Wednesday, 20 August 2025

WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2025

WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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 Consumer New Zealand requesting that the House urge the Government to introduce a mandatory supermarket pricing accuracy code with clear pricing rules, higher penalties for misleading pricing, infringement notice powers, and automatic compensation for consumers.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk, no select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk, and no bills have been introduced.

Speaker’s Rulings

Standing Order 396

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday, by way of point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty asked that I consider the Hansard of Question No. 7, to see if the answer was in accord with the requirements of the Standing Orders. I’ve done so, and find that some of the words used in the answer could be seen to breach the strictest application of Standing Order 396(2)(a) and (b). I remind all Ministers to be cognisant of Standing Order 396 in total.

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: Can he confirm teachers are striking today because they received a pay offer of 1 percent while inflation is currently at 2.7 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not going to get into the details of the offer—that should be something that’s discussed around the negotiating table—but I think what we can all agree on is that our kids have missed out on a huge amount of education. There’s a number of young people setting up for exams and parents are being mucked around, and we’d just encourage the unions: don’t go to strike action early; sit around the negotiating table.

Hon Marama Davidson: Then does he accept that wages not keeping pace with inflation is a pay cut in real terms; and, if so, when will he “Up the teachers”? [Holds up protest sign bearing these words]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d say that that’s what this Government is working incredibly hard to do, which is to make sure that wage growth is ahead of inflation, unlike what we saw with the previous administration, where inflation was well ahead of wages. That’s why we’re working hard to lower inflation, to lower interest rates, to get the economy growing, and to create more jobs for people.

Hon Marama Davidson: So does he stand by his statement that “ultimately wages need to go ahead of inflation so that people can get ahead”; and, if so, why hasn’t his Government offered teachers and nurses pay increases so that they can get ahead?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: One more here.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he take responsibility for the current state of industrial relations, given there has been strike action by at least 65,000 workers across essential roles in this year alone?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the right to collective bargaining is preserved in this country, as well as individual negotiations between employees and employers. Again, my message very clearly to the unions is: don’t go to strike action for the very first action that you’re taking; get around the negotiating table and hammer it out.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister expect that someone—for example, a member of Parliament who has had the benefit of a New Zealand education—will be able to hold up a sign with a complete sentence in English?

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, that’s not all that helpful for order.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that there has been a breakdown of industrial relations in this country across essential sectors in health, education, and the Public Service due to his Government’s decision to freeze and cut funding to the public sector?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, with the characterisation of that question: in answer to the first part, no.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank has just released its latest monetary policy statement. The official cash rate (OCR) has been reduced by a further 25 basis points, taking the rate down to 3 percent. That is a far cry from the 5.5 percent cash rate reached in May 2023. Over the past year, OCR reductions have lowered the cost of borrowing for New Zealand households and businesses, delivering much-needed cost of living relief and supporting the economic recovery.

Cameron Brewer: What did the Reserve Bank say about the future track for the OCR?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Positive news: the future track has been lowered. The monetary policy committee is now signalling two more OCR reductions this year, which would bring the cash rate to 2.5 percent. That is more than the market expected, so I would expect both floating and fixed interest rates to now fall as a consequence. People have been calling for more stimulus in the economy. This is more stimulus.

Cameron Brewer: What did the Reserve Bank say about the future track for economic growth and inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In the first quarter of this year, economic growth was stronger than expected. In the second quarter, the wind got knocked out of the sails by the US tariff announcements and subsequent global uncertainty. That is reflected in the Reserve Bank’s latest forecasts, which show a slight contraction in the June quarter. This is a temporary blip with growth picking up again in the remainder of the year and beyond, supported by a lower interest rate track that will continue to transmit through the economy. Likewise, the Reserve Bank continues to expect a modest bump in inflation this year for various one-off reasons but to fall thereafter back to the 2 percent target.

Cameron Brewer: How much have mortgage interest rates fallen in the past year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Over the past year, floating mortgage rates have fallen in line with the OCR, coming down by around 2.25 percentage points so far, not including today’s announcement. That means, for example, that a family taking out a floating $500,000 mortgage today on a 25-year term would pay around $330 less a fortnight in repayments compared to a year ago. Fixed rates have also fallen considerably, and it’s important to remember that around 40 percent of fixed mortgages are due to be to be refinanced in the next six months. That means that past OCR reductions, as well as today’s reduction, will continue to flow through to households over the remainder of this year and beyond.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What did the Reserve Bank say about the causes of the significant spare capacity in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is clear that the economy is recovering, and the Reserve Bank is explicit that, in the second quarter, the economy was impacted by the announcement of tariffs out of the United States and the global uncertainty that followed and that that certainly had an effect on both business and consumer behaviour.

Cameron Brewer: How are Government policies supporting lower interest rates for households and businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank’s monetary policy is key to stabilising the economy, adding stimulus through lower interest rates when it’s needed and taking it away again when it isn’t. Government policy also plays a role. When the Government is disciplined with its spending, it helps take the heat out of inflation and gives the Reserve Bank more room to reduce interest rates. That is what the Government is doing. On the other hand, undisciplined and excessive spending simply fans the fire of inflation and makes the Reserve Bank’s job harder. For a recent experience of that, see Budgets 2022 and 2023.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. I raise a point of order in regards to the transfer of this question. We do not dispute the Government’s right to transfer questions. I do, however, seek your assurance here. In this instance, this question was originally put to the Minister for Pacific Peoples, asking if he stood by a statement that he made in response to questions put to him in oral questions last week. Now that has been transferred to the Minister for Social Development and Employment. We intend to ask questions supplementary to this that flow directly from the statement that the Minister for Pacific Peoples made, so I’m seeking your reassurance that the Minister that will be answering will be required to respond fully, as outlined in Speaker’s ruling 171/5.

SPEAKER: Well, 171/5 of course refers to the primary questions being asked. The transfer request this morning was considered at length because it does relate to a specific statement made by the Minister for Pacific Peoples. However, in the original, it goes on to ask what specific actions he has taken to improve employment for Pasifika peoples. Given that that was about employment for Pasifika peoples, clearly the transfer was requested on that basis and accepted on that basis. So it would be unreasonable to expect that, having had it transferred with the rewrite, there would be a reference or requirement that the Minister answering the question knew the mind of the Minister who made the statement. It’s difficult, I know, but that’s where we’re at.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. On the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ website, it says very clearly that the ministry has responsibility for co-design of particular interventions, including employment interventions, so I would ask that the Speaker go away and perhaps look at that—we could send that to him—and then review the decision that has been made with the transfer today.

SPEAKER: What are you asking? To hold the question over?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No.

SPEAKER: Well then either ask the question or not. It’s the member’s choice.

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the Minister for Pacific Peoples’ statement, “So as a wider suite of all-of-Government endeavours, we're looking to improve employment for Pasifika”; if so, what specific actions has she taken to improve employment for Pasifika peoples?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. I acknowledge that when it comes to unemployment, Pasifika are disproportionately affected. That's why our all-of-Government approach is relentlessly focused on growing the economy to support all New Zealanders with better job opportunities and higher incomes, and that, of course, includes Pasifika people. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) community coaching programme and expanded case management service has helped to improve employment opportunities for young people, including Pasifika. I'm confident our approach is working because, despite challenging economic times, we have seen an increase in the number of Pasifika people exiting the jobseeker benefit into work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What specific Pasifika employment interventions can she point to that were initiated or co-designed by or with the Minister for Pacific Peoples, given the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ website states that it is “the Crown’s principal advisor on policies and interventions aimed at improving outcomes for Pacific peoples”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm very proud to say that on this side of the House, Ministers work incredibly closely together, particularly around employment opportunities. As I said, Pasifika people have been disproportionately affected by the tight labour market, so, of course, there are multiple conversations with Ministers—including the Minister for Pacific Peoples—about how to improve outcomes. This includes our “welfare that works” design and the increase of young Pasifika people participating in job coaching, for example, and who have individual employment plans.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What specific actions has she taken to improve employment for Pasifika peoples, given 6,100 more Pasifika people are now unemployed compared to last year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It sort of feels as if I’m repeating myself a little bit, but the employment initiatives that we have under way are absolutely focused on Pasifika people, and I've had regular conversations with the Minister for Pacific Peoples around what we do to improve employment outcomes. Our “welfare that works” is absolutely focused—particularly on young people. If we look at where there are significant opportunities in the labour market ahead in, for example, areas like South Auckland, our Jobs and Skills Hubs are preparing young people for those jobs that are coming.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We’ll do the three here, and then I'll come to the member.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What specific actions has she taken to improve employment for Pasifika peoples in Auckland, given 3,700 more Pasifika people are now unemployed in Auckland alone compared to last year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I'm really pleased to say that initiatives like Alo Vaka in Auckland are specifically around improving employment opportunities and for higher incomes, which is something that everyone on this side of the House is very keen on. We do know that the Government's programme of around $6 billion worth of infrastructure projects due to start before Christmas—we want to ensure Kiwis and Pasifika people are first in line for those jobs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme has provided, and is still providing, tens of thousands of jobs to Pasifika people ever since it was started by you-know-who in 2007?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, and Pasifika people who were in their home countries—we also want to ensure that there are employment opportunities to improve their lives and their lifestyles, and that programme has been incredibly successful over many years.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she regret her Government cutting $22 million out of a proven programme to help Pasifika into employment, the Tupu Aotearoa programme, given Pasifika unemployment has doubled since this Government took office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, because what our Government is focused on is ensuring that where there is a focus on employment, like the Ministry of Social Development, we are leveraging existing programmes to make them stronger and more effective and ensure we drive better outcomes for Pasifika unemployment.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the $22 million cut from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ Tupu Aotearoa employment programme transferred in its entirety to MSD for targeted Pasifika employment and training programmes; if so, what are they?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I've said, we are a Government focused on increasing employment opportunities as well as lifting incomes, which is why we have moved that programme into the Ministry of Social Development, to ensure that there is a boosted opportunity for MSD to work intensively through programmes like job coaching and case management that currently have higher proportions of Pasifika participating.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she understand why Pasifika people might be taking it personally when their unemployment rate is double what it was when the Government came into office, more than double the general unemployment rate, and her Government is making things worse for them each and every day?

SPEAKER: Questions like that, in the context of the point of order that was raised yesterday by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, don't meet the tests for the Standing Orders required. However, the Minister may respond.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, because Pasifika people know what we have inherited and what we go to work on each and every day to improve the opportunities and fix the mess that we were given.

Question No. 4—Health

4. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent reports has he seen about Medsafe?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): Really impressive news from Medsafe’s annual performance statistics for the 2024-25 year. It shows that it is approving new medicines for New Zealanders faster than the year before, which in turn was actually faster than the year before that. I’d like to especially thank Chris James and his team. I think that they’re working fantastically well to get more medicines for New Zealanders. They also, again, met 100 percent of their targeted time frames for approving new over-the-counter medicines. I think it’s a very good example of how Government can work to ensure that New Zealanders have access to the medicines they need as quickly—ideally quicker than citizens of other countries.

Todd Stephenson: How many working days has Medsafe reduced approval times over the last two years, and how does this compare with international benchmarks?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Over the last two years, Medsafe has cut over 100 working days from assessment times. So they’re doing it about five months’ faster for a new medicine than they were two years ago. On innovative medicines: 59 days faster this year than last year; that year itself was 55 days faster than the previous year. For generic medicines: 64 days faster this year than last year. That was after a 45-day improvement the year before. So this scale of improvement is really putting New Zealand amongst other—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Answer the actual question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —performers around the world. We’re firmly aligned with the likes of comparable jurisdictions, like Australia, Canada, and Singapore. And for the member who has just sprung into life—although perhaps not mentally—

SPEAKER: No, that’s it. That’s the end of the question. That’s the end of the question. The member will sit down.

Todd Stephenson: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, you might call a supplementary. I just said it’s the end of the question. We’re not going to go down those tracks. So ask your supplementary but I hope the answer is appropriate.

Todd Stephenson: How will the Rule of Two change the experience for patients waiting on new treatments compared to the current system?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Some people could think that Chris James and his team at Medsafe could be complacent, having got us competitive with the rest of the world, shaving 100 working days—or five months—off the time to consent a new medicine just in the last two years. But we are far from complacent. This Government is bringing legislation through Parliament that will introduce the Rule of Two. Early next year, the rule will be that if a medicine is allowed by two other similar jurisdictions—the likes of Australia or Canada or the United States or the European Union or the UK or Japan, for examples—if two of those countries have allowed something, then within 30 days they’ll be allowed here in New Zealand. That is going to be another exceptional improvement—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can we take him seriously when he’s taking the piss out of someone’s mental health? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sit down. That was a very unnecessary interjection. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise to the House for that language.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order, Mr Speaker. Does he need to withdraw and apologise for attacking another member’s mental health?

SPEAKER: He didn’t get to that. I stopped him before he did it. Finish the answer and that will be the end of the question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’d also like to answer what I anticipate could have been the third supplementary question by saying that in case someone was to ask for an example of a medicine that’s been assessed faster: Omjjara, a blood cancer medicine, that was approved 131 days faster than the average time last year for innovative medicine. So these are new medicines that make a real difference in people’s lives. I think we should all be really proud of what this particular part of the Government is achieving for New Zealanders.

Question No. 5—Rail

5. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Minister for Rail: What recent statements and actions has he made regarding rail?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Give us our trains, Winnie!

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just a moment. Before someone even answers the questions, to have people starting to comment on it is completely inappropriate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): Last Friday, we issued a statement regarding the final settlement payment by KiwiRail to Hyundai of $144 million. This brought the sorry saga of mismanagement to a close after the previous Government approved the contract in June 2021. Project iReX spent $671 million in total, and KiwiRail’s chief financial officer told the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, on 15 February 2024, that KiwiRail had spent, by that time, $424 million before the cancellation. For what? Well, hordes of consultants, comms people, architects, and artists but so little to show for it. Had we not cancelled this project, costs would’ve multiplied not twice, not thrice, but 10 times that amount, to, as Treasury said, $4 billion and still climbing. Members, we have washed the taxpayers’ hands of this outrageous mismanagement, and our solution will save the taxpayer billions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, roughly 25 minutes ago, you made it really clear to the House that it is your expectation that Ministers would not introduce commentary and opinion into their answers. There were two occasions in that very answer that strayed from what is appropriate, particularly for a question that is asked by their own side.

SPEAKER: Well, anticipating that there would be some degree of extra interest in this question, I certainly have listened to it very, very carefully, and I can’t agree with the position you’re trying to advance.

Jamie Arbuckle: Why is he so confident his plan will save the taxpayers billions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, there’s an old Māori saying: the wharf doesn’t come out to meet the ferry.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: It’s Ngāti Wai—it’s Ngāti Wai.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s actually a Ngāti Wai saying; that’s right, because we’re people of the sea—not the people all at sea; the people of the sea. Our solution focuses on what’s required for Wellington and Picton and doesn’t get sucked into nonsense like the Project iReX, which sought to knock down everything and then build utopia in its place. Once they got control of 21, they specified flash new terminal buildings, “Taj Mahals” in Picton; they planned to lift the yards metres into the air and completely over-specify the road and rail yards.

Chlöe Swarbrick: “Taj Mahals” in Picton?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, if you listen, you’ll finally learn. I know it’s taken a long time for you, being so inexperienced in this business, having offered yourself for an Auckland mayor when you were a teenager and you didn’t know how to run the school tuck shop. We’ll update existing buildings—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s enough—that’s enough for now. I just want to deal with something here. Yep, that’s good. Firstly, that constant commentary about how you’re seeing things does not help order in the House. It is not inappropriate for a Government to reference something that they’ve had to deal with in the way that the Rt Hon Winston Peters just has. It’s not pleasant for some people—I appreciate that—but it is not outside the rules. So don’t ask me why you should follow the rules when you’re accusing someone else of not doing so when, in fact, they are.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. I cannot possibly see how allowing Ministers to accuse previous Governments of mismanagement, of nonsense, and other examples such as that—which are direct quotes from the last two answers—to be consistent by the very clear guidance that you have given this House.

SPEAKER: And I’ll certainly review the Hansard afterwards.

Jamie Arbuckle: What was the Minister’s message to workers on the Aratere ferry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Our message was one of appreciation. On Monday, the Interislander ferry Aratere had her final scheduled sailing after 26 years on the Cook Strait. The Aratere has been a workhorse of the Interislander fleet, with thousands of sailings, millions of passenger journeys, millions of tonnes of goods moved, and all of that was enabled by the crews who served her. The reduced fleet has resulted in job losses, but these are tough decisions which we don’t shirk from. We turned up, we said thank you on behalf of the Government, and we reminded them that the Interislander has a secure future thanks to our no-nonsense ferry solution.

Jamie Arbuckle: How is the Interislander performing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much—more good news, actually: the Interislander has been hovering near 100 percent of punctuality throughout this year—in fact, we could recommend that to Air New Zealand. Just last week, the Kaitaki crew celebrated their net promoter score lifting from 30 percent in September last year to 61.8 percent this year—more than double. For those on the other side of the Chamber who are not familiar with promotion, anything above 50 is considered excellent, so results like this indicate customers are having a positive experience when they cruise with us on the Interislander.

Jamie Arbuckle: How is KiwiRail performing overall?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Before the end of the last financial year, we were pleased to state that we fully expect KiwiRail will achieve its $110 million operating surplus target. While we’d never pre-empt a company’s annual result announcement, we can say we very much look forward to that result next month. This is especially so in a year where major freight operators like Mainfreight and export ports have results in very tight forecasts. We have set very clear expectations—costs down, volume up, safety up, reliability up—and as KiwiRail delivers on these outcomes, it’ll be a significantly improved commercial business enterprise.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In context, yes. I particularly stand by my statements that those with mortgages will welcome today’s news of a reduction in the official cash rate.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement from March this year that the “recovery is under way” when KiwiSaver members withdrew over $470 million for hardship reasons in the past year, a 56.6 percent increase?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I obviously have concern for any New Zealander who feels that their situation is such that it makes sense for them to have to draw down on their savings. And for those in that position, who have made that choice, that will reflect a range of challenging household circumstances. It is the case, when unemployment is high, as it has been forecast to be at this point in the year for some years, that that affects a household’s income and therefore their ability to save and therefore influences choices about whether or not people make KiwiSaver withdrawals. I would highlight again to the member that it has been the case that since prior to the election, all of the forecasts put forward by the previous finance Minister predicted that at this point, unemployment would be peaking.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that the “recovery is under way” when there is a 37 percent increase in company liquidations, which is greater than under the global financial crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I have never debated that we have been going, as a country, through a very difficult economic recovery. That is the case. It is also the case that we have been through three very challenging years, including a period in which GDP per capita declined significantly. It is also the case that in the final three months of last year, we had healthy levels of growth at 0.5 percent for the quarter, and that in the first quarter of this year, at 0.8 percent, which annualised would be more than 3 percent. We had a level of growth that was far stronger than that forecast by Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and others, and it is on that basis that I made the comment that the recovery was under way. I've also acknowledged, many times in this House, that there is no debate about the fact that the second quarter of this year has been challenging—very challenging—for many New Zealand businesses and households, and I suspect that those liquidations reflect that. That has been a reaction, in part, to the announcement of tariffs—global uncertainty that has had an impact here at home.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the Minister of Finance aware that that 37 percent increase was before liberation day in April of this year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I'd suggest to the member that her generic question, as with her primary question, does not provide the opportunity to explore topics in detail, and I would welcome her taking a different approach in question time so we could actually have a substantive debate, rather than her listing a series of statistics and quotes, which I think is boring for everyone in the House.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she really support people wearing hard hats and a high-vis when there are 18,000 fewer construction workers at a time when the Government has cancelled 3,500 State house builds?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I absolutely stand with everyone who wants to wear a hard hat and high-vis, which is why I back fast track, because fast track will ensure that major construction projects can be under way faster, and I urge the member to join me in supporting that. And it is also why I welcome today's announcement of lower interest rates, because anyone in the construction sector will tell you that when interest rates soar as high as they did under the previous Government, that destroys the pipeline of future construction projects. And in order for those projects to stack up again, they need to see affordable borrowing rates, which is what we are now seeing with stable economic and fiscal management.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does offering secondary school teachers a 1 percent pay rise but board directors of Government agencies or entities an 80 percent pay rise show that we value teachers very, very much?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we have demonstrated that we value teachers very, very much through a range of steps, including, for example, being the first Government to say that we will meet their teacher registration fees, something that they have called for for years, that the previous Government refused to do. We value teachers, also, by giving them a clear, knowledge-based curriculum, access to resources to teach proven techniques of structured literacy and numeracy, and the professional development to ensure they can achieve their core goal—the reason that they teach: so that children can achieve the skills that they need to succeed.

Question No. 7—RMA Reform

7. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent progress has been made on changing our planning system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Good progress. This morning the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act was given Royal assent. As members know, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been holding New Zealand back for decades. It’s let successive Governments and councils say no to progress, no to development, no to houses, no to infrastructure, no to energy and other important projects. This, hopefully, final amendment to the RMA—forever—will make it quicker and simpler to build renewable energy, build houses, and reduce red tape for the primary sector.

Miles Anderson: What does the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act achieve?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It will enable more renewable energy to be built faster and cheaper. It will make it easier for our ports to operate—very important as an export-based nation. It will deliver more housing in our biggest cities, requiring Auckland to up-zone around City Rail Link stations. It will make it easier for councils to de-list heritage buildings, and the Act directly de-lists the Gordon Wilson flats, allowing them to finally be demolished. It liberalises the law around farming in the primary sector; it makes changes to fresh water farm plans, increases certainty and efficiency for aquaculture, clarifies discharge rules for our farmers, and delivers faster consents for wood processing. In short, it does a range of very sensible things.

Miles Anderson: Does this new Act contain changes to transition the RMA into our new planning system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, it does. Before the end of the year, the Government will deliver two bills to create a narrower planning system that looks radically different to the RMA. In anticipation of this new system, we’ve taken some measures to ensure a smooth transition. Most significantly, we’ve put a default stop to council plan-making. Much of the current planning work won’t be completed or implemented by the time the new system takes effect and, even if it was completed, it would need significant changes to comply with the new planning rules. So, rather than let these pricey, pointless policy processes play out, we’re giving councils clarity and saving ratepayers money.

Miles Anderson: Why is the Government replacing our planning system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, where does one start? Because we spend $1.3 billion a year on consenting costs for infrastructure; because we have some of the most expensive house prices in the developed world; because, in a country with abundant renewable energy, it takes years and years to consent a wind farm or a solar farm; because people are trying to spend their own money building office buildings next to train stations and get denied consent because of the alleged heritage qualities of gravel pits in our biggest city. Let me count the reasons. The RMA is soon to be gone-burger and growth and prosperity is on the way.

Simon Court: Minister, why has the Government put coal and gas on the same priority consenting pathway as wind and solar, and will this make it easier to build the firm, affordable power that households and businesses rely on?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in answer to that question, we have [Interruption].

SPEAKER: Well, if people have so much to say, they should ask a question—inside your allocation, of course.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government has made this decision because we know that when the wind doesn’t blow and the rain doesn’t fall, New Zealanders need and deserve energy security, and in the New Zealand energy system, that means thermal electricity, that means coal and gas, and this winter, the coal stockpile at Huntly is making sure that when Kiwis go home after work and turn the kettle on and put the kids to bed, they actually have reliable power. We will not take lectures from the other side that made the worst public policy decision in relation to energy in 30 years—

SPEAKER: No—that’s enough! That’s enough!

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. 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: Can the Prime Minister finally end speculation about reducing our climate targets, as we are still yet to hear anything, when his climate Minister promised that it would be confirmed “in the New Year”, back in December 2024?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I mean, this is a Government that’s very, very focused on economic growth—that’s actually how Kiwis get ahead—but it’s also a Government that’s delivering on its environmental commitments. As we’ve discussed before in this House, our emissions reduction plan 1 and plan 2 look like they’re on budget, which is good, and it actually looks like we can do net zero by 2050 much sooner.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Climate Change Commission has recommended that more ambitious targets are entirely compatible with economic growth, could improve energy security, and would actually bring Aotearoa closer to international market preferences? [Interruption]

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just really encourage you to reflect on the standards that you apply to this side of the House, compared to that side of the House. Earlier today—

SPEAKER: Miss Swarbrick, that is a reflection on the Chair and not a wise line for you to go down. Please ask your question again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Climate Change Commission has recommended that more ambitious targets are entirely compatible with economic growth, could actually improve energy security, and would bring Aotearoa closer to international market preferences?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said to the member before, we’re on track to deliver on our commitments, but this is a Government that is unapologetic that we are prioritising economic growth. That is what New Zealanders put this Government in power to do, and that’s what we’re delivering.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that weakening our methane target—as his Government has signalled that it will—would place a far higher emissions reduction burden, and therefore a higher cost of living, on households and businesses across this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Cabinet hasn’t made any decisions about methane targets.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of any of our trading partners’ concerns, that have been raised directly with his Ministers, about how the Government’s $200 million fossil fuel subsidy is likely in breach of our international trade agreements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, sir. Standing Order 390 is quite clear: that question cannot stand, because it is not a fact.

SPEAKER: Just allow me to have a wee look for a moment here. OK, it’s the mirror of what should be in answers. I think if we were to go down that track, then we would be in some trouble, because virtually any question asked in the House—and I’ve just circled, as it happens, three questions today that massively breach the system, and I will look for the Hansard, because I know that there are answers in those Hansards that also could be considered to be out of order if Standing Order 396 was strictly applied, as I said at the start of today. But in the question, Chlöe Swarbrick asked whether something had happened. That is not out of order; that’s quite reasonable for the Prime Minister to answer.

