelessness went up 37 percent. It is a complex issue, and this Government is working its way through the myriad of housing issues that exist, because they’re often interrelated.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister name just one thing the local MP in Auckland Central’s doing about homelessness?
Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. I’d like to seek leave of the House to answer that question.
SPEAKER: Well, no, look, it’s—oh well, I’ll put leave. Leave is requested. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. [Interruption] I don’t mind how long it takes the House to settle. It’s a members’ day, so members are using up their own time.
Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the housing insights briefing, which is often relied on by the other parties in this House, states that the reported increase in homelessness cannot be attributed just to changes in the emergency housing gateway and they may actually be reflective of broader economic and social contexts, amongst other factors?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I thank the member, and I thank the member for his serious work to actually do something about improving the condition of emergency housing in New Zealand. Thank you for your leadership on that. But I’d just say to the House: people who have been working in this space know how difficult and complex homelessness issues actually are.
Chlöe Swarbrick: And they blame you.
SPEAKER: Sorry, Prime Minister, sorry—you cannot yell out across the House like that. If it continues, it’ll be an early afternoon. And don’t look away, because the member knows who’s been spoken to. It’s like a—well, I won’t say.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We understand the issues are complex. We understand that there are no easy answers. We understand there are people with complex needs. But I’d just say to the member, as you well understand, in the previous Government, homelessness increased 37 percent, and there was a billion dollars a year being spent on emergency housing. So these are difficult issues, but we are working through homeownership, we’re working through renting, we’re working through social and State housing, and we’re working through homelessness.
Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that despite KiwiBuild, despite $1.4 billion spent on emergency housing, and despite billions given to Kāinga Ora, the number of people living in severe housing deprivation increased from 2018 to 2023?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can; it went up 37 percent, of people living without shelter. The members on the other side conveniently forget having been the Ministers of homelessness.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Things aren’t going well, are they, Prime Minister? The rear view mirror says it’s quiet over there, by golly.
SPEAKER: Well, Mr McAnulty, when you’ve finished asking questions or, in this case, answering them for the Government, we’ll move on.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: His answers are better.
SPEAKER: Well, don’t make me judge that.
Question No. 7—Agriculture
7. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen on farmer confidence?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: There is great news out from the primary sector: farmer confidence has surged to the highest level in eight years, which included the six years of the previous Labour Government. The latest Federated Farmers confidence survey shows a remarkable shift in sentiment. Confidence has lifted to record levels, from negative 66 percent under the previous Government to a positive 33 percent this July. This is also reflected in the latest Rabobank Rural Confidence Survey, which saw a similar boost in confidence and farm profitability. This Government thanks the hard work of the 360,000 rural New Zealanders who get out of bed every day and do some real work.
SPEAKER: Good, and we’ll have answers without advertorials.
Grant McCallum: What else did the surveys highlight?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The surveys highlight major improvements across key indicators like profitability being at the highest level ever recorded, with two-thirds of farms reporting they are making a profit. It showed an increase in productivity and, importantly, an increase in the positive direction for mental health. Pressures under this Government have eased significantly, with fewer farmers reporting stress compared to last year.
Grant McCallum: What has the Government done to improve farmer confidence?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Well, after six years of rising costs and massive uncertainty, our focus is on giving farmers the tools to do what they do best, and that is to lead the world in producing high-quality food and fibre. We’re replacing the Resource Management Act, we’re changing national directions, we’ve launched contestable wellbeing funds, and we’ve campaigned on getting Wellington out of farming, rebuilding confidence, and building a true partnership between farmers and Government.
Grant McCallum: Why is supporting farmers important to economic growth?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: It’s hugely important. Our farmers are, once again, driving the economic recovery of New Zealand. Our exports are set to surpass $60 billion—that is, “billion”, with a “b”. We have lower interest rates and stable inflation, and improving export prices are creating a supportive environment for investment and confidence in the rural sector. When our primary sector does well, this whole country does well.
Question No. 8—Health
8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “Patient safety is critical to ensure Kiwis have confidence in our healthcare system”?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): In the context it was made, yes. Patient safety is critical to ensuring Kiwis have confidence in our healthcare system, and that’s why we’re focusing the system on the needs of patients. Our Government inherited significant wait-lists, which meant that too many patients have been left waiting too long for the care they need, facing unacceptable delays. That’s why we’ve brought back health targets to drive accountability, invested a record $16.68 billion across three Budgets, and strengthened our front-line health workforce. These steps are delivering results, but we know there’s much more work to do. We’re putting patients first, and we won’t stop until New Zealanders get the timely, quality care they deserve.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why is Health New Zealand’s answer to nurses’ call for safe staffing that they’re working towards safe staffing “wherever we can”, and not “always and in all hospitals”?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the answer to that question is that Health New Zealand is committed to ensuring the safety of its patients and making sure that we are focusing on reducing wait-lists. Under this Government, we’ve seen a significant increase in resource on the front line, with 2,100 more nurses working at Health New Zealand and over 600 more doctors, and that is about making sure that we are delivering the healthcare that New Zealanders need.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he listen to calls from picketing nurses who report that there aren’t enough staff to change beds after patients have soiled themselves?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government is focused on delivering the increased resource to the front line. That’s why we’ve invested an additional $16.68 billion over three Budgets, that’s why we are focusing—there’s over 2,100 more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than in 2023 and over 600 more doctors, and our expectation of Health New Zealand is to make sure they’re delivering the timely, quality healthcare that all New Zealanders need and deserve.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he understand that not having enough nurses to change beds and treat wounds is exactly what leads to the increase in in-hospital infections that I asked him about yesterday?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, what I understand is that when we have a nationwide strike when the union walks off the job, we have thousands of patients not receiving the care that they need—patients who have been waiting far too long. Today, 1,500 patients are missing out on the hip, knee, and cataract operations that they deserve, thousands are missing out on the first specialist appointments they need, people needing diagnostic scans and screening are missing out on the care that they need, and I say to the union: get back to the negotiating table.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Supplementary. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just wait a minute—all right.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Health New Zealand officials state that a fiscally constrained environment is stopping them from achieving safe staffing, do they actually mean that the Government has underfunded the health system and that patient safety can’t be guaranteed?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government is investing record funds into Health New Zealand—$16.68 billion in additional funding into Health New Zealand over three Budgets—but I would also note a quote that I’d like to read, which says, “Given the level of funding provided, it is imperative you remain in financial balance.” That was in a letter to Health New Zealand by none other than the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall.
SPEAKER: Question No. 9—
Cameron Brewer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—
SPEAKER: No, no, I haven’t called you yet. Question No. 9, Cameron Brewer.
Question No. 9—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
9. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcement has the Government made about increasing transparency at the checkout?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Well, those pesky surcharges at the checkout will soon be a thing of the past under this Government. This decision has struck a real chord with Kiwis, and I’ve received overwhelming positive feedback from fellow shoppers who are tired of being stung at the till. It’s a simple change that delivers greater transparency at the checkout, and it ensures that people know exactly what they’re going to be paying when they make a purchase. On this side of the House, we’ve heard their frustration and we’re doing something about it.
Cameron Brewer: How does this relate to the Commerce Commission’s decision a fortnight ago on interchange fees?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, that’s a good, insightful question, because two weeks ago, the Commerce Commission announced their decision to cap and reduce interchange fees from December of this year. Now, those are the behind-the-scene charges that are imposed on retailers when customers pay by card. These fees make up about 60 percent of total payment processing costs, and the cap is expected to save businesses around $90 million a year. Now, at the same time, we know that consumers are paying around $65 million a year more than they should in surcharges. Together, these reforms work to tackle both sides of the equation, to lower the cost for businesses and, at the same time, ensuring that those costs, that lower cost, is actually passed on to consumers at the point of sale.
Cameron Brewer: What would the Minister say to those concerned about the impact of this change on small businesses?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: As I said, it’s important to clarify that the surcharging ban is in conjunction with the Commerce Commission’s recent decision, and that’s a move that will mean a saving of $90 million a year for businesses. Businesses will, of course, still incur fees, but these have been greatly reduced by the Commerce Commission’s decision, and they’re capped at a rate that is deemed fair and reasonable by the Commission. Now, some businesses may be worried that they need to adjust their prices, but overseas experience—in the United Kingdom and in the European Union, when similar bans have been put in place—indicates that that is not likely to happen. Ultimately, a ban on surcharging is about making sure that the price of goods and services is transparent for everyone.
SPEAKER: They were very long answers; a little bit concise would be good.
Cameron Brewer: Why has a ban on surcharging only been explored now?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: On this side of the House, we’re proud to say that we back Kiwi customers. We know how frustrated they are when they get to the till and they get stung with a surprise—a surcharge on their purchases. In this Government, Kiwis have a pragmatic, reasonable, responsible Government prepared to make decisions of this sort to make people’s lives easier, and they’re loving it.
Question No. 10—Education
10. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with Erica Stanford, who said in 2023 that “we’re in a cost of living crisis and everyone is feeling the pinch really, really badly. Teachers are no different than anyone else”; if so, how will a proposed one percent pay increase help secondary teachers with the cost of living crisis?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): In answer to the first part of the question, that quote was from a breakfast TV political panel in March 2023—extraordinarily tough times that we’ve not seen in many decades. In this story, inflation was quoted to be running at 7.2 percent; food inflation for the March quarter was 12.1 percent. So, yes, I agree with Erica Stanford on that show, at that time, that we were in a terrible cost of living crisis, which we were subsequently voted in to resolve. Inflation is now within the target band, at 2.7 percent. Interest rates have fallen, and many families are refixing their mortgages and saving up to $740 a month. While there is more to do, our careful economic management has seen results. In response to the second part of the question, I’m not going to comment on an active bargaining process.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why were teachers offered 1 percent but tobacco companies get hundreds of millions?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I have already said, I am not at liberty to comment on the bargaining process that is actively under way.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Last week, you went into quite a bit of detail, actually, to explain to the House that, whilst Ministers may not have an active role in the operational activity of departments, they are accountable to this House to answer questions about them. Asking questions about a pay offer that has been made, surely the Minister is required to at least address questions about that, not simply say, “I’m not going to talk about it.”?
SPEAKER: Well, that might be a better way to put it, but the question itself was asking for a comparison that would be very difficult to make, for any Minister, in the short period of time they get to answer a question. But, for the sake of the House, if the Minister would make it clear why an answer is not being given?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: The answer is not being given because, as I’ve already said, I’m addressing the question, in that we’ve already said we’re in active bargaining, and I’m not at liberty to make comments while we are in the middle of active bargaining.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does it say about the Government’s priorities when board members get an 80 percent pay increase but teachers only get 1 percent?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: My answer is the same as for the previous question.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is 1 percent an effective pay cut when the food prices are up 4.6 percent and electricity has increased 8.4 percent since last year?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are still in the middle of active bargaining, and I’m not at liberty to comment on that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: when someone mistakes the massive reduction in cigarette tobacco taxation and a loss to the Treasury as being hundreds of millions to the tobacco industry, is that someone a total economic illiterate?
SPEAKER: In so much as the Minister can find some responsibility around that question?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That question is, essentially, word for word the same as the one you ruled out earlier, so how come it’s allowed to go through now?
SPEAKER: Well, because I asked the Minister to elaborate on the question that you raised with me before. It seems unreasonable if the Minister has made a comment on it once for it to be ruled out a second time, but I did say “in so much as the Minister has some responsibility for the question that is being asked”.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That member repeated a previous question, making the same inference, when it’s demonstrably untrue, so left out there is the clear belief that something is going on like the tobacco companies are picking up hundreds of millions, but that is utterly false. Ayesha Verrall and now this member are doing it and getting away with it, and that’s why I’m raising a point of order, and I think that members are entitled to comment on the kinds of economic pygmy that comes to that conclusion.
SPEAKER: There are also the Standing Orders provisions which mean that, if the member feels another member has misled the House in some way, there is a remedy through that course of action.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much. In the process of making that point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters has, essentially, indicated to the House that he was referring to a member of this House in his question; therefore, it shouldn’t be allowed to be answered.
SPEAKER: Well, in the context of this discussion, it would be utterly ridiculous if there wasn’t some reference to who the point of discussion was about. The Hon Erica Stanford—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. With respect, it should not be allowed for members—in fact, any member of this House—to ask a question that accuses another member of being illiterate in any form and then for that question to be allowed to be answered.
SPEAKER: Just so we’re clear, that was actually referenced in a point of order, and points of order—[Interruption] I beg your pardon?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: A question and a point of order.
SPEAKER: Well, I’d have to go back and look at the question. This has gone on so long that I’ve forgotten exactly who said what here. What we’ll do is the Hon Willow-Jean Prime will ask her supplementary.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: The same one or the next one?
SPEAKER: Well, you can try the same one, but don’t be surprised if it gets ruled out.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement that teachers deserve what this Government has been delivering them; if so, does she believe teachers deserve an effective pay cut?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already said, I’m not at liberty to talk about bargaining when we’re in the middle of it, but what I will do is stand by the statement I made in the House last question time: that, yes, teachers do deserve what this Government has been providing them outside of collective bargaining. I have made sure that we’ve pumped $750 million into learning support, because that’s what they asked us for. We created a new English and maths curriculum that we’ve fully funded and that we have all the professional learning and development for and all of the resources for. We’ve flooded 830,000 maths books into classes so that teachers wouldn’t have to keep photocopying resources every day of the week. We have been backing this teacher workforce, which is why more of them want to be teachers, because they want to be a part of this.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why should teachers believe this Government is on their side when it cancels pay equity and offers them an effective pay cut?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t think that question is at all in line with the primary question, and I said it in the last answer that I gave, at the last questioning, when I said that the member really needs to not conflate pay equity with collective bargaining.
Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety
11. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has she made on health and safety reform?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): This week, I have announced a range of sector-specific changes that my officials will be engaging industry on. I want to preserve the rural Kiwi way of life and ensure across all industries that the rules are simple, workable, and based on the on-the-ground reality. For construction, I announced that my officials will be consulting on changes to scaffolding rules, streamlining pre-qualifications, and providing better guidance on overlapping duties to improve productivity in the building sector. For agriculture, I’ve asked WorkSafe to engage farming communities to produce approved codes of practice to clarify the duties for different roles on the farm and for the safe use of farm vehicles. I have also asked my officials to ensure the existing regulations that stop kids working on farms do not prevent common-sense activities. We will be consulting rural communities on these. For manufacturing, I announced that we will be making long-overdue updates to machine guarding regulations—that my officials will be consulting on—so the rules are fit for purpose.
SPEAKER: I just want to make a point. That’s a very long answer. You get to give a long answer on the primary question, but your following supplementaries need to be a little more concise.
Laura McClure: Who did you hear from to suggest these changes were needed?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: These changes are a result of feedback I’ve heard from submissions, my nationwide health and safety roadshow, and suggestions from colleagues. I heard from Rural Women New Zealand, who suggested the rules around kids on farms are uncertain. I want to ensure Kiwi kids can be involved in rural life. I’ve heard from builders, Scaffolding, Access and Rigging New Zealand (SARNZ), Ports of Auckland, and the forestry sector, that the current scaffolding rules are not fit for purpose. I’ve heard from a wide range of sectors that the machine guarding rules are out of date. From the meat industry to wood processors, there is widespread agreement that these rules need to reflect reality.
Laura McClure: Why are you making these announcements now?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There has been high interest in this Government’s health and safety changes. We have announced changes to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 for landownership, small business carve-outs, directors, and the overall focus of the Act on critical risk. I am now announcing major changes to WorkSafe and digging deeper into specific industry concerns. I am letting Kiwis know that the roadshow might be over but the reforms continue, and we are continuing to listen and make these changes with Kiwis who have to work in these situations every day.
Laura McClure: What recent reports has she seen on her changes?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have seen wide support for these announcements from Construction Health and Safety New Zealand, which represents the construction sector, welcoming improvements for pre-qualifications; SARNZ, which represents the scaffolding sector, welcoming a review of scaffolding; as well as the Wood Processors and Manufacturers Association, welcoming wood dust and welding fume improvements; as well as Business Canterbury, welcoming manufacturing settings and getting those right for machine guarding. I’ve heard from Federated Farmers, which represents the agricultural sector, who is welcoming proposals to make farm health and safety more practical and grounded in real-world farming.
Question No. 12—Prime Minister
12. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the statement he made during his speech on foreign affairs and trade on 10 April 2025 that “As Prime Minister, I have a responsibility to do everything I can to bolster the existing rules-based international order.”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How is he fulfilling his responsibility to uphold the rules-based international order by refusing to impose real sanctions on Israel as Palestinians are starved, slaughtered, and denied medical aid?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I disagree with the characterisation of that question. This is a Government that has recently placed travel bans on two extremist politicians who have been undermining the prospects of a two-State solution. It is a Government that has had four tranches now of travel bans on extremist Israeli settlers. Frankly, the best influencing that we can exert from this part of the world, with limited influence and limited trade, is to make sure that we are consistently and clearly communicating our concerns to Israel.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please. My question was about real sanctions on Israel as a whole, not on two Ministers.
SPEAKER: Well, it’s a bit hard to answer that question without putting some context around why a particular action has or has not been taken. Do you want another supplementary?
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What part of the rules-based international order allows for the starvation and slaughter of innocent civilians?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think, as you’ve heard, leaders all around the world, including our Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself, have talked to this issue over a number of months now. We want to see unfettered, free and flowing, humanitarian assistance into what is an absolutely appalling catastrophe, and that is what we have been calling for consistently. We are a small country, but we amplify our voice by joining with other countries to call for action in that regard. That’s why we have joined a series of ministerial statements over a number of months to make that case.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is it only important to uphold the rules-based international order when it is politically convenient?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, and we’re not doing that.
Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Prime Minister consider expelling the Israeli ambassador, given that he represents a country that is starving women and children, that is continuing to carry out actions that more and more international organisations say amount to genocide, because if it was any other country, we would have blocked any diplomatic relations with that country already?
SPEAKER: The Hon Damien O’Connor, thank you for that question. I would point out that it probably transgresses a number of things that have been raised with me by the shadow Leader of the House. That’s something you can discuss with him later. Prime Minister, do you have some response?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’ve heard the calls to expel the Israeli ambassador, but I just say that, actually, we need to maintain diplomatic channels and communication so we can communicate our differences and our concerns.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the Prime Minister advancing electoral reforms that the Attorney-General has warned will breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), disenfranchise over 100,000 people, and will disproportionately harm Māori and Pasifika voters?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Attorney-General is fulfilling an independent role to review regulation. We would have received NZBORA section 7 reports, for example, for breath testing and for gang patches. Both those policies have been huge successes. Here, what we’re doing is making sure that people have 13 days to get enrolled. That is half the time that the Australians have, and it just represents the fact that New Zealanders are very smart people and will be able to get enrolled in 13 days before an election, rather than 26 like the Australians.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, just hold on. Why are people calling out while there is a question about to be answered?
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is he aware of reports that, in the past 24 hours, hundreds of Māori voters who have voted on the Māori roll previously have found that they have been removed from the Māori roll or unenrolled completely?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m unaware of that. I’m sure the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, will explore that further. But, again, we want to encourage as many New Zealanders as possible to fully participate in the great gift that we have in this country, which is democracy. I think New Zealand, between now and the next election, has plenty of time to get themselves enrolled 13 days before the election.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If Māori voters are being deregistered at random, without their knowledge, how can he be sure that his electoral reforms will not disenfranchise whānau who have followed all the correct procedures?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because anyone, Māori or non-Māori, just needs to be registered on the roll 13 days before the election. There’s plenty of time for that to happen.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can the Prime Minister confirm that 100,000 people are not being disenfranchised by anything that the Government is doing; they are simply being asked to—
SPEAKER: Sorry, wait. There are several people who might be leaving the House for the balance of the afternoon. Do not interfere or interrupt a question when it’s being asked. The Hon Paul Goldsmith, start again.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he confirm that 100,000 people are not being disenfranchised by any legislation in this House; they are simply being asked to enrol, which is the legal requirement?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is correct. It’s not difficult. Get enrolled 13 days before the election. I’m confident that New Zealanders will do that. Australians do it 26 days before the election. New Zealanders can definitely do it.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to delaying his electoral reforms until after this issue has been resolved, to ensure that he will not disenfranchise hundreds of thousands more Māori and Pasifika voters who have followed all the correct procedures?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, given the answers I’ve just given to the previous questions, I reject outright the characterisation of that question.
General Debate
General Debate
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
Well, we’re halfway through this electoral term, and what have we heard from the Opposition? No plans, no policies, no new ideas—absolutely nothing. It’s like Michael Wood—remember Michael Wood and his big red zero? It’s like his big red zero. Zero new ideas, zero new policies, zero new ideas—that’s what we’ve heard from the Opposition, and now look: they’re like the arsonists turning up at the fire that they set alight with inflation and high interest rates. There they are complaining about all of the problems that they’ve caused, but they have got no solution. In fact, they spend their entire time complaining about the work that’s being done to actually fix it: the work that’s being done to get our economy moving again, the work that’s being done to make sure that we get Government expenditure under control, and the work that’s being done to ensure we get interest rates under control.
But, look, there is one thing that they have delivered—one thing. They’ve delivered a new slogan—a new slogan—and I imagine that the Labour Party strategists were having a bit of a face-palm moment when Chris Hipkins rolled out the new slogan. Their new slogan is “Jobs, health, and homes”. Well, let’s have a chat about health, shall we, and let’s talk about their record, because this is where their strategists were face-palming themselves when former health Minister Chris Hipkins decided to roll out their new slogan. Of course, what was Labour’s record when it came to health? Six years of health results going backwards, Kiwis were waiting longer, health targets were scrapped, and they were obsessed with restructuring a health system, rather than focusing on patients. Sometimes you’ve got to wonder whether they actually even understand what the health system is there for, and it’s there for patients. But during COVID-19—during a pandemic—what did they put their time and energy into? Restructuring the health system, rather than actually focusing on delivery for patients.
Let’s talk about the results. Let’s talk about the outcomes. Elective surgery wait times massively blew through the roof. In 2017, when they came into office, 1,037 New Zealanders were waiting over four months for an elective treatment. For a hip, knee, or cataract operation, 1,037 were waiting over four months. But when Labour left office in 2023, that number had grown to 27,497—an increase of 2,551 percent.
So when they talk about healthcare, let’s talk about their track record on healthcare, because there’s a track record of failure to deliver, and one of the worst, which I think is an absolute shame on the previous Government, is when it comes to childhood immunisation rates. In 2017, 92.4 percent of children were fully immunised at 24 months—a 92.4 percent immunisation rate for two-year-olds. By 2023, it was 83 percent. It had plummeted to 83 percent, and the reality is that they kept failing to deliver across emergency departments. Across primary care—making it harder to see a doctor. Everything went backwards under the last Government.
We heard last week, of course, about all the infrastructure projects that we’re getting started. Well, let’s talk about some of their announcements when it came to infrastructure. They promised in 2018—in 2018—that they were going to reclad the Kidz First Children’s Hospital at Middlemore. In 2018, David Clark and Jacinda Ardern turned up and promised that they would get the recladding of the hospital started. Well, this Government is actually getting it done seven years later—seven years later—because they announced, but they failed to deliver.
Of course, when it comes to a new Dunedin Hospital, they spent six years talking about it; we’re getting it delivered. Nelson Hospital: they said in 2020, at the election, “We will have spades in the ground by the 2023 election.” I don’t even think they even know the definition of a spade. Maybe they should go and visit some farms—maybe they should go and see some of them.
Hon Simon Watts: Dig a hole—dig a hole.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the problem is, as my colleague the Hon Simon Watts says, that they were digging a lot of holes. They were digging a lot of holes, but not actually getting a lot done, and so of course everything went backwards for patients.
We are rebuilding the health system, on this side of the House. We’re delivering the investment to the front line: more doctors, more nurses, and more cancer medicines. We’re delivering Elective Boost and seeing patients get the care that they need. We are focusing on the front line so that patients can get the timely, quality access. We are starting to see results. There is so much more work to do, but we have a plan, and we’re getting on and getting it done.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Over the past 18 months, New Zealand First has been targeted with a series of ignorant and deliberate attacks from Ayesha Verrall and her fellow partisan pen pal, reporter Guyon Espiner. They’ve once again repeated the exposé headline this week, which was “Big tobacco now has $300 million tax break”, and they followed it up by the breathless commentary from Verrall. There are only two possibilities: either she is totally incompetent, or she is knowingly ignoring the facts. She knows that New Zealand is now number 2 in the world for the lowest smoking rates. Our smoke-free policy—which is backed by Professor Bob Beaglehole from ASH—is working, and that’s a fact. If Radio New Zealand had a shred of integrity, they would interview him about it.
She knows that this Government is doing everything it can to get the last few remaining hardcore smokers off cigarettes and on to alternatives. She knows that we need to make those alternatives more affordable and more accessible for those current smokers to quit.
She knows there is no tax break. She knows that in 2023, the tax balance sheet for those alternatives was just $6 million. She knows that the figure she continues to deliberately and disingenuously use of $216 million is not a tax break, that no money goes to anyone, and that this money does not go to big tobacco.
What Verrall fails to mention, which she knows to be a fact, is that the figure of $216 million—now, apparently, $300 million in her quotes—includes the revenue lost from people who have quit smoking cigarettes. They no longer pay the excessive tax on cigarettes, and therefore the Government doesn’t have that revenue on the balance sheet. Only a political moron and, literally, an economic moron would not know that, but she and her mate Guyon continue to perpetuate a falsehood to the people of New Zealand, to this House, and to her own party. That means that the more successful we are at getting people off smoking, the more tax revenue the Government forgoes. That is the $216 million, and Verrall knows it.