Hon Shane Jones: Further to the point of order, sir?

SPEAKER: Further to the point of order, after I’ve just ruled on it?

Hon Shane Jones: The expression I referred to was “subsidy”.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Shane Jones: The expression I referred to in the member’s question was the word “subsidy”. It is not a subsidy.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a good answer from the Prime Minister. Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I am aware of is that we are the only country—that I’m aware of—that is making the rather unique energy transition from domestic gas to imported coal, and that is a function of the previous Government’s failed energy policy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no—that’s enough.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And that is why—

SPEAKER: No, Prime Minister, that’s enough, thank you. Is there another supplementary?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was directly about whether the Prime Minister was aware as to whether any of his Ministers had been advised by international trading partners about whether a potential subsidy was in breach of our trade agreements. He didn’t even address the question. He didn’t even try to.

SPEAKER: You can’t assert something and then expect an answer on it—that’s the problem. I’d ask the member to have a close look at her question, reading it alongside the Standing Orders.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement, “Through our record $16.68 billion investment across three Budgets, we are making sure our health system is properly resourced to meet the growing demands placed on it”; if not, why not?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Acting Minister of Health): Yes, in the context it was made.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the health system properly resourced to meet those growing demands?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government’s never shied away from the health system that we’ve inherited. That’s why we’ve invested a record $16.68 billion across three Budgets to address those pressures.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was drawing on a direct quote from the Minister about proper resourcing, and the question of whether the resourcing was appropriate was not addressed.

SPEAKER: Except that he said that it’s a Cabinet decision to resource the $16.8 billion over the next three years. That is surely an answer—certainly addressing the question. Is there a further supplementary?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the health system properly resourced to deliver the current level of services it offers?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, the difficulty in that question is that the health system always works on projected demand; that differs. At the moment, we’re addressing high demand because of winter. That’s why we have winter preparedness plans to ensure that we have the resource to scale up for that surge capacity.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the health system properly resourced to deliver existing services without shifting more costs on to patients who are struggling with the cost of living?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Exactly to that question, that’s why this Government capped co-payment increases at 3 percent at GP practices.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If the health system is properly resourced, why does the Health New Zealand statement of performance expectations say that the financial projections assume equity funding from the Crown totalling $350 million before 30 June 2026?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I don’t know how that questioner can ask that question with a straight face. The reality is that the health system that we inherited, of course, has cost pressures. That’s why we’ve invested $16.68 billion to address those cost pressures, and last year, we recruited 4,000 extra front-line health staff to address those pressures.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why does the Government say the health system is properly resourced when it is $350 million short?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: It’s not only how much money you put in but, actually, the results you get out. You only need to look at the performance of that last Government around health targets, when everything went the wrong way.

Question No. 8 to Prime Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a 24 June 2025 statement by Chlöe Swarbrick where she said that the matter she raised today was a subsidy or breach of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS). Yet, today, she said it was a likely subsidy. I seek leave to table that.

SPEAKER: Is that document publicly available?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It will be after I’ve tabled it, yes.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I think we’ll leave it. Thank you.

Question No. 10—Arts, Culture and Heritage

SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Suze Redmayne. Just wait for a bit of quiet—stand up, though, but wait for a bit of quiet.

10. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent announcements has he made about future-proofing New Zealand's unique natural history?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Last week, the Prime Minister, Minister Bishop, and I turned the sod for Te Papa's new Biodiversity Research Centre in Upper Hutt. Te Papa's current storage facility contains more than 860,000 preserved specimens of fish and other marine species dating back to a hoki that was caught in 1869. The current facility is earthquake-prone, a fire risk, and no longer fit for purpose. Without this new home, this extraordinary collection would have faced disposal. The Government's not allowing that to happen, and by March 2028, the collection will be future-proofed for generations to come.

Suze Redmayne: What impact will the construction of the Biodiversity Research Centre have on the New Zealand economy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government’s investment of $112.5 million has enabled construction to begin immediately. After announcing the project last Thursday, groundworks commenced at 11.30 a.m. on Monday and 150 staff are expected to be on-site during peak times, and the main contractor expects more than 2,000 people to be involved in the project in some way. It's just one of $6 billion worth of infrastructure projects our Government is starting before the end of the year to get more cash flowing through our economy—

SPEAKER: Yep, very good. That’ll do. Got another one?

Suze Redmayne: Why has the Government decided to preserve Te Papa's collection of specimens?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Te Papa’s collection preserves more than a quarter of a million fish from New Zealand and the wider Pacific region, including sharks and the colossal squid, molluscs and crustaceans. Our leadership in this area is appropriate, given our country's got one of the largest economic zones in the world—

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK. That’s good.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Hey, hang on!

SPEAKER: I think we’ve got it. Got another supplementary?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Hold on, Mr Speaker. Hold on a minute.

SPEAKER: No, there's only one judge of that. Please sit down.

Suze Redmayne: How is the spirit collection utilised by researchers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The spirit collection is used by renowned experts such as Andrew Stewart, Thom Linley, and Kerry Walton from the natural history team at Te Papa, which put together this collection, and there's much more else besides. The previous Government, of course, put this money aside, but, like many things, they announced it but they didn't follow through, and it fell to this Government—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. Sit down—sit down. Thank you.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, and in particular, my repeated attempts to contact the member to get cross-party collaboration on curriculum and NCEA. The public expect cross-party engagement on significant issues such as the future of our national curriculum. I most certainly stand by my repeated efforts over many months, via multiple channels, to send an open invitation to achieve this to both the member and the Leader of the Opposition—both of whom didn’t reply until it was a matter of public interest. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions are heard in silence.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does cancelling pay equity for secondary school teachers, and preventing them from making any claims in the future, make teachers feel valued?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Teachers can feel very valued. Not everything has to be won through bargaining or even other methods. We’ve already said, earlier in this question time, the amount of investment that we’ve put into teachers. If you look at the most recent Budget: $53 million for paying teacher fees; another $30 million - odd to pay for 800 teachers a year to go through aspiring principals programmes; the professional learning and development; the three-quarters of a billion dollars we’ve put into learning support. We value teachers, and, every day of the week, we’re putting resources in to show that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does cancelling pay equity for secondary school teachers, and then offering a pay increase so small that it is, effectively, a pay cut in real terms, make teachers feel valued?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve said to the member in the past, on many occasions, that she should not conflate teacher bargaining and pay equity. I’ve already said a number of times in the House: not everything has to be won through collective bargaining. We’ve already made significant investments in the terms of billions of dollars into the education system to improve conditions for teachers, and just one of those is the three-quarters of a billion dollars we’ve put into learning support because teachers asked us for better conditions in the classroom, and we are delivering it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did the Government ignore the claim for more pastoral care time and funding when teachers are having to provide support to students with complex mental health, emotional, and societal needs?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not sure what the member is referring to, but what I do know is, through this Budget, we put in $2.5 billion worth of investment. Of that, $53 million went, for the first time, to pay for teacher registration fees; $30 million - odd went to pay for aspiring principals programmes that will affect 800 teachers a year; and three-quarters of a billion dollars went into learning support, which, I would note, the previous Government completely ignored for six long years.

Hon David Seymour: Will the Government be negotiating into teachers’ contracts that they must reply to texts and emails, or is that just something that professional people do anyway?

SPEAKER: That’s not at all a reasonable or helpful question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she rule out removing or weakening teachers’ right to strike?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That question was asked yesterday to Minister Judith Collins, and she answered that. I think the member can refer to that. What I want to make very clear is that we are a Government that is about raising achievement; we’re investing heavily in education, including in our teachers, and all we want is for the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) to come and negotiate in good faith.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she intend to ban teachers from striking because it is easer than paying teachers what they are worth?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This was already answered yesterday. I’m not sure why the member continues to ask it. The question was asked yesterday and was answered.

Question No. 12—Energy

12. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he seen about the Energy Competition Task Force?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy): Yesterday, the Electricity Authority announced the largest change to the electricity market in decades. This new rule will help increase competition and benefit Kiwi consumers struggling with unaffordable energy costs. Currently, large power companies can cross-subsidise themselves because they both produce electricity and sell it to their own retail arms. The new rule will mean that they have to offer their electricity contracts at the same price to all retail companies. This action will level the playing field by giving smaller electricity retailers a better chance to compete and, ultimately, will give Kiwi consumers more choice.

Tim Costley: How will this change benefit—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on. Questions are heard in silence.

Tim Costley: How will this change benefit consumers?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, very simply: increasing competition drives down prices, and we know that greater competition drives better outcomes for New Zealand consumers. We know that Kiwis are struggling with power prices, and this is a tangible action that will directly benefit Kiwi households and businesses.

Tim Costley: Is the Electricity Authority considering other options to address competition?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes. It is clear that we need a more competitive electricity market in this country. I am pleased that the Electricity Authority has said that it will consider further actions if the actions announced yesterday do not achieve the desired outcomes. Kiwi households and businesses deserve access to affordable and reliable energy, and this Government has made it clear to our regulators that this is our number one priority.

Tim Costley: What else has that Minister seen about the Energy Competition Task Force?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The task force has a clear directive from this Government to make energy more affordable, and that is why I’m pleased to see the actions it has taken to date to put downward pressure on electricity prices. These actions include steps to support new generation, and we now have one of the largest pipelines of new generation projects in 15 years. There is no single solution or silver bullet, but small, surgical interventions will make a big difference and drive real results for Kiwi households and businesses.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister for Energy, what other recent announcements has he seen about energy competition flowing from the cancellation of the oil and gas industry?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What is very clear as a result of the cancellation of the oil and gas ban is that at long last, certainty is returning to the investment community. It is clear that this country needs a diversity of fuel sources in order to keep the lights on, and under the prior Government, we lost that confidence. This Government has brought it back.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions, so we’ll take a minute for those members who—

Hon Shane Jones: Coal.

SPEAKER: —excuse me—do need to leave the House for other business to do so quickly and quietly.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Today is a good day. We have good news for every New Zealand household and business, that their mortgage rates are coming down; 3 percent—3 percent—is the official cash rate that’s been announced today. So what does that mean? What does that mean for a household? For an average mortgage of $500,000, over a year, it’s $330 less a fortnight that is going to be going on their mortgage. When we talk about indicators of the right direction and what we are doing is working, that is exactly the sort of progress that we are seeing. It’s the lowest interest rates in three years.

It’s important not just for households, it’s important for businesses. If we think about construction—and my colleague here the Hon Chris Penk has been doing fantastic work in building and construction—what do businesses need to know? That the mortgage rates are not going to strangle them. Having lower interest rates is significant.

What we do know—and the Minister of Finance said it earlier today—is that 40 percent of households will be refixing their mortgages in the next six months, so that does mean that the pressure that households have been under will be alleviated. It’s a significant step forward in terms of economic recovery. What it means is greater confidence to spend, to grow, to invest, and to take up the opportunities that we know are ahead.

What does the other side of the House spend their time doing? Thinking about how many more ways they can tax hard-working New Zealanders. They’re thinking about, “Oh, should we have a capital gains tax or a wealth tax?” Actually, maybe they’ll do both. Add an inheritance tax. I’m sure they’ll come up with a whole raft of new taxes, because that’s their record.

What is the record of this side of the House? We are really clear about the damage that the other side of the House did when they were in office, and the Treasury’s Long-term Insights Briefing said it recently. They completely used the opportunity—which was an absolute disgrace. They used the challenging times of COVID to just go to town and spend on whatever they wanted. Excessive spending, which is what has led to the households in pain that they’ve been dealing with for the last couple of months. It’s great to see, with the official cash rate out today, that progress is here. We are making progress over the next couple of months. It will make an enormous difference when those mortgage rates are eased, and New Zealanders will have more choices about do they pay off debt; do they invest more; do they spend? That’s what means money flows in.

In terms of employment, of course lower interest rates mean greater employment opportunities because businesses can see that they have more space, more capacity; they’re paying less in interest rates; and they see that the tide has turned. That’s exactly what we’ve been saying. That’s what this coalition Government has been saying from day one. We’ve had an economic plan; we have been taking the plan each day. Look, some of it’s been challenging, you know—let’s absolutely face it. The other side were more than happy to spend recklessly so that New Zealanders have to pay the price, but this is a Government who are responsible, who are very clear economic managers, who have taken the time to work through incredibly challenging issues, whether it’s in employment, whether it’s in infrastructure, whether it’s in building construction. This is a Government that’s saying yes: yes to infrastructure, yes to more tourists, yes to more employment opportunities, yes to lower interest rates, and yes to fixing the issues that we inherited.

I want to come to employment, because, if you think about one of the Government targets, it is around supporting more New Zealanders into employment. The other side of the House, do you know what they say? “Why would you bother having a target like that? Why would you bother?” They don’t believe in the opportunities and aspirations that this side of the House knows come from work. The ability to go to work, earn an income, look after your family, be part of your community is what this side of the House values. That’s why, yes, it’s an ambitious target, but each and every day we are ensuring New Zealanders will be first in line for the job opportunities.

This is a coalition Government working hard to get New Zealand back on track. Three percent, with the official cash rate today, is a really, really positive sign. It’s been great news today, great sign of progress, great sign of optimism, and that’s why New Zealanders are backing—although it’s a challenging plan, we’re doing it; we’re delivering it; and they can see the progress that’s coming.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): All is not well over there, is it? All is not well over there. Their heads are down, morale is down. It’s so bad they have to train their MPs to clap Louise Upston. That’s how bad things are. Now, they can’t replace Luxon in the general debate with Bishop, because Bishop polls better than Luxon. They can’t replace him with Nicola Willis, because she’s going around telling Kiwis in London that she’s going to roll him.

Did you see The Post? “Gentle whispers,” they said. “Gentle whispers” that Nicola Willis might be the next Prime Minister. What The Post didn’t say is it was her that was doing the whispering. She’s been going around telling everybody, “It’s going to be me.”—real gentle: “It’s going to be me.” Now, she’s got form. Just remember, before the last election, do you remember when she got in some hot water, when she was discussing with the Auckland business community about rolling Luxon then? Then, yesterday, she stood up, all buoyed by her own rumours and her own whispers, and took the Prime Minister’s lectern right in front of his face. How bolshie can you get? So, no, she’s out. It can’t be; it’s got to be Louise Upston. Consider the barrel scraped. If that was the message of this Government, how can they possibly expect to give New Zealanders hope?

This is true to form from this Government—this is true to form. They think that they can say that black is white and people will believe them. They think that they can say that they are going to make things better, when, actually, what have they done? They’ve made it worse. They think they can claim to have built 7,000 houses. That’s what Christopher Luxon said in the House on numerous occasions—in the House, where you are bound by truth. How many have they built? Forty-five. Forty-five houses, when they promised—Nicola Willis signed a pledge and promised to build 1,000 net social houses in Auckland, and they’ve built 45 in two years.

They said they would build more houses than the previous Government. What have they done? They’ve scrapped housing, they’ve stopped people moving into emergency housing, and homelessness has gone up at unprecedented levels. People are sleeping on the street because of every single one of them. They voted for the Budget to scrap billions out of the housing and they celebrated saving a billion dollars because people are on the street. How shameless can you get? They don’t care. They do not care, because they have a strategy to distract and divide.

Now, there’s one thing that New Zealanders hate, and that is a lie. If you were to extend that further, there’s only one thing worse, and that is a repeated lie. And there have been repeated lies after repeated lies after repeated lies. What is interesting is that they think New Zealanders are thick, that they can stand there and tell them that the last Government wasted money over COVID. It was a pitiful, pathetic effort from Louise Upston. But if you listen closely, that was the message she was trying to get across.

They think New Zealanders are so dumb that they won’t remember: at the time, they voted for it. They supported it. In fact, I have a quote here from Paul Goldsmith: “We obviously back this and how this money is spent. We support the Government. We encourage them to go further.” That’s what they said. That is what they said, and now they’re turning around and saying, “No, no, that was wasted money.”

They said they would fix the cost of living; things have got worse. They said they would fix housing; things have got worse. They said they would fix health; things have got worse. New Zealanders are waking up to this. There’s nothing worse than a repeated lie. Perhaps a close second is an empty promise. That is all they are. They are full of PR, hot wind, empty promises, and absolutely no delivery. The cost of cheese, the cost of mince, the cost of daily basics—rates have gone up because of them, insurance has gone up because of them, but because they gave landlords a $2.9 billion tax cut, they think all is well.

Well, I’ve got a message for the Government: just because your mates think it’s going well, doesn’t mean it is. Ordinary New Zealanders are suffering because of their negligence, because of their division, because of their destruction, and they’re waking up to it. This Government, led by an absolute dud of a Prime Minister, only has months to go, and New Zealanders cannot wait for the change.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Good news today: 3 percent is the official cash rate, interest rates are coming down, and the stimulatory effect for our New Zealand economy is going to be great. A colleague and friend Louise Upston set that out very clearly. It’s a stimulatory effect for the construction sector. Good news for New Zealand businesses, good news for Kiwi households—we are getting New Zealand back on track.

I can tell members that New Zealand has got a Government that listens to the construction sector. We’re hearing their concerns and we are responding decisively to them. This week, I had the pleasure of announcing, alongside the Prime Minister, two transformational policy changes that will make life better for our building professionals, councils, and Kiwis. Importantly, the impetus for these changes came from the sector itself in the numerous meetings and engagements I do across the country almost every day, and I regret to say that that’s in contrast to some across the other side of the House, because when they were in Government—just as when they are in Opposition now—they didn’t listen to the community, they didn’t listen to society, and they certainly don’t listen to the sector.

But don’t take my word for it. This morning on Newstalk ZB, Combined Building Supplies Co-Op CEO Carl Taylor said of this Government—and I quote—“They are doing everything they promised to do when they went into Government. The last Government, I couldn’t … get in front of the construction Minister.”

Listening to the sector, listening to Kiwis, hearing about the issues that they face, and solving those problems is what we need in this country. It’s the longstanding problems that we are seeking to solve across numerous sectors and numerous policy areas, and not merely observing the economic cycle, standing back, and waiting for that to happen to our people.

We’re pulling every lever in the construction sector. For example, the first major change that we announced was changing the liability settings to free ratepayers from being unfairly saddled with the full cost of defective building work. This is consistent with our work in reducing rates through refocusing the Local Government Act to focus on core business. Capping rates is something we’ve talked about—you’ll hear more about that in due course—because we know that the pressure on Kiwi households and businesses is high when local government passes on costs that could be avoided and that don’t add value in the case of our unnecessarily burdensome consenting system, and we’re doing something about it.

Councils are understandably hesitant to sign off on consents and inspections, because, until now—or at least, it’s still the case until such time as we make the change to the Building Act—they can be held liable, fully, for every defect and every single build that is the result of negligence or poor handiwork on the part of another person because they have been involved in the consenting process. So, when one of the parties responsible cannot or will not pay its own fair share of responsibility or liability, building owners, ratepayers, and the councils are left carrying the can.

This isn’t a small problem, and a report in 2018 from Superu highlighted that $330 million on councils, by which, of course, I mean ratepayers—it’s their money, after all—was passed on as a result of defects and faults for which the council was not even responsible. It’s a cost of living issue because inflation is caused when unnecessary payments are made. We see, along with insurance and energy—areas where the Government is working hard to keep costs down—that rates are a huge additional burden on Kiwi households and businesses and society. We are doing what we can in this space to take the pressure off local government in order to take the pressure off its ratepayers. It’s time to put the responsibility where it belongs, and we know that improving the responsibility of the building entities improves their performance because the incentives are right.

We also know that if we can reform the building consent authorities system by allowing councils to voluntarily consolidate their functions across regional boundaries and across whole areas of New Zealand, that will make life easier for them, and it will make life easier, therefore, for those building at scale, those building in offsite manufacturing outfits, large-scale home builders, and those who the Government procures from, among others. The Government procures a large number of these buildings, and that’s how we are able to keep the costs down when it comes to classrooms, defence housing, and other types of buildings that are so important to our Kiwis who serve us so well.

Councils have been asking for this change. We’ve listened to them, we’ve responded, and we’re giving them that change. The feedback from the sector has been strong. Local Government New Zealand said that the changes will have “an instant and positive impact on housing growth”, the Building Officials Institute of New Zealand called the reforms “a win for ratepayers, homeowners, investors, and the wider economy.”, and the Certified Builders described them as “the most significant change for the building industry in a generation,”. We’re listening, we’re acting, and we’re getting New Zealand back on track.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I bring a message from Duncan McLean, a retailer in Newtown, in my electorate of Rongotai, for 24 years and a founding member of Newtown Heart, which is the local business group. He says, “The homelessness situation in Newtown is the worst I have ever seen. As a retailer, I am constantly approached for money, whether walking down the street or even while using an ATM. My customers regularly tell me they feel unsafe. Many say they no longer allow their children walk through Newtown alone. Every week, I witness drug dealers interacting with homeless people, and discarded drug bags are left on the streets, right where people and children from our three local schools can see them. Public drinking continues despite a drinking ban, and at night, many areas feel unsafe due to poor lighting.”

Now, Duncan is working hard for his community—like so many others. Newtown Heart association—we’ve got a whole series of local people in Newtown who have banded together to write an open letter to Minister Potaka and Minister Bishop, the Ministers of Housing and homelessness, to tell them how bad the situation has gotten over the last year and a half. It’s been signed by the residents’ association, the local sports club, the churches, the community centre, the local volunteer community patrol team, the local and regional councillors, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Wellington, and businesses up and down the street—no less than 20 different businesses—all crying out for this Government to take responsibility. It is not good enough to come into this House and use some statistics to pretend like the problem isn’t growing. It’s out there on the street.

I sent this letter, on behalf of the community, to the Ministers on Friday last week, asking them to come walk the streets of Newtown. This is not a political stunt; this is not to score political points. These people want genuine solutions. Everybody cares about their community, and the reality is that certain decisions this Government has taken have left us in a worse position. This was in the paper on Monday; it’s about the rough-sleeping crisis deepening and the communities grappling with rising homelessness and a whole host of other problems, because when people don’t have a safe, secure place to call home, they’re much more likely to fall prey to substance abuse issues, and if we don’t have that wrapraround support, there’s no way for them to get out of the downward spiral.

Our community provides a lot of social housing, and that is ratepayers putting money into social housing—huge amounts of it—and that’s good, but the reality is that it is a central government responsibility. Now, they’ve cancelled 200 new units that would have been built in the Rongotai electorate. They cancelled them. Where’s the community housing provider contracts? Not a single one has been given to a community housing provider to increase the supply of housing in Wellington. That’s the reality.

We don’t have the housing being built that we need; we don’t have funding for the social support wraparound services that we need to support people who are suffering from trauma or substance abuse issues. The police are at their wits’ end; they have people who have such complex needs who might be taking some very extreme actions in public—they are taken to the hospital, but there’s no room for them there in the hospital. Where are they supposed to go? There’s a need for positive, constructive solutions.

The Salvation Army, one of the signatories on this open letter that I sent to the Ministers, noted that there has been an increase in homelessness and that it is directly related to a 386 percent rise in Ministry of Social Development rejections for emergency housing. That is a direct result of the Government’s actions. This is having an impact on our community, it’s having an impact on businesses, it’s having an impact on safety, and we cannot solve the problem on our own.

This isn’t just in Newtown; it’s also deeply related to my colleague Tamatha Paul’s—who’s the MP for Wellington Central—electorate. Both our communities across the city are being affected by Government decisions to cancel State house builds, to not move on Arlington, to increase the criteria for emergency housing, and to cut funding for social support services. It may be good news for those people in the Koru Club and those with investment properties—but come walk the streets. I invite any member from the Government benches to come to Newtown. It’s on your way to the airport. Come with me to Newtown, come see what’s happening, and let’s solve this problem.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I’m reminded of the famous song from the States about “Ol’ Man River”, because I find myself on behalf of Kiwi industry, manufacturing, garden-variety people seeking to claw their way out of “Strugglers’ Gully” imposed upon them by the last failed regime. So I’ve adapted the chords, I’ve adapted the lyrics, and I am known as Old King Coal, because that’s Matua’s role.

There will be no energy resilience, there will be no electricity security, without ongoing access to gas and coal. It is absurd we bring it in from 10,000 kilometres away, in an area that could easily suffer major geopolitical uncertainty—in Southeast Asia—whilst we have coal in strategically important levels 10 kilometres away from the coal-fired power stations in the Waikato.

Why are we left with this bizarre situation? It’s because a bunch of shallow, juvenile, virtue-signalling captors of the Paris Accord thought it was a good idea to condemn Kiwi investors, encourage the Aussie-owned banks to demonise an industry that employs a host of garden-variety Kiwis. But no, we’re not going to stand for that. Unless we do have a host of access points to generate more energy out of our own resources, we are condemning New Zealand to a greater level of vulnerability.

Now, I know this particular approach is not something that makes us friends on the other side of the House—and of course, I regard some of them as my friends, because I’m a politician about ideas; I’m a politician that’s soft on the personality, until you insult my leader or the party I belong to, then you will not strike a more robust foe than the matua standing before you.

Now, on the question of these protesters, sadly, they have left the human filth that they created in the coal cart. Sadly, they have stopped blighting the prospects of the men and women who earn an honest living out of working in the West Coast and the coal industry. They’ve come down out of coal cart—that rhymes with night cart—they’ve made their way onto the ground into the waiting hands of the police; and, hopefully, they will be served with appropriate punitive messages from the police in the vein of a trespass order and eventually hauled off to court.

But the key point is, why is it that a tiny minority of self-appointed moral apostles believe they have a greater role than we do in this House to actually save the planet? They don’t think about three or four hundred jobs or the $27,000 each day that was incurred by that legitimate business. No, they’re possessed of a higher, supercilious level of appreciation of the future: in their own eyes, that the rest of us should perish and face ridiculously high energy costs while they sit—should I say, sat—in a coal cart, blighting, undermining, hobbling the ability of that business to continue to generate overseas money and look after their workforce.

Now, of course, the Labour Party refused to back the oil and gas revocation ban legislation. They don’t want coal; they don’t want oil and gas. They never passed legislation to actually uphold and give a clear path for their great lake in the South Island. All full of gratuitous virtue-signalling vacuous rubbish. That’s why we’re facing the greatest energy crisis of my lifetime. That’s why that side of the House is ruining sovereign risk—because they refuse to abide by common-sense policies that will give Kiwis the resilience and the security—which, in the absence of those two things, we’re going to suffer a great deal of deindustrialisation.

But wait, the fast track is about to be improved. That will enable us to fast track more resources, more minerals, hopefully more gas, and certainly more coal. Here checks out Matua King Coal.

MAUREEN PUGH (National—West Coast-Tasman): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m going to follow Matua Shane Jones over here and talk about the same topic, because for people on the West Coast, we have had, up to our eyeballs, enough of these protesters. These protesters that we’re talking about, and the Hon Shane Jones talked about, have been in the coal bucket for 22 days, and they illegally occupied the aerial ropeway at Bathurst, which is a big coalmine 35 kilometres north of Westport. Now, that business employs over 500 people directly, so the trickle-down impact of disrupting that workplace is significant.

It wasn’t free speech. It wasn’t peaceful protest. It was reckless endangerment. Now, let’s be clear: this was a dangerous obstruction that put lives, jobs, and livelihoods at risk. Coal shipments were slowed down significantly because trucks had to be brought in to shift the coal to the train-loading facility at Ngakawau, and that would usually have come down on this aerial ropeway, which meant that then the company had to get trucks to come in to shift the coal to the loading facility, which increased emissions.

Now, I just want to do a bit of an explainer about the aerial ropeway. It’s two and a half kilometres of steel rope, and it carries down these large, big buckets—about 290 tonnes of coal an hour comes down off that ropeway—and then it gets loaded on to a train and transported to Lyttelton for export. It was in two of these buckets that the protesters lived for 22 days—and I could just imagine what that smells like today—but the coal extracted from Bathurst is metallurgic coal. It’s not even used for burning, yet these protesters seem to think that they were going to cut emissions by stopping this particular coalmine from producing coal—such is the intelligence of these people.

If a protester had gotten in trouble up there—if they’d fallen ill, if they’d fallen out, or if they’d had some other accident—we would have had to have relied on expertise that we don’t have in this country to extract them. It’s been an outrageous imposition on the business, its workers, and on police, so I’m going to call this out for what it was: it was unlawful trespassing. It was designed to cripple an essential industry and to intimidate the very people who keep our communities ticking over.

We must never accept that a small group of looney activists have the right to shut down workplaces, disrupt supply chains, and endanger lives. Protests should happen in the proper forums, not by the hijacking of businesses’ critical infrastructure. We must protect those businesses and those who work in them. Over the past month, we have had two vehicles set on fire, we have had the historic bath house at Denniston burnt to the ground, and a historic photographic display destroyed. I’m not saying those two protesters were responsible for those incidents, but it just shows the disdain that some people have for our history and our future.

And I say, how dare they? The actions of those protesters were stupid, dangerous, and costly, and I hope they get to pay back the cost to the company. I hope they also took their waste with them. I certainly hope they never ever use anything connected to mining.

This is the bit that I find the most ironic: they were dangling 80 metres in the air in a steel bucket, using their cellphones to film their antics, charged up with small solar panels. Where do you think solar panels, reflective panels, come from? From coal. They were using top of the line climbing gear made from mined minerals. They were wearing clothing made with machinery made from mined minerals. I certainly hope they walked back to the rock that they crawled out of and didn’t use a vehicle that uses fossil fuel, or maybe a lithium battery made, of course, from mined materials. The hypocrisy is laughable. Bathurst and the Buller community: we will not be bullied by lunatics.

Thank you to those who support our mining industry and those who work in it. I just challenge everyone in this House to look around this room. Apart from the humans that occupy it, every single item in here is derived from mining. I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You’ve got to hand it to the National Party, they have taken selective memory to a whole new level. It’s pretty impressive that they can recall every single detail of the previous Government, except the part where National voted for the COVID payment and asked for more—that’s the only bit they can’t remember. During COVID, they were not standing in this House, asking for fiscal discipline or fiscal restraint; they only voted in support of the payments, and they asked for it to be increased. For National, history isn’t something to be remembered; it’s something to be rewritten.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane. Contestant No. 1 on “Let’s Rewrite New Zealand’s History” is Paul Goldsmith. Paul Goldsmith, back on 25 March 2020, said, “we, obviously, back him”—that’s Grant Robertson—“in his wise decision-making about how that money is spent”, “ But, all in all, we support this bill and hope that it will make some step towards helping some businesses survive.” He also said, “I support the broader point that we would make that it is necessary for the Government to go further in terms of offering relief to those businesses affected.” He also said, “So we support the Government in this bill and we encourage them to go further.” But there’s more. He said quite a bit on it, because he was the finance spokesperson at the time. He said, “and that’s why National has been broadly supportive of the very significant increase in Government spending outlined in this Budget and the need to go further into debt. … Nobody in this country, right here, right now, is saying, ‘Oh, we should not be spending anything and we should be going back to austerity.’ Nobody is saying that”—the words of Paul Goldsmith. That’s not an example of fiscal responsibility; that’s an example of political amnesia.

No. 2. Let’s look at No. 2. No. 2 in tonight is Dan Bidois. What did Dan Bidois say about the COVID payment? He said, “I do want to raise the issue that I don’t think that this is enough support for the business community. … this is by far not sufficient to address some of the challenges that these businesses will face in the next few years.” Well, for Mr Bidois, by Nicola Willis’ standards, I do believe that that makes him a fiscal vandal or an economic vandal. So maybe he should sort that one out.

No. 3—the third and final contestant on “Let’s Rewrite New Zealand’s History”—is Andrew Bayly. I’ve saved the best till last. Mr Bayly—what did he have to say in relation to the COVID payment? He said, “I don’t think for a moment anyone thinks that we shouldn’t be spending large amounts of money to support vulnerable New Zealanders, and particularly vulnerable businesses in New Zealand … it was right and proper that support measures were put in place.” Thank you for that, Mr Bayly; that was a great contribution.

But wait, there’s even more. There was a whole new COVID payment. Judith Collins announced an entire new COVID payment to help people self-isolate. That was National Party policy. They wanted to increase the existing COVID payment.

But today, with the benefit of hindsight and a fresh round of talking points, National pretend to be the great masters of fiscal disciple. It’s, basically, like signing a cheque and then yelling at the bank for cashing it. Suddenly, the very spending they supported is treated as reckless, as wasteful, as if it happened without their fingerprints all over it, and we know it was. That’s not principle. That’s not leadership. That is, pure and simple, hypocrisy.

New Zealanders aren’t fooled; they know when someone is trying to rewrite our history, and they deserve to hear the truth that National not only supported the COVID payment but they wanted more of it at that time. Their outrage that we hear today and over the past month is nothing more than absolute theatre designed to distract New Zealand from the harsh realities that we are facing now. That reality is that there is no plan for jobs, that there is no plan for getting to a GP, that there is no plan for more homes, and we are facing record levels of unemployment—18,000 fewer construction workers in New Zealand—record levels of homelessness, and hundreds of people who wait and wait to see a doctor and they can’t. On top of all this, the cost of living continues to increase.

New Zealanders deserve some hope right now, not the rewriting of history that we see going on. What we need is jobs, health, homes, and some actual plan to get our economy back on track—an economy that works for everybody, not just those at the top.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s good to hear that the member who’s just sat down, the Hon Ginny Andersen, wants a plan. We heard her mention three words there. We heard nothing more about this plan. So for any Labour fans tuning in to watch that speech to hear about what they had in plan—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: They’re tuning out now.

SAM UFFINDELL: —there was no plan.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Listen to that roll.

SAM UFFINDELL: Well, look at this. We’ve got—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Zinger after zinger. Here we go.

SAM UFFINDELL: And that speaker, Kieran McAnulty, had his leadership audition earlier today. I thought he actually got a few laughs. It was better than Ginny Andersen’s speech.

But what was even better than both of those was the Reserve Bank’s announcement that interest rates have come down—down 2.5 percent since the peak of inflation under the previous Government. Inflation down from 7.3 percent to 2.7 percent. As was discussed, for your family out there or your people out there with a $500,000 mortgage—they’ve got that in there for 25 years—that’s a $330 saving that they will receive every fortnight. That’s a considerable amount. Times are tough throughout New Zealand at the moment—we’re not going to run away from that—but that will make a considerable difference. When you consider you’ve got 40 percent of households—I’m surprised that number’s still that high, but it is 40 percent of households—that are still to come off those rates and fix on to a new rate, that gives us hope that there will be a big injection of money—much needed for households and for businesses—coming into the New Zealand economy.

Now, we look at where else we’re freeing up, and you look at some of the reforms that Minister Penk, who was here before and gave a very good speech around what he’s doing to help reduce the cost of building. I listened to him last week talk about 20 things that he had done in this area to improve affordability. When you compare the cost of building a house in New Zealand to the cost of building it in Australia, you see that we are at a significant disadvantage. You see it right across the New Zealand economy. It doesn’t matter where you look—there’s too much bureaucracy, there’s too much red tape, there’s too much consenting times. You’ve seen Ministers Bishop and Penk, in particular, going very, very hard to make sure that these barriers are reduced. It’s hard for New Zealanders to find affordable housing. The work that they are doing is going to fundamentally shift the dial in that space.

We’ve already seen a stabilisation of rental prices. We have seen housing affordability improve, with income to house prices tracking in a more favourable direction. I think, over the long term as well, with the freeing up of supply and those changes that Ministers Penk and Bishop have made, you will see more affordable houses being able to be built across New Zealand. You’ll also see it being a lot more affordable to build infrastructure. Currently, we spend $1.4 billion a year on consenting fees. That is absolutely insane. It is so expensive. So we’ve got to get this stuff under control. We’ve seen a number of fast-track projects coming through. The Port of Tauranga—boy oh boy, I hope that one gets approved. We see a lot of housing and transport links as well that need to be done.

I could talk about the work Erica Stanford is doing, which will shift a generation of children into being able to reach their potential. That is going to unlock economic productivity in New Zealand like you’ve never seen before. Look, it’s not happening immediately, and I know Kiwis are out there doing it tough at the moment, but we are making the serious, long-term decisions that are needed to move the dial.

You compare that to where the other side are at. We didn’t get much of it from them today in their speeches, but you can look at where we’re going. Are we going back to fiscal and financial mismanagement? Will we have a credit ratings decrease? Will we see investors leave New Zealand if a left-wing Government comes in? My take on it is that you would see a flight of capital and talent like this country has never seen. You’d see a capital gains tax. You could potentially see a wealth tax. You could potentially see increases in income tax. You might have a member of the Green Party as your finance Minister—the degrowth Greens; imagine that. Reckless spending, growing bureaucracy, energy insecurity, sovereign risk, the malaise and degradation that comes in with the heavy hand of the socialist State.

So New Zealanders will have a very, very clear picture next year when it comes to the election: a Government led by the National Party that has come in and fundamentally shifted the dial on the Resource Management Act, on building and construction, on education through fast-track projects; or you will have a Labour-led, left-wing Government that will run New Zealand into the ground? That is the stark choice that New Zealanders will be faced with next year. I can’t wait for us to get out there and fight hard for Kiwis. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand faces serious challenges. How do we provide school choice, better health choices? How do we make sure Kiwis can build affordable homes? How do we make the best use of our natural resources so we can all share in that wealth and prosperity? Most New Zealanders are content to have their say on these matters through the ballot box, through democracy, trusting Parliament, trusting local government to provide a level playing field to have a debate. That contest must be fought with evidence and with respect, and the rules of the contest must apply to everybody equally.

ACT comes prepared. We come here to tackle the hard problems. We want to debate them honestly. Whether that’s in the Chamber or on the campaign trail, ACT bring solutions, we bring arguments, and, yes, we play hard. From time to time, we’ve pushed the line, and we’ve also had to accept the occasional penalty when the ref calls against us, but that’s the game. We play within the rules.

Unfortunately, not every party in this Parliament respects those rules. Te Pāti Māori behave as if those rules don’t apply to them and that the ends justify any means. But let’s be clear: while Māori might be in their brand, they are not the party of Māori. Very few New Zealanders who whakapapa Māori actually voted for Te Pāti Māori. Instead of respect for democracy, Te Pāti Māori promotes a divisive idea that some Māori voices matter more than others, and that depends on who carries the biggest patu.

Well, that is not something the ACT Party will accept. Their behaviour has crossed the line from passionate debate into intimidation and harassment. Their leaders have even celebrated foreign dictators on social media. Rawiri Waititi praised Burkina Faso’s military ruler, Ibrahim Traoré, a man who has delayed elections, banned gays, and whose forces have been accused of massacring hundreds of civilians. Is this really the model for New Zealand?

And it doesn’t stop online. A few weeks ago, a West Auckland lawn mower, a Kiwi just trying to run a small business, was doxxed by Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere, who falsely accused him of vandalising Te Pāti Māori election hoardings. That man received death threats, and yet he said, “I’m not even into politics. … this could damage my business. … it’s nuts.” Yet there was no apology from John Tamihere or Te Pāti Māori, no retraction, just a torrent of online abuse directed at this mowing contractor.

More recently, after a billboard image caused offence, the company involved rightly removed it, but for Te Pāti Māori, it wasn’t enough. They posted the personal phone numbers of billboard company staff—finance, sales, marketing people—encouraging supporters to call with abuse and threats, and they did. The billboard sponsor’s address was posted publicly, alongside chilling messages, such as “Death to all white people.”, and plans to smash billboards. That is not democratic debate; it is mob intimidation.

ACT believes that New Zealanders deserve much, much better. We must be able to trust the institutions to resolve our differences of opinion. We must assume good faith in our fellow citizens. We must not attack a lawn mower, an office staff member, or anyone who dares to hold a different view. We need the fourth estate—our media—to do its job, to hold Te Pāti Māori and its supporters to account when they behave like tyrants, whipping up anger and threatening violence. Silence only enables more of this behaviour. Our society only works if we can agree to disagree respectfully—that’s in Parliament, in workplaces, and on the street. Te Pāti Māori should be held to the same standards as any other political party. If they’re allowed to play by different rules—the rules of intimidation and fear—they will tear our society apart. ACT will not stand by and let that happen. We will call it out. We will defend democracy. ACT will defend the right of every New Zealander to disagree without fear.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. So to the voice of reason—obviously, I have to just comment that it’s so great to hear Te Pāti Māori’s name said so many times in the previous speech. Maybe I’m thankful. Good for you—good for you. The rest of it was utter nonsense. Yeah, I’m not quite sure what else to say to that actually, but read some more, think a little bit more, write it down, and let’s try it again at the next debate, shall you?

So here I’m going to say that I’m here to remind the House, in this particular five-minute kōrero, of the kids that are homeless and disconnected, of our young people that are disengaged but want to be engaged, and of our rangatahi that are sleeping on the streets. It does align a little bit with my colleague on the right in our general debate as well, which is our young people and our kids that are sleeping homeless and alone and do not belong.

On the weekend, I attended a seminar, Ināia Tonu Nei. In fact, it was attended by a number of members from Te Pāti Māori, Labour Party, and the Greens. So, there was a bunch of us there, listening, engaging, participating, and listening closely to this group that has been established since 2018, and looking at the justice system such as it is and to improve it, particularly for the most vulnerable, and in this instance, the kaupapa was around Māori and Pasifika, so it was an important hui to be at in Tāmaki.

Inside that a wonderful young group of people from Kick Back—so Kick Back is designed by young people, operated by young people, and supported by older people, but their focus is on young people that are sleeping homeless and finding solutions to that. They talk about standing in the gaps with young people and how to understand them, how to work with them, and how to find a place for them to sleep, so it’s an important time to listen to that, and we did. There were three or four that took the stage and shared their reality. For the 200 or more people that were in that room, they were moved to tears by the true story that these young people were sharing about their life right now. It moved everybody, as it should, but it reminded us of the reality and what it is like for young people when they are disconnected, when they are disengaged, when they are deculturated. Where do they go?

So this group, Kick Back—I just want to acknowledge all of their work. They get in there; they don’t talk about it. They support young people going into the Ministry of Social Development to get their income support. One of the stories told was about the recent rejection of one of the applications, which when you’re listening to the detail, you’re thinking, “Gee, surely that stuff doesn’t happen anymore.”, but I’m afraid it does. Of course, it ties right back to some very recent work that the Minister has done in her team to stop young people from accessing emergency homes—emergency. It’s a shocking and terrible situation, and I don’t know how we let ourselves get away with it.

At the very end of the seminar, Minister Goldsmith joined and the young people spoke. There were a number of speakers that talked to him after he gave his speech, but the most disappointing thing about his kōrero was that he gaslit everybody in the room. He didn’t hear it, and when you don’t hear it and you don’t understand it, you’re going to just rattle off your own conversation. After all, he is the Minister that said that decolonisation was good for us, on balance. It was a disgusting show, not only in my view but for everyone there.

So when he left, everybody was just like, “Was that the Minister? Did he actually say that to us? Did he actually reject everything that we were saying and thinking and talking about?” I’m afraid he did. It was terribly, terribly disappointing that that kind of thinking is being shared at a seminar with young people and older people that are struggling in the justice system, trying to get some sense of justice.

I wanted to make those remarks to this House and to remind us that our young people deserve better, and right now, it is not happening with this Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great privilege to rise and speak in this general debate. Because as has been mentioned, it’s a great day for New Zealand with the official cash rate (OCR) coming down even further to 3 percent.

Prior to that, I was thinking of the previous Government’s approach to the economy. It is a pity that we didn’t prioritise financial literacy in our school curriculum before this Government came into power, because our recent economic history offers some stark lessons that the other side could do with a bit of brushing up on: high tax and reckless spending always leads to economic problems. We’ve seen this time and time again in New Zealand and around the world. But rest assured, this Government, under the steady leadership of Christopher Luxon and the finance Minister Nicola Willis, is cleaning up the mess.

As people have said before, New Zealanders are still doing it tough from the long hangover that we are experiencing. The previous Government’s policies led to a cumulative inflation that added a massive 25 percent to the cost of living—a quarter of our spending power has gone in just a few short years. Inflation isn’t just about rising grocery prices—it does do that—it’s a hidden tax that erodes the savings of ordinary New Zealanders. Periods of high inflation lay the groundwork for economic instability by pumping excess liquidity into the financial system, which fuels irresponsible borrowing and sends asset prices absolutely soaring above their real value. And that is what we have seen in the past six years.

Every period of inflation—it doesn’t matter whether it’s in New Zealand or around the world—inevitably leads to a downturn. This isn’t rocket science, and it can’t be fixed by printing more money. You fix it through good economic management, and that is precisely what we are doing. And we’ve witnessed that again today with the cut in the OCR.

Now, while it will take a long time for this effect to fully filter through the system, we are seeing progress. When the remaining 40 percent of Kiwi mortgages are refixed in the next six months, it will add even more back to our economy—on average, another $330 a fortnight back in the pockets of young families like my own. That’s thousands of dollars a year that can be spent at local cafes, on swimming lessons for the kids, or even a piano lesson or two. That means more money circulating our economies, not being swallowed by the bank.

This approach has also made home ownership more accessible. Last year, first-home buyers accounted for a record 29 percent of all real estate sales, the highest proportion that has been recorded. During the previous Government, the proportion of income taken up by mortgages was roughly close to 50 percent. So for every dollar that a New Zealander earned, 50 percent was going straight to the bank. That figure has fallen to 39 percent and will even continue to fall thanks to the OCR cuts.

We’ve also seen improvements in the rental market, with a drop in the average rental price and an increase in the availability of rental properties, giving renters greater choice. Despite this, the Opposition has fought us at every turn while we have tried to make it easier for those Kiwis renting. They want to keep the prices high; they want to lock people out of the housing market. We are making it more affordable and getting it in. They criticise all our efforts, but we can look across the Tasman to Australia. Their housing market continues to surge, their affordability hits new lows, and I’ll note that Australia has already had a capital gains tax for decades—a policy that never has and will never solve housing affordability.

We can trace the problems that New Zealand is facing back to the COVID payments, and the recent Treasury reports have confirmed that. While we’ve heard interesting interpretations of that from the other side, the majority of it wasn’t spent on health. The unprecedented injection of cash, underwritten by the Reserve Bank’s quantitative easing, acted as a hidden tax with raging prices, evaporating the wealth of everyday Kiwis.

We can’t go back and risk those days. The price of financial mismanagement is always paid by the hard-working Kiwi. Luckily, this Government is keeping that in check. We’re getting the economy back on track.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti are counting the days—counting the days—until they march to polling booths and make sure that this is a one-term Government. Do you know what else they’re counting? The many, many ways this National-led Government are slamming whānau and taking this country backwards. They are counting the days, weeks, and months it takes to see a doctor. They’re counting the nursing positions they need to fill at Hawke’s Bay Hospital but they “cannot recruit because we are not allowed”. They’re counting the 44 percent of senior medical officer vacancies at Tairāwhiti hospital.

Ikaroa-Rāwhiti are counting job losses. Unemployment in the rohe is up to 9.4 percent, due, in part, to cuts like those in Jobs for Nature, which supported initiatives like the invaluable Raukūmara Pae Maunga Project and the restoration of Titirangi Maunga—reinstating kaitiakitanga.

They are counting the number of their whānau leaving Aotearoa in their droves to find mahi just to support their families. They’re counting the number of whānau making KiwiSaver hardship applications—those are up by nearly 57 percent, just to get by—because this Government, who promised to help the squeezed middle, are instead squeezing the life and hope out of the middle, top, bottom, front, back, and sides.

They’re counting the number of whānau with no place to call home. Kaimahi on the front line have told this Government there are more people living on our streets as a result of their policies. They’re counting broken promises: 7,000 public homes were promised by the Prime Minister, and a mere 45 delivered.

Let us count the many, many ways this Government is letting people down and taking our country backwards. But I represent Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, the electorate that brings the light to Aotearoa and, indeed, the world each day, and I want to acknowledge some of the services my team and I have visited recently, who, in spite of cuts and being downtrodden, bring light to whānau each and every day.

They are services like Kokiri Marae Health and Social Services, who are helping find shelter for whānau who find themselves suddenly homeless; services like the Pātaka Kai, still providing food in this cost of living crisis; places like Āhuru Mōwai in Napier, a collective providing a roof and life-planning support for those in need; services like SuperGrans in Gisborne, offering sustenance of all kinds to many, many people; and services like Manaaki Matakāoa—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti’s northernmost service—supporting whānau aged zero to 100, and beyond. There are many more, and I thank each and every service throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and, indeed, Aotearoa, that are out there giving our whānau hope in these dark times inflicted by this National-led Government.

While I proudly represent the Māori electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, these issues affect all of Aotearoa, and we are counting. We are not only counting on hope and counting on the services throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti; we are counting the ways that this Government is taking us backwards, and we are counting the days until whānau take to the polls and end this National Government’s cruel reign.

I started by saying that Ikaroa-Rāwhiti are counting. We are counting the days until there is hope restored to the leadership of this country, and counting the days until we march to the polling booths to make sure that this is a one-term Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Carter Trust Amendment Bill

First Reading

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): I move, That the Carter Trust Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

Madam Speaker, it’s a real pleasure to stand here today and speak with you about the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. The journey of this bill has been one of teamwork, open discussion, and a shared sense of doing what’s right. It’s gone through a very thorough process, required for a local bill, to be able to reach this House, ensuring that every voice is heard and everyone’s interests are considered. To bring a bill like this before Parliament isn’t done lightly. The process means public notice, lots of consultation, and a chance for all of those affected to have their say.

In this case, I’m delighted to report that both the beneficiaries of Charles Rooking Carter’s original bequest and the people who have been looking after the trust are in full agreement. This is the best and fairest way forward. Their unity is a powerful endorsement, showing just how carefully this bill has been shaped.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work that has gone into getting this bill to the point it is at today: the Carter Society Incorporated, with dedicated volunteers that have invested significant amounts of time and expertise; to the Public Trust for taking a pragmatic and future-focused approach and for their 129 years as trustee; and to St Mark’s parish for their time and support. These three parties that are directly affected by the Carter Trust Amendment Bill have worked together to ensure that what has been introduced today will continue to deliver for future generations. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues from the other side of the House that are domiciled in the Wairarapa and are also supporting this bill.

This amendment bill is all about ensuring the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter so that it is not unduly hampered by outdated legislation, and reducing administration costs and complexity while firmly ensuring the legacy of the late Charles Rooking Carter’s vision for the aged is maintained and enhanced in the future, because, over time, the world changes and so do the needs of our communities. The Carter Trust Act 1961 was drafted in a different era, with rules and assumptions that made sense back then but now often create roadblocks or confusion.