Any person out there with an ounce of common sense can see that going from $6 million to, now, $300 million overnight is an outright lie that is being perpetuated continuously and repeated continuously by a certain few in the media. Verrall knows that there is no tax break. She knows that so-called big tobacco doesn’t see one cent of anything. She knows that the purpose of the deduction on tax on smoking alternatives is to get people off cigarettes, so why, then, does she continue misleading the people of New Zealand and dragging the media, and in this House, daily—like twice repeated today; getting found out because you’re a dumbo—on a pathway of undermining the success of New Zealand’s goal of getting people to be smoke-free.
I am making this speech today because for 18 months, she has been allowed to get away with her mud-slinging and to get away with her ham-fisted attempts at attacking Casey Costello—
Hon Damien O’Connor: Who wrote this?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and New Zealand First—I’m able to write my own speech, unlike that moron over there—and we have had enough. Verrall is either ignorant or she is continuing to deliberately mislead this House. Either way, she’s not fit to remain in the role as a shadow portfolio spokeswoman in health, and she needs to apologise to Labour, first, for misleading her leader—who made a fool of himself on the Holmes show this morning—to New Zealand First and this House, and to the people of New Zealand.
If she had one ounce of integrity, she would focus on the fact that since New Zealand First’s smoke-free policy came into effect in 2020, the smoking rates have drastically decreased, to the point where we are now number one of the leading two countries in the world for low smoking rates. The smoking legislation that we permitted is working.
What Guyon Espiner needs to investigate next is this: why did Verrall, as the Minister, ignore legal advice on disposable vapes regulation? Why did she and her partisan motley crew cover this legal advice up and actively hide it from the incoming Minister Casey Costello? Why did these leaks and attacks on Costello come from her and her crew on the very issue where she ignored legal advice—that’s Verrall—and why did Verrall allow this country to be open to litigation and to be sued to the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and to face losing, and, now, why no mention of that from the media or from her? Where is the apology and where is the accountability—and where are you now, Mr Espiner?
This is what Professor Beaglehole said: “New Zealand’s on the cusp of making history—soon to be one of the first truly smokefree nations. … a pragmatic shift to safer and cheaper vapes has changed the trajectory. Vapes supply nicotine without the tar and toxins [of] tobacco smoke that kill over half the people who smoke long-term. … we already have a smokefree generation—youth smoking”—
Hon Willie Jackson: Are you still smoking?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —“has all but disappeared.”
Why has this person not been sacked? The Goebbels approach, where you tell the biggest lie possible, hoping to be believed, is not going to be adopted in this country, and I’ve got a message for Radio New Zealand and Guyon Espiner: if you think you’re going to get away with this, we’ve got news for you and it’s all really bad—all really bad. This is the man who attacked me and my party 28 times in the 2020 campaign, and the Serious Fraud Office, which he backed, went to the courts three times. They cost the taxpayer $4.2 million, and they lost all three times—$4.2 million. It cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars, while this four-flushing liar thought he’d get away with it. Mr Espiner, no you don’t.
Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Before I call the member—
Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a—
SPEAKER: Before I call the member, can I just say that some of his interjections before were directed at the Chair. I was very tempted to answer, but that would have been unreasonable. So please moderate yourself.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a shocking speech from a shocking Minister from a disgraceful—
SPEAKER: Well, there’s moderation for you!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —rotten, useless Government. Never before in my political life have I seen a New Zealand Government actively suppress the vote. I rise today to heap criticism and contempt upon the Government for passing voter-suppression rules as egregious as this. You would have to go back to 2003 for a similar level of disenfranchisement. This Government is rolling back voting rights by almost a quarter of a century, and they want a clap on the back for saving a buck.
Minister Goldsmith—you know, I don’t know what’s wrong with him. On the surface, he seems OK, but he’s very confused at the moment. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt here when he says that he started this voter-suppression Act as a sort of cost-saving measure, wasn’t it?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s rubbish.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, it is rubbish because it’s not that; it’s racist disenfranchisement, and that’s what it is. It’s a breach of democracy—you can’t cut the costs when it comes to ensuring universal suffrage.
I want to commend our Attorney-General, one of the most principled National Party members. I haven’t seen her here in the last day or so. They must be hiding her away because she has come out—
SPEAKER: No, no—the member will withdraw and apologise.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw and apologise. My apologies, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Yeah, well, do it properly. Don’t start waving your arms at me.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I’m not, Mr Speaker. But the Attorney-General has come out with something really, really important and I need to commend her—and I’m serious about this, Mr Speaker. She’s had the guts to call out this appalling attack on young people, Māori, Pasifika, and Asian communities. She’s had the courage to call these voter-suppression powers for what they are: discriminatory. So I’m not making a joke of the Attorney-General; I’m saying, “Well done.” This Government is vandalising democratic participation.
Now, I need the people to listen to this—this is from Elections New Zealand. This is the type of discrimination we’re talking about: 600,000 enrolments happen after writ day, with 450,000 voters during the voting period and 110,000 votes on election day. These are incredible numbers we’re talking about. That’s why I compliment the Attorney-General. She’s not here today, but she is so principled, and she’s standing up to a weak and useless leader.
I have deep misgivings that this Government has jumped the gun with these voter-suppression powers. For a law that impacts this many voters, I believe it should require a supermajority. National messed up banning prisoners from voting, because they didn’t have a supermajority, and I believe that this new voter-suppression Act should face the same legal challenge.
Why disenfranchise young people, Māori, Pasifika and Asian communities? The purpose of our system, surely, is to engage people and make it as easy as possible to get them to vote. It’s just shocking that we’re not embracing them and pushing them along. Why push those on the margins to even more marginal spaces—surely, that’s the question. When we have failing participation in civic life, why make it more difficult to vote? This Government risks being accused of rigging the next election, and if these voter-suppression powers go through, we can’t risk our democratic reputation because the Minister wants to save some money.
Finally, I want to say that I don’t know what’s more offensive: the gerrymandering of our voting rules to rig the election, or the Deputy Prime Minister referring to 600,000 people as “dropkicks”. It’s a disgraceful attack on all the voting rights of our democracy when you have a Deputy Prime Minister doing that. Every Kiwi of conscience, no matter what their political persuasion, should denounce this and denounce Mr Seymour. David Seymour must and should apologise for his attack on our communities—working-class Kiwis, Māori, Pasifika, and Asian. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: he’s the most dangerous politician of the last generation and—surely—not only a disgrace as a Deputy Prime Minister but surely the biggest dropkick of all.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC): Well, that was a speech well below the dignity of the member who gave it. It was an awful speech, and I want to know what happened to the real Willie Jackson. The real Willie Jackson used to be someone who had passion and vigour and was actually on point, but that wasn’t the Willie Jackson that we heard today.
We all know that in life and in politics and in business, sometimes the most irritating things are the smallest things. It’s like the Labour Party—small things are very irritating. But another really irritating thing is the surcharges that you have to pay when you go to a shop and buy your date scone and your cup of coffee—and you’ll be visiting the beautiful Coromandel, spending time and money in my patch—and then you get stung at the end with a surcharge of 2.5 percent, sometimes 3 percent, sometimes 4 percent, and maybe even more in some cases. Well, on this side of the House, we take the view that doing a transaction should be simple, should be transparent, and should be obvious. The price on the cabinet where the muffin is, or the steak pie or whatever it is you’re buying, should be the price that you pay at the till.
This week, we’ve announced a decision to do away with one of those small little irritating things in life and business and commerce—
Hon Nicola Grigg: What—Kieran McAnulty?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —no, it wasn’t Kieran McAnulty—and get rid of the surcharges. Now, I know from my own personal experiences of how annoying these little charges are, and I know every member in the House will have experienced the same thing, just like every New Zealander will have experienced the same thing—we know how annoying it is. I didn’t expect, however, that the announcement of this decision would be as popular and as welcome as it has been. It’s been received magnificently well all around the countryside, and people have responded in a way that, frankly, is just off the charts.
Those checkout surcharges in some cases—not in every case, but in some cases they’re a swindle. Now, what we know for sure is that anything over a 0.7 percent surcharge—if you’re using a contactless debit card, for instance, anything above that is a rip-off. We know also that anything above 2 percent for credit card usage, whether you’re using your fancy phone, like Mr Todd Stephenson uses when he goes and buys his muffin and his coffee down in Queenstown, or his phone—anything over 2 percent, that’s a swindle as well, and yet we often see those pesky little stickers with prices that say that it’s a 2.5 percent surcharge, or sometimes 3 percent or sometimes 4 percent.
I’ve even noticed some that don’t put the percentage on at all, and you literally don’t know—the consumer doesn’t know when they go up there. It just says that a payWave surcharge will apply. That person doesn’t know how much they’re going to be pinged until the transaction is made. Now, I think that’s literally daylight robbery.
One of the things that we know is that the Commerce Commission has made it very clear that the interchange fee has to come down. Now, they’re going to do that by December of this year, and that’s an appropriate thing. It means that the cost to the businesses is going to come down. That’s why we’ve announced this change.
What we know is that in other countries that have also banned surcharges, like the United Kingdom, like the European Union, and like Australia is soon to do—what we know from those jurisdictions is that when those surcharge bans have been put in place, there hasn’t been an increase in pricing, because retailers and businesses understand, ultimately, that that’s a cost of doing business. It’s just like rent, electricity, insurance, and wages are a cost of doing business.
It’s 2025 and it’s time that New Zealand got modern and did away with those curled-up, coffee-stained, handwritten, dodgy-looking little stickers on the EFTPOS machine that are annoying so many New Zealanders. They’re so excited about it that the feedback I’ve been getting is “Why can’t you do it sooner?” Well, let me assure members in the House and New Zealanders around the countryside that if we can do it sooner, we will, because we think that this is a small but practical opportunity to make life easier and more transparent for New Zealanders.
Sometimes it’s the small and little things that you want to remove from your life to make things easier, simpler, and more transparent—small, easy things that will make New Zealanders’ lives easier, simpler, and more attuned to what it should be in a modern world. Speaking of small, annoying, irritable things, the Labour Party has yet to come out and just tell us whether they’re going to support it or not—
SPEAKER: That’ll do.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and so I’m hoping they’ll tell us.
SPEAKER: Good—you’re all good.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Palestinian people have hopes and dreams. Palestinian families want to feed and care for their children. Palestinians want joy, and Palestinian children have told us that they want to live, but the State of Israel is committing genocide in Gaza against the Palestinians, and it is just plainly wrong.
There are no justifications for the blatant murder and slaughter and starvation and rape and femicide that Israel is committing—that’s right. The United Nations rapporteur, in their report, has stated that Israel—and I quote—is “deliberately killing Palestinian women and girls with the intent to destroy them and the continuity of the Palestinian people.” to wipe out whakapapa lines. That is femicide. According to those estimates, women and girls account for 67 percent of the Palestinians killed by 9 July.
What more does this Government need to take action? There are no justifications for genocide; there should be no conditionals for calling to an end to genocide. So the Greens are calling on this Government to affirm Palestinian statehood now, to support our bill to sanction Israel, and to support special visas for Palestinians wanting to flee to safety, and not just every day but every hour of delay costs lives.
Today, we got from the Prime Minister’s Government a weaksauce statement, and it was so weaksauce, I’ll read it out. It says something about “we might consider, we might have a look”. It says that New Zealand expresses the “willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine”. What on earth is that? How much more weaksauce can you get? What more does this Government need to show leadership, to send a clear message to Israel that Palestine deserves its independent statehood and that this is the only true way to enduring peace and the justice, which is deserved by the people of Palestine?
This is actually about the humanity and decency of our world. This is about recognising that having a world for all our mokopuna to be safe in requires us to protect the mokopuna of Gaza right now, and more and more and more countries around the world are finally stepping up. We’re finally seeing a backbone—finally—after years and years of the murder and slaughter and inhumane killing that happened long before that October date that everyone tries to pin the starting point of this genocide on, which is just incorrect. It is just a historical fallacy.
Where is the backbone of Aotearoa and our Government to step up and be a voice for the mokopuna of Gaza, for the mokopuna of the world, to say no? How can we let this continue before our very eyes? How can we create a world that allows this to happen before our very eyes?
New Zealand, I thought, was stronger than that. New Zealand, I thought, had a vision to be independent and to stand on our own two feet for just what is right and what has to happen right now. I am proud of the Greens, even right back in 2021, putting in this very House a notice of motion to call for this country to recognise the statehood of Palestine, and we continue to support the activists around this country who show up every day, every weekend, in big and small communities everywhere, putting their livelihoods on the line because they know that whatever suffering and challenge we are facing here, it is nothing compared to the very real plight of what is happening to humans.
Despite what Israel has tried to do to dehumanise them and to rob them of their mana and their dignity, people around the world and around our communities know that these are humans we are talking about. These are our fellow humans—our people. The globe connects us all. It is just like the tsunami in Russia today that is starting to threaten to come down to Japan, and then to have an impact on the west coast of our shores—that is how we are connected.
Our humanity is supposed to connect us all. Our decency relies on us to be accountable, and I stand in this House today for a free Palestine.
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to be able to stand up today and talk about the backbone of the New Zealand economy, and that, indeed, is of course our agricultural sector.
I’ve been reflecting. I used to stand up in this House as an Opposition MP, genuinely and deeply concerned about the future of farming in this country, and that was, by no means, because of the lack of skill or intent of the New Zealand farmer, but it was absolutely and utterly because of the provisions, and the onerous regulations, and the burden that the previous Government placed upon the farming sector of New Zealand—you know, David and Damien and the other “henchmen of the Apocalypse” drove our agricultural sector to its knees. But, happily, when we came into office in 2023, we set about turning it around.
When we came into office, the confidence of the sector was through the floor. I cited it earlier in question time: negative 66 percent. Red tape from the capital city—from this Parliament—was out of control. Farmers were bogged down in regulation, not production; mental health was suffering; investment had dried up; and the most efficient producers of food and fibre in the world were being told that they were the enemy and that they were the problem. So we campaigned on not closing down our farms, on not sending jobs overseas, and on not sending production overseas. We campaigned on getting this House out of farming and out of agriculture. We campaigned on building a partnership between the New Zealand Government, and farmers and growers around New Zealand. Most importantly, we campaigned on rebuilding the confidence of the sector, New Zealand’s greatest export earner.
In order to do that, we’ve travelled up and down the country and we have spoken at length with farmers and growers around New Zealand. That is why the policy with the regulatory shifts and the legislative changes that we’re driving through this House will work. They are working because they have been built from the grassroots up. We’ve spoken recently at the primary industries summit and at the Meat Industry Association. I myself am going down to the New Zealand Apple and Pears conference in Nelson tomorrow. We speak to farmers and growers every single day so that we know we are getting the settings right.
It is no secret that the economy of New Zealand was driven into the ground under the previous Government. New Zealand needs our agricultural sector to fly. We need it to hum. We need it to rebuild this country’s wealth and its prosperity. Therefore, every single member of this Parliament owes it to the farmers of New Zealand and the growers of New Zealand to ensure that we get the settings right and we get them right for the long term, for the ongoing sustainability, productivity, and profitability of this country.
Rural communities are the engine room of this economy. When farmers are doing well, we know that New Zealand does well. That capital, that profit—it flows through to local businesses and regional jobs, and it grows the economy for all New Zealanders. We need agriculture to do well in this country, and, indeed, it is doing well. It’s set to hit $60 billion in exports this year. That is a record for this country—that is incredible. We owe farmers and growers a debt of gratitude, and it is being proven that our policies are shifting sentiment.
I want to refer members of this House to this fine publication, the Farmers Weekly—acknowledging Neal and all of the guys that work so hard every day—“Farm confidence surges after a tough few years”. I go on: “Back to farming, not fighting regs.” What does that tell you? That is exactly what a Government in this country needs to be focused on, which is letting farmers get back to farming, and not fighting off unnecessary regulation.
The list of what we have done and what we have changed in a short 18 months is long. I’ve got an entire A4 page in front of me, but some of the highlights are that we’ve removed agriculture from the emissions trading scheme, we have repealed Labour’s punitive ute tax, we’ve passed the first reading of the legislation to ban farm-to-forest conversions, we’ve started rebalancing Te Mana o te Wai, we’ve halted Labour’s freshwater farm plans and those restrictive significant natural area requirements, we’ve launched contestable funds for rural support, and we’ve established a new pastoral group focused on informing through science what methane reduction should actually look like.
The list goes on and on and on. Suffice to say, this Government backs farmers. We will back them to the hilt, and we are intent on their ongoing success.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I have in my hand a page from that fine publication the Farmers Weekly, and, in it, I want to refer to something that the Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, said some months ago. It’s talking about the target set under the Paris Agreement around climate change, and he said, “Some will meet them, and some won’t just because [of] national circumstance. You have to have the intent to meet it and if you don’t meet it, no one sends you an invoice—and that’s why it’s not a liability on the government’s books.”
“No one sends you an invoice”, he said, but just last week, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. This is just the summary and the actual judgment is significantly long, but let me tell you what is in that judgment. Very roughly paraphrasing, it says that States must act on climate change, or be held responsible. Its key findings include that 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming is the agreed legally binding target for limiting the global average temperature increase. It agreed that customary international law imposes binding legal obligations on States to take preventive and precautionary measures to avoid climate harm. It agreed that while the emission of greenhouse gases is not per se unlawful, a failure to take appropriate measures to prevent foreseeable harm does constitute a wrongful act attributable to States. It agreed that States must regulate private actors’ emissions. It agreed that States have a responsibility around climate change. It agreed that climate action can trigger legal consequences. It turns out that there is an invoice coming due on climate change.
Then a second report came out last week. It was the Climate Commission’s annual monitoring report on climate change, and what did that report tell us? It said that our emissions budgets may not be met. Here’s the rub: the first emissions budget, we’re probably going to meet it, but I’m just going to say that under the Labour Government, emissions were coming down; our second emissions budget can be met, but there are areas of significant threat; and our third emissions budget, covering the period from 2031 to 2035, requires further action urgently in order to be met.
Not only is there now an invoice from the International Court of Justice but the current Government is building up our liabilities in respect of that invoice. It needs to take climate action soon, and it’s important not just because of the international settings and not just because we might have an obligation to other States; it’s important because climate change affects us here every day in our ordinary lives in New Zealand.
We’ve just seen in the last week or so extraordinary downpours through the country. We know that our weather is being affected by climate change. We know that the intensity of those storms and the amount of rain that is being dumped on farming communities is deeply affected by climate change. We know that our homes are at threat because of climate change. We know that our health is at threat because of climate change—not just the immediate threat to life and limb but the mental health of many people who live under the stress of climate change. We know that jobs are under threat due to climate change and that that Government, by focusing on dying industries and on oil and gas, is ignoring the plentiful jobs that are to be found in green industries.
Labour is proud of its record on climate change, and we stand by it. Our record of the Clean Car Discount, of public transport, and of the Climate Emergency Response Fund, which was used to drive emissions down—we were doing the work that needs to be done to get our emissions down.
That Government is ignoring the problem. It is tucking the problem away and pretending it doesn’t exist, and because it continues to do that, one day soon that bill will come due. It’s not just a bill that’s going to come about because of the International Court of Justice; what we are doing by refusing to act is imperilling the futures of our children and our children’s children. It’s time to act.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Over the last few months, sitting in this House, one thing has become apparent to me. Obviously, very few members took third form economics, or, for the youngsters in the House, year 9, I believe it’s called, because that’s where I learnt about the law of supply and demand.
Much time, recently, has been given to discussing the issues of the cost of living—in particular, food prices—but very little understanding seems to occur on exactly what levers a Government can pull to make changes on this. Now, if I want to look at part of our food sector—the vegetable sector, for example—it’s an area where I am really concerned that we might see future price increases. It’s a sector where the products are not exported and it’s all for internal use, but these prices are set domestically through internal demand, but the Government—this building—has a big role to play in terms of the supply side of the equation.
Now, vegetable production in this country is increasingly becoming constrained through regional plans that are driven and pushed by the Resource Management Act and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. We’ve got rules around the intensification of land use that are choking the sector’s ability for growers to rotate their crops. This is an ancient practice going back to the Middle Ages that makes sense. It reduces disease burdens in crops, and it’s just common sense. It enables pastoral farmers to renew pastures—just common sense. But with the way our laws are, it is making it impossible for farmers and growers to do this.
Close to me, in the Horowhenua, around 20 to 25 percent of this country’s leafy greens come from that region. Now, none of those growers in that region can get a consent—absolutely impossible. The regional rules, effectively, stop it. This situation is also going to happen in the north Waikato, under the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 1. Growers there will be needing to get consents, likely unable to be given to them. Now, what does this do? It has a simple chilling effect on a grower or a farmer who may be in the situation of asking, “What is the future? What can I do? Can I invest? Can I do anything? Do I really want my children to take this over?” That just creates a situation where people only look to exit. We have a real risk of having a reducing supply here in New Zealand, which will see increases in food prices.
Now, we are taking action to stop this. That’s why, in the new resource management system and national direction, we intend to ensure that growers are enabled and permitted to grow vegetables and that they’re not stopped from doing this, but can get on with farming and producing the nutritious and affordable food that New Zealanders want to buy. That’s the action we are taking. Now, I would challenge the members opposite: are you going to support that? Because if you aren’t, please tell New Zealand how you’re going to keep food prices down.
Finally, I would love to cover off this beat-up that is the price of butter. As has been covered, prices are set internationally, but New Zealand can influence these international prices, and how, you ask. Well, we’re only 2 to 3 percent of world milk production, but we are 20 to 30 percent of the world trade in dairy products, and that’s where the prices get set, in that part of the international market where everything gets traded back and forth. So a reduction or an increase in supply from New Zealand will likely have an impact on global prices.
When members opposite voted against agriculture being removed from the emissions trading scheme and thus avoiding the situation where we would have seen production decreases in New Zealand, they were, in fact, saying, “We’re happy for the price of butter to increase.” When they say, “We want a whole bunch of higher taxes that are going to slam farmers and everyone else.”, they are, in fact, saying, “We want higher butter prices.” When they dream up unworkable and unaffordable environmental rules, they are at that point saying, “We want higher butter prices.”
My challenge to the members opposite is this: please tell us the actions that you will take that will change supply or demand equations and create affordable food prices, because, to date, your words and actions are quite contradictory.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be here today to represent Hamilton East in this general debate and to speak in the House. There’s so much good stuff happening, both within the National Party at a national level and at a micro level. I had the privilege of talking about the fantastic new Waikato medical school last week, and I intend to talk a little bit more about that because the good news is still sinking in.
But before I do, I’d just like to talk about a few other things happening in New Zealand’s fastest-growing city, Hamilton. Of course, recently we had Jetstar set up international flights between Sydney and the Gold Coast, and that’s believed to bring in $45 million to the regional economy every year. It’s 100,000 passengers, which is just fantastic.
Hon Damien O’Connor: There’ll be even more leaving.
RYAN HAMILTON: Sorry, what was that?
Hon Damien O’Connor: They’ll be flooding out of Hamilton.
RYAN HAMILTON: Oh, and they’re coming in too—they’re coming in too, Mr O’Connor, I can assure you. We’ve got two new hotels being developed, which is fantastic. Pragma and Vision Complete Earthworks are developing one called the Mistry Centre, a 12-storey tower block renovation, which is going to be awesome, and just when you thought that was good, we’ve also got the Templeton Group doing a 25-storey development right in the centre of town. Hamilton, Kirikiriroa, “the Tron”, the “City of the Future”—it’s exciting.
Then, later in the year, we’ve got our regional theatre opening up, which is going to be incredible. It’s a $100 million project and a great example of how to fund infrastructure—social infrastructure, hard infrastructure—with central government, local government, philanthropy, and business. It’s going to be fantastic, and there’ll surely be lots of invitations going around this Chamber.
Two weeks ago, we also had the All Blacks in Hamilton, with the French test match—the third in the series—which we were able to win, even though three tries were held up, unfortunately. It was fantastic. We had 24,162 Hamiltonians screaming at FMG Stadium—it was just fantastic.
I’d like to go back to the Waikato medical school, and, obviously, the announcement was last Monday. I’ve been advocating very hard. It’s been on the boil for a long time, as I’m sure members will appreciate, to get it over the line with what was somewhat of a duopoly between Auckland and Otago, but it’s fantastic that Cabinet and our coalition Government supported it. In fact, in 1952, they considered having a Waikato medical school when Dame Hilda Ross was on the scene, but they ended up deciding against it because Waikato didn’t have a university, and so that actually became the genesis of the University of Waikato. As I shared last week, it has now gone full circle and, in 2028, they’ll be opening the medical school.
I had the privilege of catching up on Monday, before I flew to Wellington, with Neil Quigley, the vice-chancellor, and Professor Jo Lane, who is the dean of health there, and of looking at the old B Block. If anyone studied at Waikato University, that’s where it’s going to go. The university was, you could say, cheeky, but you could say faith-filled: they demo-ed the building and they kept preparing in the hope that the Government would go ahead with this medical school. It was a bit risky because, of course, if they didn’t, well, that would have been a big empty section perhaps; but the building was old anyway. But good news: we’re delivering that medical school, and how fantastic it’s going to be.
Members around the House may not realise that currently we’re 220 GPs short in New Zealand, and that’s projected to go to 870 GPs by 2032—870 GPs short. That’s on top of the boosting we’re currently doing with Otago and Auckland, that’s on top of the overseas doctors we’re trying to bring into the country, and that’s on top of the 325 New Zealanders training in Australian medical schools. Australia has 25 medical schools; we’ve got two. We should be working on our fourth or fifth, but at least now we can say that we’re finally working on our third one.
Of the GPs that graduate from our current schools, only one-sixth of them actually stay as a GP. The others go on and do surgery or neuroscience or other things. Only one-sixth of them stay, and only one-fifth stay in rural areas. Most of them work in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. This model works, and it is proven—the criteria, the assessment, the four-year training programme, where they place the students in rural areas to get them used to those environments—and the goal is 60 percent rural placement. We can’t keep doing what we’ve been doing and expect a different result. This is geared towards systemic change, and it’s going to be awesome.