First, the Act contains provisions that are now outdated or simply don’t fit the way charities and trusts operate today. For example, it refers to specific terms like Carter Homes and trust lands, which no longer align with the actual assets or activities of the trust. Continuing to reference these old terms causes unnecessary confusion for administrators and beneficiaries alike.

Second, the way the original Act directed the use and disposal of trust income has become much less workable over time. The existing rules make winding up the trust burdensome, tying up resources that could be better used for our community. It’s simply not practical to administer a charitable trust with requirements that no longer reflect reality. Without change, the risk is that funds are left idle or caught up in legal wrangling rather than being put to good use. In addition, the Act currently places heavy procedural requirements on the Carter Society Incorporated, like needing to seek Minister of Health approval to amend their rules. This is an unnecessary hurdle that slows down good governance and makes it harder for the society to respond to its members’ changing needs.

Another key detail is the lack of clarity around the liability of the Public Trust. As it stands, trustees could be exposed to risk even in situations where they act in good faith. This amendment bill addresses this by limiting liability to cases of dishonesty, wilful misconduct, or gross negligence, providing much-needed certainty and encouraging ongoing responsible stewardship.

On top of all of this, the Act doesn’t offer a clear, modern path for wrapping up the trust and distributing its assets. This amendment bill carefully lays out a step-by-step process for when the time comes to close the trust. Fifty thousand dollars will go to the Anglican parish of Carterton, in line with longstanding commitments, and all remaining funds will go to the Carter Society, ensuring Mr Carter’s legacy continues to serve the local area.

In short, the Carter Trust Amendment Bill proposes to, one, “amend the will of the late Charles Rooking Carter to enable the winding up of the charitable trust (the Carter Trust) established under the will and the making of distributions by Public Trust as executor of the will; … [two] clarify the legal liability of Public Trust in respect of the [charitable] trust; and [three] enable the Carter Society Incorporated … to amend its rules without needing the approval of the Minister of Health.”

For those who may be wondering what the Carter Trust is and what it does and where it came from, I’ll try my best to do justice in telling a very important local Carterton story. It started with a man by the name of Charles Rooking Carter, born in England, the son of a builder. He immigrated to New Zealand in 1850 with his new wife, Jane. In 1853, Carter walked from Wellington to the Wairarapa via Palliser Bay. Bravely battling the unpredictable tides, accounts of this journey say that he nearly drowned on the way. On arrival, Carter immediately recognised the potential of the plains as suitable to purchase and develop as small farms by working immigrants. He himself purchased close to 2,500 hectares on the Taratahi plain.

He was elected member of the Small Farms Association, advocating for and laying the foundations for developing the land into the lush, fertile farms that they are today. Carter represented the Wairarapa in the Wellington Provincial Council from 1857 to 1864 and in the General Assembly for the Wairarapa from 1859 to 1865. The settlement in the area known as Three Mile Bush was named in his honour—Carterville, now known as Carterton.

Carter was a philanthropist. He provided initial funding for the Carter Observatory, a substantial book collection to the Carterton Library, as well as contributions to the New Zealand Institute and Colonial Museum. He was also involved with the establishment of the Greytown and Masterton lands trusts. In Carterton, through gifts or influence, he was involved in the acquisition of land for a cemetery, post office, police station, and courthouse, as well as the Carter reserve.

Charles Rooking Carter died in 1896, and in his will, with the Public Trust as executor and trustee of the charitable Carter Trust, he left, as stated: “certain pieces of land comprising in all 2,178 acres, three roods, 2.7 perches, more or less, situated near the Borough of Carterton; certain sums of money, and certain furniture and other household articles” to provide for the establishment of a home for a durable and substantial building to accommodate at least 20 inmates—the Carterton Home for Aged Poor Men—the annual sum of £25, to be paid to the Church of England clergyman, whose parish includes the Borough of Carterton, for the upkeep of his grave, located in Clareville Cemetery.

The Carterton Home for Aged Poor Men, Carter Home, was completed in 1900 and dedicated on 7 January 1901, five years after Carter’s death. It was located on Moreton Road, and the income from the Taratahi South Run block it sat on helped to fund the running of the home so that the residents could reside free of charge. In the early years, it is said to have housed seven to 10 residents—or inmates, as they were called back then—and was run by the Carter Homes Committee.

In 1961, in response to the changing social and financial environment, this Parliament passed the Carter Trust Act 1961. This private Act of Parliament provided for the establishment of the Carter Society, the sale of the existing home, the construction of a new one, the provision for the charging of fees, and extending the availability to women. The new home, providing rest home care, was constructed in Pembroke Street, Carterton, and is still in use today.

Substantial renovations to the rest home, together with a new build expansion, were undertaken in the early 2000s. The development included a hospital level wing, a new kitchen, an activities room, and nursing workstations. In 2015, the Carterton District Council senior housing portfolio, with 38 housing units and additional land for future development, was also gifted to the Carter Society.

In summary, what started as a vision to help with housing has grown to be a significant community asset, housing over 100 residents over the age of 65. This is something that needs not only to be supported, but to be celebrated. Let's help this trust finish its journey on a high note, true to the values of its founder and ready to make a difference for years to come.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Very pleased to stand up and express the Labour Party's support for this bill. I acknowledge Mike Butterick as the member for Wairarapa for shepherding this private bill through the House. It's only appropriate that the local member of Parliament does that, and that is the convention in this House. We're happy to support it.

This is a long time coming. I remember having conversations with the Carter Society about this bill many years ago. The fact of the matter is they do a phenomenal job—and, like all community-owned aged care providers, it's not easy. It's not easy to deliver the standard of care that is required by the community with the level of revenue that they have. One way in which to supplement that revenue and continue expanding and improving and delivering that level of care is to be able to do things that go far beyond the original scope and vision that was in the original will and bill.

What a vision that was. Mr Butterick has spent some time, and rightly so, expressing the contribution that Charles Rooking Carter has made to Carterton, Wairarapa, and the broader Wellington region. He is, and remains, a special member of the Wairarapa community, because his legacy continues. Just recently, I walked through a reserve—a very special reserve preserving centuries-old native bush—that he of course gifted to the Wairarapa community. Every year, there are annual awards that celebrate people's contributions to the Carterton district named in his honour.

His story is like so many across Wairarapa, where those that were some of the initial European settlers of that beautiful valley—including Henry Burling, who was my great-grandmother's great-grandfather, who was the first European settler in what's now Featherston—the legacy that they contributed with their foresight, establishing, like what Charles Rooking Carter has, with the likes of the Wairarapa Building Society and the Masterton Trust Lands Trust and the Greytown Lands Trust—where the community now, many, many, many, many decades on, continues to benefit. The Carter Society is one of those examples.

The problem is—and it's been the case for a long time—is that what was appropriate for the time is no longer fit for purpose, and what was intended to establish the society for the benefit of the community now proves to be a hindrance. There's no possible way that they could have foreseen this, and in no way should that be interpreted as a criticism. It's just a matter of fact. That's the exact reason why we are here speaking on this bill today. The problem with community-owned aged-care facilities is, for so many—and I say this regrettably—it's just too hard. Already, Wairarapa, in recent years, has lost Arbor House in Greytown and Wharekaka in Martinborough—a massive impact for those communities.

Carter Court is the last one left, and I actually think it is beholden on Parliament to do something really simple and support this bill to give Carter Court every possibility of maintaining that level of care in Carterton. They shouldn't have to go to the Minister of Health to change their rules when everybody else can change their rules. They shouldn't have to jump through hoops and over hurdles to do what would be expected of any other provider in what has actually been quite a changing environment in aged care over the last few years.

I first became regularly involved with the Carter Society when Chris Clarke was involved. He's a tremendous bloke, and just like everybody else that's been involved in the board there before that time and ongoing, they do this because they care about their community, and they know that the provision of aged care—and, through the generosity of the Carterton Council, now the provision of pensioner housing—makes a massive difference. The fact is, if this was not provided in Carterton, there wouldn't be enough beds. There aren't enough beds now, frankly, due to the two recent closures, and there wouldn't be enough pension and housing, and there would be significant pain and suffering, really, for those that, in their autumn years, just want to live their life out in dignity and with respect. That is exactly what the people at Carter Court are committed to, be they those that assist the residents day-to-day, the nurses, the other staff, the staff in the office, or indeed the staff in the kitchen; they are all committed to their residents.

This was a no-brainer, really. We have no hesitations in supporting this. It makes absolute sense. It is my genuine hope that it goes through smoothly and that the Carter Court Society can continue doing what they have done for many generations, and that's deliver for their community. I commend it to the House.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): As a resident of the Carterton district, and a list MP based in the Wairarapa, I would like to join my Wairarapa colleagues in supporting this bill. I’d also like to thank Sharon Parker, the chair of the Carter Society, for keeping me informed throughout the process; and our electorate MP for being inclusive to see whether there were any issues about this bill.

As has been mentioned, it will amend the will of the late Charles Rooking Carter to enable the winding up of the charitable trust and enable the Carter Society to amend its rules, without requiring ministerial intervention. There will be $50,000 to the Anglican parish of Carterton, with the larger remaining funds going to the Carter Society and enabling capital works, which is really critical in these days—we know how expensive buildings are when they may need renewals; they may need earthquake strengthening; they may need new facilities; they may need, with a bit of luck, some expansion.

The trust was originally established through the Carter Trust Act 1961. I think, definitely, if we’re talking about legislative improvement, moving away from having local trusts having to come to Parliament is a very good thing.

I do want to honour Charles Rooking Carter’s memory. Not every colonial settler merits that kind of positive remembrance, but his story is one of quite remarkable achievement and genuine community service. He was born in the English Lake District, as were my antecedents, in 1822, and started off life as an apprentice carpenter. He had extraordinary intellectual curiosity. He went to a lot of evening classes. These were the days when people often had to leave school early, but there were opportunities for that kind of intellectual advancement and expansion. He championed workers’ rights, through involvement particularly with the Chartists and the anti-corn laws movement, which led, for example, to reduction of Saturday hours in shops in London, and so on. So he was actually probably more on this side of the House, in many ways.

He came here in 1850. Interestingly, he became a prominent builder, he built the first bridge over the Waiōhine—it’s a pity we didn’t allow that for the Five Towns Trail Trust, which I hope the Wairarapa MPs will be united in also supporting. We’ve got the Tauherenīkau one, thanks to my colleague Julie Anne Genter. But we could certainly do with another bridge over the Waiōhine, Mr Butterick—so maybe in memory of Charles Rooking Carter, you will feel sympathetic to the Five Towns Trail Trust.

Interestingly, Mr Carter never actually lived in the eponymous town. He benefited the Wairarapa but he did not live in Carterton, although now you can go there and while enjoying a flat white at Wild Oats, you can admire the statue of Charles Rooking Carter. As was said, he represented Wairarapa, both in the general assembly and the provincial council, and he had the idea—they hadn’t sold all the town sections in Carterton and other areas in the Wairarapa, and the proceeds from those created the Greytown and Masterton Trust Lands Trusts in 1872, and they still give out a remarkable number of very useful, very local grants.

In conclusion, his philanthropic legacy is remarkable. The Carterton Library is one of New Zealand’s finest libraries—again, thank goodness that local councils are going to be able to maintain libraries as one of their core services, whatever else may be lost. I look forward to the Carter Court continuing to look after men and women in the Wairarapa. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge Mike Butterick for taking up this responsibility, because for private bills, we know that we need a member of Parliament to bring that to the House so that we can work on it. Mike Butterick has taken that responsibility, and I want to acknowledge that.

It was also really good to hear from the member sponsoring the bill a bit about Mr Charles Rooking Carter. I would say that the late Charles Rooking Carter was a very kind man, and he knew exactly how his wealth should be utilised to provide for the community. He wanted to see that people—those who really need help—are looked after with the funds that he left. In the will, what he did was he wanted a trust to be established, and it was according to his will that a trust was established, the Carter Trust. This public trust manages the endowment of the late Mr Carter and also any other income that is accrued is managed by them and is distributed to the Carter Society, and also out of that fund is the annuity paid to the Church of England clergyman whose parish includes the borough of Carterton. So this money—he knew exactly how he wanted to use it, and he had laid this out in his will.

What this bill does is it actually unwinds that will, because, according to the will, this trust was set up and now this bill is to unwind that public trust. With the unwinding of the public trust, the funds will be going to the Carter Society, and also $50,000 will be going to the Anglican parish of Carterton. So in this way, the Carter Society will be able to manage those funds and will be able to deal with issues, as there are some issues being experienced.

We need this bill because there was an Act in 1961, which was the Carter Trust Act 1961, which enacted provisions affecting the will, the trust, and the society, and that has created some complications, given that was set up in 1961. So that’s why we are dealing with this bill in here, in the House. Overall, it is to ensure that the legacy of the late Mr Carter is able to be carried out and is able to deliver for the community, and this is without the hurdles that they have had to go through because of the way it was set up in 1961.

It’s very important to note that the Carter Society and the Public Trust did advertise their intentions in the Wairarapa Times-Age, informing the public about the Public Trust’s intention to lodge the private bill. So this has been already put out in the public domain, and usually what happens is if there is any counter view from members of the public on knowing this is going to happen, they would be emailing members of Parliament. But I haven’t seen any counter views, so it looks like they have done everything that they needed to do before the bill has come before us to debate it here today for the first reading.

I also noted in one of the articles that the Public Trust’s head of communications said that “Carter’s will provided for aged poor men in Carterton following his death in 1896. New Zealand society has changed and evolved over the years, and so have local community needs. The proposed Bill will continue to ensure Carter’s charitable intentions are carried out for generations to come.” This is a very important part of this whole process because it’s about his charitable intentions. What we want to see is that the charitable intentions are carried out for generations to come, and if some things need to change to see that those charitable intentions are able to be carried out, then those changes should be made, because it’s about ensuring that the resources are utilised appropriately and that the charitable goals are actually met. So it’s about meeting the charitable goals of the late Mr Carter, rather than putting in some kind of legal hoops for them to deliver the intention of his will.

This bill is to unwind the will. This is to unwind the public trust and to have the $50,000 going to, as I mentioned before, the Anglican parish of Carterton, with the remaining funds going to Carter Society, which runs Carter Court Care Home, which is retirement home looking after aged people and poor people. That work should continue, so we support this bill.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): It's a pleasure to rise as a new member of the Wairarapa community in support of my Wairarapa colleagues to support a Wairarapa bill. So this is good, good stuff and it's nice to have the House all in accord on this. This is the first private bill of the term, but it's also a bill about community benefit. We've heard a lot, and I will rehash a little bit of that, but also hopefully add a few new bits about the work of Charles Rooking Carter: builder, contractor, farmer, politician, and in this case, philanthropist.

I want to congratulate Mike Butterick as the local MP for sponsoring the bill, and also congratulate all the parties who've obviously done a lot of work in bringing this bill to this place. The Carter Trust, the Carter Society, St Mark’s Anglican Church of Carterton, and the Public Trust Office, at the very least, have been involved in this. This bill is about better administrating the bequest of Charles Rooking Carter to make sure that it can do the best it can for the community of the Wairarapa.

Charles Rooking Carter was a pivotal leader in the development of the Wairarapa. He died, as we've heard, in 1896, and he left a significant legacy not only in his will but also in the things that he had done over many, many years. We've all heard about the 1961 Carter Trust Act, which is administered by the Public Trust, and the proceeds at the moment from that trust go to the local St Mark’s Anglican Church of Carterton, as I understand it, to including to upkeep properly Mr Carter's grave, which is at Clareville. As you heard, to upkeep the Carter Reserve and with the balance which is by far the most of it, going to what was originally established as the “Carterton Home for Aged Poor Men”. It's a bit more expansive these days, but it is about looking after our older people in the Carterton community and surrounds.

What is now the Carter Society runs what is now the Carter Court Care Home, which includes a 10-unit retirement village and 40 independent senior rental units. And you've heard how important that is for the Wairarapa community. As I understand it, the legislation is to make for a more efficient way of running the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter and also to help the operation of the Carter Court Care Home, which, as we've heard, also currently has to get any change to its rules approved by the Minister of Health.

What the bill does is it essentially removes the Carter Trust, give a small amount of money, $50,000, directly to the Anglican parish of Carterton, and the Carter Society essentially receives the rest—which is something like, I understand, about $12 million worth of assets, so a significant amount of assets being put to the benefit of the elder community in in Carterton, the district.

I want to say a few words, as others have, about Charles Rooking Carter. We've heard about Carterton being named after him, from originally Carterville. The community values Charles Rooking Carter, and Sir John Key unveiled an impressive statue of him in 2015. Now he sits on the corner of High Street and Belvedere Road, gazing at the town which is named after him and keeping an eye on what is going on.

As we've heard, he came from humble beginnings. Born in 1822, a builder's son from Kendal, what was then Westmoreland, on the edge of England's beautiful Lake District. We've also heard that he went to various night schools, took adult education classes. He spent a lot of time in London. He wrote and advocated extensively on economics and labour conditions, so a very intelligent and inquiring mind. In 1850, he married Jane Robieson and the couple emigrated to New Zealand. He quickly made his mark.

Now, in the new town—he came to Wellington—he undertook harbour reclamation, he undertook building sea walls, he built not only the bridge which we've heard about over the Waōhine River, but he also built what was the first bridge, as I understand it, over the Wanganui River. And there's a beautiful picture in Te Ara Encyclopedia of the bridge in 1871, when it was opened, of wagons laden with wool bales crossing the bridge to reach the Wanganui wharves for shipment overseas. So he built a lot of buildings, including the Wellington Provincial buildings in 1857, which is on the site of our own General Assembly Library. That building served as the Parliament building when Parliament moved to Wellington in 1965. He was a provincial councillor, and he was an MP in the second and third parliaments of New Zealand. So he made a significant contribution in those ways, and also to the settlement of the Wairarapa. He, along with Joseph Masters, who of course Masterton is named after, were instrumental in encouraging the settlement of Wairarapa from 1853 through the Wairarapa Small Farms Association.

Look, there's not much time or else to say, but I really think this is a great bill. I look forward to the submissions on it, to the consideration of this, and I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Just a short call, if I may, just to stand and acknowledge this process, given its origins, and recognise that this bill is to amend the will of the late Charles Rooking Carter to enable the winding up of the charitable trust. It is to clarify the legal liability of the public trust aspect of the Carter Trust and to enable the Carter Society Inc. to amend its rules without the approval of the Minister of Health. We acknowledge it and recognise it, and, listening to the speakers prior, everything like this has a whakapapa and a history, and it's important to acknowledge it in the House today, from our point of view.

The Carter Trust was set up under an Act of Parliament, so an Act is required to disestablish it. We support it, of course. We see no issues at all, and we just commend it to the House. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to stand and speak to this bill. It is a study in time and it is a study in how a man, Charles Rooking Carter, a migrant from England, could come to a new country and do what he did. He did the things that he did at the time that he could do it. He had the vision to put into action the things that he had observed and the issues that he thought he could help with, in the process, from establishing land and developing property and coming into the service of Parliament.

He would have seen and observed a lot of trials and challenges: the challenges of migrants, the challenges of people growing old in Masterton and Wairarapa. He worked very hard, so he was a hard-working migrant, which is always such a blessing to celebrate and to recognise. When he came to the end of his life, through his will, he had provided and established a pathway for the housing of aged men. For sure, he would have been observing that need, he would have seen that need. Just like our very hard-working Mike Butterick, MP for Wairarapa, who has gone to the residences and viewed the residences, the retirement villages that now exist—as our former Minister of Health, Dr Shane Reti, too, has visited. They, too, have seen the value of what was created.

Over time, that creation would come into complexities. In 1961, the will of Charles needed to morph into an Act, so the Carter Trust Act was established in 1961. That paved the way for change, which now included that women could then live in the villages that he had established. It’s quite fitting that he is remembered now for the vision of establishing that housing support for men, and then eventually, after his death, that this support through the Carter Society had expanded into the support of women.

The Act of 1961 requires, now, an amendment—amendments—where the functioning of the Carter Society could be facilitated and eased, as their responsibility grew with the expansion of the retirement villages and the services that they provide. It has been difficult, through the 1961 Act, as the Carter Society needed to go through the Minister of Health for changes in the decisions, in the management and development of the work that the Carter Society did. They were growing really rapidly; the village that started with just one home for seven to 10 residents had become now a village of expanded proportions—of 100 residents—and growing and developing and refurbishing and all that work now necessitated the amendment of the 1961 Act. With this amendment, also, the Public Trust is able to ensure that their functions are clear, and that that would facilitate all decisions of the trust. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. That’s one of the longest and most articulate speeches I’ve heard from Paulo Garcia, running over the nature of this trust and why the amendments are needed. I think it is indicative that this House sees a few of these bills every year. Some of them I, indeed, have sponsored, like the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill which is, in fact, very similar, where a trust deed becomes outdated and needs to be updated because it’s, essentially, embedded in statute. I mean, the Girl Guides’ legislation, which I was talking to a colleague about previously, didn’t have such glorious time through this House—it may be time for us to look at whether, in fact, we do need to have private bills to amend these trust deeds that are set in statute or whether we can do something that’s a little more efficient use of parliamentary time.

But, look, this bill’s necessary. The Carter Trust and the associated entities are useful and worthy. So, obviously, for those reasons and the reasons so articulately given by other members of this House, we support this bill.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill this afternoon. Just to reflect a little bit on the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter who passed away in 1896 and left a bequest for his community that was a relatively modest but important contribution and has grown over the years, and it’s an example of the great generosity of people who leave a legacy for their communities. One of the things, though, that he wouldn't have envisioned is just how much time would change and how maybe how long his legacy would last. But times have changed, and his contribution and his legacy now has an opportunity for a change to further support the community.

There's been some great work amongst a number of people who've come together to work out how to change this and reflect what the community now needs. So they want to amend his will to allow the winding up of the charitable trust and distribution of the assets by the Public Trust as executor. They want to clarify the legal liability of the Public Trust, limiting the cases of dishonesty, wilful misconduct, or gross negligence. They want to enable the Carter Society Incorporated to amend its rules without requiring the Minister of Health’s approval, which is facilitating more responsive governance to changes as they develop over time. I'm sure the Minister of Health’s duties and responsibilities have grown significantly given the population is significantly bigger in New Zealand now than it was back in 1896. Also, the bill creates a statutory process for distributing $50,000 to the Anglican Parish of Carterton and the remaining funds go to the Carter Society upon winding up.

These are all sensible changes that key stakeholders including the beneficiary of Charles Rooking Carter's original bequest to the Public Trust and St Mark’s parish have come together and they've responsibly come up with some sensible solutions, have approached their local member of Parliament who is the great Mike Butterick, who's sponsoring this bill, to bring these changes which will make an important contribution to the community.

It's worth noting that in the years since 1896 when Charles Carter passed away to now, his bequest has grown significantly and is now actually quite a significant bequest in that community. I couldn't help but just reflect on that date, Madam Speaker, given that I was with yourself in a little place called Pirongia last week. And in 1896 it was then called Alexandra and it's in the Waikato. In 1996, it changed its name to Pirongia so that it didn't get confused, for postal reasons, with the Alexandra in my electorate. So there's a just a little sort of note in history of that sort of coincidence that I couldn't help but reflect on as I looked at this.

It's just a reminder, also, that things change. Change needs to happen. And this is a very sensible change that's going to help that community and help the key people who are there wanting to make a further contribution and carry on the legacy of Charles Carter. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Heoi anō rā kei te tū awau ki te pire, arā Carter Trust Amendment Bill.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. We rise to support this bill, the Carter Trust Amendment Bill.]

It’s a pleasure to stand and support this bill, not least of all so that one day Mike Butterick and the Hon Kieran McAnulty can have somewhere to move in together and debate policies in their twilight years—I can see it now. Heoi anō ra [Anyway], all jokes aside, kātahi te koha nui ko tēnei [what a great gift this is]. What a very generous koha Charles Rooking Carter has left for his community.

Members before me have discussed the technicalities of this bill, but I think probably the thing that appeals to me the most is that, ultimately, it’s about enabling Carter Court, the last remaining community-owned aged-care facility in Wairarapa, to continue to provide care for their own. We often talk about locally led solutions, and it’s great to be here today to support one such service.

The other word that comes to mind is manaaki. Our pakeke are the repositories of knowledge. It’s never an easy decision for whānau to make to put their elderly into care. Aside from the emotional decision whānau have to make, there’s also the transition process of leaving your home and entering a foreign environment. That can be made even more traumatic and more problematic when that transition has to happen outside of your home town. So having a local service, a local provider, where our pakeke, our elderly, can at least see their mokopuna and their tamariki more frequently is also a kaupapa that I and, indeed, the Labour Party endorse.

Hei whakakapi [To conclude], the final phrase that comes to mind is te mana o te tangata [the dignity of humanity]. Maintaining the dignity of not only our elderly and their families, but, indeed, the people who ensure that are the kaimahi, the people who look after our elderly. So while we absolutely support this Carter Trust Amendment Bill, I hope that we don’t forget the value of our kaimahi—our carers—who maintain the integrity of our pakeke who will be looked after in this facility and many other similar facilities throughout Aotearoa.

Koirā noa iho aku kōrero mō tēnei wā, e te Māngai o te Whare.

[That’s all I have to say for now, Madam Speaker.]