Just very quickly, I’d like to shout out to Hamilton Gardens and, in particular, the Hamilton Arts Festival Toi Ora. It had some good news this week thanks to a sponsorship with Air New Zealand. I’ll give a shout-out to Geoff Turkington, who does an incredible job—a record-breaking attendance this year, 47,000 people—and also the chairman, Chris Williams, who has had some health challenges lately. But he’s recovering, he’s well, and we thank him for his service to this incredible event. Thank you, sir.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to have the opportunity to take a call in the general debate. I want to use the five minutes that I have to make a challenge to the House around an issue that has been ignored by New Zealand for too long, and that is the very important issue of modern slavery.
There is an urgent need to combat modern slavery and trafficking for persons in New Zealand. Billions of dollars in New Zealand are spent on supply chains connected with modern slavery. The Global Slavery Index estimates that around 8,000 people in New Zealand each day are in situations of modern slavery, and, unknowingly, each New Zealand household is spending around $77 per week on goods associated with forced labour. Our money that we spend in New Zealand is affecting the human rights and the lives of real people, both here and overseas.
This is an issue which is not new to this Parliament, and it’s also not something, I think, that most people in this Parliament disagree on. There has been a significant amount of work done to try and make sure that New Zealand has modern slavery legislation that meets the need of our moral duty to address it not only here but also overseas, and also address some of the important commitments that we’ve made to overseas partners.
I want to acknowledge the work that was done under the previous Labour Government of the Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group, and I want to acknowledge the work that’s been done since the change of Government by the Modern Slavery and Trafficking Expert Practitioners Group. Now, this is a voluntary group that got together and saw that there was a high degree of political consensus around this issue in New Zealand, and had the skills and the foresight and the conviction to draft legislation on modern slavery that could be introduced to this House if this House would so will it. I commend that group for taking practical steps to ensure that this House—if we can find a way on this issue—can introduce laws on modern slavery as soon as possible, possibly even next members’ day.
The bill that they have drafted, I have put in the ballot as a member’s bill in my name, but I want to be clear that this is an issue that isn’t something that I advocate on my own as an member of Parliament or on behalf of the Labour Party. It is something that all members of this House have an obligation to address, and it’s something on which there have been many, many overtures across the House to try and find a way forward on this issue. So I say again to any member of this House who is committed to ending this terrible practice of modern slavery: let’s find a way forward to try and make sure that New Zealand has laws that prevent this terrible practice, both here and abroad.
The bill that I have put in is a comprehensive bill. It establishes a reporting register, but it also establishes things that would support victims of modern slavery when they are identified in New Zealand, like certification of the fact of their being modern slaves, and assistance. It also puts in place review provisions so that we can make sure that this legislation is the best that it possibly can be.
It won’t be news to anyone in this House that New Zealand is not a leader in this area. In fact, modern slavery legislation is in place in many other countries around the world that New Zealand would look to. In places like Australia, in places like the United Kingdom, and in places like Canada, those countries have put in place different pieces of legislation that address modern slavery, and many companies that work in New Zealand are actually subjected to laws banning modern slavery already because they trade in other countries. It’s time that New Zealand stood up to this terrible, terrible practice and also stood up to our international obligations that we have in the EU fair-trade agreement (FTA), which requires us to put in place modern slavery legislation, and the UK FTA also requires us to do this.
This issue has gone on for too long without a response from this Parliament. The legislation is here, it’s ready, and all it is waiting for is the political will of this House to make it happen. On this side of the House, we have already told the Prime Minister that we are willing to support legislation on modern slavery to get this issue solved. We ask members across the House and across the Parliament to recognise that this has gone on too long, that the time is right, and that New Zealand must stand up to this terrible practice of modern slavery. It is time.
NANCY LU (National): It’s been just over a month since I had the honour of joining the Prime Minister’s first official delegation to China. While the trip itself has ended, the impact is only beginning and will continue to take shape in New Zealand through the deals that were signed, the relationships that were strengthened, and the doors that were opened for New Zealand businesses. I’ve spent the last month reflecting on what I saw, heard, and learnt, and also when I’ve been speaking about it with business leaders, exporters, and many of my colleagues in this House because this trip was about one thing: growing the New Zealand economy.
The Prime Minister’s delegation to China helped unlock a total of $1.29 billion in economic value for our country. That includes $814 million in new business-to-business trade across food and fibre, health and wellness, manufacturing, tourism, education, and the list goes on. It also includes $400 million in improved market access, opening and expanding export channels for Kiwi goods and services that are in demand.
But beyond these headlines, what it means is real growth for New Zealanders and all businesses in our country. It means our kiwifruit, our apples, our beef and lamb, our dairy, and our skin care and wellbeing products are reaching more consumers in one of the world’s most competitive and exciting markets. It also means that our exporters—companies like Zespri, Alliance, Silver Fern Farms, Rockit Global, MitoQ, The Beauty Lab Collective, Fonterra, Moana Seafood, Villa Maria Wines, Fiordland Lobster Co., and the list goes on—are seeing more value and volume to what they produce. That leads to stronger returns, more jobs, and higher incomes back here at home.
It also means that tourism and education service providers like UP Education, the University of Victoria and the seven universities in New Zealand, Auckland and Christchurch airports, and Air New Zealand are strengthening their competitiveness to provide world-class education and tourism activities, attracting some of the best talents to New Zealand, and they continue to provide that strong pathway to even more economic growth for consumers and all New Zealand products. So thank you to the Prime Minister and thank you to the Minister of Tourism, Louise Upston, and Minister Mark Mitchell for all your leadership and hard work.
This Government has set a very clear goal to double the export value of New Zealand exports by 2034. Now, that is very ambitious, and this trip to China showed that we are on the right path. We cannot grow our economy or raise living standards by simply trading among ourselves. We are a small and very smart country that wins when we connect with the world. When our businesses grow, New Zealand grows, when our exports grow, wages grow, and what I witnessed in Shanghai and Beijing with the Prime Minister was a group of world-class Kiwi exporters who are respected, agile, extremely smart, and deeply committed to quality. They also understand their consumers, they understand the markets, and they understand what it takes for New Zealand businesses to win globally.
Now, these are the companies that are expanding their footprint in China’s market and in other markets by investing into relationships, innovating in how we produce smartly and more productively, and building that trust in the overall “New Zealand Inc.” brand. These successes will benefit regions and cities, from farmers to urban and to rural areas, to factories, to logistics hubs, to retailers, to workers all across this country—that is, all New Zealanders across our country.
I saw enormous opportunity for growth in these sectors like wellness, nutrition, creative industries, and tourism. We’ve launched campaigns together and partnerships that will bring more Chinese visitors to New Zealand—visitors who spend, explore and support our local businesses in New Zealand. This is how we grow, and this trip reaffirmed something that I deeply believe in, which is that New Zealand has what the world wants—safe, trusted, premium products—and we, the National Government, are all about delivering on that promise and helping our country to grow. I’m very proud and privileged to have been part of that trip, and I am strongly supporting the Government to show New Zealand what growth is like. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity to take a call in this general debate and to use it as an opportunity to shine a light on our science, innovation, and technology sector, or—as they are known to our current Government—the “cut, cut, cut sector”, because that is all that we are seeing for people who work in our science, innovation, and tech sector, and in those communities.
There is no vision and there is no leadership from this Government in this space. Our Crown research institutes have been restructured into public research organisations and, in the process, gutted of public good science. This has driven some of our best and brightest talent offshore, and is creating confusion and fear within those research institutions.
At a very simple level, there are so many challenges with the current merger between our CRIs—our Crown research institutions—and there’s huge insecurity in their very, very precious and vital workforce, with looming restructures expected in a further 12 to 18 months. This means that our overseas institutions and corporate sector locally are actively recruiting the talent out of this sector, and there are inconsistent policies between CRIs in the merger that are now making things difficult.
This Government came in, wiped out social sciences, and took away the time for our brightest innovators to spend time at the bench doing the science and having blue skies research. The best thing that you can hear in a lab is someone saying, “That shouldn’t happen.”, and at the moment, the opportunity for people to have those unexpected discoveries is being taken away by this Government.
It was summed up best by a person I spoke to in the science community who said to me that they cannot look graduates in the eye and tell them that it is worth pursuing a job locally or studying locally. Their best advice to graduates is to get overseas now while there are still jobs there, and that is a shameful state of affairs for our science, innovation, and technology community.
Another area in which there is work taking place is in a gene tech bill, arguably the most significant piece of scientific legislation that we may see in our lifetime. But this is loose and dangerous from this Government, and if you don’t believe me, read the submissions. There is a huge number of them, especially given the narrow window of time available to submitters, but so many are left behind. There’s a lack of Māori representation, a lack of economic analysis, and poor regulation. It’s a worry to see a bill being brought forward that is so out of step with where the rest of the world is at.
The other thing that I wanted to touch on that has caused deep concern in our science, innovation, and technology community is the Government’s AI strategy—if you can call it that, because this is not a blueprint; it is a retrospective spec sheet. It has spelling mistakes; it has hallucinations. It’s not preparing New Zealanders for the future at all—
Sam Uffindell: What would you do?
REUBEN DAVIDSON: If you don’t believe me—as some members on the other side of the House seem to be calling out—then listen to the voice of the very sector affected by it. Our academic community describe it as being all hype and no vision, or—
Sam Uffindell: But the industry liked it.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: —the “AI strategy [that] sets a dangerous path forward for New Zealand, with an attitude of economic growth above social good.”, and if that bellowing member is happy with that, he should have a good think about it.
The tech sector says no targets—and we know it is about the “frickin targets” —no action plan, no national AI vision, no Māori data sovereignty, no targeted investment, and no definition of success, with the buck being passed to business to drive. That is the assessment of the AI strategy that this Government is calling a strategy, and it is nothing more than a poor piece of ChatGPT.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Bills
Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I move, That the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
It is with a deep sense of gratitude that I rise today to speak on the third and final reading of the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill. This is a moment we have all been waiting for. It is a moment that many have worked towards, and I am incredibly pleased that this piece of local legislation is on the cusp of becoming law.
Local bills are a rarity in this House, and it has been a privilege to shepherd this one through on behalf of the North Shore electorate. This bill, though modest in size, carries significant weight for our community. It represents an opportunity for revitalisation, growth, and a new future for a cherished heritage asset, the Takapuna Boating Club’s Bayswater clubhouse. For far too long, this once proud building has stood in a state of disrepair, a silent testament to the outdated legislation. The 1923 Act, while well intentioned for its time, was imposing restrictions that rendered that site financially unviable. This is a place where public swimming baths were a stipulated use—a poignant reminder of a bygone era, long before the polio epidemic of the 1950s made such facilities obsolete.
The peppercorn rental clause, designed to ensure public access, inadvertently stifled any real ability to maintain that building, let alone generate the revenue necessary to maintain its upkeep. My earlier speeches highlighted these historical burdens. Today, I want to re-emphasise that this bill is not just about amending an old law; it’s about potential. It’s about taking a significant step forward towards enabling the Bayswater clubhouse to once again serve its community with purpose and vibrancy. The core of this bill is its ability to loosen these restrictive conditions and allow for commercial uses while ensuring the principal use of the land remains for community purposes.
The Governance and Administration Committee—and I acknowledge members in the House today—spent considerable time clarifying the definition of community purpose. Their insights and amendments have strengthened this bill, making the original intent even more transparent regarding the use of any revenue generated. The bill strikes a crucial balance. It is not so onerous that the site cannot be used, yet it is strict enough to ensure that the community can be confident that it will always serve the public good. It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don’t pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament the old laws that we’re doing right now.
These strengthening clauses provide robust parameters that will safeguard the historical and communal spirit of the site. Ultimately, what occurs at the site will be up to the boating club and our community. I can’t wait to see what that looks like. The current wording allows for flexibility and multiple arrangements, ensuring that Auckland Council, or a body or person acting through or under it, can grant leases that best serve the multifaceted needs of the site while also ensuring that it is fit for purpose, whether that’s one commercial venture or several complementary ones on site.
My caucus has come to refer to this bill as the “Takapuna Ice Cream Bill”, and the club would be a great spot to take the family, on an afternoon, for an ice cream or maybe a coffee. The intent here is to enable, not to restrict further.
During its journey through the House, it has become clear that the story of the Bayswater clubhouse is not unique. Many members in this House have noted that across New Zealand many communities grapple with similar restrictive legislation that leaves local treasures unused and in disrepair. This bill, I believe, provides a pathway to hope. It demonstrates that through a local-bill process with dedicated effort and broad bipartisan support, we can indeed return these assets to their full potential for community good.
I’m pleased that consideration was given at select committee towards a broader framework that could be used in the future, not just for this site but for others as well. In the end, for the Bayswater clubhouse, this bill was the best avenue, but I think a wider look at places like these would still be valuable. I have already heard discussions about this bill sparking conversations in other electorates, and I sincerely hope it sets a precedent.
The Bayswater clubhouse can become an example of what can be achieved when a community works together. The boating club, the council, local press, and parliamentarians have all played their part. As part of the process that this bill underwent to get to this House, an extensive consultation by Auckland Council and the Takapuna Boating Club took place to ensure that all parties were well prepared for the new chapter for the clubhouse. This bill’s success is testament to the power of collaboration and dedication. I want to extend my deepest thanks to all of those who have made this possible: the Takapuna Boating Club, patron Penny Roberts, commodore Wendy Baker, former club president Barry Ward, and the late Ralph Roberts and Ray Welson for their unwavering advocacy.
The boating club is a fixture on the North Shore and an important part of our community. I have no doubt that that will continue. I thank all of the members in this House and the supporters in my community for their work on this bill and for their contribution to the North Shore. I’d also like to thank Caroline Williams from Stuff, whose early reporting brought this issue to wider attention, and other journalists on the North Shore who have kept the pressure up on an issue that could have been easy to put in the too-hard basket.
As mentioned before, Auckland Council and the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and the members within that—both councillors and board members—have played an important part in the formation of this bill. I want to thank them and their hard-working teams, particularly the legal team at Auckland Council for drafting and managing this bill. Their unanimous support was crucial.
Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank my community of the North Shore. Your feedback, your passion for our shared heritage, and your desire to see the Bayswater clubhouse thrive have been a driving force behind this bill.
What happens next for the Bayswater clubhouse? Well, that’ll be up to the boating club and our community. Perhaps it will be a bustling cafe, a vibrant function centre, or even—Cameron Brewer—a very popular ice cream parlour. The possibilities are now and, for the first time in many years, those options are truly open.
I’m immensely proud to have brought this bill to the House today. I commend it to all members, and I hope that you all will lend it your support in its third and final reading.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this local bill. Firstly, I want to congratulate the Hon Simon Watts for being the MP sponsor for what is this very important bill. It seems very small, but it’s actually very significant and important to the North Shore community more broadly, which is one of the most beautiful places in Auckland, along with West Auckland, of course.
I think that if you spend some time on the North Shore, and I was there with my kids over the weekend—[Tsunami alert noise]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ah, it’s a tsunami watch. Is it on somebody’s phone, or—
Hon Member: It’s on everyone’s.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s on everyone’s phone—OK. So, instructions from here—do we need to evacuate the House? Do we know—can I have some advice, please? I think we will. We’ll just adjourn for a moment until we’re certain. We’ll suspend until we’re sure—yeah, I’ll suspend the reading. We can wait here until we get some advice and bring it back. OK, so we’ll just suspend until the ringing of the bells, is my advice.
Steve Abel: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is suspended, but if you wanted to make a statement to the members, that’s—
Steve Abel: Well, it’s just that the warning itself advises that if you are on shore, you do not need to evacuate, but stay away from the water. That’s what the warning says.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, we don’t need to suspend. The House is resumed, and sorry for interrupting the member. I’m quite happy for you to start again on any part that interrupted your flow. We’ll start your 10 minutes again.
VANUSHI WALTERS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will be brief as we will be supporting the bill on this side of the House. I just wanted to communicate how important it is to the community on the ground. While it might seem small to us, these local bills—and while they’re few and far between, and we only ever see about two to four every term, they are hugely, hugely significant on the ground.
For the Takapuna Boating Club Inc., it will mean a lot. It will mean that rather than depending purely on their members’ fees to do the work they desperately need to do in terms of re-roofing the building as well as re-piling the building, they will now be able to look to commercial means to be able to do that important work.
I was going to say as well that while I have been to their Takapuna premises, which is just a wonderful space to be with family and friends, I haven’t yet been to the Bayswater property. There are some very interesting visual comparisons of what they show the property to look like now versus what they believe it could look like in the future, so I will definitely take the opportunity to go down and visit now so that I can see what investment has been made on the property going into the future. I commend this bill to the House.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Yes, likewise, we will be supporting this bill, as we have through all of its readings, and, likewise, I commend the member Simon Watts for bringing the bill to the House and his success in about to be having passed this bill through all stages.
I commented on it earlier, but for those listening who are not aware of the history, it’s a pretty cool history of this building, because it was originally a tannery on the shore of the Tāmaki River in Panmure—which the Taranaki Boat Club members pulled apart and sailed it around the Auckland bays and across the harbour to where it currently stands. They put it back together in Bayswater.
It’s awesome that this building is getting another lease of life so that it may continue to be of value to the community in Takapuna. I just want to acknowledge, also, that the intent of the policy should be that the broad community purposes to which the club is put can assist in raising—it can take on commercial actions which assist in funding the club’s restoration and support broad community purposes, such as those named in the background document of the legislation. They might include water sports and recreational activities, such as yoga and mah-jong. I’m keen to play a game of mah-jong, and I didn’t know that anyone knew what that game was until I read that word again from my childhood. So I’ll be over at the Takapuna Bayswater boat club—with the blessing of the members, obviously—to play a game of mah-jong when the restoration is complete.
We commend this bill to the House. Well done to the member and well done to the people of Takapuna.
SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party is proud to support this bill, and I want to commend the member the Hon Simon Watts for bringing the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill to the House.
If you think about community facilities like this one: a boating club, a yacht club, which has been lovingly tendered over decades and decades by its members, but, unfortunately, because of the strict limitations on how they might use the premises—say, to run a sausage sizzle, a cake stall, hold a card night, even a mah-jong night—they haven’t been able to raise the revenue needed to maintain the facilities.
I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mah-jong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer. A venue like the Takapuna Boating Club might be somewhere—we don’t have any venues like this in West Auckland, by the way—
Steve Abel: There’ll be no commercial value in that, I can tell you.
SIMON COURT: We don’t have commercial venues where we can have a beer and listen to a folk song in West Auckland, because we have a liquor licensing monopoly that won’t allow us to have one. But, Mr Steve Abel, maybe this boating club will allow you to sing one of your famous songs. The proceeds from the sale of tickets to such an event would help contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of the facilities. So on that basis, and thinking about how important the time of this House is and how much legislation we have to get through, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: One never knows where their endorsements might come from.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Look, it’s quite interesting to see that people are now starting to take shorter speeches on this. But, look, I want to rise on behalf of—[Interruption]. Oh, that wasn’t the instruction I got at all, so I’ve prepared a 25-minute speech!
Look, I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and also as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, which considered this bill. It’s always great to see a bill get to the stage of the final reading and to have unanimous support across the House—that’s brilliant.
I want to start with a few congratulations: first of all, obviously, to the Takapuna Boating Club for their vision, for their initiative, and for the hard work they’ve done already, and no doubt for the hard work that is still to come, because they’ve actually physically got to get in and get this building restored and rejuvenated. I want to congratulate the Hon Simon Watts, the member for North Shore, for the bill that he’s sponsored before us, and I want to also thank, as we went through the select committee process, the officials that we had but also the Auckland Council, who were very, very helpful as advisers on the bill.
It’s a simple bill, it’s a common-sense bill, and it’s a local bill. Now, first of all, this bill is a very specific bill. We all know that it’s focused on one building: the historic 17 Sir Peter Blake Parade, Bayswater—what a name for an address. This grand old dame has graced the waterfront of Bayswater since 1923, and, especially as we’ve got through this process, I’ve been looking out as I’ve driven across the Harbour Bridge to go, “Oh, it’s over there”—I’m looking out safely, I might say—“I can see it and I can see how significant a building it is.” At the moment, though, the 1923 legislation prevents commercial activities occurring in this building. This, essentially, makes it, as Simon Court said, uneconomic to refurbish and maintain the building.
I want to cover three themes in my speech. The first one is the reason for the bill. Look, we all know that owning and maintaining buildings is quite expensive. This is an old building, it’s a big building, it’s a heritage listed building, and it’s a waterfront building, and all of those things combined make it quite a challenge maintaining a building like this. The Takapuna Boating Club, as you go back in time, was once a social hub for the area. We’ve heard about hosting dances, social and sporting events, even weddings, and now it seems like mah-jong’s on the table as well, which is a great, very good game. But the Takapuna Boating Club now also has another premises and the Bayswater clubrooms are now somewhat rundown. What the select committee heard is that the building is structurally sound but it definitely needs significant work. The club, which is really, really great, wants to restore this grand old dame.
The Takapuna Boating Club has a problem, which it has in common with many community and sports clubs right around the country, and that is the difficulty and the challenge of maintaining clubrooms and other assets with an often limited financial base and limited volunteer base and a reliance on member’s contributions. Actually, I might make a little aside there that I’ve just been approached by a lot of the sporting organisations who are very concerned about another piece of legislation—the offshore casino legislation—because they’re worried that they may lose access to funds which are vital to look after these kinds of clubrooms. So I put that there because that is really, really important to those organisations.
This building needs some TLC, and that takes money. I know from personal experience it’s expensive to look after club buildings, even much younger ones. For many years, I was both the club chairman and a club patron of organisations which had to look after buildings, and what we did on both of those occasions was to have a commercial cafe come into those premises to work alongside the club, both to operate, to maintain, to bring life to those buildings, and to help fund the maintenance of those respective buildings.
The purpose of this bill is to allow commercial use—very likely hospitality, but there could be other things—on a fantastic waterfront location, looking out to the Harbour Bridge across the Waitematā Harbour. That commercial use must be ancillary to the primary use of sailing and aquatic purposes. That commercial use will allow the earning of revenue, in the first instance, to maintain the building properly, which the building so clearly needs. That commercial use, I believe, will also return life and vibrancy to this part of the Bayswater waterfront, and that’s a great thing for any community. The 1923 legislation which we’re amending prohibited that.
One of the questions that we considered during the Governance and Administration Committee process was where the money from any commercial activity will go. I think the Minister has already said—or the member, in this instance—that it’s about what a community purpose is. The first thing it needs to go to is the building—because if you don’t do that, if you don’t look after the building then, obviously, you’re not going to keep on having the revenue to go anywhere else—to repairing the building, to maintaining the building, and, I hope, to keeping it going for another 100 years and more.
Secondly, the flexibility is there and the boating club specifically wanted to make sure this was the case for the wider needs of the boating club, which doesn’t just operate from this site but also most of its operation is on the other side of the Takapuna isthmus. So it needs to go to the wider needs of the boating club and the great work that it does in the North Shore community.
Finally, there was quite a bit of discussion about what community purposes were, because if the boating club were ever to fold, the beneficial owner would be the Auckland Council. Of course, community purposes from a council’s perspective are very, very broad. Then, effectively, the only protection for the building is that you need to have the building in a good state to be able to have revenue derived from it. Community purposes are very, very broad and we had some discussion about whether they should be narrower or not. So for me it is about the building, the boating, and then the broader use in that order when the first two needs are fully met.
The second theme—and I said I had three themes—is that this bill also, in giving new life to this heritage building, in my view, supports our sailing heritage. New Zealand has a long and very proud sailing heritage. That goes from Kupe chasing the wheke, the seven waka of the great migration all the way back there, to the early European explorers, Tasman and Cook, and I’m just going to put in a little aside there. James Cook gets a lot of vitriol for all sorts of things that apparently he visited on this country, but a boy from humble roots in Whitby became, through hard work and talent, a leader and one of the great navigators, great explorers, great cartographers—the first one to map these islands really pretty well, and also for the time, I think, a very enlightened person in terms of his approach to his crew, their health, and also to the Māori he encountered. So I thought it was worth putting those on record, because often a lot of vitriol is directed at him and he is part of our sailing history.
But what about the modern-day great sailors, mostly in sailing competitions? We could pick a hundred names. Whether it’s Barker, Burling, Butterworth, Coutts and the Kendalls, Dalton and Dickson, Schnackenberg and Tuke, they will have all learnt their trade at a club like Takapuna. Indeed, several very big names did. The Takapuna Boating Club sits, as I said, at a place graced with the address of 17 Sir Peter Blake Parade. Sir Peter was a member of the Takapuna Boating Club himself, an adventurer—
Steve Abel: And a greenie.
ANDY FOSTER: —he might have been a greenie—an explorer, and a Whitbread winner, but he might not have espoused your particular Green values. If you lost a bit of the red stuff, you might be better off. He was an America’s Cup winner, of course. Olympians Ralph Roberts, Geoff Smale, Tom Ashley, Helmer Pedersen, Peter Lester—who was also, of course, a great and famous commentator. So what I’m saying is that the Takapuna Boating Club over the years has contributed enormously to our sailing heritage.
All around the New Zealand coast in places like Bayswater and off the Takapuna beaches, we see regattas of small sailing boats where the next generations of sailors are learning their craft. Aren’t we so fortunate to call such a beautiful country with so much opportunity our home? The Takapuna Boating Club stands proudly on its and our sailing history.
Then my third theme is the fascinating history of the building itself. New Zealand First is a very, very strong supporter of heritage, because heritage tells our stories. This building has a really interesting history. It started its life in the 1880s, as I think we’ve already heard, as a tannery on the shores across the harbour of the Tāmaki River in Panmure. The Bayswater Boating Club, which was founded in February of 1914 and lasted until 1917, obviously lapsed during the First World War, and then it was succeeded by the Takapuna Boating Club. In the space of three years after their formation, they started with a plan, a passion, and a purpose. Within three years, not only did they manage to get an Act of Parliament to allow them to use this Bayswater site but they managed to acquire this tannery from Panmure, deconstructed it, stuck it on a barge—it took three days, apparently, around the coast—and then re-erected it on the Bayswater foreshore. Within three years they had it open. That is energy and purpose and that is an inspiration to any club.