Once again, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mike Butterick, in reply.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It really is a privilege to help shepherd this through the House—and I also thank everybody for their support. It's been a great walk back through both time and a legacy in this first reading. If any of you were wondering about the size of the original land bequest from Charles Rooking Carter, of 2,178 acres, three roods, and 2.7 perches, you aren't alone. I, too, was curious. I'll share with you that a rood is equal to a quarter of an acre, or 40 perches. A perch, also known as a rod or pole, is a unit of length equivalent to 16.5 feet or five metres, and when squared can be considered a unit of measure. So the total area of land donated, including acres, roods, and perches, was 881.72 hectares in today's terms. The Carter Trust Amendment Bill will allow the Carter Society, and by extension the Carterton community, more certainty and autonomy to get on with what it does best and not be hampered by outdated rules that offer no benefit in today's era. More than that, this bill allows us the opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate the organisations and volunteers, like those from the Carter Society, that actually help make our communities the very places that we want to live in.

For those that don't know, Carterton is a town in the Wairarapa with a population of around 10,250—that's when you include the surrounding area. Some of you might think it's a bit small, or by some standards even tiny, but this is a town where neighbours know each other, where people pitch in, and where there's always a helping hand. This is a community that's happy to step up to the plate and solve local challenges with local solutions, and this bill is living proof of that. The Carter Trust, which has been in existence now for 129 years, has served the Carterton community well. It is now armed with the vision and generous bequest from Charles Rooking Carter. We need to make sure that this legacy is able to continue to benefit the Carterton community and that it's not hampered by legislation that is no longer relevant or fit for purpose. The Carterton Society needs our support so that it can keep up with the changing needs of the people of Carterton, especially our seniors, who deserve security and comfort as they grow older.

By amending the Carter Trust Act 1961, we're clearing away some of the red tape—the red tape that we all love to hate. We're making it easier for our local leaders to do what they do best: find practical, caring solutions that fit the people of Carterton. The Carter Trust, thanks to the dedication of the Carter Society and local volunteers, has evolved and grown from its original mission, and it now serves a growing population of seniors with housing, rest, home, and hospital care. It continues to innovate and continues to look for new ways to support those that call it home. The proposed amendments are designed precisely for this responsiveness, removing outdated barriers and giving local decision-makers the freedom and the flexibility to meet those emerging needs.

What will this mean for Carterton today? It means streamlined processes, less bureaucracy, and the ability to adapt trust operations as the need arises. The financial and land assets, carefully measured, protected, and managed, can be utilised faster and more efficiently, ensuring that every resource serves the community to its fullest opportunity. But the true strength of this bill is its focus on the future. It empowers those on the ground to plan ahead, anticipating the shifting needs of an aging population and a changing society.

In closing, let's embrace this change today to lead with local solutions. By supporting the bill, we are ensuring Carterton’s community remains resilient, innovative, and deeply cared for, now and into the future. The legacy of Charles Rooking Carter will live on, not just in history but in the vibrant, evolving life of Carterton today and its people of today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Carter Trust Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bills

Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): I move, That the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is an honour to rise in support of the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill at its third and final reading. This bill is about safety, dignity, and justice. It is about recognising that victims of family violence should not be retraumatised by the very institution charged with protecting them. For too long, too many people—, most often women—, have walked into the Family Court and found it to be a place of fear, rather than refuge. This bill takes an important step to change that.

I want to begin by acknowledging Dr Emily Henderson. For years, Emily has documented how victims of family and sexual violence are treated in our courts. She has shown that harm does not come just from hostile cross-examination or direct abuse but also from subtleties of intimidation. She tells of a survivor who, when giving evidence, was seated just metres from her abuser. He didn’t need to speak; he just simply leaned back in his chair, stretched out his legs, and smirked. That small gesture, deliberate and calculated, was enough to silence her. She stumbled and she hesitated, and she could not tell the story that she needed to tell.

That account and many others like it underline Dr Henderson’s argument, an argument that she has made consistently over many years: the way that evidence is given is just as important as the evidence itself. Without protections, the truth can be distorted, and this bill is built on that very insight.

I also acknowledge the survivors and the advocates who gave evidence before the Justice Committee. Their testimonies were important and they were powerful. One woman described hiding in a courtroom bathroom, too terrified to enter the courtroom, knowing her abuser was there. Another spoke of the chilling tactics of control—the gestures, the stares, and the deliberate silences that were designed to intimidate and silence her, even while she was under oath—and these are not isolated cases. They are the reality for countless survivors, and they underline why this legislation is not just technical but is profoundly human.

The purpose of this bill at its heart is that the bill does something very simple but, nevertheless, powerful. It says that if you are giving evidence in the Family Court of family violence, the presumption is that you can do so in alternative ways: by giving evidence from behind a screen, from using a remote link, or from another safe place outside the courtroom. That means that victims no longer need to apply for those protections and they no longer need to justify why they deserve those safety protections. The burden shifts from the victim to the court, where it belongs.

The select committee made some changes to ensure that this bill was workable and robust, and I would like to go through a couple of those. First of all, we made clear definitions. We inserted the definition of “fFamily cCourt proceeding” and “family violence evidence” to make it clear that the protections apply to those people who have directly experienced the violence, preventing perpetrators from potentially misusing these measures.

With regard to practical delivery, the bill as introduced included the pre-recorded video evidence, similar to that of a criminal court, and while that remains a valuable reform for the future, we recognise that the Family Court currently lacks the infrastructure to be able to deliver that without going through a process that would have led to unnecessary, significant, or compounding delays. It’s also worth noting that there remains judicial discretion. Judges have the ability on their own initiative to ensure that fairness in proceedings is maintained and that that safeguard is there to safeguard against misuse, and also the affidavit evidence remains central. We’ve clarified that this bill does not displace the current practice, where most evidence—or, certainly, evidence in chief—is given by affidavit.

These refinements that were made through the select committee process mean that the bill is able to work in practice. It will be effective, it’s fair, and it’s deliverable from the moment that it comes into force.

So why does this matter? The bill is not just about abstract legal rules; it’s about real people. It is about the woman who told us that she felt as though she was on trial when she was simply trying to protect her children in Family Court proceedings. It’s about the survivor who sat in a witness box and who was shaking, unable to find her voice because her abuser sat just metres away in an informal Family Court setting, staring at her. It is about the children who have watched their parents endure this type of experience and this type of trauma, and who by definition, therefore, carry that impact into their own lives.

When survivors are retraumatised in court, the quality of that evidence is also compromised because silence is affectedeffected when people experience trauma. — Ttrauma silences people. Fear distorts their ability to speak clearly. The bill will mean better evidence will be given in a safer environment under safer conditions, which ultimately leads to better decisions by the court, and that, surely, is within everybody’s best interests.

One of the most heartening aspects of this bill has been the spirit in which it was considered. The Justice Committee recommended the bill and all of its amendments unanimously, and I’d like to take the opportunity to thank colleagues from every party represented on the committee and every party in this House for their willingness to support this bill and to engage with the process. I acknowledge also the committee staff and officials.

This is a step on a journey and I want to also acknowledge that, and I want to be clear that this bill is not the end of the road. Some submitters argued that there should be stronger protections, such as eliminating any visual contact between victim and abuser, or reducing the 28-day notice period. Those are important reforms, and they do remain on the table.

While submitters rightly reminded us that there is still more work to do, this reform also builds on Labour’s previous record of action, and that should be noted. We introduced Te Aorerekura, the first national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence, and we invested in those front-line services. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, which improved protections for victims in criminal courts. I believe that this bill extends those principles into the Family Court, where they are desperately required.

Today, this bill nears the end of its passage through this House, and I reflect on those survivors who shared their experiences. They didn’t do so lightly, but they did so in the hope that their pain and their experience through that system might lead to change, and so this bill delivers that change. This is progress, it is overdue, and it is the right thing to do. Having said that, I commend this bill to the House.

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

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party and express our continued support for the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. We supported this bill at its first reading, we engaged proactively through the Justice Committee in the select committee process, we supported it at second reading and through the committee of the whole House process, and today we come to the culmination at the end, which is the third and final reading.

Like the member in the charge of the bill has just stated, we are really looking forward to having this bill in place. We are hopeful that New Zealand, moving forward, may never need to use this legislation, but it’s really important to have these provisions and abilities available for those people who go before the Family Court, to ensure they have the protections that they need so that they can actively and proactively engage in the evidence process in the Family Court and in the proceedings that are before that court.

I want to acknowledge a couple of the points that the member in charge of the bill made. This bill is—as she has rightly described—about safety, it’s about dignity, and it is about justice. Throughout my contribution, I’ll particularly highlight that justice point of view and talk about how this will ensure we have the best possible practices in our Family Court proceedings.

An acknowledgment goes to Dr Emily Henderson, who originally had this bill in her name when she was a member of Parliament here last term, and to Tracey McLellan, who picked up that bill on her behalf in this term and has engaged with the Justice Committee, particularly around some of the recommended changes we’ve made so that we could progress the legislation to a place where we thought it was feasible and workable for moving it into the Family Court process.

After we heard from the 30-odd submitters—and, again, as the member in charge stated, many of them gave their real-world experience, their firsthand experiences, of what it had been like for them in the Family Court. For us, as members of the committee, it was really important to ensure that we weren’t dictating what we thought the legislation needed to include but that, actually, we were hearing from those who had experienced it firsthand so that we could get it exactly right. It was challenging at times, thinking about putting yourselves into the shoes of those people giving evidence in the Family Court, and having the perpetrator sitting 2, 3, or 4 metres away. The intimidation factor that that person must have felt was a really core part of why we wanted to ensure we got the legislation absolutely right.

I think that today also demonstrates the collegiality, sometimes, of Parliament. , that, yYes, you may see on the 6 o’clock news, or wherever you get your news, the robustness that comes with this place, but I think what often doesn’t get shown or what doesn’t get cut -through is actually how everybody in this place wants to make New Zealand a better place. Sometimes we disagree about how we get there, but sometimes we actually come together for the good of New Zealand. I think this is a bill that actually truly reflects that, where we can actually put political difference aside and go, “There’s an issue here, and we all, together, all of us in this place, want to fix it and make it better.”, and I think that that is something that we have to show more of to the public so that they can actually see it. Yeah, it’s not about party politics, necessarily; it’s about ensuring we get it exactly right for the New Zealand population, and I think that that is really, really important.

I want to talk about a couple of things in the legislation, in particular. When this bill does become law—which will be happening in the next few days, I would imagine, with Royal assent and then, obviously, some implementation time frames to allow it to take place, which is 12 months, and which the committee agreed to, to ensure we can get our Family Court to a place where it can make sure that this is operational—victims of family violence will now have automatic entitlement to giving evidence using screens or audiovisual links from another location. Previously, that was at the discretion of the judge in charge of the trial, but now this gives them the automatic entitlement to that, which is a really positive step. It takes out any shadow of a doubt, which is a really good thing.

Victims have choice and flexibility in how they participate in Family Court proceedings, and, finally, it actually aligns it with proceedings in the criminal court, which I think closes a gap that we had seen through the committee around what was available in the criminal courts versus what was available in the Family Court. I think that bridges this gap. It creates equal treatment and the same protections for people.

There were five key improvements made through the committee process of the legislation. We focused on actual victims, so we clarified that protections apply specifically to people who have experienced family violence, and that prevents potential misuse by perpetrators, which was some advice that we received. There is the cost-effective implementation—and, again, the member in charge noted this in her contribution—around the removal of what we perceived to be the really expensive video-recording requirements that would have needed well over $20 million in core upgrades for Family Courts across the country. Enhanced judicial discretion: judges can now act on their own initiative to ensure proceedings remain fair, not just on application by other parties. We’ve protected existing processes and made it clear that this doesn’t replace affidavit evidence, which is already protected. The realistic implementation, as I’ve said, is a 12-month period allowing for proper judicial education, staff training, and—importantly—necessary facility upgrades. As I highlighted in my second reading speech, when my colleague Suze Redmayne was here, you can think about many of our potentially more rural Family Courts across the country, and this is ensuring that they’ve got the facilities so that this legislation can be workable in their proceedings, as well.

We had 30 people give submissions to the select committee, and I think eight gave oral submissions, if I remember correctly. What we learnt from those submissions was that there were concerns about the cost in the implementation, which we’ve now addressed. Legal practitioners highlighted the need for stronger judicial discretion, which we’ve responded to. Victim advocacy groups made a number of really worthwhile submissions which emphasised the importance of focusing on the actual victims—we’ve got to remember that that’s at the heart of this legislation. The Ministry of Justice provided practical advice on implementation, which we have incorporated. I think this shows how the select committee process improves legislation through genuine consultation.

Why do these changes actually matter? Well, when victims feel safe, they can give clearer, more complete evidence.

What else? Increased participation. Hopefully, now, more victims will be willing to come to the Family Court and engage with the Family Court proceedings because they know they’ve got these protections available to them. If we think about child welfare, better evidence means better decisions about children’s safety and wellbeing. Access to justice: we’re removing barriers that prevent victims from participating in proceedings that affect their lives.

As the member in charge has rightly said, the burden shifts from the victim to the court, where it rightly belongs, but this also addresses some concerns about fairness. The bill maintains strong safeguards, judges retain full discretion to ensure fair proceedings—as is rightly the case—and the interest of justice test ensures that no one is disadvantaged. This complimentscomplements the family violence operating model which is already been trialled in Christchurch, and it aligns Family Court proceedings with those already available in criminal proceedings.

Victim advocacy groups strongly support these changes. Legal practitioners recognise the need for better protections and they support the committee’s amendments. The judiciary—really importantly—has indicated support for practical improvements. If we look at some international best practice, while many jurisdictions already provide these protections in family proceedings, the evidence shows that alternative methods improve victim participation without compromising fairness, and that’s really great.

The real-world impact: well, every family violence victim who has withdrawn from proceedings because they were too frightened to face their abuser—we’ve got to think about those who have withdrawn from processes previously because they were too scared of what they may encounter at the Family Court. There are those children whose safety depends on evidence that they couldn’t give properly due to victim trauma, and every case where poor decisions have resulted from incomplete evidence because victims couldn’t participate effectively.

What does this mean? It means increased victim participation, it reduces case delays and adjournments, and better evidence leads to better decisions, reducing the need for repeating proceedings, but, most importantly, it’s time to align our Family Court with best practice and our values as a compassionate society. I believe that this shows how members’ bills can deliver real improvements when all parties work together constructively, and I believe we have engaged in that process very, very well. I commend the member in charge. I thank those who made submissions to the committee. This is a really strong improvement to Family Court proceedings across the country, and, therefore, I commend it to the House.

XXX

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I take this call on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill at its third reading. This is a moment to pause, to reflect, and to honour what this legislation means for families across the country and for victims of family violence. I mihi first to the work of this House and to the select committee. Thank you for the mahi and persistence it has taken to shepherd this bill through the House, but most importantly, to the advocates, whānau, lawyers, kaimahi, and survivors who submitted to the select committee, who carried their stories into the public arena to ensure this legislation was stronger and fit for purpose, thank you. Your courage has carried this kaupapa forward.

I want to quote someone who’s been through the family court system, Emma-Jayne Kururangi. While giving evidence, Emma-Jayne became emotional. Her crying filled the courtroom. No one spoke. She asked the judge for a break, and with survivor advocate Ruth Money by her side, made her way to a small room not much bigger than a toilet cubicle at the entrance to the courtroom. Emma says, “I had to stay seated until the jury had left the room because I couldn’t walk. I got up. I started crying. Ruth was holding me as we were walking past the lawyers. It’s the crying that you can’t control. It’s the pain from your wairua [soul]. There’s something so heavy and mamae and painful about it.”

Too often, our justice system has failed and it continues to fail survivors of family violence. The Family Court should be a place where people can come to find safety and protection. But the reality has been that survivors are frequently retraumatised when forced to give evidence in the same room as their abuser. We know what this looks like. We heard from survivors at select committee: survivors freezing when they see the person who has harmed them; children shrinking back, unable to speak when confronted by the person they fear most; whānau deciding to walk away from proceedings altogether because the process itself is more harmful than healing.

That is why this bill is so important. It creates a presumption that the evidence in family violence cases can be given in alternative ways, which includes video link from another room or behind a screen. These tools already exist, but they are rarely used. By embedding a presumption, we make them real options, not just theoretical ones. This is about removing barriers within the current system. This is about reducing the retraumatisation that has kept too many people silent.

As my colleague from Te Pāti Māori Mariameno Kapa-Kingi reminded us in her kōrero at the second reading of this bill, the sobering reality is that 58 percent of wāhine Māori are impacted by family violence that’s a result of the legacy of colonisation, poverty, and systemic oppression. Yet, wāhine Māori are also 100 percent of the solution. By strengthening their ability to participate safely in the system, this bill is part of recognising the leadership and resilience that already exists in our communities.

The Family Court is still relatively new as a specialist jurisdiction. It was established to provide a specialised court for family-related matters, including family violence. It was a core recommendation of the royal commission of inquiry on the courts. So it is great to see that we are coming back and ensuring that the intention of the Family Court is actually upheld in the practices every day.

We know that specialist courts are crucial because they respond to the specific context of harm. The Youth Court, the Family Court, the Rangatahi Court, all these models show us that justice can look different. Justice can be more humane, more responsive, more effective. This bill is one more step towards a Family Court that does not simply replicate the harm that survivors have already faced but, instead, makes space for safety and dignity.

This bill is not an end point, it is a foundation and a starting point. We must ensure the resources are in place to make alternative evidence options actually available in practice, not just in legislation. That includes the live video-link technology that is accessible to disabled people, and one day, pre-recorded evidence that spares survivors the ordeal of recounting their experiences under direct confrontation.

Again, I want to shout out to the Disabled Persons Assembly who reminded us that justice must be accessible to everyone. That means New Zealand Sign Language interpreters, captioning, communication assistance, and we must ensure equity and breakdown barriers to justice.

The passage of this bill says clearly that survivors’ voices matter, their safety matters, their dignity matters. It is also a reminder that the work on transforming our justice system is ongoing. We must keep dismantling the barriers within our specialist court system. We must keep dismantling attitudes that silence and blame victims and survivors. We must keep resourcing the community organisations who walk alongside survivors long before they ever set foot in a courtroom.

To the survivors who shared their stories, to the advocates who have fought for this change, and to Dr McLellan for her leadership, this bill is your mahi coming to life. I want to speak directly to survivors: let’s normalise speaking up. We believe you and this is not your shame to bear.

I also want to finish by talking about Emma-Jayne Kururangi again, who said she went into this process 30 years after the abuse was inflicted upon her. For her, this was never about winning a court case; this was about restoring her mana. She said, “You shouldn’t have to be revictimised by walking past someone else’s family. There should be a safe way to get to court, and yet there’s no protection for you.” When we think about those words, we can see how many barriers there are to survivors and to victims actually going through the court system. We want to make sure that we have a justice system that is fair and that makes sure that people aren’t put off from seeking justice because of the system that is in place.

On behalf of the Green Party, we commend it to the House and we are happy to support this bill. Thank you.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s actually my honour, on behalf of ACT, to rise and speak on this third reading of the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. I want to indicate again that this bill has the full support of ACT’s 11 MPs. We have supported it all the way through its passage in this House, and I want to again congratulate Dr McLellan on getting this drawn out of the ballot and bringing it forward to the House. As has already been talked about by others, she really was actively engaged with the Justice Committee, and I think it was actually a very good process, where we all worked together to get to something that this House looks likely to pass tonight and actually make a difference for victims of family violence.

I just want to start by acknowledging we do have a family violence problem in New Zealand. I think we shouldn’t forget that it’s disturbing, it’s wrong, and we all need to work as hard as we can to turn that around. But putting that aside, we also then, when victims of and survivors of family violence come forward to the court system, actually need to make it the best experience possible so they can actually get the justice and, often, the protection they need—because, again, the Family Court often is putting in place protection orders, dealing with very difficult circumstances, and making sure that those survivors of family violence are actually looked after.

For a lot of us, it could be quite hard to imagine. I mean, we come to this place, which is, obviously, the highest court in the land. It’s a very strange building. We operate in a very strange way. If you’ve set foot in our court system—and a long time ago, I was a lawyer—it is a very strange experience. It has lots of rules. It’s actually set out in an unusual way. It’s quite confrontational. You need to have lawyers and representatives. So it is quite confronting. Obviously, we have made steps—and Kahurangi Carter from the Greens outlined how the Family Court is actually a specialist jurisdiction and has actually made steps to be more informal and try and be a better experience. But there’s probably still some way to go, because it still does have its formality and its rules, and it’s a strange physical place. So I actually just wanted to say it that these small things are very, very important.

In fact, I actually just want to, with your indulgence, read out one of the submissions we received to the select committee. I think others have already said we received—I think we had seven oral submitters and we had 30 submitters. But this one I just want to read out because it’s actually a woman’s quite recent experience in the Family Court. I think it highlights, actually, the issue we’re trying to deal with here, and so I just want to read that out:

“I appeared at North Shore Family Court on Tuesday, 27 August 2024 regarding my ex partner contesting a temporary protection order to not be made permanent.

“For 20 years, I’ve suffered every abuse possible. I’ve been left with numerous medical issues including heart problems and being diagnosed with [complex post traumatic stress disorder]. With … my chronic insomnia anxiety, panic attacks amongst other issues I was really struggling [in the lead] up to the court hearing [and] with having to face my abuser … my doctor wrote a letter asking me to either have a screen in the court room or be in a separate room with a video link to which I was advised that this wasn’t possible. I asked this numerous times and I was told this couldn’t happen.

“That day re-traumatised me and definitely set back my recovery and healing. My ex partner intimidated me throughout the court hearing for hours which was seen by the judge and everyone else in the room. The stand was right next to me as the victim and when my ex partner was cross examined it was terrifying when he walked so close to me to get past and thankfully the judge said did I want to sit at the back of the room with my support person from … women’s refuge which I did. I [was] very grateful [for] her ...

“My ex partners body language was [violent] and at one stage I was thinking I needed to run out of the court room towards security. My heart rate was spiking more from his lies than when I was being cross examined which was very stressful.

“Even though I have no kids, pets, [or] joint assets for [necessitating a] permanent order to be granted … I was advised to [undertake] numerous [items going through this hearing] due to [needing to have this hearing on the day] … my gut told me I needed to go through this ordeal and I fought for my life that day in that court room and got justice.”

I think that account by Ms Holmes, who made a submission to our select committee, starkly sets out what we are trying to do here. As others have said, we actually need to stop people being retraumatised when they need to go into these settings to actually get the justice that they deserve. You can actually hear from her words that she might not have been able to give the best evidence that day because of the effect of having to do it in that way, with her obviously violent ex-partner just across the courtroom. I think also, as Dr McLellan outlined in her opening speech, even just the act of how he moved across the courtroom and acted on that day was, you know, obviously, very, very stressful. So I think that account is why we got together as a Parliament and a group of parties and have worked on this diligently.

I also want to just acknowledge I’m quite lucky, in that one of my colleagues is the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Minister Chhour. She actually spoke on an earlier reading of this bill. I also have the Minister for Courts, in Nicole McKee. So in our caucus, we had discussions about the issues that this bill would raise and how they could be dealt with, but they were constructive and we worked through aligning—that this would be helpful and we wanted to actually make it work. Again, I want to thank Dr McLellan for making some of the suggestions that the select committee discussed with her, and, as she said in her opening speech, to actually make this work practically, so we can actually get this done. Like, there’s no point in this place just putting up ideas and things, and people not being willing to compromise and work through practical solutions, because then we just sometimes don’t get things done. It was a really great process because the member in charge was able to weigh up the pros and cons, we got advice, and we actually are putting in place something that will get done and make a difference. I think that’s really, really important.

As has been out outlined, for Ms Holmes, whose submission I read out, she would have been able to give evidence by a video link in another room as default. And again, I was lucky enough, with the other members of the Justice Committee, to go to the Christchurch justice precinct—I’m just calling that out because it’s quite a new one, and it has these rooms set up where someone can be actually in a separate room with their support person and give evidence by a video link. So they’re physically not even with their abuser. That will now be a right. There’ll be a right to have a screen, so that you’re actually shielded from having to look at that person as you give evidence or as, potentially, they give evidence and you need to be in the courtroom to observe it.

This is a really important bill we are passing today. I hope it really will make a difference. Again, I think in the Justice Committee we’ll be looking to see, in a little bit over a year’s time, how this is being used. That’s something we can, obviously, ask Justice officials when we have them in regularly on scrutiny, because we actually want to make sure that this does make a difference, that it does actually help the people it’s intended to, and that it actually does strengthen our justice system. So again, as I said at the start, I’m really honoured to be able to stand here on behalf of ACT today, give our full support to this bill, and commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this very, very important bill. I’m also rising on behalf of Jamie Arbuckle, who is of course our representative on the Justice Committee. So I haven’t had the privilege of going through and hearing the submissions that the Justice Committee have heard. And also on behalf of Casey Costello, because she has had, in her previous life, extensive experience in this area of dealing with harm generally, but also with harm in the family violence area.

I want to start by congratulating Dr Tracey McLellan for shepherding—well, first of all, for drawing up the bill and for the work that’s gone into that, but also for shepherding it through the process. I congratulate you for that. I also want to congratulate the Justice Committee for the work that’s been done. I hear the cross-party collaboration that’s been done, that is the way that we should—that is the best of us. That is the way we should be doing a whole lot more than we actually do, to be able to take an issue, to listen to people, because that’s so important: to be able to listen to the people who come and tell stories. In this case, they’re telling incredibly personal stories, incredibly challenging stories that—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Tell your Minister to stop adding giant amendments at the committee stage.

Cameron Brewer: Just keep going, Andy.

ANDY FOSTER: I’m just listening to them. They’re not listening to what I’m trying to say to them, is that this could be the best of us of actually working together collaboratively. But that is the best of Parliament: being able to listen to the people who make submissions, who come and tell us their stories, to come and tell us what it is that they need to be addressed, the challenges they face, in this case, the hardship and the harm that they’ve faced, and to be able to respond to that. That is their Parliament listening carefully and doing the job that we should be doing. And also, a select committee that works to make improvements to the bill. Good concept to start with, make that bill better by going through the select committee process. If we could do that in every select committee process, to take a bill that comes to us, whether it’s a Government bill or whether it’s a member’s bill, and to improve it through the select committee process—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Yeah, it’s got to go to select committee, that’s the point.

ANDY FOSTER: Rachel Brooking, you should come to transport and infrastructure, we do a great job in that area. Tracey McLellan, of course, is on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. So very good, very good select committee.

But I want to go back now to the bill itself. It’s a great process to get here. This bill is about us as a Parliament standing beside the victims of family violence, and we often say, and certainly on this side of the House, but I think around the Parliament as a whole, we say we want to look after the victims of any form of violence, of any form of crime. That is what we are about, certainly what we’re about as a Government. Our statistics on family violence are nothing short of appalling. I read that one in three people—certainly, mostly women—but one in three people have experienced either physical or sexual violence against them. That is utterly appalling. We, as a society, have to do something about that, to do many things about that. And there are many things that we could do about that.

What this, though, is about is in the court situation, and obviously, if you’ve gotten to the court situation that violence has been at the very, very high end. It’s been at the extreme end, and it may have been going on—as in the stories we’ve already heard—it may have been going on for many, many years. And to have to go into a courtroom and, as we’ve already heard, to stand there, to listen to the person who’s been the perpetrator of that violence against you is to be re-victimised. And that is what this bill is all about, to try and say we don’t accept that the people who have suffered—potentially, for years—from family violence should go through the court to try and seek some remedy for that family violence, to try and seek justice for that family violence, and in that process to be re-victimised. That is not right. And that is what this bill is about: trying to make sure that there is an opportunity to be able to give your evidence, to tell your stories to the court, to get justice for yourself and not to have to be re-victimised by standing in the same courtroom as the victimiser, as the person who has victimised you, potentially, for many years.

So to allow to for that that to be done by video, to be done from another room, whatever it might be, to have an opportunity to be able to do that in a way which is safe and does not re-victimise you, I think that that is the right thing to do. That is the Parliament of this land standing beside and behind and in support of the victims, and I think that is a great thing.

Again, I commend the select committee for the work that you’ve done; I commend Dr Tracey McLellan for bringing this bill here; and I also commend all of the brave people who have made submissions and have told those submissions and told their stories to the select committee. I think they have done a great service to our country, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou e te Whare. I te tuatahi e mihi atu ana ki ngā whānau e auare ana i raro i te kino nei, ka nui te mihi ki a rātou.

[Thank you, and greetings to us all in the House. First, I’d like to acknowledge the families that are crying out under this ill-treatment, I greatly acknowledge them.]

Just to acknowledge the survivors—and, indeed, to acknowledge women that did not survive and are lost to us. I want to acknowledge them, as well, and all of their whānau. I want to, if I can, Dr Tracey McLellan, mihi atu ana ki a koe for pursuing the work of Emily Henderson. She comes from a certain type of family, of course, as you all know, that many of her—well, her parents, for one. Her mother was my supervisor in the days when I was first with Rape Crisis, and so they know that work. She knows that work and she’s grown up in that domain, and so e mihi atu ana ki a koe, ka mau koe ki tēnei take [I acknowledge you, you will carry this issue].

This bill is a very important bill and a very important step forward, and Te Pāti Māori e tautoko mārika ana i te take nei—so the party supports this wholeheartedly. It is always alarming how necessary changes, such as these ones discussed today, are necessary, despite how simple or even commonsense-like they may seem. So just to acknowledge, again, the work of the Justice Committee and their turning their mind to it in the right and proper way.

My view, our view, is that the role here is to bring the voices of family and whānau—to bring their voices into this House and to ensure that they are understood in every possible way, particularly with this take. It is such a critical issue, and I do agree with the comments that we have such high statistics in this regard. It’s shameful—it’s shameful, and I agree that we must do more about it. I’ve worked in the sector myself. I’ve worked in the field long enough to know how harmful and how horrible it all is. We know the numbers already for wāhine Māori; I want to say that—but also, it was referred to earlier with Kahurangi Carter, the 58 percent of wāhine Māori. But the ironic thing—again, the added horribleness of it—is that with that number, it’s the same cohort that are unlikely to seek and seek support and, unfortunately, remain in that track forever, sometimes. And so this is a step forward.

The protections, including the ability to prerecord evidence or testify remotely, have typically remained absent from family court proceedings. This is another matter that deters wāhine and wāhine Māori, or in fact any survivor of abuse, from safely submitting evidence against their perpetrators. Victims should be entitled to consistent and safe support regardless of the avenue they choose to seek help. This bill comes some way to remedying such clear challenges. By granting witnesses the automatic right to submit evidence through alternative means, including remotely and outside the courtroom, we significantly reduce the trauma and intimidation they may experience by avoiding an in-person confrontation with their abuser.

Just takes me back out in the field, and a woman who said that she wanted to go back to her house. She just said, “Just take me back to the house. He might even be there, but take me back to the house, because I want to grab my photos—my photos, and my dog.” You know, what might seem like not a lot to us were some of the most important things that she wanted to make sure that she—and I can see that my time is up. But she wanted to get them and he was there, and things changed very quickly.

But, overall, I say to the Whare that we support this work that Tracey has done, and the Justice Committee, Emily’s work, and more in this vein so that more women can be made safe and feel safe. We support this and commend it to the House.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I just want to begin by acknowledging the member who spoke before me. I believe we had the same combination at the last reading, and I have really appreciated how the member uses real life experience and examples of supporting people in terms of family and sexual violence and puts a human face to some of the decisions that we make. So I just want to mihi to you, Mariameno, for all of the work that you’ve done throughout your life for survivors.

Obviously, we are supporting the bill and there seems to be support around the House for a really great bill. I want to thank Dr Tracey McLellan for all of her work bringing this to the House. We support this and we know that if we look at attitudes that people have towards our justice system in New Zealand, there’s a general feeling that victims and survivors struggle to trust the system, particularly on sensitive matters like family and sexual violence.

There can often be a feeling that the courts are difficult to understand and navigate; that the court process in and of itself is—[Another member is coughing] Sorry, I’m just making sure my colleague is OK. To make sure that the court system is able to be navigated—it can seem like a beast to victim survivors who have that in front of them, and sometimes the process itself can be retraumatising in the way that they have to prove what has happened to them, prove that they have been harmed. Basically, the onus is on them to prove that they have been harmed, and what pathways exist after that has been proved. The court itself can be intimidating and any little measures that we can take to make our courts more accommodating of people from different backgrounds and in different circumstances—particularly sensitive matters—is going to be a good thing in general.

Even though this bill is, essentially, about something that is already in existence in terms of the different tools that victims can use when they’re giving evidence, this is still a good thing because it adds a presumption in the Evidence Act that these alternative ways of giving evidence should be first and foremost, rather than just an option. Just because something exists, it doesn’t mean that people know that it exists in the first place, which kind of speaks to the complexities of our court systems as well, which was outlined in the Turuki! Turuki! report, which was formed by Chester Borrows from National, who looked into what New Zealand needs to do to have a safe and effective justice system. One of the recommendations that they made was that we actually had court navigators that help people to understand and navigate the court and know what actually exists in terms of, for example, alternate ways of giving evidence that might be safer and less retraumatising for victims. This is one really discrete way of making that system, our justice system, less traumatising for people that want to pursue justice in that way.

That’s one of the reasons why we’re supporting this bill. The other reason is, of course, because family violence and sexual violence are far too prevalent in our country. It’s New Zealand’s shameful secret that isn’t actually a secret. In fact, we stack up really terribly next to other countries when it comes to our rates of domestic and sexual violence experienced by people in this country and, in particular, by women in this country. We’re glad that this makes a change and improvement to our family courts. We know that our family courts are one of many specialist courts in our country which have really high efficacy rates in terms of peoples’ satisfaction with those courts and also in terms of reducing reoffending, which, all around the House, I’m sure we all agree that’s a good thing.

I’ve spent a little bit of time in some of our other specialist courts—our Youth Court and our Special Circumstances Court, which is for people experiencing homelessness. I know that, because they take such a catered and discrete and distinct approach towards the subject matter that they deal with, they are far more successful, and this is an example of doing that through the Family Court. We support this bill. We thank the member for bringing it to our attention and bringing it to the House and look forward to many more changes we can make to make our Family Court less traumatising and more productive towards achieving justice and safety for whānau everywhere. Kia ora.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to give my kōrero in this third reading of the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. It’s a bill, as we have noted, in the name of our colleague across the House, Dr Tracey McLellan, who, as I’ve mentioned in my second reading speech, was staunchly determined that this bill will pass and then was quite attentive to whatever changes needed to be made which would keep the original kaupapa of the bill, and that is to allow victims to be able to be given alternative ways of giving evidence in Family Court proceedings where it still allows them to feel protected, despite the circumstances and, I believe, to maintain and enhance their mana.

Five weeks ago, we had the second reading of this bill here in the House, and up there in the gallery was sitting my beautiful niece Rima Luti, and I made a point of talking about how bills like this bring out certain subject matters which are quite confrontational. On the Justice Committee, we deal with these type of matters a lot, and, if you don’t mind, Mr Speaker, before I delve into everything, today is my niece’s birthday. So if you don’t mind, Dr McLellan, I’m just going to say happy birthday to Rima Luti, who will be listening from Sydney, Australia. God bless you, habibti.

With Rima and with my nieces and nephews, I do talk about these subject matters. They’re in their teenage years, most of them now, and in my mind, what I feel I want to do is prepare my nieces and nephews for the fact that there are people out there that enact acts of violence, whether it’s mentally or physically, that really can, essentially, ruin a person’s life, particularly if they don’t have the right support networks around them.

So, in terms of giving evidence and what the basis of this bill is about, I’d like to ask members of the House to imagine, if they could, a woman that’s in a relationship where she married a person, thinking that they would be together for all their lives, but that person ended up being a very violent person. Imagine, as confronting as it is, that one day this woman was engaged in a physical incident with the husband, where he held her by the hair and dragged her across the floor before kicking her. That’s very confronting.

Imagine, then, some months down the track, this woman is compelled to sit opposite this man that did this stuff to her—I’m saying “man” and “woman” in this situation, but sometimes it could be others—and give evidence and then be cross-examined, with that person that has inflicted so much pain, both physical, and mental, and emotional, sitting right in front of her. I’d like the House to imagine how this victim could be expected to give evidence that is coherent and clear and logical in such difficult circumstances. When I sat down a number of times when we discussed this this bill through our select committee and reflected on what we’re trying to achieve here, it really is that.

When we look at the principal Act, which is the Evidence Act 2006, overall, the aim of this Act is outlined in section 6 of the Evidence Act, which says that “The purpose of this Act is to help secure the just determination of proceedings by—”, and there are paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), etc., and then paragraph (c) says, “promoting fairness to parties and witnesses;”. This is where, for me, it links quite clearly. It’s clear to me that the work that Dr McLellan has done with this links to what the overall purpose of the Evidence Act is in paragraph (c) of section 6: “promoting fairness to parties and witnesses;”.

The way that this bill hopes to promote fairness is to allow that within the Family Court, alternative ways to give evidence are a given, not just something that, as it stands for now, can be applied for and the judge can decide yes or no. It’s actually a default and it’s actually a given so that we can achieve what the overall aim of the Evidence Act is—the principal Act, which this bill is amending—which is to promote fairness to parties and witnesses. I believe strongly that this change, which is, as mentioned, small but quite impactful, goes a long way in making sure that witnesses in those situations—for example, that dire example I gave in the beginning of my kōrero—can feel that fairness for their side of the story is promoted by the avenues we give to them.

As it stands, as has been mentioned, currently in Family Court procedures, evidence is, typically, provided by affidavit, and for those that are listening that are not familiar with these terms, that’s, essentially, a written statement made before the hearing, with cross-examination happening in person during the hearing. Now, if we look at criminal cases, alternative methods, as I just mentioned, are a given. Witnesses are allowed to give evidence in alternative ways. When we’re talking about things like a video link from behind a screen, it’s something that many of us in this House that are familiar with legal proceedings—having studied and worked in law, we’ve seen these situations transpire where evidence is given behind a screen. It’s still very confronting and still very intimidating, but, I would believe, much less so than being right in front of and in the face of the person whom the witness is saying has perpetrated these crimes.

The irony in the philosophical thinking when it comes to this bill is that we’re talking about the Family Court, and, unfortunately, it’s almost like an oxymoron, because it’s the Family Court that deals with matters where the family is not really behaving as a family. So that’s just a side note that came to mind when I was thinking deeply about the effects of this bill going forward.

I’m really grateful that my own member’s bill—which was focused on victims, as well—was drawn from the ballot about a month and a bit before this bill that we’re going to pass today, no doubt, and that one is about protecting victims of crime from receiving correspondence or being contacted by the perpetrators of their crime that are behind prison walls. Now, that was a situation similar to the bill before us today, where quite a number of changes were recommended so that we could make the bill more workable because the Department of Corrections couldn’t be expected to see what every single person out in the public was doing in terms of contacting the victims of their crimes. Here, similarly—well, not in that regard. But it is in the sense that we made a few changes to the bill as first introduced, as I said, to make it workable so that we can make sure it does go ahead so that victims in Family Court proceedings can be further protected.

As we said, and we’ve said it a number of times, in this Government we’ve got a really victim-centric approach, and I believe that deep down, across the House, we all do, but it’s interesting how sometimes our version or our understanding of how far the protections go for victims can differ. But in this situation today, I’d like to commend the member Dr Tracey McLellan. I’d like to thank my colleagues on the Justice Committee. We started on this bill when we had our former chair the Hon James Meager and Cameron Brewer on the committee, but we’ve ended it with a different set, but they are all very good, decent people who care about putting victims’ rights first. I look forward to this being implemented tangibly, and for now, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, when we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. We were up to call No. 8. Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I want to make this a short call because I want this to become the law. It needs to happen now and it needed to happen quite some time ago, a law like this. It makes an automatic entitlement for people who have had to ask a judge for an entitlement, and I was disturbed to hear the story from the other side of the room about a woman who had struggled to get that to happen in practicality.

I was at the domestic violence court on Friday, and it is an incredible court. It’s absolutely beautiful what’s going on in terms of the response that people are really valiantly making in this area. I want to commend the judges and the clerks involved in those courts. It is often a case of too little resource—actually, that is something this Government should be looking at. It is a case of that; we need to spend a lot more energy on this subject. We have half of our homicides as a result of domestic violence, and we have a situation where there was recently a study where the person in charge has started to look at suicide also in the death count, because suicide is often linked to domestic violence. So we probably don’t know the real numbers of people who are impacted by this terrible phenomenon in our society, and it is an absolute shame.

I want to thank my friend and colleague Tracey McLellan, and my friend and colleague Emily Henderson. They are both wonderful women, who have brought this bill to this House, and I commend it to this House. Thank you.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand here today to speak on a matter that actually goes to the very heart of our collective conscience. It’s about how we treat victims of family violence as they seek justice in our courts. I want to begin with a simple yet quite profound truth: that is that no one wakes up in the morning and asks or chooses to be a victim, and I’ll take a moment to let that sink in. No one wakes up in the morning and wants or chooses to be a victim. Not a single person wishes to find themselves seeking protection from harm. In a context that includes family, it simply should not occur, but we know it does, and the occurrence of family violence in our communities is far, far too common. Victims of family violence, they don’t choose their circumstances, they do not volunteer for suffering, nor do they want the pressure that the justice system sometimes inadvertently places upon them. We do not want a system that adds to the trauma that has already been inflicted, and we need to offer a safe place to ensure that justice can and will happen without further undue pressure and stress.

I would just take a moment, also, to congratulate the member Dr Tracey McLellan on her bill, and I would also commend the Justice Committee for their work in getting the bill to where it is today. I would imagine there would’ve been some very harrowing evidence given, and I just commend them for doing what they have with the bill.

Before anything else, we need to consider what it is we want to achieve. To do that, we need to think about those very people who are at the centre of this legislation. It might be the parent who has endured years of coercion, or the child who has witnessed violence in what should’ve been their safe haven. Or it may have been the survivor who’s finally summoned the courage to seek a better future. None of those individuals aspired to be called a victim, and yet when they come before our justice system, the least we can offer is a process that does not compound their suffering, a process that recognises that they have a right to be heard safely and fairly without fear of threat or repercussion, and a process that does not make them a further victim, a victim of the process itself.

At the very core, this bill acknowledges the very real harm that family violence does and can inflict, not just physically but emotionally and psychologically, and it seeks to mitigate that harm within the justice process itself. It makes justice more accessible, more compassionate, and more attuned to the needs of survivors, without sacrificing the rigour or fairness owed to all parties involved. It recommends ways to reduce the stress and trauma that victims experience when giving evidence, suggesting that Family Court protection should align with those available in criminal cases, fostering greater consistency and fairness within our legal system. And it entrusts our judiciary with the discretion to tie the proceedings to the specific needs of those individuals, recognising that justice is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour. This bill brings forward several key changes.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Are you allowed to read speeches now?

Tom Rutherford: Well, your members did.

MIKE BUTTERICK: Yeah, your members did.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We don’t have conversation across the House, please, guys.

MIKE BUTTERICK: This bill brings forward several key changes designed to enhance victim safety, dignity, and participation. Alternative ways of giving evidence: the bill encourages and facilitates the use of prerecorded testimony or testimony given outside what can be an intimidating environment within the courtroom. It could mean providing evidence via audiovisual links from a different location or behind privacy screens. The aim is to reduce the trauma of direct confrontation, making the experience safer and less distressing for those involved.

Notification and transparency: any party wishing to use alternative evidence procedures must notify all relevant parties in the court of their preferred method. This ensures that the process remains transparent and all parties have time to prepare, reducing the potential for surprise or procedural disadvantage.

Judicial flexibility: while the bill encourages alternative evidence methods, it does not make them mandatory in every case, and judges still retain the ability to require conventional in-person testimony where justice and the specifics of the case demand it. This flexibility is crucial, acknowledging the complexity and nuance that each and every case presents.

Transitional clarity: the bill will apply only to new procedures initiated after its enactment to ensure clear guidelines and protection for ongoing cases and to avoid retroactive confusion.

What, then, does this bill represent at its core? The good news is that throughout this process, this bill has encountered robust debate and careful scrutiny by the select committee. Legitimate concerns have been raised and addressed throughout the process, and some of those concerns included the operational costs of implementing alternative evidence methods, about procedural fairness, and about the risk of unintended consequences.

The select committee have responded thoughtfully and have made several key amendments focusing on victims. The bill now clarifies that its provisions specifically apply to persons who have experienced or are experiencing family violence, rather than any witness in a family harm case. This ensures that the protections are targeted and misuse by those accused of harm is prevented.

Practical implementation: while the original bill contemplated using video-recorded evidence, this provision was removed to address significant technical and financial challenges, such as the need for courtroom upgrades estimated to cost more than $20 million. Instead, the bill maintains the use of screens and existing audiovisual link technologies, achieving the intent of the bill while remaining fiscally responsible.

Judicial discretion is maintained: judges are now explicitly empowered to require testimony to be given in the ordinary way or to select another alternative method on their own initiative. This safeguard, a vital safeguard, ensures that the right to a fair hearing and procedural balance are protected.

Interaction with existing procedures: the bill ensures that its provisions do not displace the longstanding use of affidavit evidence in Family Court proceedings, and further technical amendments have been made to maintain harmony with the wider Evidence Act framework.

Implementation time frame: the commencement date has been extended, allowing for 12 months after Royal assent before the bill comes into force. This transition period will enable the necessary judicial education, staff training, and modest facility upgrades needed for a smooth implementation.

It’s been great to see that although there were initial reservations from some stakeholders, the bill now enjoys broad support from victim advocacy groups, legal practitioners, members of the judiciary, and those in this House. It’s also great to see that it aligns with other initiatives such as the family violence operating model currently being trialled in Christchurch, which seeks to proactively inform participants of their options for giving evidence and enhance overall safety in Family Court proceedings.

As we consider this bill, let me return to where I started today, and that is with the victims, who did not choose to be in their position, who did not wake up seeking to become the subject of a court case or to be labelled as victims at all. I will again say: no one wakes up in the morning wanting to be a victim, and that is why on this side of the House, we will be supporting this bill. This is not about being political; this is about doing what is right, what is fair, and what helps to protect and support our most vulnerable. This is about treating those who find themselves in this position with dignity, respect, and humanity.

It’s our duty to continue to make changes to keep our people safe. That goes for both sides of the House. Now, I would challenge those on the other side of the House, when it comes to law and order, to do what’s right and to back the good work that we are doing on this side to protect our people and make sure that there are consequences for those that choose to not be good citizens, for those that flout the law, and for those that make that choice. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Given there are some technical aspects to the bill, I appreciate the member needing to use his notes, but I do encourage him not to read his entire speech.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Madam Speaker, thank you for this. It’s good to see the broad support for this bill across the House, and I have been listening carefully to the speeches. Obviously Tracey McLellan’s speech was very thoughtful, but also I want to recognise other speeches in the House, such as from Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, and Tamatha Paul’s as well, which I found really informative and also really heartfelt as people touched on the personal stories involved. I want to recognise that but not myself take that approach.

I just want to touch on one thing, and it’s a little bit legalistic but it is important. It’s really the fact that this bill is about evidence and evidence is about finding out the facts. There is sometimes a suggestion that the best way to find the facts is to have someone in front of you and kind of eyeball them as they give evidence. That’s actually what’s led to the kind of common law tradition of having a witness in the witness box with opposing lawyers there, including cross-examination. It’s a bit of a fallacy and I have to say it’s a fallacy because this bill retreats from that “witness in the witness box” approach and says that there are other ways to give evidence.

What we actually know is that when people aren’t under extreme pressure like they are in the witness box, they actually have better recollection; they can better order their thoughts. Whilst there might be a question-and-answer framework in some senses in the way they give evidence, not giving evidence in that really confrontational court procedure can, in fact, be a better fact-finding technique.

That’s really all I want to say about this bill. I think it’s important to remember that the stories of the victims are, of course, paramount but the job of the court is to find facts. The further and equally good reason for this bill is that it’s actually a better way to find out the facts of any given case. For all of those reasons that have been stated, and this one as well, we support this bill.

NANCY LU (National): I rise to speak on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill at its third reading. Now, this bill has been a reasonably long journey, introduced in March 2024, referred to the Justice Committee in November that year, and then reported back in May 2025, and today, in August, we’re finally bringing it to its final stage.

At its core, this bill recognises that victims of family violence should not be retraumatised—and I’ll repeat that with and an underscore under the “re”—by the very process of seeking justice and to be heard. This bill aligns the Family Court with the protections already available in New Zealand in the criminal courts, giving vulnerable witnesses the right and the opportunity to give their evidence in a fair, safe, more supportive way, and just a chance to speak for themselves

I would also acknowledge that under the National Government, there has been a shift to putting victims first. We’ve been clear from day one, even during the campaign, that law and order is about holding offenders to account, but it is also about ensuring that victims are protected, victims are respected, and victims are supported at every stage of the justice system. Now, this bill is consistent with that direction from the National Government. It strengthens the Family Court by reducing the risk of intimidation, of retraumatising, but recognising the trauma caused that can never be healed, and ensuring that the voices of those who have experienced family violence, particularly those who have been victimised, can be heard fairly and safely.

Now, the Justice Committee did careful work on this bill. They recommended an amendment that tightened definition and yes, I should actually call back on my renaming of that bill. I should rephrase my calling of that bill, the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. Now, the title of this bill was changed during the select committee work because it better reflects the reality of what the National Government—and particularly to recognise that protection needs to be given so people can give family violence evidence in Family Court proceedings. And I will come to the acknowledgement very soon of the member who has brought the bill to the House,.

The Justice Committee did very careful work on this bill because it matters for so many people. They recommended many amendments, and in doing so, they struck a better balance, extending protections to vulnerable witnesses, but also ensuring that fairness and procedural integrity are not lost.

This is where I need to come to the acknowledgment and to particularly shine the light to thank Dr Tracey McLellan, who is watching from across the House, the member in charge of this member’s bill and taking the bill through to the House. I want to send you a pre-congratulations for eventually passing this bill. But I also need to acknowledge the entire Justice Committee, and I also had the opportunity and privilege to actually sit on this Justice Committee on behalf of some members and was part of the discussions related to this bill. But I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Bayley as the chairperson and also the former chair the Hon James Meager; many MPs including Carl Bates, Cameron Brewer, Paulo Garcia, Rima Nakhle, Tom Rutherford, but also from across the House, the Hon Ginny Anderson, Jamie Arbuckle, Todd Stephenson, Vanushi Walters, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb—and the list goes on. This bill has demonstrated that parties can work together, put away the politics, but to make sure that we’re delivering for the people. I want to thank all of the members that are involved with this bill.