As I said, it’s a heritage building. In its heyday it was used for dancing, boxing, library, school events, ladies’ mornings, roller-skating, and of course boat storage, and it also had a swimming area in front of it, closed in the 1950s. So it tells a lot of stories. It’s got good bones but it needs a lot of TLC.
Just to finish, this is a good day for the boating club, it’s a good day for Auckland, it’s a good day for this grand old lady, and I want to wish the club and the community well in restoring the building. I hope that this bill opens the door for this building to have a very, very long life in the future. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā, tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i tēnei rā, waihoki.
[I acknowledge you, Madam Speaker, whilst also acknowledging those of us gathered in this House. I am standing today as a representative of the views of the Māori Party.]
Waihoki, under the usual circumstances, Whaea Takutai would be speaking to this bill, but her voice lives on in the hearts and minds of our people. Haere rā koe e Takutai.
Tāmaki-makau-rau, loved by many, reminds us that there is and always will be a hundred reasons to love Tāmaki-makau-rau, and I just want to thank the Minister, the Hon Simon Watts, who brought this bill to its third reading. Te Pāti Māori supports the bill. I actually just want to also put out there that I grew up in North Shore for 12 years of my life, and my MP was Dan Bidois. I have been across the Harbour Bridge many, many times, going from North Shore into the city, and I think one of the letters that I wrote to Dan Bidois at the time was around the T3 lane. So I’m very, very aware of Auckland and the many great things that it does and represents.
Te Pāti Māori supports this bill. Te Pāti Māori notes the recommendations of the committee on the insertion and renumbering of section 5(2)(b), specifically that all money received from use of the land, buildings, or other improvements for commercial purposes is subject to the restrictions. Te Pāti Māori supports the provisions as a protection against the potential for private gain on ratepayer and/or public assets while enabling certain commercial activities that achieve the purpose of this bill.
We note that the committee received no submissions on the bill from mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau, either individually or collectively, and where mana whenua deemed it appropriate to do so. Te Pāti Māori supported the bill to the first reading and on the basis that we would be able to hear from Auckland Council and how it has gone about identifying alternative options, consultation with local boards, and engagement with the public, iwi, and Māori. We also just had a hui with Te Houkura, which is the Auckland statutory board, just today as well.
The original general policy statement on this bill explained that restrictions in the principal Act prevent the club from securing the commercial income necessary to fund restoration of the boat club building and provide an income necessary for the club to maintain the boat club building into the future. Te Pāti Māori notes that the principal use of the land is intended to remain for the community and will always query the way the land was acquired and mana whenua’s views on the land more broadly.
We look forward to learning more insights about that he whenua makau-rau, which translates into “Auckland has many partners”. Auckland is a diverse city, which I have come to call home in this way. It is always important to work alongside our key partners to ensure that those matters are raised in general policy statements and adequately addressed. Therefore, Te Pāti Māori supports this bill. Tēnā rā tātou.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill. It was very interesting for me to be on the Governance and Administration Committee. It’s the first time I’ve actually met a local bill face to face, as it were, and it was just interesting to see that what was seen as necessary legislation so many years ago comes back to require quite a lot of work—the submissions, the time for a busy Minister, the time for the select committee, the processing of all of those submissions in a very busy Parliamentary Service—but it was the right thing to do. This is, potentially, a real jewel in the crown, as long as the money can be found to look after the building and to continue the purposes of the Takapuna Boating Club.
Also, after a busy sail or an energetic kayak or perhaps a paddleboard—of course, with life jackets, as my colleague over the House would encourage us to be wary of—the idea of coming back to a cafe is most appealing, but I would just note that this consideration of local bills requires the local authority to be a promoter. This is one of the very, very many roles of local authorities, and these sorts of legislative imposts are something that sometimes get forgotten in the jobs that people do.
Looking back through the history of this: once upon a time, there was the Auckland Harbour Board; once upon a time, there was the Takapuna Borough Council. So things change, the shape of local government changes, but they are still there to serve the community. For members that want to really restrict what local government does and what responsibilities they have and how they go about them, I would just think of what happened so many decades ago in the creation of this excellent place and the definition of the lawful uses of the land.
I think it’s most important to have the introduction that requires all of the money that the commercial use provides back to be used for community purposes, and I’m delighted to see the broad range of what “community purposes” means here. Again, that might be something that in any discussions of the role of local government, we might want to be expansive about in our view of community purposes and leave exactly what those might be to the local community and the consultation that a local authority takes with the local community.
I look forward to actually visiting Takapuna Boating Club at some stage in the near future, because I will be up in Auckland, and then seeing it after the legislation has enabled the commercial usage of part of it, which will be completely complementary. This is a very nice partnership between a voluntary organisation and some potential commercial usage which will be enjoyed not only by the boaties but, I’m sure, by the local residents of Takapuna. We support this bill.
Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. I’m so pleased that there is so much support across the House for this bill. It’s a member’s bill, it’s a local bill, brought to us by the Hon Simon Watts, MP for North Shore—great MP for North Shore. He was a bit cheeky in his speech about, you know, perhaps in 100 years the local member for North Shore might have to come back and potentially amend this because times would have changed.
I just want to say that this bill actually amends the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act of 1923. I guess, going back to 1923, this was something that gave power to the local community and the local board to make arrangements for this facility. But times have changed, and currently the Act actually states that the land donated to the Takapuna Boating Club is only be used for the purposes of “boat sheds, public swimming baths, a social hall, or any similar community purpose”, so they really cannot make money out of it; commercial use, to create money.
I don’t know about other members, but I’ve lived in a house that was 120 years old. It was an old kauri villa. It was cold, and the maintenance of that house cost a lot of money, because every couple of years you need to make sure that all of the boards are safe, there’s no bugs eating into the wood, and you had to paint it. All of that actually cost a lot of money. But for this old girl in this borough, the Takapuna borough: it’s a big building, it’s an old building, it’s an historical building, and without maintenance—it actually needs commercial activity to raise the funds if the council wasn’t able to actually pay huge amounts of money to do the upkeep. I think this is only right that after more than 100 years, this local bill has actually come to Parliament to make changes, to provide the ability to allow commercial use so that this law is not so restrictive, so that they can actually earn the money to maintain this building and provide for more community usage.
It’s a small bill. I know many members have said that it’s a small bill, but it was a pleasure to actually have that discussion, not only with officials but also with Auckland Council, who were advising us as well, and it was lovely to have this conversation. In New Zealand, if I tell my friends who actually come from overseas that I used to live in 120-year-old house, they actually baulk at the idea, “How do you live in a house that’s 120 years old?”, considering the fact that old buildings in some Asian countries go back more than 100 years. But to live in a house that was 120 years old—it almost made news that I lived in a 120-year-old house.
The change that this amendment bill actually gives to the Bayswater clubhouse of the Takapuna Boating Club is the power to actually do maintenance, because currently it’s in disrepair and there isn’t a lot of activity happening, and potentially, this allows commercial activity to actually happen in that space or around it for the purposes of the community benefit. There were some discussions about community benefit, because when you say “community”, does it specify Auckland community, or does it specifically mention the community in and around the Bayswater Marina? That was something that I was a bit concerned about during the select committee process. What it means is that the money that is actually raised could potentially be used for the upkeep, maintenance, and other activities that the community can actually partake in. I think it’s a great thing that this bill allows for the local community to get together.
I know that the Minister, the local member, had actually said that the core of this bill is the ability to loosen these restrictive conditions for the purposes of his community. But the other thing that I like is that there are community spaces that don’t attract people to come to—they call it a community space, but often the activities that they do are actually quite restrictive. I know the Hon Simon Watts talked about how it, potentially, could be an ice cream place, it could be a cafe—it actually draws people to those spaces. That actually means that that space will be used more often, and that means that that boating club could potentially also have new members and potentially grow with the new generation of people who actually use that space.
It was a real pleasure, and I found it quite interesting that there was some media coverage—I will quote something that was written by Jonathan Killick back in 2024: “A quirk of archaic legislation means MPs will decide whether to increase the supply of caffeine on Auckland’s North Shore. The Takapuna Boating Club has long held ambitions to rent out part of its clubrooms at the end of the peninsula in Bayswater to a cafe.” “However, a law from the 1920s specifically states that the land and building may only be used for the purpose of swimming, boating and ‘any similar community purpose’.” I say, we are amending that to make sure that there’s more variety of community activity happening because of the changes that we have made. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to take a call on the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. This is, I think, the third call I’ve been able to take on this bill at this third reading, and I won’t go through all of the history of this bill. I’ve made substantive contributions in previous readings, but just to say that this is a good bill. It’s an unusual situation where Parliament essentially uses its time to deal with, essentially, one building. But in this case, the Governance and Administration Committee has gone through the options in relation to that and this is the best option, moving forward. So I think we just have to celebrate that the House is coming together on this particular issue.
I know that Councillor Richard Hills and Councillor Chris Darby, who are the Auckland councillors in this part of the world and the North Shore, really appreciate the work that’s been done on this bill by the Minister and also by the Parliament. I think it is their hope, and also our hope on this side of the House, that the actions that we take today not only allow new life to be breathed into the Bayswater site of the Takapuna Boating Club but also allow for the building to be maintained and protected and to be able to earn some revenue.
I do have to say that since I first took a call on this bill, my husband has subsequently joined the Takapuna Boating Club, so I feel I have to be honest with the House that I do have a slight conflict of interest here. Let me just tell you, sailing is a very interesting hobby to have one’s partner involved with. It has the unusual effect that sometimes when it’s raining and windy—most people would be disappointed with that—sometimes others can feel happy at that sight because of how long the sailing does take.
But no, in all seriousness, he has enjoyed it. It is a very good local club, and I know that they run their Takapuna operation very professionally and make sure that that particular site is very, very successful, as far as I can tell, and it seems to be well utilised by the community. So we can only hope that the same thing happens for Bayswater. So congratulations to the Minister and to the council for bringing this local bill to the House, and I commend it to the House.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It’s with great pleasure that I speak on this third reading of the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council and Empowering Amendment Bill. This has come together thanks to the Governance and Administration Committee and its conscientious members. It’s come together thanks to the MP for North Shore, the Hon Simon Watts, sometimes known as “Megawatts”, and, looking at his name tag, he’s now called “Gigawatts.” The Hon Simon Watts continues to do some good work in many areas, and this is just another example of how he’s keeping his feet firmly on the ground locally.
I suspect that there will be crowds gathered in different church halls and cafes around the parish of the North Shore, watching this live stream—hopefully, on high ground—as we get to this momentous third reading. I want to also pay tribute to Auckland Council, to the officials who effectively drafted this piece of legislation. I remember that when I was on the Governance and Administration Committee, we had a number of Zooms with them, and they have been integral to this progressing.
It comes, as other members have said, with a lot of history and a lot of heritage. If I take you back to 1923—and we’ve got some members on the back row opposite there that will recall this as well—New Zealand had a population of 1.4 million, and Auckland had, I think, a population of about 190,000. As has been articulated, the timber was barged from the Tāmaki River in Panmure and taken to Bayswater, where it was assembled as the Bayswater clubhouse. The Takapuna Boating Club, a hundred years later, can be very proud—its officials, its leaders, its volunteers, its members—that this is now going to get a second wind, with the Act enabling some sensible commercialisation while the rest of the building remains in public use in perpetuity.
There’s no better site than sitting above the Waitematā Harbour, and there’s actually few locations, in a commercial sense, that you can do that. If you look at the investment that the Royal Akarana Yacht Club have put along Tāmaki Drive, that is a great facility that’s being well used. If you go further up the harbour to a very modest place called Hobsonville Point, Catalina Bay, you will see coming out of the ground or coming out of the ocean or coming out of the foreshore, at least, the Upper Waitematā Marine Centre at Hobsonville Point, Catalina Bay. That, too, will be opened in early 2026.
So, as has been articulated, this could be a cafe, this could be a function centre—part of it—
Dan Bidois: Ice cream parlour.
CAMERON BREWER: This could be an ice cream parlour, and this could have some on-licence capability. Of course, it will need to go through a rigorous local board process and district-licensing process for that, but wouldn’t it be a fantastic place to have a Heineken Zero or something else?
For those that don’t know the location, it’s when you go over the Auckland Harbour Bridge and you’ve got the parish of Northcote on the left and North Shore on the right there. You look on the right over to the Bayswater Marina and you see that old timber building, three storeys high. It’s got a new roof and it’s had a lot of work on its foundations, but it is now up for a multimillion-dollar redevelopment thanks to the leverage that a commercial tenant’s lease will provide. That is enabling this much loved building to be redeveloped for another hundred years and for people from all around Auckland and New Zealand to enjoy it—even, dare I say, some of us that live in the old West Auckland, we might be given the passport to cross the bridge [Interruption] for Greenhithe, or over the Harbour Bridge, and get the visa and go there and enjoy these fabulous, fabulous facilities.
While you’re looking on the right and you see this clubhouse, you will also see a barge in the harbour. That is not a barge looking to build a $56 billion harbour crossing that was proposed by the previous Government, that is a barge that is doing geotechnical testing for a potential harbour crossing or a potential replacement of the bridge. That sits in the harbour, and so that is something that is also part of the Waitematā Harbour at the moment.
This is a very exciting development. It’s in an iconic part of Auckland. Someone mentioned Sir Peter Blake Parade. It’s known as Sir Peter Blake Parade because that’s where Sir Peter Blake grew up—in Bayswater, with Tony and his other family members, his mum and dad. That’s where he learnt to sail. Of course, he came home with the America’s Cup from San Diego in 1995, to a ticker-tape parade—I don’t know if a ticker-tape parade’s environmentally friendly these days—down Queen Street. I suspect, when this third reading is finished, that the Hon Simon Watts will be going down Lake Road at the weekend to a similar ticker-tape parade for this third reading.
I would argue that Bayswater has a big part to play in the America’s Cup, which we have won as a country five times—the last time back-to-back-to-back—and again we will defend that title and hold that cup up high in Naples in Italy in 2027. The Bayswater area, the Sir Peter Blake Parade, is a very, very iconic part of Auckland.
This place has hosted a number of things over the years. I know friends of mine, Stephen and Jan Franklin—Jan used to go to dances there in the late 1950s, so it’s had multiple uses. This particular piece of legislation will enable its use for the public and for its members in perpetuity while enabling it—where it has been prohibited—some commercial element. As I’ve said, what could that be? People will be listening to this third reading, and, I suspect, having a bid: who wants to set up a business there? Whether it be ice creams, whether it be a cafe, whether it be a licensed restaurant, whether it be a function centre, there’s no better location than the Bayswater clubhouse. The Takapuna Boating Club can be very proud of the work that they’ve done and the advocacy that they’ve led. As has been articulated, the North Shore Times and reporters out of there have been critical to advocating for this as the local member Simon Watts has shepherded this through Parliament, and we now get to the third reading.
As I said, there will be a lot of celebration locally. I just note, in the North Shore Times, the regret of the changing shape of the media and the changing loss of community newspapers, to a certain extent. But we still have the Channel Magazine in Takapuna, we still have the Devonport Flagstaff. There are still localised publications that, we can only hope, local businesses and local people continue to support. I suspect that at the opening of this facility, the local media will be there in numbers, as will the public, because this 1923 facility, this heritage building that was assembled by the community and by the Takapuna Boating Club, is about to be returned to its former glory thanks to this legislative tweak which will enable some commercial activity. It will mean that the Takapuna Boating Club’s Bayswater clubhouse will not fall into a derelict state. It will sail through—do you like that?—the 21st century, serving many more people and many more Aucklanders and New Zealanders. I commend the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon—we’re the living evidence of that.
Madam Speaker, I’m guessing that you’ve never had the pleasure of strolling around the Bayswater Marina in the late summer afternoon. It’s one of the finer things to do in the city of sails. It’s a wonderful floating boardwalk, in a horseshoe shape, that juts out into the Waitematā Harbour, and when the late afternoon sun is catching the Auckland skyline, it is quite a scene. As you walk back along the boardwalk of the Bayswater Marina, back to the shoreline, the site of the Bayswater clubhouse is very imposing. It is a pretty remarkable structure. As long as I can remember, it’s looked like it’s about to fall into the sea. To say that it’s ramshackle is an understatement, and it would be a very brave person to dance down the deck that sits out on the veranda in front of this building. So it’s undoubtedly a good thing that this bill will enable the financing of a renovation project to make this Bayswater clubhouse usable by the public, by allowing commercial usage in the building.
I want to note with some regret the reported comments of the owners of the Bayswater clubhouse, ruling out the rehabilitation of the saltwater pool. This is very disappointing. Auckland needs more saltwater pools, and we only need to look as far as the fine example of Sydney where there are so many fantastic saltwater pools along the eastern bays in Sydney.
Simon Court: Te Atatū Peninsula, Phil.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The member’s quite correct, actually—Te Atatū Peninsula would be immeasurably enhanced with the addition of a saltwater pool. I’m willing to work with the member on a cross-party basis to progress that particular project. Labour is supporting this bill, and I commend it to the House.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I rise in support of the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill, and I want to acknowledge, first, the local MP, the hard-working local MP, the Hon Simon Watts, for bringing this important local legislation to the House.
Although it’s a local bill—someone mentioned it’s a small bill—I think it raises a broader question relevant to communities across New Zealand: how we protect our heritage, maintain public assets, and empower locals to care for places that matter. It also reminds us that law must keep pace with reality.
Like my colleagues say, the issues go back to 1923, when the land was gifted in Bayswater, home to the Takapuna Boating Club, to the council with strict conditions: It could be used for boating sheds, public swimming baths, social halls, or similar purposes, but not used for private gain. Well, that made sense at that time, ensuring the land stayed in public hands and served the community purpose. But today, that restriction is doing the opposite. The clubhouse is now in disrepair: the roof leaks, the foundation needs work, and upgrades are essential for safety and usability. Restoration costs are well beyond what community fund-raising can achieve.
Here, I want to acknowledge all the community members who have been doing a lot of fund-raising to help to restore this premises, with all their sausage sizzling, you know, fund-raising—they’re doing very well, and I acknowledge their hard work. Yet because of the outdated restriction, the club cannot lease even a small portion of the space to generate income. No cafe, no venue hire, no co-working space—
Hon Member: No ice cream.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: —no wedding venue, or, like my colleague here mentioned, no ice cream shops. In short, they are legally prohibited from creating the revenue needed to save the building.
This bill fixes it. It updates the law to allow part of the property to be leased for commercial purpose, but only if those activities are aligned with the community character of the site, and only if all the profits are reinvested into the facility and the community. Let me be clear: no private profit, no sales of the land; just the ability to keep a valued community asset here.
This is about more than just one building; it’s about recognising that local people should not be penalised for wanting to preserve their own heritage. It is more than that. It also can be a potential model for other communities. Across New Zealand, we’ve got groups who are working to sustain local community halls, clubrooms, and marae, but they are often restricted by outdated legal frameworks. They want to preserve the building, they want to preserve the heritage, but they can’t do so. This bill shows that we can honour the past while making practical reform that ensures this place has a future.
I support this bill because it protects community assets, because it respects the original intent of the land gifted. It also allows practical, modern solutions, and it keeps decision making local and accountable.
I think, before I finish my speech, I would like to congratulate everyone in the North Shore for achieving such a milestone to restore their historical building. Also, I feel the same as all the Auckland-based MPs as well: we are looking forward to having a meeting with our local MP there, Simon Watts, to have a cup of coffee, some ice cream—and the most important thing is there’s no surcharge when using payWave. So let’s pass this bill and give Takapuna Boating Club the means to continue serving its community for generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Madam Speaker, thank you. It’s a privilege to take a third call on this bill and to see it come through the House to become law. It has made a lot of sense with all, I think. I just want to draw and extrapolate a little bit the lessons from it, which is that to allow an ancillary purpose, which is a commercial use, to support something that is of social good, is something that I think we all see a future in.
I just want to draw the attention of the House to the issue over charities that came up recently, where there was a lot of suggestion that we would change the rules with regard to charities and when they were taxed, when they had a purpose that was supporting their charity. So if they were running some form of business and the money was going back to charitable purpose, at the present time they don’t pay tax, and this Government is considering the idea that they will. I’d like to contrast it with this bill. Here we’ve seen the commercial purpose support the social interest, and the community is better for it. We end up with a building that’s protected, a community asset, and all the money is poured back into something that’s of a social good. That is as true for our charities, where if we support them through businesses, then, actually, as long as the money is going into a charitable purpose, we are absolutely all better off.
I’d just like the House to consider that. I’m thrilled to see this building has a future. I’m thrilled to see the flexibility of the House. I’m also thrilled to see a report that talks about a wider application of this kind of purpose. So thank you very much. I commend the bill to the House.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Speaker, can I just start by acknowledging your elevation to the Speaker role for today. Hey, it’s a pleasure to be the last speaker rounding off this debate today in what is, I think, a small but important piece of legislation. I wish to start by acknowledging that club sports are really the heart and soul of our communities. I witnessed this clearly this year at the Takapuna Boating Club, on Waitangi Day of all days, where I was given an invitation to meet people on Takapuna Beach for a waka ama rowing lesson. It was organised by the Takapuna Boating Club in conjunction with the waka ama club which is housed within the Takapuna Boating Club. I showed up dressed inappropriately, not really for waka ama, but had a great experience and got to know people from around our communities on the North Shore who had varying degrees of interest in boating, waka ama, Waitangi Day. It was just great to see this event organised, so I do want to acknowledge the Takapuna Boating Club and the work they do, plus all other boating and sporting clubs around our communities in Auckland to keep our communities humming.
In the words of a great North Shore resident, Martin Cooper, the North Shore is a great place to live. This is just a bit of a plug for the North Shore, but, clearly, it’s a great place to do outdoor sports and sports like boating and sailing and lots of sports on the water. My colleagues here have talked about the greats that have been born and raised on the North Shore and have used the boating facilities to reach their potential.
That is why we’re here today, to talk about the Takapuna Boating Club and the Bayswater building that is going to be set down for restoration. That’s the purpose, why we’re here, to enable this derelict building, which you can see from the great electorate of Northcote when you’re going down Onewa Road and on to the motorway—you can see it in the distance that it has had its life. Since 1923, it’s had a fantastic life and, no doubt, there’s been some amazing stories and some great relationships that have been formed through that club. But it is in desperate need of repair, and that is why we’re here, to make sure that that club and that Bayswater building can be restored, and that there’s going to be a range of services that can be provided to our community.
That is, essentially, what this bill, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill—it is a mouthful—is all about. Our Minister, who is the local MP for the area, Simon Watts, who’s the Minister sponsoring—otherwise known as the Minister for “Ice Cream”—has talked about the advantages of this bill and the significance of the facility for the community and what it will mean in the future.
In terms of next steps, it’s really quite exciting. As we’ve discussed here today, there’s going to be a range of options for this facility, whether it is an ice cream parlour or a cafe or a dance facility or any such facility as that. It’ll be enabling them to get on with this important piece of work to restore this building so that it can continue to thrive for people in our community.
I think a lot of us here across the House look forward to receiving an invite from Simon Watts—maybe we can have a public meeting; I don’t know on what topic. He’s also Minister for Energy, Minister of Local Government, and the Minister of Climate Change.
Rima Nakhle: Getting local government back to basics.
DAN BIDOIS: We can get back to basics.
Cameron Brewer: Second harbour crossing.
DAN BIDOIS: Second harbour crossing—we can have a public meeting.
Rima Nakhle: And then councils to focus on rubbish collection.
DAN BIDOIS: Yep, and I’m sure they’ll charge for the public meeting, but that’s fine. That’s what this bill enables them to do, to charge so that they can recoup the cost and use it for specific purposes in the building and as part of the facility.
So, look, it is a great bill. I do wish to just pass a few thanks today. Firstly, to the Minister Simon Watts: for those of you who don’t know the Minister, he’s not only got a huge amount of responsibility in his portfolios but he takes an active interest in his community. So even though he’s trying to improve competition in energy, get councils back to basics, and make sure we become net zero by 2050, he’s also trying to attend to his local issues, whether it is the boating club issue or—what we’ve been working with as local MPs is in particular around the flood resilience, because his community was impacted by the floods of 2023, and I’ve been impressed by how much he’s been involved in that given his other ministerial commitments. So thank you to the Minister for sponsoring this bill and for his work.
Thank you to the good people on the Governance and Administration Committee for shepherding this bill through the House. I know the submissions—
Rima Nakhle: Almost as good as the Justice Committee.
DAN BIDOIS: Yes, almost as good as the Justice Committee, Rima Nakhle’s told me. I know these submissions may have been as contentious as the Justice Committee submissions, but they got through it and they got through it very diligently.
It’s very easy to bash council, but actually council’s done the leg work to understand what’s required to change this piece of legislation and has really come to the Government and said, “Here’s what we need to do.” So I wish to acknowledge Auckland Council, the officials, and also a special shout-out to Caroline Williams from Stuff.
I do at this point and juncture in my speech wish to acknowledge that the North Shore Times is ending later on this month after, I think, about 97 years in publication, one of the oldest and most respected publications to our community in Auckland. Unfortunately, times have changed; we’re all getting our news and information digitally. So I wish the people at North Shore Times well and just wish to acknowledge Caroline Williams, because she has really led the charge and is somebody who I think takes an active interest in making sure that local issues are publicised and aired. So I do wish to acknowledge Caroline specifically.
This is, I think, my third speech on this bill, so I won’t take too much more of the House’s time, but I do just want to again acknowledge the process, acknowledge the future, which looks very, very bright for the Takapuna Boating Club. It is in their hands now. We’ve changed the legislation that will give them the authority and the autonomy to get on with it, but it’s up to them. I’m certainly one of those in the House that believes in minimal government and empowering communities to just get on with it. So I wish to acknowledge everybody from the Takapuna Boating Club. Commodore James Jordan: thank you. Commodore James Jordan—outstanding man who is deeply embedded in our community across a range of areas, not just in the boating club but I know he’ll be tuning in with his ice cream at home at the moment watching this on the live stream TV.
I just wish to end my contribution with a quote from a great New Zealander, because I think if you’re looking at great New Zealanders that emulate the qualities of what can be achieved in society, I think Sir Peter Blake fits that bill. I remember, you know, buying my red socks and championing his contribution in sailing but also his contribution off the field. I wish to just end with a quote from him. He said, “You’ll be probably frightened at times, scared, [and] worried. You’ll hate it … and when you get to the finish, you’ll know why: because there’s nothing like it. It gets in the blood and you can’t get rid of it.” With that, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 16 July.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The last time we debated this bill, the next call was actually a Te Pāti Māori call. I call on Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato):
Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Ko te katoa o tēnei kōrero ka reo Māori. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire e hāngai ana ki ngā ture kaihoko hanga whare.
Nā reira e tautoko ana Te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire nā runga anō i te mea kia taurite ngā āhuatanga e pēhi nei i te kaihoko. Waihoki hei taurite i ngā āhuatanga i waenganui i te kaihoko me te tangata e tiki ana i tōna ake whare.
Nō reira, āe, tēnei momo pire ka panoni i te Property Law Act 2007 kia āhei ai te kaihoko ki te whakaū i tā rātou offer me tā rātou pena moni ki te tiki i tō rātou whare.
Nō reira, āe, e tautoko ana mātou, Te Pāti Māori, i tēnei pire.
[Thank you, Madam Speaker; indeed, greetings to all of us in the House. All of this speech will be in the Māori language. I stand to give voice to Te Pāti Māori’s statements with respect to this particular bill regarding property acquisition legislation.
Te Pāti Māori supports this bill due to its balancing of matters that oppress buyers; furthermore, to balance matters between the seller and those people that are seeking to acquire their own home.
And, yes, this type of bill will amend the Property Law Act 2007 so that the buyer will be able to confirm their offer and save money to acquire their own home.
So, yes, we, Te Pāti Māori, commend this bill.]
There have been many cases where whānau have committed to buying a home, only for delays to push their arrangements over the sunset date. That allows a bad-faith seller to tear up the contract and list the property at a higher price. This bill would stop that practice. So, with that, Te Pāti Māori commends this bill. Kia ora.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke just said, this is a good bill. It’s a bill which actually addresses some of the issues around homes. Buying a home off the plan can be risky, and what this bill does is just lay off one of those risks. Sunset clauses, which this addresses, are those clauses where the builder, if the building isn’t complete and ready within a set period of time, can back out of the contract without any other reason than to say, you know, “The clock’s ticked, the sun has set, and I’m out.” One of the challenges of that, of course, is this: that it’s the purchaser of the building who is taking all the risks in terms of what will happen to the market, and the builder who gets the benefit of all of the risks. So it gives an incentive when the market is rising for the builder to slow down and then say, “Oh dear, I’m going to call in the sunset clause.”, and there are cases where builders have done that in extreme bad faith and then come back and said, “But you can buy the house off me if you pay an extra $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, $100,000.” That’s the kind of behaviour we want to stop.
Sunset clauses do have a place when there are real reasons—for example, the land can’t be subdivided, or some other genuine external reason has caused a delay—but for them to be used as a tool for developers, essentially, to game the property market is a bad thing.
Ingrid Leary’s bill addresses that; it does it very well. It doesn’t do it absolutely; there is an out by recourse to the courts or by consent of the purchaser. It’s a good bill, and I’m sure everyone in the House will support it—I certainly do.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker, I too want to add my congratulations, and I welcome you back to the seat that you bring so much mana to. So welcome, Madam Speaker.
I too rise to add my contribution to the Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. For those who have just tuned in, we are in the first reading of this bill. I would like to explain that to some of our listeners, because not everyone is so attuned to the happenings of Parliament. So we’re in the first reading and this member’s bill—and for those listening who are not familiar with those terms, that’s when a bill is drawn out of the ballot system that we’ve got here—was introduced on 9 April 2025 to the House, in the name of the Labour MP Ingrid Leary. Ingrid Leary is someone who always has very pretty and noticeable shoes on, amongst other things.
The principal Act that this bill seeks to amend is the Property Law Act 2007.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s a bad speech, though, for the National Party.
RIMA NAKHLE: The thing is this: Dr Duncan Webb really needs to open up “Duncan’s Wine Bar” and turn that frown upside down.
National does oppose this bill, and there’s a number of reasons why we oppose this bill. We understand the intentions behind this bill, and I think I can put it in a nutshell—that Ingrid Leary does hope to protect consumers from bad-faith developers. That’s very clear—very clear in her opening address to this bill, and very clear in the information we have about this member’s bill.
But the National Party doesn’t think that this avenue is the right avenue to do so. What this bill does highlight, and I appreciate, as a first term MP as well—and there are those across the House who can appreciate this as well—is that we don’t necessarily have a direct interpretation in law as to what a sunset clause is. So that’s something for us all to take away and think about. The concerns that we have with this member’s bill are, for one, that it assumes that there’s a widespread misuse of sunset clauses by developers to cancel agreements and resell at higher prices. The other side of the House talk a lot about evidence; there hasn’t been much evidence to show that this is a systemic problem within Aotearoa New Zealand right now.
So that’s one of the main issues I personally have with this bill, and why I add my discontent and why we won’t be supporting the bill going forward. I do believe that most developers—and I’m blessed to be in a situation where I have a lot of developers in my beautiful electorate of Takanini. Takanini is the fastest-growing electorate in the country. Right at this stage, we’ve got almost 18 percent more population than any electorate when it comes to electorate boundaries and the numbers, and so the new electorate boundaries are going to come out on 8 August. Takanini will be affected because our population is so high. It’s the fastest-growing electorate, particularly right now in the Flat Bush area. So Flat Bush is south and east Auckland, and we have a lot of developers there. I know most of them are good, decent, hard-working people with the right intentions in mind.
Developers find themselves in situations where they need to use sunset clauses. For example, let’s just say one of my developers or neighbours in Takanini are building five town houses, and they encounter a supply chain delay. Under the current law, they can invoke the sunset clause to release buyers who no longer want to wait. And we find with particularly our first-home buyers, those that are thinking of starting a family who would like to release themselves from the contract, that this proposed law will change the ease at which they can do that.
I’m really proud of the fact that the National-led Government is rejigging the Resource Management Act to address those supply issues and address those resource consent issues. But, for now, respectfully, I do not commend this bill to the house.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he got pretty shoes?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No, I have one pair of shoes and they’re not pretty. No, they are not, but neither was that speech. That was a pretty pathetic attempt to try and justify what I think is a pretty unjustifiable position. The Government knows that people have been shafted by sunset clauses and they’re not willing to do something about it.
Rima Nakhle: You had six years.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s the guts of it. Again, something pathetic—“You had six years.” So do something now. You’ve got the chance and you’re choosing not to. The MP for Takanini is choosing not to help people and is choosing not to prevent people from being shafted. In fact, all of the Government members are making a choice today.
This bill introduced by Ingrid Leary, who I want to actually acknowledge—she’s doing tremendous work in this area. She’s doing tremendous work in the area of retirement villages. Sam Uffindell is a fan. Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work. I think deep down, Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work in the area of sunset clauses. I have a suspicion that there are a few of them over there that deep down would actually quite like to support this bill, but they’ve been whipped. They’ve been whipped and told that they cannot support this bill.
So what does it do? Quite simply, it brings in reasonable parameters to prevent developers scamming purchasers. That’s it. Why would we want to allow that to continue? It’s happened. Those examples have been provided in the House. The Government members have been given those. They may not have read them, but they’ve been given them and they’re choosing not to protect consumers.
It’s very similar, actually, to their big announcement this week where they’ve made out like they’re making it cheaper for consumers to get rid of the PayWave, but actually, when you look down at the details, they could have done something with the banks and just got rid of them altogether. But no, no, consumers are just going to end up paying.
The point here is that, in particular the National Party, when push comes to shove they will side on the big end of town rather than the small end of town, and this is another example. It would have been really easy just to support this bill, to let it progress and to say that the Parliament is united in a small change that will protect people from being shafted in the future. But no, they have chosen not to. They have chosen to stand up and talk about all sorts of things and then a real quick example as to why they’re not supporting it, which actually is irrelevant. They’ve got nothing.
They have no reason to oppose this other than they don’t want to vote against developers, and I think that is sad. I think that is sad because at the end of the day, the vast majority of the developers are good people who follow the law, and even if there was a quick buck to be made, they wouldn’t induct a sunset clause to make it.
But just like any other group—any other group at all—it only takes one. It only takes one to ruin something for someone and to actually ruin the reputation of that industry and that sector, and this bill would have addressed both. It would have added integrity to property development and it would have protected consumers. Why on earth would they not support that? But they’ve made a choice, and I would just say to anyone in the future, anyone that is looking to purchase something off the plans, if that sunset clause is invoked and they either miss out on the opportunity or they are tempted to be squeezed for a few extra thousand by buying back, think back on this date, because Ingrid Leary’s bill would have prevented that. But now, every single MP of New Zealand First, the ACT Party, and the National Party voted to keep things as they are. They can thank them for that because you can mark my words, it will happen one day. One day, someone who wants to buy a house will be shafted by this and it could have been prevented, and they’re not taking that chance. Pathetic.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent, thank you. I do just want to acknowledge your accession to the Speaker’s Chair. What we have just heard is a lot of the word “shafted”, and I thought I would take up that member on some of the things that have happened in the housing industry. Under the last Government, we saw average rents raised by $175 a week. That is the Labour Party shafting renters. We saw house prices skyrocket. The average house price in New Zealand in November 2017 was around $600,000. In 2022, the average house price—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’d like the member to actually come back to this bill.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: It is relevant. It is relevant, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’m speaking, actually. The last speaker did mention the word “shafted”, but that doesn’t actually make it allowable for you to make your speech all about that. So please do come back to the bill. At least mention the name of the bill.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Mrs—Madam Speaker. Sorry, I’ll get my words right. We are talking about the Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill, which of course is ultimately about the supply and affordability of houses because it affects development. That is what I was referring to, and the fact that in 2022, the average house price in New Zealand was $1.06 million, that’s a nearly a doubling. So you might imagine that I am a little bit cynical when the Opposition proposes a bill to help fix the property market.
The thing is, you’ll be pleased to know that under the Government, rents have decreased, house prices stabilised, and 29 percent of total real estate sales last year were for first-home buyers. That is the highest that it has ever been on record. But, Madam Speaker, I take your point about getting back to the property law and the sunset clause.
Now, sunset clauses do exist for a reason. They provide a legal mechanism for both buyers and sellers, especially off the plan or development agreements, to manage the inherent risk and uncertainty in construction timelines. Delays can and do happen, like the Middlemore Hospital planning announced in 2016; we’re finally getting on to it. Now, there is often genuine unforeseen circumstances that can delay development, like supply chain issues. So that’s of course something that this Government is getting on to kind of deal with. It could be discovery of archaeological sites. There’s a myriad of reasons why there can be delays. Here in New Zealand, red tape is one that often does tie up developments. I know some in the Ilam electorate have been tied up with red tape, things the Resource Management Act (RMA)—can I just point out that it does cost about 50 percent more to build a single standard house—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Your Government brought back the RMA!
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —here in New Zealand than in Australia. I do hear over the other side about sorting out the RMA. Don’t worry, we’re getting on to it now.
Now, the thing is, this member’s bill is to modify the property law. If you look at the bill—it is only five pages—but when you look at it, it is inserting a whole new section into the property law and it’s a rather big section. Now, the thing is, it probably is not well suited in this piece of legislation. There are other laws that it probably could be better suited. The Property Law Act relates to property rights about leases and mortgages, etc., but the Building Act 2024 deals with building contracts and consumer rights in relation to residential building work. So if this bill was actually properly thought about, it would not be modifying the property law; it would probably be in the Building Act.
Now, the thing is, we’ve heard about the possibility of developers ripping people off. Well, actually, one of the biggest ways to sort that is actually stopping having such a rampant house price growth, and that’s something that the Government is actually doing. Also, there’s probably other, better avenues to actually deal with it.
Of course, we’ve heard about shafting—I appreciate you don’t want the speech on that—but the thing is, there’s better mechanisms to actually achieve this goal. I think the intention behind the bill is sound, but I am a little bit sceptical that it’s not in the right place and it could actually have a real chilling effect on the supply of houses. We need to make sure, here in New Zealand, that we are focused on supplying more houses so that it puts a downward pressure on prices, it means rents are going to be cheaper, it means that we are siding on the side of everyday Kiwis, so they can have more money in their back pocket.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It’s been a real privilege to be able to have this reading on my bill, and I want to acknowledge my late mother for her Leary luck in getting my bill drawn. It’s continuing even after her departure, so thanks very much, Mum.
I can feel the sun setting on my sunset clauses bill, which is a bit of a shame, because it is right—Kieran McAnulty characterised it as an anti-scam bill, and that’s exactly what it is. It’s such a shame that the Government members won’t support it in its first reading, because if they had, I think they would find, actually, there would be many property developers who would support this bill because they do not want to be tarnished by the reputation of a few bad apples. That’s certainly been the experience in Australia, where their equivalent bill was overwhelmingly supported in New South Wales and in ACT by the sector. That’s, I’m sure, what would have happened here, but sadly we won’t get that chance.
I also just want to acknowledge the brave people who really, sadly, did lose their money and their opportunity to buy their first home who shared their stories with Radio New Zealand and with other media to try to put some light on this issue, because although Government members might say it’s not a big issue, actually, it has been for many of those families very devastating for them. So I also want to acknowledge the media for their work in doing this.
I would like to just clarify, since I do have two bills that are currently floating around and they are both property law bills. There’s this bill, and then there is also my Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill. I wanted to clarify that because they do have a lot in common. They’re both property law bills, they both protect the little guy or gal, they are both very narrow in scope, and they both deal with unfair contractual clauses. So I think there’s a bit of a theme here with the type of thing that I’m interested in, which is really about getting some parity in the market when we’ve got such big players like investors.
I do have to ask myself—given that New Zealand First has already said they won’t support my other bill, and I haven’t heard officially yet from National—why do these coalition parties back investors so readily at the drop of a hat, rather than ordinary New Zealanders, who, as the previous member Dr Hamish Campbell would have said, are getting shafted, sometimes, by these big investors? It is a legitimate question, and I think Kieran McAnulty was absolutely right to say that when the market inevitably heats up and people get stung again, we do hope they remember this day and they do remember that Government members who could have resolved this issue did not support it.
The problem, of course, is that in a hot market, property developers—not the vast majority of the good ones, but only the bad apples, as I’ve described them—could invoke a sunset clause and be able to put the house back on the market at the expense of the person who has shifted their life around to be able to buy that house. In some cases, and in one particular case, they can make a $100,000 capital gain in a matter of a couple of weeks after they have done that. Now, I think that is pretty shocking that the Government members want to allow that. As I say, I’m sure that most property developers would want to be protected from the reputational risk of being seen to do that.
As my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has said, there’s a very clear pathway. If a developer felt the sunset clause was being withheld—the permission—they could apply to the court, and there are very broad parameters that the court can take into account, including the terms of the off-plan contract, whether the vendor acted unreasonably or in bad faith, the reason for the delay, whether the subject lot has increased in value, and any other matters it considers relevant. So these scenarios that have been raised erroneously about sunset clauses not being able to be used in legitimate circumstances are actually fictional, and I would encourage members to read the bill so that they can acquaint themselves with it.
When I look at the fact that both of my bills involve contract law, people have said, “Oh, there’s retrospectivity.”, or “It’s contract law, and the will of Parliament should be used differently.” I think that in both cases, we’ve got to remember that the Residential Tenancies Act also involves contracts and also involves retrospectivity, and we would not have been able to get fairer terms and conditions for tenants had we not just used our political will to do the right thing. So those are spurious arguments.
I note that this legislation has worked very well in Australia. I am going to let the sun set on it now—it’s the last gasp—but don’t worry, we’ve got the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill and you still have a chance to support that, National Party members.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
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.
Motion not agreed to.
House in Committee
House in Committee
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill.
Bills
Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to Evidence Act 2006
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come first to the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. Members, we come to Part 1, and this is the debate on clauses 3 to 7, “Amendments to Evidence Act 2006”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair for giving us the opportunity to speak in this committee of the whole House on the—currently, the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill, but the name may well change as the progression of the legislation continues through the House. It’s been a privilege, as the National Party, to support the member in charge of the bill, Tracey McLellan, in the proceeding of this legislation, both at first reading, through the select committee stage, the second reading stage, and now here at the committee of the whole House.
There are a couple of questions I am keen to clarify with the member, though. Firstly, in Part 1, it talks about the Family Court proceeding in new sections 106BA to 106BC, inserted by clause 6, and it includes proceeding in the District Court. I am just keen to understand from the member, initially, around the replication of the legislation about copying what happens in the District Court within the Family Court, and if the member could clarify for us what we’re looking to replicate there through this piece of legislation.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): It’s a real pleasure to stand up and take a call in this committee stage of the member Tracy McLellan’s member’s bill. I had the privilege of chairing some of the deliberations, as the former chair of the Justice Committee throughout this bill, and I recall the passion with which the member brings to this particular topic, given her background in and around the justice sector. But I also recall some of the concerns that were raised throughout that process, and some of the issues that the committee had to grapple with. You’ve seen those through the second reading, when the House discussed some of the changes that the select committee recommended through the second reading. Those are reflected, now, today, and so today is now the opportunity to dive a bit more into those changes and to dive back into my increasingly fading memory of what we actually discussed during that point.
But I do recall that one of the issues raised around that time was the question of whether or not this bill actually just enforced some of the existing practices of the justice system; whether or not we actually needed legislation to require what is a commendable, I think, outcome that the member was seeking. But throughout the process, we did receive various bits of advice as to whether or not we would need legislative change or whether or not we could just implement this under the status quo. So the first point, I think, to make would just be to touch on those deliberations, just to confirm to the committee that this is required and that we aren’t legislating for the sake of legislating.
The second point that I recall being quite vigorously discussed—and I’d like to acknowledge Carl Bates, who was a member on the committee at that stage, and who raised a few questions in and around the cost of implementing this and rolling this out throughout the court system. Of course, some of the timing of that roll-out would be interesting too, because you may expect and anticipate some courts and some systems around the country wanting to use this facility straight away and not having the ability to do so just because it takes time to roll these kinds of resources out.
If the member can provide some assurances and some insights to some of the costs that were involved in this, that certainly, I think, would put the minds on this side of the House at ease in terms of the investment that we need to make into this. Of course we are committed to making significant investments in the law and order space, and you’ve seen by the amount of work that the Justice Committee has undertaken, not only in the past 18 months, but, I think, is anticipated to undertake in the next 18 months, which it shows how focused not just the Government but, actually, the entire Parliament is on the issue of law and order in the country. I mean, you see a number of members’ bills that come through which amend pieces of legislation that head off to the Justice Committee, and some of which shouldn’t even make it to the Justice Committee.
So I just wanted to touch on those two points, initially, just to see if the member can provide us some insight as to whether we are still proceeding with the change that needs to happen, and, if we are, what are the cost implications of those changes.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for those questions. I first want to acknowledge the collegiality of the members of the Justice Committee—a very hard-working committee—who worked through this bill and took on board some of the concerns and some of the issues that have been raised, in the first two questions, and worked hard to find some solutions.
As the first contributor said, the purpose of this bill is to protect people in Family Court environments, which is really important. Often people in Family Court don’t find themselves there just by virtue of being embroiled in an ordinary dispute. These days when people enter the Family Court system, it is more often than not because of a really intransient, interpersonal issue that often involves violence. So it is important that we look at practical ways, as has been suggested through this bill, that we can protect people in that environment. At its core, that’s what this bill is about. It’s about saying that people in the Family Court shouldn’t be retraumatised by the very system that is supposed to be there to deliver them justice. We know that if we can do one simple thing, which is often the nature of a member’s bill, that creating a presumption toward giving evidence in alternative ways could be a step towards doing that.
If I look at the questions, just going backwards in order, looking at the existing practices and why we might need this: it is fair to say that there already exists the potential to use those alternative ways in the Family Court system. But as the author of this bill, Dr Emily Henderson, who I inherited this bill from, said at the very beginning—in our very first conversation—“People don’t know what they don’t know.” Just because there’s a potential for something, doesn’t mean that people take up that opportunity. As we’ve discussed, the fact that Family Court environments are often very fraught, that the people involved are often representing themselves and not necessarily privy to that legal advice, they don’t necessarily take up that opportunity. So making a presumption in favour of doing that, I think, is the right thing to do.
With regard to the cost of the implementation, it is correct that the bill, as first prepared, first presented, had a provision to provide for video record. That would have meant that there would have been a significant investment required to make sure that that facility, that infrastructure, was available throughout the country. It would have raised issues of equity. It possibly would have taken quite some time to roll out that facility and we would have seen some people, perhaps in the bigger centres, being able to take advantage of that protection, whilst other people in other regions perhaps didn’t. So I do think that it’s a pragmatic step to be able to take a step back from one of those provisions and say, “What can we do that can be rolled out in an equitable way?” and at least take the first step.
One of the justifications, I think, also for potentially making that change is that evidence in chief is given by affidavit. So we are talking about a Family Court system where affidavit as evidence in chief somewhat protects victims of violence already. But, as you can imagine, there’s cross-examination and various other opportunities for them to be just a table width away from someone who potentially has been a real threat in their life.
The first question about the District Court replication, I think that tends to lead itself towards what’s the impetus of this bill: which is that often, in other criminal proceedings for instance, people are afforded the opportunities to provide the evidence in different ways—in alternative ways. So it’s not so much that it’s replication; it’s about making the Family Court more in line with provisions that are available in other courts and other jurisdictions.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member in charge, Dr Tracey McLellan, for providing that clarity to myself and my colleague James Meager. I appreciate the clarification.
I want to ask about, in Part 1, new section 106BB(1)(a)(i) and (ii) in clause 6, which talks about “the witness gives evidence in either or both of the following ways:”. It talks about “while in the courtroom but unable to see 1 or more other persons to whom the evidence relates (for example, another witness, a party or another party to the proceeding, or both):”, and subparagraph (ii) says, “from an appropriate place outside the courtroom, either in New Zealand or elsewhere:”. I’m keen to understand, firstly, what is the current capability of our Family Courts across New Zealand to have these people who are providing evidence in the Family Court proceedings to be able to provide that evidence from an additional room within the courtrooms across New Zealand where these proceedings may be taking place.
I recall a conversation that I had with my colleague Suze Redmayne around some of our more rural courts across the country, where they may be at capacity already, and, by providing this provision, may create some necessary challenges that they have to deal with. But I’m keen to understand, firstly, what availability there is across the country for those who are giving evidence, who may well have turned up to the court to watch the proceedings, say, from the back of the courtroom whilst it’s being undertaken but, whilst they want to give their evidence, don’t want to have the alleged perpetrator looking at or potentially even intimidating them whilst they’re giving that evidence to the court.
So I’m keen to understand the provisions that are available for other rooms in and around courtrooms across New Zealand and whether we have the space and capability for it.
Suze Redmayne: Taihape.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, Taihape is a prime example that the MP for Rangitīkei, Suze Redmayne, says—I imagine there’s a limited capacity at the Taihape court that would be available for these to transpire. So what would be the reassurance for the people in the Taihape community and wider community to provide for this?
My second point is around “from an appropriate place outside the courtroom,”. Now, was there any consideration undertaken by the member to consider whether that needed to be slightly limited? An “appropriate place outside the courtroom,” is still a very broad-brush statement that says, effectively, it can literally be anywhere. Yes, we want to enable these people to provide their evidence to the Family Court in whatever way they feel most comfortable, but was there any thought given to putting in at least some provisions to ensure that it was appropriate for the court? For example, you wouldn’t want people giving evidence from places that would be completely inappropriate for them to do so whilst this matter is being taken before the courts. So I’m just keen to seek some clarity from the member in charge around whether she had considered about potentially changing the scope of that piece and the wording from “an appropriate place outside the courtroom”.
I also note that it says “either in New Zealand or elsewhere:”, and I assume the “elsewhere” means overseas. If you’re not either in New Zealand, you would then, therefore, be overseas. But I would just like some clarity to be given by the member in charge as to whether that is exactly what she’s referring to in that part.
Then, I move to the other parts. If you go to new subsection (1)(c), it says “the parties can see and hear the witness, unless the Judge directs otherwise.” I’m just keen to actually understand, generally, what that statement actually means, from the member, if she can provide that clarity for us.
If we then move to new section 106BB(2), it says, “A witness who gives evidence of any kind in one way is entitled to give the other parts of their evidence in 1 or more other ways.” I’m keen to understand what wider ramifications that would also have for the Family Court. If their witness was to provide their evidence in one particular way, but then decided halfway through that they wanted to provide their evidence in the other way, what would be appropriate for the Family Court to undertake to enable that to happen? Would that have challenges on the Family Court and their availability to do that? Would that potentially have the opportunity of extending the length of the trials that were before the Family Court, if we were suddenly halfway through a witness’ evidence, changing how we enabled them to provide the evidence to the court?
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s quite a bit to unpack there, and I will make a start. Let me take this in a slightly different order. In relation to the question you asked about “so that they can be seen, unless the judge directs otherwise”, I think we have to remind ourselves that judicial discretion is kind of baked into this bill as well, and I think that that’s important. That was something that advisers came back to us with during the select committee process. It was one of the recommendations in terms of just making that really clear, and I think that that’s something that we all agreed on. The bill creates, as I said, a strong presumption, but judicial discretion, I think, is a key safeguard, and I think it is important that we are able to have that. It’s not just flexibility, because, as you can imagine, a lot of these situations are quite dynamic and quite emotive. I think judges are in a really good position to be able to add to that.