Now, lastly, I do want to add a note of realism. The protection in this bill will only work if Family Courts are properly resourced. Technology, staffing, and training must all be in one place to make alternative evidence-giving a meaningful reality, and that is something that the Government needs to continue to do and will continue to deliver. So for all of the above reasons, I support this bill passing into law.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to stand and take a brief call in support of this bill—brief because I do look forward to seeing it become law.

I would like to congratulate my colleague Dr Tracey McLellan, and also Dr Emily Henderson. This is a bill that is a little bit special to me because I recall when Emily Henderson spoke about the importance of this bill, last term. Just before coming into the House today, I sent her a message to make sure that she was watching, as well, and I know that it’s very important to her.

Before I make a few brief comments about the bill, I did also want to acknowledge some wāhine toa in the gallery. We do have Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo, our former EEO Women’s Rights Commissioner, who has worked tirelessly for women’s rights. We also have Jo Cribb, the former chief executive of the Ministry for Women. I think it’s very fitting to have them here not just for this bill but, hopefully, for the passage of the next bill through the House as well, which is also a very important bill in terms of women’s rights.

When I spoke previously in the House to this bill, I talked about the fact that when you walk into any law court in the country, but also internationally, you see the same symbol of the blind justiciar. It’s this idea that justice is blind, assessed on the facts, and that we ought not to see the people in front of us; however, I think we’ve moved significantly from where justice was born, into a place where we do see people—as we should; we should see people. This is one of the ways that we’re doing that. It’s absolutely true that we still must maintain a balance in terms of getting the facts right and ensuring that there’s a fair hearing, but also seeing people. I think we’re moving there with this legislation but also practices that the courts are adopting, like Te Ao Mārama; we’ve seen it in the drug and alcohol courts; we’ve seen it in the rangatahi courts as well. I think it’s absolutely appropriate that we bridge that gap between law and justice, essentially.

A few of the submitters on this bill suggested that we might want to go further. I do think this is one of those areas of law that warrants us paying attention and ensuring that we are monitoring what we’re doing, so that we ensure we constantly get the balance right.

The last thing I would say is I really do appreciate the support for this bill on the other side of the House. I think it’s important. However, I also think it’s important that the other side of the House—the Government—recognises that addressing family violence is about supporting services as well as ensuring we have a legislative framework that’s fit for purpose. We’re in a year at the moment where we’re about to see the closure of the North Shore Women’s Centre, who are the first port of call for many of the women who will be presenting. So a plea to Government members who say this is not about politics; this is about doing the right thing—I completely agree—just a plea to ensure that our social services are also funded adequately so we can truly address this issue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call the honourable—Dr Vanessa Weenink.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Hon Members: “Honourable”!

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah, thank you for the short, quick promotion. It is—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: She won’t read her speech—she’s clever.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Thank you so much, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, for that commendation of me. I think that’s probably about the sixth6th or seventh7th time you’ve mentioned me in these things.

Anyway, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I would like to congratulate Dr Tracey McLellan, a fellow MP based in Banks Peninsula. This is a really practical and useful piece of work to have brought to the House. I think—have you had other bills that have come through? It’s not just, yeah, this is feeling familiar to be saying congratulations to Dr McLellan. She’s had a few, so it’s good to be able to bring this through.

National is supporting this bill. We’ve supported it throughout its journey and now we’re proud to see it reach its final stage before becoming law. This cross-party support demonstrates that there are some things that transcend politics, and it’s about doing exactly what is right for people in New Zealand. This is when Parliament works at its best. Although I wasn’t part of the select committee.

Rima Nakhle: Unfortunately.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: What? Yes, unfortunately, although my fellow National Party members on the Justice Committee are excellent and it’s a very hard-working select committee. They made some good improvements throughout the committee process. For example, they focused on actual victims and clarified that protections can apply specifically to people who have experienced family violence and so it prevents that misuse from perpetrators, which can be a nuisance. Also, they ensured that it was a cost-effective implementation and they removed the expensive video recording requirements they might have otherwise needed, which saved about $20 million in court upgrades. They also further enhanced judicial discretion and judges can now act on their own initiative to ensure proceedings remain fair, and not just on the application by other parties. It also protected existing processes and created a realistic implementation time frame. So that’s where 12 months after Royal assent this will come into effect, meaning that there is time for all of those processes to be put in place appropriately, and that is what has been advised as a reasonable amount of time.

Some of those things have been addressed, like the—also, the legal practitioners highlighted that there needed to be stronger judicial discretion and the committee responded to that. Whereas victim advocates emphasised the importance of focusing on the actual victims. That is something that I know my friend and colleague Rima Nakhle would have definitely been champion of. Rima has been a very strong advocate for victims.

Rima Nakhle: So are you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah. So some of the other reasons why this change matters is because we know that increased participation and improved access improves justice. If more victims are willing to engage in family court proceedings because they’re simpler and easier to apply, where it’s more accessible and more available for them, then they’re more likely to participate, which leads to more outcomes. Removing those barriers that prevent the participation, because it’s these proceedings that will affect their lives.

This also is a bill that has brought in and complements other work that the Government is doing. It complements the family violence operating model that’s being trialled in Christchurch, which a previous speaker highlighted. There are many advocacy groups and victim support groups who will have participated in this, and I know, for example, the stopping violence groups as well as The Loft, which is nearby my electorate. It’s actually quite an interesting set up at The Loft, they have one single place where supporting victims can be. There’s social workers, there’s access to the Ministry of Social Development services, there’s some health services that are based in The Palms in Christchurch. It’s very close to my electorate, on the border of the mighty Banks Peninsula electorate, but it is right there. I’ve met with them several times and they are really strong advocates. I know that anything that’s done to improve access and support for victims will be very welcomed by the people of my electorate nearby electorates in Christchurch—and well, actually the whole of Greater Christchurch—where this has been trialled out.

There has been wide support, as has been acknowledged and spoken about previously. This is something that, although it’s going to take a year before it comes into effect, it’s a proud moment for us all to be able to be here this evening as this historical moment happens. It’s a really important bill that will become law and has real world impacts. I think pretty much most of us in this House will know someone who has been a victim of family violence, who’s either directly witnessed it themselves, has been a survivor of family violence, or who has supported those.

As a GP, of course, I’ve supported people who’ve been victims of family violence, and going through the process in the judicial system is very stressful in and of itself. Even that which might seem really a basic thing, of having to attend the court, can be extremely stressful. A couple of times, I’ve had to appear as an expert witness to support family violence cases, and apart from the absolute annoyance of having to turn up at, say, 10 in the morning only to be told that you have to wait till 12 in the afternoon, have no compensation for the fact that you have to take half a day off work. But it’s not about this bill.

Apart from all of those barriers, all of those disincentives are all things that put people off accessing the justice that they should be entitled to. Anything that we can do that smooths the way to make it easier to participate in the judicial system is things that we should look at and bring in. Every case where there’s been incomplete evidence because victims couldn’t participate fully is a case where things, where justice, has been mis-served. Any time where people just have decided not to participate is a lost opportunity to prevent further harm. I think, through this, we will see evidence that there are there is more going on. Research tells us that there is likely a whole lot more harm in terms of family violence than ever becomes before the court, as well as things like sexual violence.

When it comes to family harm and violence, as well as sexual violence, we know that it’s not anywhere near as exposed in the court and the judicial system as what actually happens in the community. By removing in a small way, in a practical measure, some of those barriers, today we are improving our judicial system. We are doing right by victims in New Zealand and I’m very proud to be able to speak in this stage and as this bill passes into law. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’d first like to just congratulate my colleague Tracey McLellan and also my colleague Emily Henderson for the work that they did on this most recent member’s bill that has just been passed. It’s a great day in Parliament where we can all come together and support a bill which is clearly very well needed within our society. Congratulations my friend, and I’m very much hoping to have a similar experience with my bill today.

It is an unusual situation, as the member moving a bill, when you have to come to do the first reading or the second reading or the third reading and, despite the work that you may have done obtaining support for the bill, you stand up here and you do feel very vulnerable because there’s obviously no guarantee that the parties won’t change their mind. So I do feel slightly apprehensive, but hopefully confident that we can make this bill law tonight.

It is great to be in the House for a third reading of a bill that will make workplaces in New Zealand fairer. It hasn’t been a straightforward journey with this bill, and certainly starting out with it, there were absolutely no guarantees that we would be here today in the third reading. Even getting to this day has been a lot of work and has been contributed to by many different people not only sitting on this side of the House but also around the House. I want to thank those people for their support for this bill and for seeing how what is quite a simple change to the law may benefit New Zealand workplaces.

It is, as I said, a good day when we can come together to support legislation. Even though we have different politics, despite sometimes a very different vision we have for New Zealand, sometimes we do come together, and I hope that today we can do that again.

This process started in March last year with this particular bill, and so you can see how long it has actually taken to get to the third reading. Of course, prior to that, it was an idea that came from a briefing that was done at the Education and Workforce Committee, and we had a number of submitters to that bill, including the Human Rights Commission who had done a study into the Pacific pay gap and one of the key things that they found was that pay secrecy in New Zealand was really hampering the progress of New Zealand workplaces. I was very interested to see that idea and I thought that it was a very parliamentary way of determining a member’s bill for action—going through the select committee process, having an idea raised, seeing the benefit of that idea, actually looking into that idea more and seeing that this type of legislation is actually quite common in overseas jurisdictions and that it has been used successfully for fairer workplaces.

That was where the idea for the bill originally came from, and having it drawn in March last year and then having the select committee—and I want to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that they did on this bill. I won’t go through all those changes again. We did make a number of changes that we were able to discuss when it came back to the House and also at a quite extensive committee of the whole House stage. I was certainly put through my paces during the committee of the whole House stage, and I hope that it gave members confidence to support this bill and, indeed, the work and everything that had gone into this particular bill and the thinking behind that as well. That, I think, was an interesting experience but I’m glad that we were able to go through that.

Making New Zealand a fair and equitable country that our children expect and deserve is a job for all of us. It means continuing with programmes, not only just this bill but also looking into programmes of pay transparency, also looking at tackling ethnic and disability pay gaps as well as gender pay gaps and genuine pay equity regimes. We have more work to do in this area.

I also want to just spend a bit of time saying thank you. I haven’t done this in other readings and I just want to acknowledge the work that many people have done in order to get where we are today.

I want to acknowledge two very strong women— Jo Cribb and Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo—who are in the public gallery today. When I felt I was lost with this bill, these two people were the people that I turned to. If it passes tonight, it is in no small way due to the work that they’ve done, not only to support this bill but to support the passage of legislation and policy and changes that increase equity in New Zealand. They are two real champions, so thank you both so much for your support and it really means a lot that you’re here today.

I would also like to thank union leaders like Melissa Ansell-Bridges and the Council of Trade Unions lawyer Gayaal Iddamalgoda from the Council of Trade Unions. Gayaal is such a smart lawyer and has so many good ideas and just works so hard, and I think a lot of it goes unnoticed. My friend, I wanted to acknowledge you here tonight and thank you for being with us.

I also wanted to acknowledge some people in my office, Adena Emanuel, Keeara Ofren, and Gina Anastasiadis-Lecatsas; also Benjamin Macintyre and Matt Swann; Kate Hutchinson from the Parliamentary Counsel Office; and Kelly Harris from the Office of the Clerk. Kelly Harris is probably the smartest person in the entire precinct, and we are so lucky to have her working in the New Zealand Parliament. I want to thank her for her work and I’m fingers crossed at least one of the members’ bills that she drafted for me will actually pass into law. Thank you so much to all of those people.

I do want this bill to pass, and so I don’t want to take too much time, but I really want to implore the House that we cannot keep taking steps backwards when it comes to equality and fairness. These are things that should be bipartisan. Backward steps for women, for Māori, for Pasifika are backward steps for all of us. Ignoring inequalities has never made them go away; it has just made them worse.

So yes, this is a small bill. It implements a small change that allows people to talk about their own pay, but it is a small step forward for New Zealand. If passed tonight, it will make New Zealand workplaces fairer and more open. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in very strong support of the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, and I commend the member for her leadership and for her tenacity in bringing this to the House. As she said, it was a very parliamentary way of doing it—to go through, to gather all of the evidence, and to gather support across the House. I want to also again thank submitters for their contributions, and all of the staff, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the Clerk’s teams for their support.

I joined the Education and Workforce Committee late in the processing of this bill, but it was a real pleasure to work through it and to read through the submissions to be able to understand the evidence that really compelled Camilla Belich to bring this to the House. It is a small change, as has been explained, and without pre-considering what the vote's going to be, when this becomes law, it's going to be a fundamental change, because it will actually enable all employees to confidently discuss their pay and terms and conditions with anyone that they choose to, without fear that doing so may cause some encumbrance in their employment—that they might have some negative impact or repercussions as a result of doing that.

Hopefully, this newfound kind of ability—some may even have not realised was a problem for them because it is something that widely happens. However, I know that a lot of people are aware of those secrecy clauses in their contracts, and that makes them unwilling to discuss and disclose, and it does lead to that fear of some sort of reprisal should they discuss it. That fear leads to a bit of a feeling of unease and a little bit of mistrust, and it can perpetuate inequality.

We actually saw some of the international evidence; it's quite compelling. So in the United Kingdom, legislation actually required that large employers actually publish their gender pay gap data. What that then did was it led to widespread internal reviews, pay adjustments for women, and a reduction in unjustified discrepancies. Sometimes, there might be a reason that somebody's paid more than the other, and it may not be because of gender, but where you can't justify why there is a discrepancy, then you should rule out gender as a reason. Once they did that, effectively shining the sunlight of transparency onto discrimination, it prompted real change.

That also happened in the United States. About 19 States and the District of Columbia have banned employer retaliation for pay disclosures, just as we're—we haven't banned it, but we're effectively making it not work. When they did that in California, the transparency laws effectively narrowed the gender pay gap, and it effectively narrowed for gender but also minority groups, because those employees were actually exposed and understood and had visibility on disparities that they may not have otherwise known about.

Australia has also recently amended their Fair Work Act to ban pay secrecy clauses, giving workers more freedom to discuss pay and empowering them to address those inequities and be more open about it. Also, the European Union is introducing a directive requiring member States to ban pay secrecy clauses by 2026, expecting similar reductions in pay gaps and transparency to transpire as a result.

In our own country, as we've highlighted throughout this process, the gender pay gap and other pay gaps stubbornly persist. We know that in Aotearoa it's presently 8.2 percent, but there's a difference when we look at different ethnicities. It’s 21 percent for Māori wāhine, and 24 percent for Asian and 24 percent for Pasifika women. Also, people with disabilities face significant wage disparities as well. Submissions highlighted the injustices of unequal pay for equal work; when there is no transparency, it can be difficult for that to be seen.

I know that within my own profession, there is a large pay gap—a gender pay gap—between men and women who have the same professional qualifications, are employed by the same employer. The reason that's persisted is because, despite the fact that there is a single employer collective agreement now—or what used to be called the MECA or multi-employer collective agreement—individual pay contracts still persist, and they are secret. So nobody knows what the person next to them is getting paid, except for the clinical directors—they can figure out who gets paid what. That has had a real chilling effect, knowing that there is a secrecy clause in there. It can actually really chill any discussion and can be very difficult. Unless everybody agrees to do it, then it can't work.

So what this bill and what this law will do is it will make sure that there are exclusions, as well. We wanted to be careful where there are business relationships that also cross over with employment relationships. For example, many general practitioners are owners of their practice, and may have employees who work with them and alongside them, or they may have some contractors, as well. The amounts of remuneration as a result of being a business owner are not included in those discussions, so it's not something where we think that should be a part of it.

Accountants were another example, where those in the profession are working alongside people who are also owners. There's a difference between those people who have taken the risk, often taken out mortgages or other lending, to be able be an owner and have more responsibility in the business, even though they might, on the face of it, on the day-to-day, be doing a similar job. And so we needed to protect that.

We also felt that we should highlight that nothing in this legislation requires that disclosures about payments are made, and no-one can force you to tell them what you're being paid. It's also not OK to just go around and gossip about other people's pay. So it's not about third parties. This, I think, goes alongside what the Government is also doing to move towards greater transparency and addressing the gender pay gap. Previously, there’s an app and tool that's been generated and highlighted by the Hon Nicola Grigg, the Minister for Women, which gives businesses the opportunity to work out their own gender pay gap and then to be able to use that information to be able to figure out for themselves what they need to change, and make those changes proactively. I think that reflects an expectation on our side that most employers are trying to do the best for their people. But we would also highlight that we may give further consideration in the future to further reporting. Making it mandatory is still something that could be considered in the future.

I think, based on the evidence that's gone through from this process, it's pretty compelling that transparency of information leads to a better market. If you don't have an equal amount of information, if you have unequal power within the system in the ways that are sometimes set up, then it can't work properly and it's an ineffective and inefficient market. So something that I'll be absolutely championing is for that greater transparency to be something that is seen within our Public Service. I think that everyone who works for the public in New Zealand should know their level of pay—within a band, at least—and it should be publicly available. People should be able to know what we're paying our public servants for. So the intentions of this bill, actually, are quite profound. It’s far-reaching; we’re reaching into the global movement, and I commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak in the third reading of the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I extend my congratulations to Camilla Belich for shepherding this bill through the House—a second bill, if this passes, and I suspect that it will. So two for two—those are pretty good odds. I just acknowledge the work that it takes to actually get this across the line, being able to engage not just with Opposition parties but with Government parties as well, to get them to see the vision and to get them to see the possibility.

It was heartening to listen to the previous speaker Dr Vanessa Weenink and hear that, actually, that had landed with the National Party at least. Hopefully, this is a sign of things to come that the National Party will unhitch itself from the wrecking ball that is the ACT Party and the carnage that they have been causing across the workers’ rights landscape, and just to note that such is the opportunity that we have in members’ bills where we can actually loosen ourselves from our coalition agreements and actually look at bills on their merits. So, on that, it’s good to see that progress was made.

I did sub into the Education and Workforce Committee—when I wasn’t there, my colleague Francisco Hernandez was there—to be within the discussions and to highlight to people the importance of being able to share what you’re being paid, and it is to share what you are being paid but not to put pressure on others so that they share what they have been paid. As I was going through the Hansard of the committee of the whole House stage, that point was made by the member Camilla Belich over and over and over again—in particular, with regard to the Amendment Papers that were put up by the ACT Party—to actually focus on what this bill does, which is about allowing people to talk about what they’re being paid and to allow people to disclose that information, because, often, unbeknownst to them, people are actually being paid differently, and that exacerbates all the different pay gaps, as well.

I can’t see her, but I heard that Saunoamaali'i Karanina Sumeo is here in the gallery tonight. I remember, actually, when she launched the Pacific pay gap work, and how incredibly important it was because of the disparity between Pasifika workers and non-Pasifika workers, as well. So I wanted to acknowledge that important work, knowing that this is a step forward as well. I also note Gayaal Iddamalgoda from the Council of Trade Unions and his expertise, which he often brings to the select committee.

This is a step in the right direction. It’s a step in the right direction that I think will be welcomed by workers around the country as well, particularly within the context of where we are at this particular point in time, when we’ve had teachers striking, we’ve had nurses striking, hospitality workers are about to go on strike as well, and we’ve had Public Service workers striking, as well. So having this step forward—and the member did say that it was a small step, but I would say that it’s a significant step forward—will address those pay equity gaps in a small way. Of course, people have said, and I do agree, that there is still much work to be done to address the gender pay gaps, to address the Pasifika pay gaps, and to address the ethnic pay gaps, as well, but at least we can say that, in this House, if the votes go as I think we all think they will go, that step will be enshrined in legislation.

The Greens have been supporting this legislation through the first reading, the second reading, and also through the committee of the whole House, as well. It’s with pleasure that I also commend this bill to the House.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I want to start with acknowledging the member in charge, Camilla Belich. I know that she is quite excited today and I acknowledge that, but from the start we have maintained our position. We did try to work on this bill in the committee of the whole House stage. I will talk about that in a bit, but I want to say at the start that the ACT Party will not be supporting this bill.

We are not supporting this bill because this bill actually falls short of doing what the member in charge believes that this bill will do. So the member believes—and some other members who are supporting this bill—that this is somehow going to fix pay discrimination and this is going to somehow fix the gender pay gap, but we know that this bill will not do anything of that sort. This bill has no substance in it to make meaningful progress in that regard, and that is why the ACT Party is not supporting this bill.

I’ve heard members from all sides speak on this bill. I’ve seen so many different perspectives. The main selling point of the member in charge of this bill has been that it will reduce the gender pay gap. That has swayed some members to support this bill, but on this side we are very clear, because we want to see substance. We don’t want to see any symbolic gesture in a bill or in a speech. So we are not swayed—the ACT Party is not swayed—by any symbolic gestures. We want to see substance and we don’t see that substance in this bill.

I want to be very clear here that any discussion around the gender pay gap, around pay discrimination, is very important—undeniably important—and if this bill was doing anything in that regard, we would have thrown full support behind this bill, but this bill doesn’t do that. Actually, this bill is going to create a lot of problems at workplaces for employees and for employers as well. It’s not going to solve any problem.

As I said before, during the committee of the whole House, the ACT Party did try to improve this bill. We had a number of amendments on the Table and we debated those amendments during the committee of the whole House. I won’t go through them all, but I’ll just highlight one amendment to remind members of the kind of amendments we were putting forward.

One other thing that we all know is that the gender pay gap, yes, exists, and most people—those who are affected—are in that income bracket which is, I would assume, less than $180,000. So we had to put a figure, so we decided to put that figure of $180,000. That’s why we decided to put this amendment—this was under my name—to amend this main non-disclosure section. And it said, “This section applies only in relation to employees whose total remuneration is less than $180,000 per annum.” If the goal of this is to help low-income earners to see that pay discrimination doesn’t exist there, then members would have voted in favour of this amendment. The member in charge, her party, the Labour Party, and the National Party did not support this amendment.

It's very important to note that those who earn more than $180,000 per annum—maybe there is no direct comparison. Maybe there is no fair comparison amongst those people, because those people bring some specific skills that are required by that employer. Sometimes those people might be people who are incentivised by the employer to move from one part of the country to another or they may be incentivised to move from another country to New Zealand. So there has to be some kind of incentive for these people—those who’ve come all the way to work in a new environment and a new place. It works for both the employee, if there are incentives to take up that opportunity, and for employers, because they get those skills that are needed to expand their business to support the economy to grow more jobs. This amendment was watered down. So if it was important to fix the gender pay gap, then this criteria was something that was really important to be supported. But we can clearly see the priorities are wrong for the member in charge of this bill and those who watered down that amendment.

Now, the other thing is this bill doesn’t provide any protection for employers, because there is this risk of them breaching the privacy of some employees. Because if one employee takes up an issue with the employer about another employee earning more than them, then that employer will be required to talk about other employees to this employee who has taken up a case with an employer, and without explaining that whole situation about the other employee, they will not be able to explain the situation. No protections here.

What we heard instead during the committee of the whole House was that there is already a power imbalance between employers and employees. We hear this again and again. Actually, in the real world, that power imbalance doesn’t exist. That power imbalance is a perception that is being created by the Labour Party and being created by unions. Employers need employees and employees need employers. If employees are not happy with their employer, they look for other employment. If employers don’t like their employees, they will tell them that they need to improve, otherwise they will have to move on. So it’s a mutual relationship.

This is about agreement between employers and employees. What goes in that agreement should be about what employers and employees agree between them. Once they have agreed, then this bill says that this clause should not be enforceable even when this clause is in the agreement. How could we pass legislation in this House where we are telling people to breach their agreements? The ACT Party will never support legislation like this, which is allowing people to breach their agreements. This bill is completely going to erode trust and integrity that is needed at workplaces, because this mutual relationship is about trust and this mutual relationship is about integrity in workplaces.

I give another example. There could be somebody who is a young mum or it could be a dad looking after young children at home, but really somebody whose skills are needed by an employer. That employer will reach out to this person and say, “Look, you come and work for us. Whatever the standard pay is, we’ll pay you that.” But the person says that because of the cost of childcare, the person instead would rather stay at home and look after their children and spend quality time. To incentivise, the employer might want to offer a bit more than some other employees to compensate for their childcare so that this person can come and work for that employer. Now, the other person might have completely different circumstances, so there are so many situations where employers and employees will have to work out a situation which works for both. This is not theoretical, because this is going to have real-life implications. These implications are really, really serious.

We have been concerned about this bill from the start, but during the committee of the whole House, as we all have seen, we did put forward a number of amendments. Those amendments were watered down and there is nowhere that this bill is going to do anything that the member in charge believes this bill is going to do.

Let’s now talk about the voluntary nature of a disclosure. Well, that is already the case, but we still have a gender pay gap and we still have pay discrimination. So this is not a solution. This is not going to do anything in that regard. What this is going to do is actually create more friction at workplaces when somebody will say no to disclosing their pay, because now people will know there can’t be a non-disclosure clause in their agreement, so they should disclose. And if they refuse to disclose, there will be friction at workplaces.

So agreements are very important. We want everybody who signs their agreement to oblige with their agreement. And if they don’t agree with what’s in the agreement, they need to go back and talk about it again so that they can fix the agreement or review the agreement if their situation changes. But nobody should be undermining the agreement they have signed themselves, It’s not just about one clause that they will be breaching, because then how can the employer have trust in them for other clauses that are in the employment agreement? There will be no trust.