With regard to the question about giving evidence one way and then another, I think there are some protections in so far as remembering that whilst there’s a presumption, there also has to be notice given. I don’t necessarily think it’s about just simply changing your mind—
Tom Rutherford: How long is the notice?
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Well, giving notice—just taking questions from the floor now. There is expected to be a 28-day-period notice, although some things will be urgent and there will be judicial discretion there as well. But I think that that provision is more, sometimes, that as we’ve said, evidence in chief is often from affidavit, but cross-examination and various types of witnesses—it just might lend itself to different methodologies. So I think that’s just making that available, rather than it being a potential sort of barrier to timeliness.
With regard to inside and outside: inside the courtroom, again, I think we should—the member Tom Rutherford made reference in his questions to being at the back of a courtroom. I think we do have to be mindful that Family Courts are often incredibly informal. It really is a chair—there’s not often anywhere to hide—so it’s unlikely that the situation is someone’s in the back of the room per se. But that’s where screens and things like other alternative methods could be employed.
With regard to some of the more rural places with very small facilities and a lack of facilities, I think we also have to be mindful of the fact that the level of service and the level of justice that’s applicable here shouldn’t just be determined by the level of facility. There will be some requirement to invest in some infrastructure and there will be some requirement to update skills, and that’s why there’s a six-month period post the Royal assent to allow for that. Originally, it was 12 months, but with the removal of the video record, six months is, I think, quite pragmatic and should suffice.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. We will resume in committee at 7.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, before the dinner break, the committee was debating Part 1 of the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.
Rima Nakhle: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is—oh, there is a call?
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. You started the vote, Madam Chair, and I have been on the receiving of that before—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I did start the vote, Dr Duncan Webb, and I am going to continue the vote. People need to get up quickly if they’re going to speak. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Motion agreed to.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Amendments to Family Court Rules 2002
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 13, “Amendments to Family Court Rules 2002”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to draw our attention to clause 10 of the bill. Now, clause 10 of the bill clarifies that the affidavit evidence remains the default method for presenting evidence in the Family Court unless the judge directs otherwise, and that’s what we’ve been speaking about throughout the course of discussing this, Dr McLellan’s bill.
Now, I just would like to ask the member, if you don’t mind: how does the member expect that this provision will interact with the new entitlement of giving oral family violence evidence by alternative means under new section 106BB, inserted by clause 6? So I guess what I’m asking the member in charge of the bill is: how are we expecting that, going forward, it’s going to be balanced out when there’s a mixture of giving evidence, some in the form of affidavit and some in oral form?
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you for the question. I think, quite simply, the amendment simply confirms that the use of affidavit remains the default in Family Court, as it is now. It’s just making that extra clear, and when you add in other provisions, you don’t want to minimise that which already exists. So adding this in—which was done through the select committee process, through that advice that we received—was just making that clear, because it is important. The bill changes only where the oral evidence is required, ensuring that there’s just that clarity for lawyers.
Rima Nakhle: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to let it go this time because I hadn’t said the words, but I think we need to be a little bit more in the game here. Rima Nakhle—I’m not pointing the finger at that member, I must say; I’m pointing the figure at the House. Thank you.
Rima Nakhle: I’m trying to be graceful, like my name. It means graceful, in a way.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In a way. Thank you.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): In the select committee process, we did discuss the intent of this bill a lot and the changes that it will make, and something that we’ve touched upon throughout the process is that the main change is actually available, but this will make it more of a default, as opposed to applying for a judge to make the call. I just want to ask the member to please take us through. In terms of the practicality of it all—and I know that we originally said that the bill will come into effect 12 months after Royal assent. But I just want to ask with respect to this being in practice: is the member confident that, in practice, these changes will achieve what you’re hoping they will achieve with the intent?
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Again, I commend the member Rima Nakhle for the question, because it is about practical application. So, yes, I am confident. That was the advice that we had received through the process in so far as there would be some additional time required, maybe even just for communication and education, because as the member quite rightly points out, there currently exists the option to provide evidence in alternative ways, but, as I said in Part 1, people don’t know what they don’t know and we know that that’s not being taken up. So simply doing nothing isn’t improving the situation for victims of violence that find themselves in Family Court.
I sort of reiterate making it a presumption and therefore signalling—with that six-month period following Royal assent that should give enough time for all of those elements to be in play; that educative process, the time to provide impetus that they were actually serious—that these things should be made available. Again, that’s just reiterating. That was the advice, so we’ve no reason to assume that readiness will be an impediment in making that happen.
Part 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 1, with no debate. The question is that Schedule 1 be agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 2, also no debate. The question is that Schedule 2 be agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate, which is clauses 1 and 2, the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): As we touched on just earlier with one of my questions, if I can just explore it a bit longer, with regard to the six months—and I’m thinking about earlier, when we also brought in the subject matters of courts in rural districts and how these changes will be implemented. I know we’ve made changes along the way through the select committee process, which has been good because it’s addressed some of those concerns. But in my reflection over the last couple of hours, I say to our member, Dr Tracey McLellan, I have been wondering: is the six months—are you 100 percent confident that that’s sufficient for the changes that need to be made to be rolled out across New Zealand? I worry about that a little bit and I’d really like to get some more confidence from the member with respect to six months, as opposed to 12 months, after Royal assent, because I feel it’s really important to get this right.
When we talk about family violence, as we know, it’s a very poignant conversation and it comes with its emotional challenges, and I just wouldn’t want people to have their hopes up that things will be easier for them, only to find that it hasn’t been able to be implemented as soon as we said it would be and within that time frame.
I think about all the examples of when I’ve worked in the local court system back in New South Wales, and seeing the various situations that I saw that are tattooed in my memory, to a great extent. That’s what makes me concerned about this, and I don’t want people’s hopes to get up high and then we don’t deliver. So I’m wondering if the member can please reassure the committee with respect to six months, as opposed to 12 months.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, there’s never any 100 percent guarantee of everything, and so I want to make that very clear. But I would also like to reiterate that these measures are presumably available now, and so the upgrading from what is available now but rarely used, to what is available—because that is the presumption—shouldn’t be that great. There will be some upgrades required, but some of the alternative measures are as simple as using a screen, and at some point, we do have to acknowledge that the system does need to catch up with what should be available now.
The six-month lead-in was certainly based on ministry advice, remembering, of course, that it was originally 12 months—or that was the recommendation—but that was based on the fact that the pre-recorded video record would be a significant part of those alternative measures. But, as we’ve heard, removing that therefore removed what was accounting for most of that time. So I think that six months actually strikes quite a generous balance in what remains to the work that needs to be done.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in regards to being ready in that six-month time frame, I appreciate your answer to that. My question is just really around: do you have any concerns, in that six-month time frame, around getting it out there that this is available to people giving evidence? I just heard statements from previous answers where you’ve stated that this is already available but the problem is nobody knows that it is available. Are you concerned that this is enough time to get the message out to victims of family violence that they do have the ability to apply for this?
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): I think that’s kind of hitting the nail on the head exactly, because people don’t necessarily know that it’s available, hence the need for the presumption. I think that kind of takes care of the fact we can’t keep relying on the fact that an educative approach will improve the situation, but if it is the presumption, it’s up to the offices of the court and the people involved in that to better communicate that.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Just following on from my question, I know that the officials—and bless them, they’re really hard working and I appreciate all the research they do for us with our various bills on the Justice Committee; there’s so many nuances that we have to make sure we’re across. I guess, Dr Tracey McLellan, what I’m not really convinced of is whether you are particularly confident that six months is sufficient and would you entertain the idea of amending it back to 12 months? I know the officials said something, and, like I said, I respect them for sure, but are you particularly confident that six months is sufficient, given the wide, extensive range of research you’ve done yourself personally into your member’s bill?
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Yes, I am, and I can only reiterate it’s my best guess, so to speak, but that’s what we’re basing everything on. If you take away the bulk of the work that would have been done in 12 months and remove it, I think six months, as a halfway measure, is probably quite generous, based on that advice.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): When it comes to the title, there were some changes throughout, as happens in the select committee process. Currently, the proposal is that the Act will be called the “Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Act”, and I know, if I recall correctly our conversations, we felt that that would be more indicative of what this bill is trying to achieve. I wonder if the member has considered whether there is a way that we can further alter the title so that it can be more direct as well. I wonder about that, and I’d like the member to share with us what she thinks.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): I do agree in so far as it’s quite a mouthful, but the change that was made, I think—certainly to my mind; my recollection of that process—was to ensure that it was very much about victims of violence, as were several other things that we could have talked about in Part 1, but didn’t. It was about making sure that it’s about giving evidence of violence so that perpetrators couldn’t, unintendedly—well, an unintended consequence of the bill as drafted could have meant that they would have had access to all those alternative means as well. I think part of updating the title was to make that very clear. I think it is wordy, but I think it actually specifies what needs to happen.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills
Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments relating to employee remuneration disclosure
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. We now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 6, “Amendments relating to employee remuneration disclosure”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am rising to discuss some tabled amendments that I have, and I’m looking forward to having—hopefully—a decent debate with the member in regards to some concerns that we obviously have with this bill, and ways we think that we can improve it.
If I start with clause 5 in the new section 110AB(1)(b), inserted by clause 5, I have an amendment tabled to replace “refuses or omits to offer or afford to the employee the same terms of employment, conditions of work, fringe benefits, or opportunities for training, promotion, and transfer as are made available to other employees of the same or substantially similar qualifications, experience, or skills employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances” with “reduces the employee’s existing terms of employments and conditions for work or fringe benefits”.
The reason that I am raising this is mainly because we see that there could be some unintended consequences with this issue. A scenario, possibly, could be that somebody discloses their salary to a few colleagues—for example, after a seminar, say, on pay equity. A few weeks later, that individual applies for a high-demand training programme offered by the company, but then isn’t selected. They could then potentially file a personal grievance over this, because they could argue that they’re being punished for disclosing their pay to other employees. I’m wondering how the member would feel about that, and if this is, in fact, the intent of this legislation or not.
I think we need to be really careful about what we say “detriment” is. I think it would be very fair that we claim that things that are already part of a person’s employment are, in fact, what would be considered to be a detriment, not things that could be futurely perceived, for example. We want to make sure it’s about reducing existing entitlements or conditions rather than speculative or emotionally driven complaints or claims like reduced job satisfaction or ungranted opportunities. I’m really keen to hear the member’s thoughts and opinions on this amendment bill.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a great opportunity for us to ask some questions to the member, Camilla Belich, and also to see what the member’s position is on various amendments that we are proposing. I want to start by asking some questions. In the select committee process, I want to acknowledge, the member had the opportunity to present her case and also to answer some questions, but this is another opportunity that’s available to us, which is great.
I would like to understand from the member in charge of the bill about the data that she has seen, or any evidence that she has seen, that this particular clause has been the direct reason for somebody’s dismissal. It will be great to understand if the member can produce some kind of evidence or can tell us about any evidence that the member has seen where this particular clause that this bill is about has been the direct reason for anybody’s dismissal. There can be other reasons, but I want to understand if this clause has been the direct reason. That’s one question that I have to the member.
Going forward, Madam Chair, I also want to say that, yes, the member has spoken before about this legislation being implemented in other countries—like the UK, as she has mentioned, and other countries—but we cannot just pluck legislation from another country and bring it here, because we have to assess the environment that we have in our own country, so that will be really important for us to understand.
Going to Part 1, I would like to talk to one of the amendments that I have proposed. This amendment is in clause 5 in new section 110AB. My amendment is to insert after subsection (7)—this is another subsection (8)—that this section applies only in relation to employees whose total remuneration is less than $180,000 per annum.
We have heard from the member again and again that this amendment will help with the reduction of the gender pay gap. Now, in our view, it’s actually a real stretch. The other point is that if the member is really serious about this—and also the member has said before that this is to help those who are in low income brackets—so if this is about helping people, those who are earning lower incomes; then if this bill is focusing on people, those who are earning higher incomes like above $180,000, that means the priority is not right for this bill.
The reason here is that when people are earning more, they have the ability to negotiate or bargain better than maybe some other members. Sometimes there are other circumstances where members might accept a lower income and are stuck in that position. So why not change this bill to say that this section applies only in relation to employees whose total remuneration is less than $180,000 per annum?
The other reason for this is that sometimes when people are employed at that kind of salary scale or package scale, those people bring very exclusive or specialist kinds of skills—skills that are not easily available—and sometimes some people are even attracted to come and work in those positions from other countries. So there needs to be some kind of incentive for these people to work here, and those kinds of skills are unique, as I said; specifically needed by the company. They may not be a direct match, so when it comes to talking about pay gap, then there is no direct comparison for those who are earning really, really high salaries.
It will be good for us to understand from the member what her position is on this proposed amendment and also if the member could highlight any data or evidence that the member has, where, as I have said before, this is a direct reason of somebody’s dismissal. Again, what has happened overseas may not be something that we can apply here directly. We need to see our own evidence to see how we make changes in our legislations, so two questions.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the members for their contributions so far. I just thought I would respond to some of the questions and some of the amendments that are being proposed, and also just to give a slight introduction to the committee of the whole House stage.
I was extremely pleased to see this bill pass through its second reading, and I thank members of the House for supporting this bill. I think that there were very compelling reasons given not only in the select committee process, which was traversed at second reading, but also in the evidence provided at second reading of the benefit of transparency. I’ve been really heartened at the public response to this as well. There’s been quite a bit of commentary—more than I was expecting—on this particular bill, and I think it is because people do see the fact that transparency—you might describe it as greater sunlight—on pay is a really good disinfectant for things that might be happening that we would like to address within the workplace. Thanks to the House very much for allowing the bill to get to this stage and thank you to the members for their contributions. I take these amendments in good faith and I will respond to the proposals as they are addressed.
For the first amendment that was discussed by Laura McClure, which was the change that she suggested, that the definition of detriment be changed in this bill, I regretfully wouldn’t support the member’s amendment. The reason is that one of the purposes of this bill is to prevent difference of treatment once a remuneration disclosure has been made. One of the areas where there often is difference in employment situations is when offering opportunities. There are, obviously, detrimental effects that can happen short of dismissal and losing your job. This particular example would limit that to something that has a detrimental effect on the employee’s employment. I think you heard the explanation for that from the member Laura McClure, which was that it should be focused on existing employment.
Well, my experience working in employment law is that often the way that someone might be marginalised at work for an act that their employer didn’t agree with is through refusing to offer things that are listed in this bill: training, promotion, and opportunities. If those are found to be the reasons—because someone has made a remuneration disclosure—I think that is unfair. I think that is outside the spirit of the bill. So I don’t accept that there is a good reason to limit this in the way that the member has done. Therefore, I won’t be supporting her amendment, but I see what she’s attempting to do there and I don’t think that it adds to the bill. In fact, I think it would limit the bill in a way which is outside the purpose. But thank you to the member for that particular amendment.
Parmjeet Parmar was also a member of the select committee. We’ve traversed a number of the issues that she’s raised in a number of different hearings. I do have a number of examples, and she would also have been aware of these, in select committee where many, many submitters—and we had over 200 submitters—did actually put forward examples of detriment that they did face in the workplace. I’m happy to read those out for the member if necessary, but they are all available in written submissions as well. They are stories of people facing detrimental treatment because they have disclosed their pay, being threatened with detrimental treatment, and we have cases reported in New Zealand where people have lost their jobs. So this is a real issue that was proven in the select committee process, and there are significant examples to show that. That is the purpose of this bill and that is why I do think it’s an issue in New Zealand.
In relation to her amendment, I don’t also agree with this: limiting it to $180,000. I don’t think these types of bills which seek to limit discrimination are assisted by having arbitrary remuneration numbers inserted so that they wouldn’t apply to someone earning above a certain level. I don’t think that it is proven with evidence that there is less discrimination or unfair treatment for people on higher salaries. Yes, they receive a higher salary, but they may have additional responsibilities, or they may have a large family they’re supporting. It may be that this figure is considered to be a lower number in relation to the median wage in time. I don’t think those are particularly helpful. I don’t think they’re in line with the purpose of the bill. Thank you very much to the member for suggesting those amendments, but it’s not something that I will be supporting. Thank you.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for responding to my proposed amendment. What was really interesting about my first question, which asked the member about the data or evidence, was that the member cited what was heard in the select committee process, but obviously the bill went to the select committee process because the bill was drafted before that evidence came before us in the select committee process. My question was: what evidence did members see before she drafted this bill? Could she cite examples, give us any evidence and cases that are in the public domain where there has been a case of dismissal directly because of this clause? I would like to seek assurance from the member that that has been the case because of just this clause.
Now, another interesting point that comes up from that is that I’ve heard before the member saying that there was work done by the Education and Workforce Committee in the previous term, and it’s because of that work that the member came up with the idea of this bill.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What section is this?
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: This is about the response that the member has given, and I’m asking another question on that basis. To Duncan Webb, this is my response to your question that you’ve just asked. If that was the case, then I also want to know from the member what kind of assurance did the member seek, before drafting the bill, from various other employment lawyers or maybe some employers as well, because that will give us some assurance that the member did proper homework before proposing the bill. Just relying on select committee evidence is not sufficient as far as I’m concerned.
I would like to talk about my other amendment. It’s very interesting to see that my other proposed amendment of the threshold of $180,000 per annum income is not agreed to by the member, whereas the member actually wanted to favour low-income people. My other amendment is, again, a very, very practical amendment. It is, again, in new section 110AB, inserted by clause 5. This is to be inserted after subsection 110AB(7). This is new subsection 8. This section does not apply to an employer who employs fewer than 20 employees at the time the relevant conduct occurs. This is very important because most of our businesses are small businesses and when they have less than 20 people working in a business, they often—I would say most of the time—don’t have a dedicated human resources (HR) department. It’s maybe the director or the manager who is also the HR manager and everybody in that company is very close to each other. Everybody knows each other really, really well.
Given the tough economic circumstances that we are coming out from, and as this bill is not a business-friendly bill, as we can see, as I have said before, that it will help solve the gender pay gap is also a big, big stretch. In that regard, I would ask the member to tell us why she would not agree that the subsection should be inserted as is proposed in my amendment. Most of our businesses are small businesses and they don’t have a dedicated HR department. They don’t have the kind of resources to go through very, very complex legal situations that might arise because of such situations with people raising issues like that.
Also, another important point is about the privacy of employees. It’s OK for one employee to go and ask another employee how much they earn, and if that is disclosed—this employee X asked employee Y how much they earn, and if employee Y earns more than employee X, employee X goes to the employer and says, “Employee Y earns more than me. Why? Why am I not earning as much as employee Y?”. Then we are putting that employer in a very difficult situation because the employer will have to reveal some information about the other employee, employee X, as well. That means they are basically getting into that space which is actually the privacy of other employees.
This bill doesn’t provide any protection for that employer, because without discussing that other employee’s situation, the employer will not be able to justify to this employee who has raised this concern with the employer. This bill actually creates lots of problems for businesses and even employees: employers, employees. This is not the kind of bill we want and we really believe that this bill actually is a token bill when it comes to fixing the issue of the gender pay gap. It will be good to understand from the member where she sits with this proposed amendment, and if she doesn’t agree with it, why, and also address the privacy issues that will come up for the employer.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you to the member Parmjeet Parmar for her comments. I’ve got a case with me here—it is a 2015 case—Kar v Bakers Magnum Ltd, trading as Bakers Harvest, NZERA Auckland 216.
In terms of the background to this bill, as the member is aware, this came from a briefing that the Education and Workforce Committee did on pay transparency in the last Parliament. We heard a significant number of submitters that submitted to that briefing, which was very fulsome. I think, in terms of the evidence and the reasoning for having a member’s bill, actually having a member’s bill that comes from a briefing at a select committee, which we did hear submissions to, is probably one of the more evidence-based types of members’ bills that you can have. At that briefing, we also heard evidence from the Pacific Pay Gap Inquiry, from the Human Rights Commission. They had several examples cited of the secrecy around pay for, particularly, lower-paid Pacific workers being extremely detrimental to their working conditions. This was one of the recommendations that they put forward. I appreciate the member’s question, but I think, in terms of most members’ bills that come to this House, this is one that has a particularly high level of evidence and discussion around it before it was put forward into the members’ bill biscuit tin—just to respond to those.
On her amendment, limiting it to employers who have over 20 employees, I appreciate that this is something that has arisen in relation to other employment cases; however, in this particular bill, there isn’t actually a requirement for an HR department to do anything active. There are many employment bills which do require active change or resources to be put in by the employer; this is not an example of one of those. This particular bill simply requires the employer not to discipline or put their employee in a position of detriment for disclosing their pay. It doesn’t require an HR department to be resourced. It doesn’t require an employer to change its employment agreement necessarily, because it just makes those clauses ineffective. I don’t accept that there is an evidential basis for limiting it to only large employers. I do feel that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that whether the employer is a large employer, or whether the employer is a small employer, those situations of pay secrecy or gag clauses in contracts will be detrimental to employees working in that space. In fact, that can be even more so in a small employer where there isn’t a large workforce where you can feel, “Oh, well, maybe it’s just that manager treating me unfairly.” In a small workplace, it might just be one manager, it might be even more detrimental and difficult for an employee in that particular situation. I don’t accept that particular amendment.
I’d also remind the member that while this particular bill does actually cover situations where there is a gag clause in an employment agreement, adverse treatment for a remuneration disclosure reason is prohibited under this Act, regardless of what is in the contract. In situations where there isn’t a contractual clause, this would also apply.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the member Camilla Belich for her description and advice she has given the committee on that particular amendment.
Look, it is a real concern to us here in the ACT Party around our small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Given my colleague Parmjeet Parmar has already discussed that this is 95 percent of our businesses, I do think the human resources side of things is difficult, but one of the biggest costs that we are finding on our SMEs is when we have personal grievance cases. I know that this Government is trying to deal with some of those, and I’ve got a member’s bill before the committee at this point in regards to this as well.
One of the concerns that I did have with this potential bill is it being misused in order for an employee to create a personal grievance when there are circumstances that arise. For example, they’re put under a performance management review or they’ve been given a couple of written warnings—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Which clause are you referring to?
LAURA McCLURE: —and they know that they may be on their way out. The clause that I’m talking to, for the member across there, is new section 110AB(3), inserted by clause 5.
The amendment that I’m talking to is my amendment to replace “a substantial reason” with “the sole reason”. If the intent of this bill isn’t for people to have nefarious claims and have actions against their employer—for example, where this isn’t the case; where it’s not about pay transparency or the gender pay gap, for example—if we change the wording to being “the sole reason”, this would actually cover that off. I think that we need to clearly say where there are targeted cases of retaliation. For example, like I said, somebody may have been going through the dismissal process, they may get dismissed, but it turns out that a week prior they actually mentioned their pay to another colleague. Will they be able to just use that as a personal grievance, for example?
The other thing that this bill does is it puts the automatic presumption of retaliation on the employer to prove that. I think that’s an awful lot for a small business. You can just imagine the cost of that and how that will actually be really hard for those small businesses to bring that cost forward. I mean, I’m thinking it could be hundreds of thousands. Like, we know that a general personal grievance at the moment can cost an SME anywhere between $10,000, going up into $50,000. I mean, that’s enough for you to close down your business overnight if you’re just employing two or three people.
What I’d be quite keen to know from the member is whether she would consider my amendment to remove “a substantial reason”, which I think is quite vague—I accept that there are some examples given of that—and change it to “the sole reason”, because if it is the sole reason, then that makes it much more fair for both parties and it keeps that balance nice and even.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the response that the member in the chair, Camilla Belich, gave to my questions before, the member gave one example, and I would say that if that is the only example that member can give in terms of evidence, then I would say this: here we have this member trying to say that this is a problem and this can solve this gender pay gap issue, whereas we can see that the problem is not there. If we change that kind of circumstance, how is it going to have any influence on the problem that we are trying to solve? It won’t. That is why we have repeatedly said that this bill is just an overstretch, and also this bill is being stretched to that kind of discussion of gender pay gap to get sympathy around this bill, which is not going to help anybody. It would have been good if the member was able to provide more concrete examples.
We have a number of amendments from the ACT Party, because we really want to see that this bill, if it goes through, goes through in a form that is workable and is practical. We do not want this bill to just go out and punish businesses. Coming to my amendment in clause 5, inserting new section 110AB, this is another one—this is to insert, after subsection (7), subsection (8), “An employer’s conduct must not be treated as adverse conduct for a remuneration disclosure reason under this section if the conduct arises from the employee’s disclosure of their remuneration causing demonstrable harm to the employers.” This is like business operations or client or customer relationships or any kind of contractual or legal obligations to third parties.
Here, it’s really important that businesses are protected, because there can be cases where employees can use this. Not everybody has this clause that they cannot discuss their remuneration, but because this discussion has come up, it is important that if there is, and they are—because the bill actually says that they don’t have to oblige with the contract, which we totally oppose. People should be really obliging to every clause in their contracts, but if it goes through, then that would be the case; there could be some people who can really mislead the environment around them to cause some kind of damage to their businesses. For example, if a company has employed two salespeople, one salesperson can go out and try to get the deal from their customer and might project themselves to look more important than the other salesperson and might say that that salesperson is being paid more than the other salesperson, and that may not be actually true. In that situation, what that salesperson is doing just to get the deal is actually compromising the reputation of that company.
Now, another example of that is if somebody just goes out to the media and claims that that person—without actually going around and finding the actual situation of why that person is being paid less than the other person—is being paid less than the other person and somehow that person is being exploited. No kind of exploitation is good, but if somebody just goes out, that causes harm to a company’s reputation. In that situation, my proposed amendment says that an employer’s conduct must not be treated as adverse conduct for a remuneration and disclosure reason under this section if the conduct arises from the employee’s disclosure of their remuneration causing demonstrable harm to the employer. If the member doesn’t agree to my proposed amendment, I would think that the member finds it’s OK for employees to go out and do something that would actually harm the reputation of the company for their personal gain—as I said in my first example, where a salesperson wants to get the deal and projects themselves as a more valued employee of that company, and in the second situation where the employee actually is totally misled, doesn’t understand the actual situation and goes out to media and misrepresents the company.
In these kinds of situations, it can really harm the reputation of the company, and it will be really serious if the member doesn’t agree to my proposed amendment taking these kinds of scenarios into consideration. I would like to hear from the member.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to maybe answer this question—hopefully, once and for all—for the member, the member has asked repeatedly what evidence there is that this is a problem. She has asked for a case; I have given her a reported case in New Zealand. She has asked me for examples; I’ve told her about a study that was done talking to a number of low-paid Pacific workers in New Zealand. She has asked and still fails to understand that this is an issue in New Zealand, and so I’ll actually read some examples of where this is actually a problem in New Zealand.
We heard in one workplace where salary disclosure for union members, the submitter said in their experience this led to getting paid unfairly for doing the same work as others by comparing salaries and roles. The submitter highlighted that this was particularly important to women who were being underpaid at work.
Another submitter said they had lived and worked in Australia. They had seen firsthand the benefits of similar legislation. The employee said the ability for employees to discuss their remuneration openly without fear of reprisal has already started to contribute to reducing pay inequities and fostering workplace accountability.
Another submitter said, on the pitfalls of having no transparency, that they were being paid less than a colleague who had fewer qualifications, less training, and worked fewer hours than them. The submitter was concerned about this, particularly as the employee was Māori and their colleague was not. When they attempted to raise this issue and inquire about the reasons behind the discrepancy, they were told they would not talk about it.
Another submitter said they were contractually obliged not to discuss their pay with their colleagues. They became aware that employees who started working with them after earning more than them—and they were unable to discuss this with management or use this information to increase their pay.
These are New Zealanders who are suffering under a system where no pay transparency currently exists in relation to pay secrecy in New Zealand. The member can choose to ignore that, but I choose not to, and that is why I put this bill forward to the House. So I hope that answers that question once and for all.
In relation to the amendments that both members from the ACT Party have put forward, look, in relation to the amendment changing it to “sole reason” for substantive reason, I would refer the member to the substantive bill in clause 5, which puts in new section 110AB. In this particular situation, the employee would need to prove that they had essentially been treated detrimentally in order to fit this first test as outlined in new subsection (1). They would then have to prove that the employer engaged in adverse conduct and that that was a substantial reason for their conduct. That burden of proof would rest with the employee in order to prove the limbs of that case, so I don’t accept that the burden of proof is entirely on the employer. Without the employee proving up to new subsection (3), they would not be able to have a case that would be answerable under this piece of legislation. So that’s the burden of proof issue.
In terms of the substantive change to this, the reason that I don’t consider that “sole reason” is a good change for our new subsection (3) is because that would make the threshold for employees taking cases to be very, very high and would necessitate ignoring any other reason that may have affected their treatment. Otherwise it would essentially mean that they can’t take any action under this. If there was anything at all associated with the relationship that the employer could prove—and often in these situations there may be a negative or a relationship that is not working as it should be essentially anything that was negative about the employment relationship could be used to nullify their claim under this bill. I feel that that standard is too high, although I appreciate the member’s—as I’ve said to her—very useful reasoning and justification that she’s put in there and I appreciate that. I have read it; I don’t consider that it is a good change.
In terms of the amendment put forward by Parmjeet Parmar in relation to, I think, inserting in clause 5 a reason around adverse remuneration conduct and saying that, essentially, if the employer could prove that there was detriment to them because of the disclosure, they would not be able to take a claim under this bill. I do consider that this is a very substantive clause that would complicate this particular, quite simple bill.
Additionally, it’s important, I think, for all members to realise that good faith is a fundamental principle in the Employment Relations Act—I have the Employment Relations Act here. It is the primary principle in everything within—
Laura McClure: It’s not always used, though.
CAMILLA BELICH: Well, the member says it’s not always used. Well, that is a breach of the Act. If you can prove that good faith has been breached, then that is essentially an overriding principle in the entire Employment Relations Act.
We did actually discuss this specific point at the Education and Workforce Committee and we looked at should there be clarifications to make sure the mischief that I think the member is trying to achieve with this particular amendment would be avoided. The advice that we received was that good faith was such a powerful, sufficient deterrent from actions that are contrary to it that we would not need to make further changes under this bill. I appreciate what the member has put forward in this particular amendment. However, I do think it would be unnecessary. I do think that what has been put forward is quite vague and unnecessarily complex, and because of the overriding duty of good faith, I do not believe that it is necessary in this particular bill.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for all the detail, and clearly, she’s very deeply across everything that she’s hoping to achieve with this bill.
I’d like to just bring the member’s attention to, as well, one of the amendments that touches upon clause 5, which is one of the clauses that we’re covering right now. This is the amendment bill put forward by the member Dr Parmjeet Parmar. Just a point of note: I think there was a mistake with the wording in clause 5, new section 11AB(2)(a), doctor. I’m presuming it’s supposed to be 110AB, so the zero is missing from this tabled amendment as put forward. But, yes, we’re drawing our attention to this one, where Dr Parmjeet Parmar suggests that we replace the words “any other person” with “any other employee who is employed by the same employer”. Again, that’s clause 5, new section 110AB(2)(a). I’m not part of the excellent Education and Workforce Committee that considered this bill, but as an outside observer I did wonder if the member in charge of the bill could please speak about whether she is in support of this tabled amendment or not.
Also, giving consideration to the commentary, which talks about “This bill would ensure that employees can voluntarily discuss and disclose their own pay rate to others” and, in another part of the commentary, “with colleagues and with family”, can the member please clarify: is it supposed to be with everyone that people can disclose this information, which is what I initially understood? But reading that commentary, is there a kind of presumption that it’s going to be directed just towards disclosing this information with family and friends and other colleagues? And, going on from that, how does the member feel about that amendment in light of the question that I’ve just asked? Thank you.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the other member for her contribution and for spotting the typo in my colleague’s amendment.
Look, I do have some concerns. It’s one thing to share your remuneration with your peers yourself, but what I note is that this bill stays quite silent on what happens when you share that with somebody and then they share it with somebody else. I’m talking about clause 5 here. I’ve got an amendment on the Table to insert after new section 110AB(7) that “nothing in this section permits an employee to disclose the remuneration of another employee without that employee’s express consent.”
Look, I think that that really comes down to a couple of things. Mainly, it’s just your privacy in general. When you disclose that to somebody else without giving them explicit permission to share that, you have no idea which way this could be used. It may be that you share that with an employee who you have a good bit of back and forward conversation with and it’s just an off-the-cuff conversation, but that other employee, at some point in time, may have, like, an argument with a manager, for example, or they may find a reason for deciding to disclose your pay without your consent. I think it would be very sensible in this bill to protect employees as well, who potentially could have their remuneration basically disclosed without their consent.
I’m interested to know whether the member would look at supporting this, because I do think that this is quite sensible and I do think it’s something that has possibly just been overlooked. I wasn’t part of the select committee process, so it may have been discussed. However, if it hasn’t, I think it’s something that we do need to consider because, yeah, I’ve been an employee and I’ve been an employer, and when you think about sharing that with somebody, you don’t necessarily expect that to be shared with others, and I think that you may need to actually give consent in order to do that.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you to the member for your explanations and the back and forth that you’ve been engaging with in answering the questions. We are concentrating quite a lot on clause 5 with some of these amendments that have been put forward—so in some of these amendments, concentrating on adding and changing some additions after new section 110AB, inserted by clause 5, in the bill. The proposals by Dr Parmjeet Parmar and Laura McClure would change substantially, from my reading, some of the intentions of the clause and what is intended under subsection (5) of new section 110AB.
During the select committee we had quite a lot of back and forward and discussion about who should be able to be disclosed to and have discussions with. This is one of the issues that actually came up in the second reading as well. Some of our colleagues discussed how they know that their children might go down to the pub or be talking about it with—
Mike Butterick: I think that was me.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yes, actually, Mike Butterick, it was you who spoke about your daughter and the fact that she would discuss these things. For many people, it’s seen as a natural part of life that you would discuss this. Many people wouldn’t even realise that there may be something that prevented them in their contract from even discussing it.
I remember, in the select committee stage, there was a lot about what would be the practicalities of trying to put a ringfence around who is the person you speak to or not, around whether or not this had to be another employee—that was something that we discussed—and whether or not you may consent or not, or whether or not, if somebody asked you about your pay, you would be compelled in any way to discuss it. I remember that was a really clear one: of course you don’t. If somebody asks you what your pay is, you’re completely at liberty to say, “I’m not going to speak about that” and “I don’t want to talk about that; it’s private to me.” There’s nothing in this bill that would change that.
Also I don’t believe that there’s anything in subsection (5) that if we were to change—because we did spend a lot of time on this and I feel that there’s not much further to clarify. We asked a lot from our advisers to make sure that we got the clearest and also the broadest application.
I’m just wondering, from your perspective, if we were to narrow who you can speak to or who you can’t speak to—also if we were to change some of the definitions of how an employer would be engaging in adverse discussions. The way that we’ve got it with the two subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) at the moment, it’s saying that, basically, “an employer also engages in adverse conduct if the employer or a representative of the employer, in relation to the employee,—(a) organises to take any action referred to in subsection (1) or threatens to organise” and all of that—that was one—or if they specifically request, induce, instruct, authorise, or assist another person to engage in other activities.
Do you think that is a wide enough application of what could be ways, in your experience—because I understand you have some experience in employment law. And were there examples of ways in which employers have used some of these tactics against their employees? Some of those examples that you mentioned earlier show that there were a variety of ways in which people have felt that they had detriment in their employment. We’ve used many different words in these subsections to be able to describe ways in which an employer might engage in that. Further, in subsection (6), we go on to further highlight ways that could be a detrimental effect, including the remuneration and other aspects of that. In your consideration of either any of the amendments that have been put forward, but also throughout our discussion, was there anything else do you think that we could have added or that these amendments would help with? Thank you.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to contribute to this amendment bill debate, in Part 1. New Zealand First has been clearly against this bill. In our view, it’s flouting contract law and is a bit of a dark path we’re going down. Are there no lawyers left in the National Party?
In terms of Parmjeet Parmar’s amendment, in new section 110AB, inserted by clause 5, to replace “any other person” with “any other employee who is employed by the same employer”—which is the thing that the previous speaker, Vanessa Weenink, had picked up on—if we are going to go down this dark path, are we going to at least try to ring-fence that around the people that we could agree would have some relevance to disclose this information to? Are we going to dilute contract law to where it can be just willy-nilly? You can spray it all around, but two competing businesses or companies—you’re not necessarily comparing apples with apples. The employment at Bunnings and Mitre 10 might seem, on the outside, exactly the same, but they could actually have quite different tasks within them and quite different job descriptions. It’s not necessarily a fair comparison.
I think if we are to go towards this, and it looks like we are, it would be prudent to bring this back to disclosing within the relevant cohort of people who could benefit. The member’s assertion and some of the anecdotal evidence that comes through the select committee—if we’re to pick up on that, then they’re the people that are most likely to benefit from inter-employer or inter-workplace relations and apples with apples comparisons that we want to be making here; not apples with oranges with other employers.
From a New Zealand First perspective, I think we would look seriously, or we think the Parliament should look seriously, at that particular amendment from Parmjeet Parmar. Thank you very much.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks, members, for their contributions. I’ll just go through some of the points that were raised.
Thank you to the member Rima Nakhle for raising one of the amendments that has been discussed to limit the people that the disclosure can be made to. We did look at this in the Education and Workforce Committee, about who the disclosure should be made to. If you look at the changes that have been made in the select committee report, one of the purposeful objectives was to ensure that the purpose of the bill, which is to make sure that you can disclose your own pay to any person that you want to, was done and drafted in a very purposeful way. We did think about should it be—as Mark Patterson has mentioned—other employees only within the business.
The problem that we had when we went down this path is that there is, I think, an assumption probably from a lot of people that when they go home and they talk to their friends and family, they’re able to discuss their pay. At the moment, if they have a clause in their contract, that is not the case; that is technically a breach. I think that that’s not sensible.
The other thing is that when you go to a new job, one of the first things your new employer might ask you is what you’re currently being paid. Technically, that would be a breach of your employment agreement, and obviously that’s unworkable in reality. Those are two examples of where someone would not be an employee, where I think it is important that they’re able to disclose that. That practically brings the law up to date with what is custom and practice.
The third point I would make on that is that the issue that we do have in New Zealand workplaces is that often we have people doing similar work, or the same work—and they might be working alongside each other but they might technically have a different employer or one of them might be a contractor and one of them might be an employee. Limiting it to people with the same employer would limit the effectiveness of being able to have those discussions about your own pay. We did look at it. I want to thank members for their amendments on this, and also, for asking questions about it. I don’t think it’s practical, because of the reasons that I’ve outlined, but it was something that we received advice on, and we did consider it genuinely within the select committee, but it wasn’t something that we thought would be useful for the bill. That’s in response to that particular point.
The amendment that Laura McClure has put forward in relation to clarifying that you are not able to talk about other people’s pay, that is already the case with this bill. There is nothing in this bill which permits anyone to take any action in relation to another person’s pay. So, although I appreciate this amendment, I don’t think it is necessary because there is nothing in this bill which allows disclosure of other people’s personal information. This only applies to your own personal information. I appreciate the amendment; it’s not necessary because this bill does not allow the conduct which this amendment would prohibit. That’s the response in relation to that.
Laura McClure: Really?
CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, really. In relation to the questions that Vanessa Weenink talked about in kind of an overall around the purpose of it, yes, I do think a lot of these amendments do run contrary to the purpose of the bill. To remind members: the purpose of this bill is simply to allow people to talk about their own pay, without fear of retribution. Simply, that is it. It’s not about other people’s pay, and it is not limiting the person who you have that conversation with. That is a very simple objective of it, and I thank the member for reminding me of her colleague Mike Butterick’s excellent speech in the second reading around his daughters. I too enjoyed that speech and felt that it was very compelling, and good to hear those reasons from a father about their daughters being able to talk about their pay. I thank the member for that, as well.
I think I have covered all of the questions that members specifically had and also the amendments that were specifically raised.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It gives me great privilege to stand and take my first opportunity to speak on this legislation in the committee of the whole House. I’ve enjoyed listening to the variety of different contributions from colleagues on this side. Didn’t particularly enjoy the contribution from our colleague in the Green Party of trying to shut down the debate—we’ve got plenty of points to discuss and iron out. I love it when the boot’s on the other foot on members’ days. Isn’t it really refreshing? Isn’t it a really nice opportunity? My question is in relation—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, let’s see if you do more than a 30-second speech.
TOM RUTHERFORD: I’m going to speak to the bill, Mr Webb. It’d pay for you to remember that when the boot goes on the other foot tomorrow, Mr Webb, because we’ll be reminding you of—
Hon Members: Doctor!
TOM RUTHERFORD: Sorry, Dr Webb—Dr Webb.
Hon Member: The Hon Dr.
TOM RUTHERFORD: The Hon Dr—someone check the documentation. Under Part 1, under new section 110AB, if we go down to (4), it says, “For the purposes of subsection (3), a remuneration disclosure reason is presumed to be a substantial reason for the conduct unless the employer proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the reason was not a substantial reason for the conduct.”
I’m concerned by the word “presumed”. It is very close to the word “assumed”, which I was taught when I was a child, that if you assume anything you make an ass out of you and me. I would be keen to understand from the member in charge, Camilla Belich, why there is the possibility to include a word like “presumed” in here, when actually we need to be more formalised in our language. We shouldn’t be making presumptions on people’s cases or their conduct or when they’re having discussions around remuneration.
Is there consideration from the member in charge around whether an alternative word than “presumed” could be used in replacement to that word? I think that is rather concerning and leaves it rather wide-ranging and open for people if they’re going into that space. Or are we prepared to leave a word like “presumed” in there, which could open up many caveats and many questions for people when they are discussing remuneration disclosure reasons, and, in this case, to be a substantial reason for the conduct unless the employer proves?
I would really love some clarity as to why the word “presumed” was chosen over any other viable options that would be available in, say, a thesaurus.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that debate on this question now close. All those in favour say Aye—
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Point of order, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve started voting. The point of order will need to come later. [Interruption] Quiet during voting!
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Point of order, Madam Chair. The microphone wasn’t on.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I’m sorry, but I’ve started voting. You can make a point of order after we’ve completed this vote.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
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.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Motion agreed to.
Motion not agreed to.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): My point of order was that I didn’t get a chance to speak to many of my amendments, so now I think it’s fine; we have the chance now. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, that is no guarantee when we have a piece of legislation. Amendments are put up and people can have the opportunity to speak to them, but it doesn’t necessarily happen for all of them. The other thing I will say is we get lots of comments as Chairs about how long committee stages should and would take in various situations, including members’ days and other days. It would be just good for people to put that in mind when they generalise in other circumstances.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to take the opportunity at this stage in the debate—and I’m glad that we’re continuing to be able to discuss some of the tabled amendments that have been put forward both by Dr Parmar, who I think would love to speak on—
Dan Bidois: Parmjeet Parmar.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Parmjeet Parmar, who would be very eloquently speaking about her own amendments as well. It’s not that I want to jump in and steal your thunder here, Dr Parmar, but it is something that I just would like to speak to as well.
There are, as it was mentioned before, quite a number under Part 1—most of them pertain to clause 5 and are adding or subtracting a new section. One of the amendments—I’m just trying to find the right number—4.40.10—I beg your pardon, this was one from Laura McClure—
Laura McClure: Let me talk to this.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —who will also, I’m sure, speak at length and eloquently as well about her suggested amendments to this bill, noting, of course, that you have a bill that’s going through the committee as well. It’s another great committee activity for us to be looking at with your bill that you’ve got through us.
In Laura’s proposed amendment to “Insert after subsection (7)”, adding in that “an employee’s disclosure of their remuneration is protected under this section only if the employee has first notified their employer of their intention to make the disclosure.” What this amendment would be saying is, basically, that an employee would have to say to their employer that they were intending to discuss their remuneration or some element of their remuneration with another person. I guess this is to show that the employer needs to be somehow pre-warned about that or to be notified prior. To me, this sounds as though it would add in quite a lot of complexity, and in terms of people’s daily lives, if we think about what that might really mean, it might mean that they might go and say to their boss, “I intend to go and discuss with my husband what my remuneration is tonight when we’re in bed.”—not that that should be a good topic of conversation in bed.
Dan Bidois: Pillow talk.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: It’s not exactly pillow talk, but you know. I just wonder if the member thinks that that would be a sensible kind of expectation to have. My assumption is that you probably won’t be supporting this amendment, and I just wonder if you can elaborate on some of the reasons why you think that this is probably not a good idea.
I’ve come up with one very trivial example of how this might affect people, but I’m sure that this could be applied even in the example that the member Mike Butterick gave about his daughter. Would that mean that his daughter would have to say to his boss, “I’m going to the pub tonight, and I might tell somebody. It might just happen to come up that we’ll be talking about what our jobs are, what we do, and what the pay and conditions are.”? They might have different shifts, and they might talk about what the shifts allowance are. They might get extra pay or bonuses as part of their work. For example, if you’re a professional, sometimes you get an allowance for attending meetings, or you might have an allowance for professional fees. Would you need to just pre-warn, under this, any disclosure that you might have about any element of your remuneration if this was included as one of those potential additions and amendments that has been included in this tabled amendment? If there are any other reasons why, I expect that you will probably not accept this tabled amendment.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. One of my questions that I asked before has still not been answered by the member, so I would like to repeat that for the member. The question was about the employer breaching other employees’ privacy. That is one employee, when they go out to their employer to tell them that they have found out from another employee that that employee is being paid more than them. Then the employer, obviously, will have to discuss some of the circumstances around why that other employee is being paid more. Where is the protection in this bill for that employer for breaching that privacy? That protection is not there.
I’ve just repeated that question in short, and I give the opportunity to the member to answer that question, because this is actually a very serious thing. If the employer goes and explains what the other employee’s circumstances are or what their situation is or why that employer decided to pay more, there might be some personal information or other information that the employer will have to disclose to this other employee, so it’s a very, very serious concern for us.
The second point here, that we have heard from the member in charge of the bill, Camilla Belich, was about good faith, and that’s a very good thing in the employment legislation. But here, on the one hand, the member is saying there can be a clause in the agreement but that should not be enforceable, and, on the other hand, the member is talking about good faith. So despite something in the agreement, the member is fine for that not to be obligatory, but on the other hand she wants the whole employment relationship to rely on good faith. It’s a really good joke, actually, and I would like the member to elaborate on that and tell us how she can rely on good faith when, despite something being in the agreement, she is saying it should not be enforceable.
Now, coming to my other proposed amendment, the member from the National Party Tom Rutherford mentioned the word “presume”. One of my amendments is, again, as clause 5 is the main clause in this, in new section 110AB, which is to delete the words “or substantially similar”. My proposed amendment is that we delete the words “or substantially similar” in both places, so this subclause will say, “refuses or omits to offer or afford to the employee the same terms of employment, conditions of work, fringe benefits, or opportunities for training, promotion, and transfer as are made available to other employees of the same or substantially similar qualifications, experience, or skills employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances;”.
“The same” is fine because “the same” means both people have the same role—both people have the same level of experience. But when we start talking about “substantially similar”, there can be different interpretations of what is “substantially similar”, and that opens up a lot of disputes because one individual can interpret “substantially” different from the other individual. So interpretations can differ and there can be challenges there.
It actually introduces legal uncertainty in the legislation, and it increases the likelihood of disputes arising because of there being substantially similar qualifications or substantially similar circumstances. There can be so many variables in any work environment, and, already, we know there are because these are people. We don’t have clones of one individual working in a workplace that will perform exactly the same way like the other individual, because they’re not the clone of another individual. Every individual is different. They bring their own attitude, their own kind of way of approaching the job they have been given, and now this bill introduces some more variables in there to complicate the situation by saying “substantially similar qualifications”. What does “substantially similar qualifications” mean? What does “substantially similar circumstances” mean? “The same” is there.
My proposed amendment is that we keep “the same” but remove “substantially similar qualifications” and “substantially similar circumstances” to ensure that we are not creating a legal uncertainty for employers. Also, even for employees, it can be quite confusing because it can lead to some expectations which, actually, are not the right expectations for them to have.
This is actually a very serious issue here, which makes this bill really impractical and not workable, and it will be important to hear from the member to see how the member plans to make this subclause practical, because at the moment it is not.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to some members on their questions, the member Tom Rutherford referred to the wording in the primary bill, talking about the word “presumed”. This is a very common word used in legislation, especially in the Employment Relations Act, and removing that word or finding that word unacceptable would lead to a number of legislative changes in a number of different bills. It is quite a common word that is utilised in this particular piece of legislation. But thank you to the member for that comment.
The examples brought by Vanessa Weenink in relation to the amendment by Parmjeet Parmar, I think, in relation to—
Dr Vanessa Weenink: Laura.
CAMILLA BELICH: —oh, sorry, Laura McClure, in relation to the notification of your boss before you make the disclosure, I agree with the member. I don’t think this would be practical, and I think it would go against the purpose of the bill, because it isn’t how human conversations usually work, and it would probably lead to people doing what they currently do: talking about their pay, believing that they’re able to do that but breaching the Act by not telling their employer first. The example the member raises about talking to one’s partner is a good one, I think. I think most people in New Zealand would expect that they’re able to disclose that if they have a clause in their contract. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
There was also a discussion around removing the amendment, which I think talks about bonuses and commissions in work. Often we find in pay discrimination, one of the key ways that pay is given to one group of people over another is through additional payments like bonus and commissions. So I think removing “bonus and commission” from this definition would be very problematic.
I’d also highlight that at the Education and Workforce Committee we did remove payments for owners of businesses. I note that was a particular improvement by Vanessa Weenink, who has had some experience working in an environment as an employee and also as a business owner. So that was looked at in detail and changes to not include that were not seen as a way to take this bill forward.
In relation to Parmjeet Parmar’s comment around protections for employer, this is really the whole point. The protections for the employer already exist. The employer is not facing discipline or dismissal through disclosure of the employee’s pay at the moment. That is something that the employer can do without breaching a contract. And if you do look at the Privacy Commissioner’s website, they actually cite pay secrecy for employees as something which is specifically raised as an issue that might be problematic for employees, not for employers. So I’d refer the member to that.
In relation to the points around good faith and that not being enforceable, the member will be aware that we did look at banning these clauses in employment contracts. The reason that we decided as a committee not to move forward with that was because of how difficult that would make the administration for businesses. So we save businesses money by not forcing them to take clauses out of their contract. That seems to be what the member is advocating for. There is no breach of good faith in having unenforceable clause in an unemployment agreement. As a party that often says that freedom of expression is important, it’s somewhat ironic to see this extremely, extremely limited.
Todd Stephenson: Freedom of contract? Freedom of contract as well.
CAMILLA BELICH: The ACT Party has obviously chosen freedom of contract over freedom of expression, and I will just leave that there for—
Todd Stephenson: Both can exist.
CAMILLA BELICH: Well, you’ve obviously picked one on this particular example. Also, in a substantially similar point of view, the member raised the fact that people are not clones and at the same time advocated for a change to treat people like clones. People often are not exactly the same in employment situations. They often have slightly different experiences; they often have slightly different pay. There might be a justified reason for that. The reason that it’s “substantially similar” is to not put such a high threshold as having to find an identical person where you have identical experience and identical conditions and identical start date in order for this bill to be effective, because that would be prohibitive and would allow situations of unfairness to continue without having a remedy.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve heard a lot about you tonight, Mr Butterick; we might as well hear from you.
MIKE BUTTERICK: Well, you might regret saying that, Madam Chair—yet! Thank you. I just had a question for the member in regard to 110AB(1)(b) in regard to “refuses or omits to offer or afford to the employee the same terms of employment, conditions of work, fringe benefits, or opportunities”—and I note there’s a number of things in there—“training”, “promotion”, “transfer”—and then it talks about “experience, or skills employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances”. I just really wanted to talk about whether there was any consideration to using a productivity metric or something in there, because I’ve employed people over the years and they do have the same skills, same experience—you know, all those sorts of attributes—but sometimes, some are better than others and more efficient. Have you given consideration to including that in there?
Tom Rutherford: Are you talking about output and efficiency?
MIKE BUTTERICK: Yes, I am talking about output and efficiency and productivity.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome back to the Chair, Madam Chair. I want to first of all, actually, make just a quick comment: this is a very important subject matter, and I’m proud of the fact that the National Party is supporting this bill. Thank you to the member for all the diligent work she’s done, but, please, to the other side of the House, it is very important that we get this right. This is what the committee of the whole House process is about. It’s about getting it right to the utmost, where we can go away and have a good night’s sleep knowing that we exhausted all the questions that we had. Please, please, be patient as we do that.
I’d like to thank the member for answering the question with respect to the amendment that Dr Parmjeet Parmar put through about the words “with any other person”, bringing that to clause 5, new section 110AB, and going to new subsection (2)(a), “an employee discusses their remuneration with any other person,”. I thank you for the answer that you gave. If you don’t mind, if I can just ask an offshoot question to your answer.
To the member Camilla Belich, am I to understand that you’re OK—and part of what you will see going forward is there are going to be situations where employees discuss their pay with media, for example. I think media is the big question mark from what I’m hearing from our colleagues in the ACT Party. For me, that is a bit of a question mark as well. Were those discussions had in the select committee process? I think you said yes. But, with respect to media, is that part of your expectations in the future that, yes, employees will discuss their pay with media outlets? If that’s the case, then that’s OK—just as long as I can understand the whakaaro behind that. That’s the first question I have, please—almost like a supplementary to your earlier answer, please.
The second question I have is—coming back to, again, clause 5(5) It begins with the words “To avoid doubt”, and I found that a bit peculiar. I’m not used to seeing that type of language in legislation, and it stood out to me, and I’d like to please seek clarification, and, perhaps, I’d like to be confident going forward. “To avoid doubt”, being written in that way, is it kind of saying that there is some doubt, and, if so, should we have clarified the doubt in the previous new sections, as opposed to saying “To avoid doubt”? Because “To avoid doubt”, respectfully, as I said, did stand out to me as a bit odd in proposed legislation. I’d like the member to please speak to that and to whether that did come across in your conversations in the select committee process as well, and with the ministry officials giving advice.
The first one is about “with any other person” extending to media. Is that something that you think will be normal? And, if so, that’s OK—just as long as I can please hear what your thoughts are around that just so that I can prepare my neighbours in Takanini going forward that are good employers but sometimes find themselves in certain situations. This is just to prepare them for that going forward. The second query was with respect to the words “To avoid doubt”. Is that saying that there is a lot of doubt, and should that be something we work on? Thank you.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to draw the member’s attention to the amendment suggested by Dr Parmar—
Mike Butterick: Which amendment?
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: The amendment is to clause 5, a new section—
Mike Butterick: Which number?
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Well, it was at 4.40.08 on the Amendment Papers, for the members to refer to. So that’s clause 5, new section 110AB, insert after subsection (7) a new section, which would mean that this section does not apply to an employer who employs fewer than 20 employees at the time the relevant conduct occurs.
During the select committee we heard from a range of employees and employers, some who employed fewer than 20, some only had five people in their workplace, some were large employers, and some of the submitters also represented groups who employed quite large substantial numbers. The intention of this amendment would be to substantially limit the number of employees to which this would apply to. And from the intention of the bill being to, in a small way, contribute to reducing some of the chilling factors that apply if there are any forms of pay secrecy that is involved in an employment contract—or even just the culture of not discussing and disclosing pay with each other. Having that only apply to a certain type of employer, those who are, I guess with 20 employees—fewer than 20 or less usually is a small to medium employer, I think, under the definition. The fact that actually many businesses in New Zealand, I think a quite a substantial proportion—I don’t know the exact numbers off by heart—[Interruption] I beg your pardon; what’s that you say?
Laura McClure: About 95 percent.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: About 95 percent of employers actually employ 20 or fewer. So I think if this new amendment was to be considered and applied, that would mean that this potential Act would only apply to 5 percent of employers; I’m not sure in terms of the actual numbers of employees. So the intention of this tabled amendment appears to be to try and frustrate completely the objectives and purpose of the bill and would be completely contrary to what is trying to be achieved here.
I’m very proud to stand as a member of the National Party in support of this bill. We have done so since its first reading. We are on the side of fairness and this also is related to natural justice. This particular amendment—and I wonder if the member agrees—has the appearance of trying to overturn the entire point of this bill. It demonstrates that the ACT Party obviously have put in their disagreement and their opposition to this, and this is one way in which they’re trying to frustrate this process. I can understand their tactic in doing that.
Now, the other amendment that drew my attention was—again we’re still in Part 1—again in clause 5—
Mike Butterick: What numbered amendment?
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: This is yet another one from Laura McClure that we would insert another clause. In clause 5, after new section 110(7), again inserting a new subsection, subsection (8): “This section does not apply when the employee’s disclosure of their remuneration was materially misleading or inaccurate.” And again, I guess that would be lying, that would be misleading people, and that would be out; that would be a breach of the law anyway. So I’d just like your response on those.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve got a number of questions I would like to ask—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, look, I wouldn’t assume he’s an ass.
TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, Mr Webb?
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I said I wouldn’t assume you’re an ass. There’s conclusive proof.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Madam Chair, I take offence at that statement made by Mr Webb, and I’d ask that he withdraw and apologise, please.
CHAIRPERSON (Jenny Salesa): Can the Hon Dr Duncan Webb withdraw and apologise.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw and apologise.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much—oh, he’s going in contrition.
My question relates to new section 110AB(6) and the definition of “remuneration”. If we look at it in part of the legislation, it says the definition includes any other type of payment for work but excludes payments as business owners. That’s as shown in new paragraph (b) over the page.
How will this apply to contractors, consultants, or those with complex employment relations and arrangements with the business? There’s no mention in here of anybody who has that kind of employment relation with the business that’s involved. So how would that apply to contractors, consultants, or those with complex employment arrangements? Could this create, let’s say, some uncertainty for businesses using mixed employment models?
Steve Abel: This is repetition.
TOM RUTHERFORD: I don’t think it is repetition, Steve Abel. I haven’t asked this question before. I haven’t asked this question previously, so I am interested to get some clarity as to how it would apply to contractors, consultants, or those with complex employment relations.
The other point in there is on new section 110AB(6)(a)(ii). It says, “allowances”. Has there been any consideration to actually flesh out further what is included in allowances? Does that include, say, personal vehicles or vehicles provided by the employer? Does that need to be disclosed? Why does said employer get a $50,000 vehicle and another employee get a $25,000 or $20,000 vehicle? What about health insurance? Some providers, for example, provide their employees with different health insurance. What if there are staged or levelled health insurance based on the remuneration that you receive or the level of your employment and whether you may be a manager?
Dr Vanessa Weenink: Or on sabbatical.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Yes. What about if you’re on a sabbatical, for example, as well? Does it need to actually be fleshed out in the legislation? Allowances is a very broad term, so has there been any consideration as to including things like vehicles? I talked about health insurance—well, if you go with Southern Cross, for example, then what about if you get Wellbeing One or Wellbeing Two? What if you have dental or vision? There are many, many different prescribed versions available in insurance. Does that need to be disclosed between different employees as well? Because there are many, many pitfalls that could be incorporated in here if we’re not very careful.
Steve Abel: What about a different question? You’ve already asked that one.
TOM RUTHERFORD: I haven’t asked this question, Steve Abel.
Steve Abel: In this call you have.
TOM RUTHERFORD: I have not. No—no.
Steve Abel: Move to something else.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, I love this. I really, really love this. This fills me up with a lot of things because, for once, the Green Party are complaining about members on this side taking calls. Let’s just remember this exact feeling in about 16 hours’ time when the boot returns to the other foot, and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and Steve Abel and Francisco Hernandez stand up and they flesh out two-, three-, five-minute calls in a row and they continue on and they continue on—
CHAIRPERSON (Jenny Salesa): Order!
TOM RUTHERFORD: —members on this side—
CHAIRPERSON (Jenny Salesa): Order! Members on my left side are most welcome to take calls.
TOM RUTHERFORD: That’s very—
CHAIRPERSON (Jenny Salesa): But shouting across the House is not the way to do it.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate your ruling there. I’ve always been told in this House that interjections must be short, sharp, and witty, and I’m looking forward to receiving some of those because we haven’t had any, as of yet.
But I want to reiterate that my question revolves around allowances, vehicles, insurance, and ensuring those are available. Are they included in here? Are they included—different values of vehicles? What about the insurance on the vehicle? For goodness’ sake, where does the line actually get drawn? Because “allowances” is a very shallow, very small word here, but it can have wide-ranging implications for different employees when they’re discussing their remuneration with their colleagues, and I’m keen to gain some clarity on that from the member in charge.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very happy to contribute to this debate again, and I appreciate that some clauses have been debated by other members. One that has not been discussed yet is my amendment to section 110AB, in clause 5. My amendment inserts subsection (8), and this section applies where the employee made the disclosure in good faith and not with the purpose of causing harm to the employer or the other employee. Why I find this appropriate is that the member has already discussed at length that good faith applies regardless.
So if that were to be true, there would be no issue with adding an explicit provision like this to set the scene to make sure that we don’t have those nefarious claims coming through a personal grievance step. I think that in terms of talking about the potential costs and the risks to business when someone does make a potentially nefarious personal grievance, it’s always on the employer to foot those costs and to go out there and do that. While I think that, yes, good faith may apply, it’s still sometimes extremely hard to prove with pieces of legislation like this where we have all kinds of different terms that I don’t think are very clear, and to be honest are going to be making a gold mine for a bunch of employment lawyers out there.
I think it’s very fair to explicitly state it, and if the member does believe that people are disclosing their pay in good faith and in the eyes of transparency and in order to help with the gender pay gap, then including a section that explicitly says that the employee made this disclosure in good faith and not with a purpose of causing harm to the employer or the other employee is, I think, a very fair way to explicitly state this. I’m interested to hear what the member’s thoughts are on this.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to some of the queries raised by members—and thanking the members for their engagement on this bill. I agree with Vanessa Weenink: yes, and I think we have covered this before, limiting it to companies with over 20 would significantly change the impact of the bill and is possibly contrary to the purpose of it. So that’s one reason that I wouldn’t support that.
In relation to the amendment, which talks about people raising issues of pay in a nefarious way or lying: yes, that would be a breach of good faith. In relation to the member Tom Rutherford’s question, the definition of remuneration was carefully considered by the committee and benefited from advice from advisors. It is a wide definition and it includes, at the end of that clause, any payment made for work. So it is seen to be a wider definition of pay and that was the advice that we received when considering this bill.
In terms of his other questions, it applies to employment relationships only. Non-employment relationships would not be covered by this particular piece of legislation, and sabbaticals are considered to be usually still part of employment. In relation to Laura McClure: yes, the member is correct, good faith already applies. So my response to the member would be rather than put an additional clause that doesn’t add anything new to the bill, we should leave it out for clarity and simplicity because it already applies to the substantive Act which we would be amending.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I talk about my other proposed amendment, which I haven’t spoken about, I want to repeat a question that I asked the member in charge of the bill; this was about the privacy of another employee. So I’m repeating this question again. I’ve already repeated it once, so that’s why I’m saying I’m repeating again: when one employee goes to their employer saying that another employee has disclosed how much they are earning and wants to raise that as an issue with the employer, the employer—when they discuss the circumstances of the other employee—is breaching privacy of the other employee. The response that I got from the member was that employers already have too many protections.
This is really undermining the privacy of the other employee. So how can the employer go about talking about another employee without it being seen as a breach of their privacy? Because they will have to obviously explain what the circumstances are, why this other employee’s being paid differently, to the employee who has raised this issue with the employer. I think I have given enough opportunity to the member to give an answer to this question, and she has not been able to provide any good answer so far.
Talking about my other proposed amendment—this is, again, clause 5. In clause 5, my amendment says delete new section 110AB(2)(b); in clause 5, new 110AB(2)(c), delete new subparagraph (ii). In clause 5, after new section 110AB(7) insert—this is a new subsection which says, “Nothing in this section prevents an employer from including in an employment agreement a term that prohibits an employee from inquiring about another employee’s remuneration.”
This is very important because sometimes there will be some employees, those who will feel that they don’t want to disclose—so the bill says, yes, it’s a voluntary thing. When somebody approaches you in the workplace, asks for your remuneration, it’s up to you if you want to disclose or not disclose. But that can create a lot of friction in the workplace because people will know that there is no such clause in anybody’s agreement. Another thing I would like to highlight here is that there can be some employees, those who might come under pressure and feel that they have to reveal what their remuneration is. That should not be the situation we should be putting employees in because that way we are taking the choice away from them.
Here the example is: if, for example, there are five or six employees sitting around a coffee table and one employee goes to the first colleague of theirs, saying “How much do you get?” and the person says, “$50,000.”; goes to the next one, says they earn $50,000; asks the third employee and that employee says, “$55,000.” Then when that employee goes around the table, comes to maybe the last one, the last one may not want to reveal what they earn but just because the previous four have already revealed what they’re earning, this last one who is questioned by this employee who is inquiring of others how much they are earning will feel that pressure of that work environment where they have to reveal what they are earning.
This is going to put people in that kind of situation. Otherwise, other employees will think that “Oh, this person is not a team player, doesn’t want to discuss what that person earns, whereas everybody else is willing to share that.” That’s why I’m proposing this amendment, which is to protect such people.
Another example I would like to give here is this: maybe an employee discloses what they earn today—for example, 30 July; somebody says, “I earn this much.” After three or four months, this employee again approaches the same employee asking, “How much do you earn?” At that point, during that time, that employee has decided that they don’t want to actually disclose what their remuneration is. At that point, they say to this employee that “Look, I’m not happy to disclose what my remuneration is.” In that situation, this other employee will make guesses—
Laura McClure: Feel bad.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Not only feel bad but also will guess that maybe that other employee’s remuneration has gone up and that’s why, now that the other employee doesn’t want to disclose, maybe it is because he’s received an increment since the last time that employee disclosed how much that employee was getting.
There are so many complications that this bill is going to lead to, and that’s why we are working hard in the ACT team to make sure that this bill—if it goes through—goes through in an improved form, not in the current form, which is not going to be helpful for any business environment. It will only help unions, and that’s why we are proposing this amendment. I would like to understand from the member if she could respond to the examples that I have given and how and why she thinks this amendment should not be supported.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take the next call, I want to say that even though I’ve just come to the Chair at about 9 o’clock, I have been following this debate from upstairs and I have had a conversation with the Chair before me. There’s a lot of speeches that are really repetitive. I would like to hear some new information, some new clauses, and some new speeches. I mean, you’re welcome to take the calls, but do give us some new information.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been an employee and I’ve also acted for an employer. I’ve managed projects of up to 240 people, delivering ultra-fast broadband and other major projects. This involved being responsible for the welfare, the health and safety, the employment terms and conditions, and all of the other benefits and obligations that each employee and each subcontractor and members of subcontractors’ staff had in terms of the engineering construction contracts that I was either supervising or managing as project manager.
I cannot imagine in what world, having engaged people on different salaries and different wages based on their experience, based on all of the matters that an employer needs to take into consideration when making a decision about whether I offer this employee a four-wheel drive ute; a two-wheel drive ute; a fuel card; that they pay for their own fuel and seek compensation and expense that out; whether some employees, because they work slightly late, get a taxi home and they get that taxi paid for—whereas others who regularly work late, maybe the same hours, we’ve paid them through their salary in recognition that, say, if you have to work late on a Friday night to complete the accounts for the monthly claim, that’s included in your overall salary package and you don’t get a taxi chip.
All of these matters come down to an individual consideration between an individual employee or subcontractor or contractor—not included in this, but they are the same people, for all intents and purposes, doing the work on the building site—and the employer. If all of these matters may or may not be disclosed—must be required to be disclosed if asked, which is what I understand the intent of the bill is—how on earth is an individual, hearing these matters being discussed in their workplace, meant to make sense of all of these things and balance them, to determine in their own mind whether their package, what they are paid plus benefits, is equivalent to or fair compared to the person working next to them? Well, it’s not possible.
I think what the member in charge of this bill has fallen for is the fallacy that a single person or judge can determine what’s right for each individual, subject to a regime. That is a fallacy, and I challenge the member Camilla Belich, to explain which individual will have the perfect knowledge to make the perfect decision, and how to explain that perfect decision to any number of employees who, for whatever reason, have a different balance of salaries and wages and benefits. I don’t understand it.
I’ll tell you who else tried to do this. I’ll tell you who else: the Soviet Union tried this. Somebody in a bureaucracy in the Kremlin worked out how many nails, how many screws, how many nuts, and how many bolts they needed so that they could build trucks and other machines. It turned out that there was not one person who knew the number of nuts and bolts of various diameters that should be ordered in any given week, in any given month, so they could build the things that the Communist Soviet Union wanted to do. They had total State control.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So how does that, Simon Court, relate to the bill?
SIMON COURT: I will bring it back to the bill. The point is, Madam Chair, there is no one individual, whether it’s in the Kremlin or sitting in this seat as Camilla Belich is right now, who has the perfect knowledge to put together the individual nut that is what the employer needs them to do and the bolt that is the employee that fits that nut.
So what I would ask the member in the chair, when considering does the member have this perfect information—or imagine, at some time, if she ever happens to be an employer in the private sector; highly unlikely for a Labour MP, but, you know, I mean, the earth does go around the sun once a day. Does the member truly believe that when an employee’s disclosure of their remuneration is potentially misleading or inaccurate, they shouldn’t be subject to the same kind of punishments anyone else is for having misled people in their workplace?
STEVE ABEL (Green): I move, That debate on this question now close.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, I think, for the member, he didn’t quite get the wording quite right on the closure motion there. We have had more practice on this side.
But I want to talk about new section 110AB(2)(a), which says, “any other person”. I recall the comments previously made by my colleague Vanessa Weenink on this topic, but I want to flesh this out. It says that the bill allows employees to discuss their remuneration with “any other person”, which explicitly includes not just workplace colleagues—it doesn’t just include workplace colleagues—but, potentially, competitors. What about recruitment consultants? What about journalists—and I know Parmjeet Parmar and other members of the ACT Party have talked about journalists and the media—or anyone else?
While I strongly support the principle of pay transparency and being honest about things within a workplace and with family members—I think it’s important to have a husband and wife, a husband and husband, a wife and wife, or whatever their arrangement is, discussing what their pay is in a well-functioning household. Is something happening in the Rutherford household at present, as we prepare for our wedding and are discussing what our new lives together will be like? Our wedding is in January, so we’ve still got a bit of runway.
This unrestricted scope does seriously raise legitimate commercial concerns, and I want to consider a scenario. Let’s think about a scenario where a senior executive in a competitive industry discusses detailed remuneration packages, including things like their performance bonuses and retention strategies, with a recruitment consultant who also works with direct competitors. This information could literally be used to poach staff—particularly key staff—or undermine competitive positioning. That’s what I’m looking at.
Similarly, in small communities of specialised industries, unrestricted disclosure could lead to, effectively, potentially, in some cases, a race to the bottom. So I would welcome the member Camilla Belich’s answers to some of those questions.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just quickly respond to some members’ questions. In response to the member Dr Parmjeet Parmar, it is not correct that an employer, when questioned by one employee about another employee’s wages, has to disclose any of that employee’s wages. That is not a requirement of this bill and it’s just simply not correct that there’s any requirement to do that.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: It doesn’t provide the protection in the bill
CAMILLA BELICH: It’s absolutely not correct. If the member would like to take another call to ask further questions, she would, but I believe I’ve addressed that question, and also, just to clarify, I did not say that employers have too many rights. This is not about removing employers’ rights; it’s about allowing employees to talk about their pay.
In relation to the member Tom Rutherford’s question, “any person” means any other person, and the disclosures have to be in good faith. Hopefully, that addresses some of his concerns.
I struggled to find a question in the member Simon Court’s speech, but I would simply say—
Simon Court: Are you a communist?
CAMILLA BELICH: I am not. It’s interesting that you raise that. I won’t repeat it for Hansard, but it’s not correct. I would say to the member that if I could try and ascertain a question from his speech, it is simply the fact that all people are not the same and all conditions are not the same—I entirely agree. If there is a justified reason why people are being paid differently, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that affects that at all. If two people go to their employer and they say, “I’ve been treated unfairly.”, and the employer explains that to them and they accept that reason or they don’t accept that reason, that is the end of it. That is what occurs in that situation.
This does not set in place a regime to address inequity. It does not put in place a regime to address unfairness. There are other bills that do address that, including the Equal Pay Act and including the pay equity bill—which does still exist—so that information could be utilised in other forms of legislation or other ways that the employee may have policies in order to take something forward. But this particular bill simply allows employees to talk about their own pay.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 110AB(1)(b) deleting the words “or substantially similar” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Laura McClure’s tabled amendments to clause 5, paragraphs (b) and (c) of new section 110AB(1) and the deletion of the definition of “detriment” in subsection (6) of new section 110AB be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 110AB(2)(a) replacing “any other person” with “any other employee who is employed by the same employer” be agreed to
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 19
ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 103
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendments to clause 5, new section 110AB(2) deleting paragraph (b), subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (c) and inserting new subsection (8) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.
The question is that Laura McClure’s tabled amendments to clause 5, new section 110AB(3) replacing “substantial reason” with “the sole reason” and deleting new section 110AB(4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting subparagraph (iii) in paragraph (c) of new section 110AB(6) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 110AB(8) to exclude employers who employ fewer than 20 employees be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 110AB(8) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.
Laura McClure’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 110AB(8) to require employees to notify their employers before disclosing their remuneration to another person is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.
The question is that Laura McClure’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 110AB(8) to clarify that the section only applies to employees who disclose their remuneration in good faith be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Laura McClure’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 110AB(8) to exclude employees who materially mislead when disclosing their remuneration be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 110AB(8) and (9) to exclude employees who earn more than $180,000 from section 110AB, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 110AB(8) and (9) to permit an employer and employee agreeing to a disclosure restriction clause in their employment agreement be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Laura McClure’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 110AB(8) and (9) to prevent employees from disclosing the remuneration of another employee without express consent be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 103
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 19
ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Further amendment to principal Act, and the Schedule
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 7, “Further amendment to principal Act”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 103
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 19
ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Part 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Laura McClure’s tabled amendment to the Schedule is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule be agreed to.
Ayes 103
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 19
ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 and 2, the debate on the title and commencement.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m so glad we got through that voting. I’ve got a number of proposed alternative titles, which I would like to put to the member for suggestion. Let’s just be clear, to begin with: the title currently is the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Now, a couple of alternatives that I want to put to the member for her consideration would be the “Employment Relations (Pay Transparency) Amendment Bill”. I wonder whether the member would potentially be open to considering that as a change of title to it.
What about the “Employment Relations (Wage Transparency Protection) Amendment Bill”? What about the “Employment Relations (Salary Disclosure Protection) Amendment Bill”? I could go all night. I’m going to keep going; I’m only one-fifth of the way through my call. This has got—
Francisco Hernandez: Please do. Can you guys fill five minutes?
TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, Francisco Hernandez says this is a waste of five minutes. Well, this is how I feel. This is how I feel when he speaks many of the times. I was missing Scott Willis during the voting because that man takes an ice age to get up to cast the Green Party vote and then an ice age to sit down. Somehow, Francisco Hernandez has found some rocket fuel and is getting to his feet.
There are other alternative titles, if I come back to what I was actually talking about in the title and commencement. What about the “Employment Relations (Pay Secrecy Prohibition) Amendment Bill”? Would the member be open to considering that as an alternative title? What about “Employment Relations (Anti - Pay Secrecy) Amendment Bill” or the “Employment Relations (Wage Discussion Protection) Amendment Bill”? There’s plenty here—“Employment Relations (Employee Pay Discussion Protection) Amendment Bill”.
Francisco Hernandez: We’ll vote for all of those.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, you can only have one, Francisco. You can only have one, unless you’re prepared to give many, many titles to the legislation. It would take longer to get the title of the bill out than it would for people to actually disclose what their remuneration is to their colleagues. You’ve got to be careful what you wish for—careful what you wish for.
Now, what about the “Employment Relations (Anti-retaliation for Pay Disclosure) Amendment Bill”? Would the member in charge potentially consider that as an alternative for the title to the legislation? What about the “Employment Relations (Employee Wage Discussion Rights) Amendment Bill”? I’ve done plenty of research. I’ve had plenty of time here. We’ve been spending plenty of time in the committee of the whole House, so I’ve created a list here.
What about the “Employment Relations (Pay Equity Transparency) Amendment Bill”? What about the “Employment Relations (Fair Pay Disclosures) Amendment Bill”? There’s also the “Employment Relations (Workplace Pay Fairness) Amendment Bill”. I’m looking at the member for some reassurance. Are you picking up anything and putting it down? Are you picking anything up? Are you picking anything up?
I’ll start again. There could also be the “Employment Relations (Right to Discuss Pay) Amendment Bill”. What about the “Employment Relations (Protection from Pay Secrecy Clause) Amendment Bill”? We could have the “Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Discussion Rights) Amendment Bill”. I’ve given plenty of suggestions to the member in charge. I’d welcome hearing her views on it.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 103
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 19
ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment replacing clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 11
ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 111
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 103
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 19
ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
Report of Committee of the Whole House
Report of Committee of the Whole House
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.