Being open about salary is completely different from trying to actually say something should be in the legislation but should not be enforceable. On the other hand, as I said, it’s something between the employer and employee. The circumstances can be quite different from employee to employee. An employer and employee should be able to work out what works best for them.

As I said before, this is not going to help employees, this is not going to help employers, it is only going to help unions. We want an approach that is grounded in reason. This bill is not providing that kind of approach. That is why the ACT Party is not supporting this bill. I want to put on record that the ACT Party has stated the negative consequences of this bill from the start. That is why we will not support this bill. Thank you.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and we won’t be supporting this bill.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Well, it’s fundamentally—and I’m taking a bit of flak from my own side. But, fundamentally, this is an abomination—abomination. We are torching contract law. In fact, this bill did not get past first base with us as soon as we saw—and the point that Parmjeet Parmar has just made was that you’re, essentially, allowing employees to break contract law, and where does that end in this Parliament? Are there no lawyers left in the National Party? I see James Meager over there. Were you napping when this went through caucus? Where does this end if we, willy-nilly, are just passing legislation that allows people to flout contract law—and, as you can imagine, that didn’t get past the New Zealand First caucus; in fact, it didn’t get past first base.

That doesn’t mean that the intent of the bill is not a worthy one, but even by the proponent’s own admission, it would be at best a small step to addressing the gender pay gap that it purports to be trying to address. So it is quite a leap to say that this bill would do that—you know, it looks like it’s going to become law, so, hopefully, it does have some impact, against our belief that it would.

There are many reasons. The other thing is there are some intense unintended consequences to this. There are other reasons why you may have pay differentials between employees. It’s not gender necessarily, and, hopefully, it should never be gender. But it’s performance, merit, experience—all those things come into it. Is this bill going to have the unintended consequence of a chilling effect on paying at a rate on merit? On one side, maybe it does do what the proponent says and addresses that gender pay gap, but, on the other hand, there is the very real prospect that employers will just not want the grief of the tension that this might build up on their workplace as people, willy-nilly, are sharing their pay around their place of employment. So there could well be unintended consequences.

But all of that is around the margin. Our fundamental opposition to this is the sanctity of contract law. We will not put our name next to it, and I note that the ACT Party will not, either. We’re surprised that National has, but they’ve, obviously, gone along with that on this occasion. But, hopefully, this is not a trend in terms of flouting contract law.

That’s pretty much our position. It was pretty black and white on this occasion. We have supported a previous piece of legislation, which was the wage theft bill that Camilla Belich put through. Congratulations again, Camilla, on what—well, it’s Belich versus van Velden on the employment relations front, isn’t it, as to who can get the most legislation through. I know my experience, particularly on the wage theft bill—and I said this in the second reading—is that you’re very skilled at engaging with the other parties. These bills haven’t got through by accident. Somehow, you’ve managed to get the National Party to go against all reason and contract law, but you have not moved New Zealand First on this occasion.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to take a call on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill’s third reading. I was actually planning to just do a short speech saying I support, and sit back down; I’d asked for permission from Camilla Belich to see if I could do that and it wouldn’t offend her.

But I will take a slightly longer call than I'd expected, to refute some of the assertions that have been made because I've actually seen the impact of pay transparency on overcoming pay gaps. And I'm going to say it was an unusual workplace where I discovered the power of this because it was when I was working as an executive assistant for the Green Party at Parliament that I discovered the power of pay disclosure.

Members here will know that broadly, there are two kinds of executive assistants. There's the political hack kind of executive assistant who's like, you know, good at politics but terrible at administration. Those executive assistants tend to come from the youth wing of the political party that they belong to. I was one of those political hotshots, those young hacks, political hacks. But there's a second kind of executive assistant, the one who actually knows what they're doing at the job. They're really good at the administration side of things and they tend to have two or three decades of experience in the House. I think we've all come across that type in Parliament.

Now, we were at a meeting of the Green executive assistants and for some reason or another, I shared how much I was getting paid. And it turned out I was getting paid more than a lot of the older women who'd been doing the job for two or three decades. They were on step 2, I believe, but I was on step 3. So from disclosing the fact that I was on a higher pay band than them, we were able to take action and work with our unions, work with the Public Service Association—the mighty PSA—and approach the Green leadership at the time by pointing out the obvious inequity at play: the fact that some young kid freshly out of the student association was getting paid like much more than someone who'd had two or three decades of experience. I think that actually shows the power of what happens if you actually are allowed to talk about your salaries. I mean, I don't even know if we were allowed to; we just did it anyway. But, you know—

Andy Foster: Never work in the private sector.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I have worked in the private sector. But anyway, that just shows the power of actually sharing—what happens if you enable pay transparency and the importance of being able to actually protect workers’ ability to talk to each other, to share how much they're getting paid, so they can take real action and overcome the pay gaps. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I love members’ day . I love members’ day because you get a sense of individuality in this place that you don’t get in other days of Parliament. There’s no denying that we are a whipped Parliament. It’s not an issue with our party system; it’s an issue with MMP. It’s days like today we really get a feel for the individuality and the spirit of the members in our Parliament.

I do want to transition from this to congratulating my fellow Northcote constituent Camilla Belich for what is a really good, practical bill that we will be supporting today. It is a pleasure for us on this side of the House to support this bill. This bill, to me, is all about transparency, and I do wish to spend some time, in this place today, talking about the importance of transparency, because it is important, not just in the workplace but in all endeavours: business, politics, science, technology, and the like. The previous speaker was talking about his student politics experience—which is probably the only experience he’s got. Actually, in the business world where I came from, we have this concept called the fishbowl. It’s a pretty simple concept. It’s about visualising things in terms of a fishbowl that is transparent. Business, in commercial terms, will use that because when you visualise the fishbowl and you apply a lens of transparency, everybody can, actually get on the same page and understand what the issue is and what we are going to do about it.

I’ve seen, time and time again, right across my experience, the importance of transparency in shedding light on problems and shedding light on the challenges that workplaces and companies and organisations face and, actually, on what needs to happen. That is why transparency, I think, is essential for the running of organisations. It’s essential for families. Can you imagine if families didn’t have a certain amount of transparency in them? They wouldn’t function. We would be back in a caveman-like mentality of individuals out for each other.

Transparency has a very important place in the glue and the functioning of society. It also has an important place in the functioning of labour markets. This is a field I know well, having studied and practised as a labour economist, because the—

Hon James Meager: A small “l”.

DAN BIDOIS: A small “l”. That’s right, James Meager. Not to toot my own horn, but, actually, if you look at the concept of efficient labour markets, you really want a scenario where there’s a fair allocation of resources across an economy. That’s where labour resources, teams, staff, employees are allocated depending on their—

Tim Costley: Does that include EAs?

DAN BIDOIS: It would include EAs, and it would include student politicians on minimum wage rates.

Tim Costley: Not if they’re a man in the Green Party.

DAN BIDOIS: That’s right.

You really want to make sure that they are functioning right, and transparency is essential to the functioning of labour markets. For example, if a worker knows that they are worth more to another employer but doesn’t know what they can get or so forth, then how are they supposed to better their life and their circumstances? That’s actually what we call a misallocation of resources. It is, I think, through this lens that I come to this place and say that this bill adds to the well-functioning purpose of labour markets, and that is why we are supportive of it.

But also, I do want to talk about the fact that it’s really important to realise that there’s a lot of laws that are made in this place that aren’t actually adhered to in workplaces and throughout New Zealand society. I can tell you right now that there are a lot of people out there who discuss their pay already. It already happens. It may be in their contract. They don’t even know about it, but they discuss it because it’s what they do. They discuss it with their family. If they’re about to go for a new job and they go through a recruitment consultant, the first question the recruitment consultants asks is, “What are you currently paid today?”, because that’s what the new employee needs to know in order to actually encourage them to take a new job.

Also, when you’re actually going into a new employment situation, you actually are asked those very things. It already happens, and I just don’t think we should kid ourselves that 100 percent of compliance is adhered to throughout this place. There’ a lot of people that don’t actually obey the laws as they stand, because it just is ineffectual and it’s outdated and it doesn’t work for modern society. In those scenarios, I just think we should fess up to that fact and change the law. That is what my colleague Camilla Belich is offering today.

I know there are some coalition partners here that aren’t supporting the bill, and that is fine. I’ve got friends in both parties, and got the—

Andy Foster: Keep it that way.

DAN BIDOIS: Yep. “Keep it that way”, says Andy Foster.

But, you know, I do really think that ACT should be supporting this bill. I want to just take this House through a good book that I’ve read, a really good book I’ve just finished reading by Derek Quigley. Now, Derek Quigley—for this House—was a National Cabinet Minister under the Muldoon era. He was one of the first people—

Hon Mark Patterson: The glory days.

DAN BIDOIS: That’s right. He was actually one of the few people in that caucus that actually spoke out about the destruction that Muldoon was making to New Zealand’s economy.

But I digress, Madam Speaker. The purpose of why I say what I say is because Derek Quigley went on to later found the ACT Party. I read this book by Derek Quigley. It’s a great book by the way. The Parliamentary Library’s got it.

Cameron Luxton: What’s it called?

DAN BIDOIS: It’s called Challenging the Status Quo. Derek Quigley yes, there you go. I actually think, from reading Derek Quigley’s autobiography, that he would support a bill like this because he is all about economic liberty—economic liberty. I would encourage my friends from ACT to adhere to the core values of the ACT Party and to get on their phone to David Seymour and encourage them to do a last-minute vote change on that.

Next, I want to attend to my very good colleagues in the New Zealand First Party. They said that it’s an abomination to contract law. I just want to say that there are lots of things in our employment contracts that are frivolous—absolutely frivolous. Let me run you through things that I’ve encountered: things like place of work. There are clauses in contracts that say, “Your place of work must be this building in Auckland.”, even though, in practical terms, the employer actually ends up spending most of their time in Hamilton or Wellington, but it’s in the contract. By definition, they break the contract.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What if their job’s a travelling salesman?

DAN BIDOIS: Exactly. Hours of work: the amount of contracts I’ve seen that said, “Show up at 8.30.”, but the employer shows up at 9.

Cameron Luxton: A forgiving employer.

DAN BIDOIS: That’s right. A forgiving employer. I only say this in general terms to demonstrate that not everything that matters is in a contract and not everything that’s in a contract actually matters. This law really tries to address that. That’s really the purpose of—

Hon Mark Patterson: Break the law, willy-nilly.

DAN BIDOIS: No, we don’t want employees to rewrite contracts as well. Let’s just get on with it. Maybe my friends in the New Zealand First Party can get on the phone to their leader and just say, “Look, maybe we should rethink this before the final reading.”

It is, again, a privilege to be speaking on members’ day. I really love these days. They give us a chance to test each other and to agree with the other side, which I don’t often do, but I see a lot of good colleagues from the other side. I would like to acknowledge, again, Camilla Belich and those in the gallery who have led the efforts in this space, and the select committee, ably led by my colleagues in the National Party. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s such a pleasure to sit here and watch happy disagreement.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too would like to start my contribution this evening by congratulating my colleague Camilla Belich on the work that she has done.

I’ve heard it said here a couple of times tonight that this is a small change, and I’d like to refute that because I think what is happening here tonight with the passing of this bill is a very large and big step forward for gender pay equity in this country. I think, as someone that has worked in this space for quite some time now, that we’ve had leaps forward and we’ve had massive leaps backwards, but I see this as one of those big leaps forward that we are taking here this evening.

I’ve also heard this evening that this could cause unintended consequences. I’d like to say that there have been intended consequences of pay secrecy for too long in this country, and that has been keeping pay levels at a rate that has caused mainly gender inequities here, and this is dealing with this today and putting something that has been wrong completely right. I’m very proud to be standing in support of such a good piece of legislation.

I’d also like to just comment to our colleague across the House Dr Vanessa Weenink: I’ve got some good news for you. Mandatory reporting has been in the Public Service for quite some time, which is why we have seen the gender pay gap really leap down and close up in the Public Service. Adding to the fact that adding—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Not mandatory transparency, though. Mandatory reporting, but not mandatory transparency.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yeah, we don’t have conversations across the House. I can’t quite hear you, sorry, at this stage. But let’s carry the conversation on afterwards. My hearing is not quite so good at the moment, and I’m sorry about that. But what I will say there is that that is one of the reasons: putting that sunshine on it acts as a great disinfectant to the issue that we see here today.

I don’t want to take too much longer, other than to say that this is part of a pay transparency scheme that will make a big difference to this country. The last Government did introduce or announce a mandatory pay transparency reporting scheme. Business, unions, and Government stood up and said it is time for that to come. I challenge, now, the Government of this day to make sure that that pay transparency scheme is implemented in full, and that will make the biggest difference to women’s pay in this country.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent, thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleague from Northcote, it's great to have an opportunity on members’ day to speak on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill especially in the third reading, and, of course, the bill is in the name of Camilla Belich. As other of my National Party colleagues have already indicated, we are supporting the bill. It would’ve maybe added a little bit more excitement if we could’ve kept it secret right to the end of the speeches, but I appreciate that might be a little bit nerve-racking for the member, so we put her out of her misery in the second slot of this debate.

This bill has been examined by the Education and Workforce Committee—not that I sit on that committee, but I do hear it's a hard-working committee. I think that's what every committee says, but I would commend them for the job that they have done on this bill.

Of course, this bill does amend section 103 of the Employment Relations Act. Currently in our country, many employment contracts can contain terms that prohibit employees from discussing or disclosing their pay to others, whether that be colleagues, family members, friends. These pay secrecy clauses have been permitted, and breaching them can lead to disciplinary action or even dismissal. Even without such contractual clauses, some employees still may find disciplinary action for discussing their pay. I do want to point out that the exact number of times this has happened in New Zealand is unclear, and it hasn't really been provided in all the stages up to now, including in the select committee. [Interruption] I hear there's a bit of heckling from the side, but that doesn't really matter.

Additionally, this may cause a bit of disharmony in some workplaces as the reason people can get paid differently can be for a wide range of reasons, such as experience, speed, friendliness to customers, and an individual worker might not really consider themselves better or worse, but some are more beneficial to businesses than others. It can lead to some awkward conversations when you might have to tell someone, “Well, actually, you're not as great as you think you are.” You just need to get out and have those difficult conversations, because there's nothing that wrecks a work environment more than, actually, someone thinking that they're treated unfairly or they're not getting paid their fair amount. Even in that case, it doesn't mean we should have pay secrecy in contracts, because they can also have detrimental coincidences.

Of course, one is the gender pay gap. How do we know if certain groups are getting paid differently if we don't have that transparency? I will note that under the last National Government the gender pay gap decreased by about 3 percent; since 2017, that's only decreased by about 1 percent. This is where a lot of proponents are championing this bill, not that it actually explicitly mentions the gender pay gap. As I mentioned earlier, the effects of this are a little bit unclear because we don't really know how much impact this really has, but, potentially, it may help, and I think that's probably what we should do.

Its core objective is very simple: to make it safe for employees to discuss and disclose their own pay if they choose to do so. As I mentioned, it will amend the Employment Relations Act to provide protection to employees who do choose to do that. They're not forced to, but if they choose, there will be that protection. The bill achieves this by introducing new ground for personal grievances, which is adverse conduct for disclosure of pay.

I think we're going to pass this into law tonight since there does seem to be quite wide support, except for ACT and New Zealand First, but I think we should also be very mindful that we have to be careful when it comes to personal grievances that there aren't frivolous claims, because these can cause a lot of problems for small businesses. Hopefully, the member sponsoring this bill at some stage will look into that that as well.

Really, what does this mean in real terms? It means if some good constituents of the mighty Ilam electorate go to one of the many great pubs that we have in the Ilam electorate, whether it be the Elmwood Trading Company, which is one; Misceo; Tavern Harewood; Bishop Brothers; Aikmans; the Merrin Street Brewery; Avonhead Tavern; The Foundry; The Craic, The Brewers Arms, Mayor Of Ale, the Bush Inn hotel. I mean, there's probably—

Hon Member: If you miss one, you’re going to be in so much trouble.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Yeah, if I've missed one, I'm going to be in a lot of trouble. But there are many great pubs in the Ilam—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is where they’re going to get paid, right?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Yeah, ha, ha! So when some of my great constituents go into one of these many fine establishments, have a few beers or a few wines after work, and talk—

Hon Member: Non-alcoholic.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —non-alcoholic, or low-alcoholic—about what they get paid, what their conditions are like, it means that they won't get fired. I think that is a very important thing.

Also, pay secrecy leads to some really interesting kinds of situations, if you think about it. Of course, I have two young kids. They're not quite at working age, except one did try and invoice me for some of the work she’d done around the house, but that's another story. But when they are at the working age, I want them to be able to come and tell me what they're getting paid, and I think that is kind of a normal thing that families do. So it does seem a little bit ridiculous that someone could be, potentially, fired for telling their parents what they get paid. So this does bring a little bit of common sense into the law.

Employers probably have a fairly good idea what different employers are paying, and transparency is good. So the thing is, if the employer can have a rough idea, I think it's good that employees also know what others are getting paid.

I think I will just kind of stress that this bill ensures that these protections apply broadly. An employee will be able to discuss their pay with a whole range of different people and it protects them, but it also kind of means they can talk about a whole range of things, not just their direct pay but some of the other conditions that they may have.

So what do we consider is adverse conduct? It's clearly defined, and that would be if someone did disclose, they can't be dismissed; an employer can't refuse to offer that employee the same terms, conditions, benefits, or opportunities as others in similar circumstances; and subjecting the employee to any kinds of detrimental things that would negatively affect the employment, job performance, or job satisfaction. It covers not just salary and wages but also overtime allowances, productivity-based payments, bonuses, commission, and employer contributions to superannuation and those sorts of things as well.

Of course, what we have already heard is it does exclude any benefits received as an owner of a business, because, of course, owners of businesses do take that risk. Often, many small-business owners may mortgage their house to have a business, and, of course, they've taken that risk and they do need probably a little bit of extra reward.

Once again, it does not create any obligation for an employee to disclose their pay, because some people don't want to disclose what they’re getting paid, and that's completely fine. Probably, in polite society, it's not really considered polite to actually ask what someone gets paid. So this bill is not going to force anybody to disclose any information that they don't really want to disclose.

Of course, we've already heard about the international experience supporting this approach. Other jurisdictions including Australia, parts of Canada, the United Kingdom, parts of the USA, and the European Union will also ban pay secrecy clauses by next year. So we are moving to address this issue and aligning with international best practice, which I think is a good thing.

I do believe that during the select committee process approximately 89 percent of submitters expressed their support for this bill. There was 4 percent opposing it. Submitters largely agreed that greater transparency will help with existing pay gaps. The concerns raised by opponents included things such as workplace friction, privacy implications. These were partly addressed by clarifying the voluntary nature of disclosure. I appreciate ACT is holding a different view, New Zealand First are not supporting it, and I do believe they can argue that pay is a private matter and existing labour laws offer significant protection. I appreciate that that is a view. There were concerns from some businesses about—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I first came across this practice of secrecy over pay coming out of Australia, and I think these things tend to come in big international waves, actually. A new trick emerges, and this particular prohibition on people talking about pay really is something that has no place in New Zealand, where we tend to try and be fair and reasonable in our employment relations. It’s absolutely fair that if I’m being paid a certain amount, I get to talk to people about that. That is a freedom of speech issue—that is about where the line stops. I think it’s an incredibly important principle that we’re adopting tonight, and I congratulate Camilla Belich on bringing it to this House and getting the agreement of the National Party to support this bill.

I just wanted to say that as an employment lawyer, what I saw a lot was how there was no justice in pay. People who have not got a lot of confidence don’t get paid as much as somebody who is doing a job that is either the same or not as good, and I saw that over and over again play out, and I particularly saw it with women. I saw it with high-paid women who still did not have the confidence to actually demand that they were paid as much as their male colleagues, and I saw male colleagues who had been schooled in confidence from a very early age demand pay that wasn’t perhaps warranted if you looked at the productivity or the quality of their work. Now, that actually happened in my practice.

I hope that this shines a light on that situation and makes people think twice before they treat people in discriminatory ways. I commend the bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I was looking forward to a full five-minute contribution from the member Helen White. As a former employment lawyer, I thought she would have had five minutes of material to give on this legislation, and, actually, I was even prepared to yield five minutes of my time to her if she wanted to take the full time to talk on it. But that’s OK, I’m prepared to take my opportunity on this.

It does give me great pleasure, on behalf of the National Party, to stand and speak in favour of the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. There has been robust debate just on this side of the House on the legislation. There’s a lot of collective agreement on one side, and a bit of robustness on the other side. But that’s OK—that’s part of politics. It’s all part of the game, and it’s good to have that out. Particularly on members’ day, it's a good opportunity for us to talk about our legislation and our National Party position on the bill.

Today we are passing the bill. Credit to Camilla Belich for shepherding it through first reading and through the select committee stage. I want to pay particular credit to Vanessa Weenink, who’s sitting next to me, who has been a big champion on your behalf, within the National Party, on this legislation as well, but you had the forethought to begin with to have this legislation and then to carry it on.

Arena Williams: Who was mean to you? I’m sticking up for you.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I’m hearing Arena Williams, but I’m not sure what she contributed to the bill. She might take the 11th speech, potentially, but we’ll just wait and see.

After thorough examination by the Education and Workforce Committee, we in the National Party believe the bill is ready to become law. We have always supported this bill—through the first reading, all the way till tonight—because it promotes fairness and transparency in the workplace. I think there’s a bit of doomsday rhetoric that’s been going around, around what this potentially might mean, but, ultimately, it’s coming back to promoting fairness and transparency in the workplace.

Let’s be clear: currently, employees can face disciplinary action for discussing their pay with their colleagues—they can at the moment. The Human Rights Commission found that 44 percent of people said they had been paid less than someone for the same job. Now, this bill’s not specifically focused on pay equity per se, but that is a flow-on effect from this legislation, without a doubt. It’s not necessarily descriptive in the title of the legislation, but that is a flow-on ramification from it.

The most common reasons that we know of why people are paid less are based on their experience, their age, their gender, and their ethnicity. What this law is going to achieve is it’s going to give employees the right to discuss and disclose their own pay rate to others without facing any repercussions. The bill protects employees from adverse conduct like dismissal; reduced opportunities, whether that’s—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Forced retirement.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —to other roles, promotions; forced retirement, as Vanessa Weenink says, or other detriment for discussing their pay. This doesn’t force anyone to disclose it, though. It simply removes the ability for employers to prohibit it.

So let’s be really clear: just because this will come into law and it will enable people to discuss their pay, there’s no requirement for people to actually have to do it. It is a personal choice, personal responsibility. It’s one of our core values in the National Party that people know what’s best for them, and if they feel comfortable to discuss what they are earning with their colleagues in the workplace, then they can do it. But if the person sitting next to them does not feel comfortable to do so, they are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to have to do that.

That is really, really important, because we’ve heard this doomsday rhetoric that suddenly there’s going to be mass meetings of people talking about it, saying “What do you earn, and what do I earn?”, and all of this, but, actually, that’s not the case. It’s not going to be the case at all; it’s only if you feel comfortable. There’s no pressure and there’s no requirement on anyone, and, ultimately, as we know, knowledge is power in pay negotiations. Employees need information to advocate for fair compensation for what they earn.

There are a number of other points. This is bringing New Zealand into line with other countries around the world. We like to compare ourselves with some of our close friends. Let’s look at Australia: they’ve got legislation similar to this. The UK and Canada and some US states also have legislation relatively similar to this, as well. So we’re simply bringing New Zealand into 2025 and beyond, as well.

This is a really positive step. We in the National Party believe in fair pay for fair work, regardless of your gender or your ethnicity. This is about fairness, transparency, and ensuring all New Zealanders can negotiate from a position of knowledge about their work in the workplace. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Can I begin by congratulating my friend and colleague Camilla Belich on another important bill passing through this term of Parliament. It’s been an absolute delight tonight to hear the National Party embrace the spirit of the Employment Relations Act and celebrate this bill. I even heard the previous member talk about fair pay. In fact, I almost heard him say “fair pay agreements” and wouldn't it be wonderful for them to have a revelation on that tonight as well.

The spirit of the Employment Relations Act actually acknowledges the inherent inequality between employer and employee which is spelt out in that Act, and which comes to the heart of this bill. In my previous life when I worked as a union organiser—and I've told the story in the House before, but I will repeat it tonight—I used to represent female-dominated workers in retail, and in some of our largest retailers.

There was one particular retailer that despite having a collective agreement, still had a very strange pay scale that meant it was difficult to interpret what everyone was being paid. I remember visiting the site in Blenheim and talking to some of the women who told me their boss had told them they couldn't talk to each other and tell each other what they were being paid. So even though there was actually a collective agreement in place designed to have that transparency, designed to have that fairness, the employer had still managed to find a way to instil fear within the women, the predominantly women-dominated workforce, so that those women did not feel comfortable talking about their pay. There was actually nothing in their agreement that said they couldn't, and at the time I made it very clear to those women that they could and they should talk about their pay to ensure that they were all being treated fairly in the workplace.

This is a sensible bill, it's a practical bill, it makes sense, and it's common sense. It's wonderful to have the National Party supporting it. It's disappointing that ACT and New Zealand First are not seeking to be part of the harmonious actions of the House tonight, but I congratulate Camilla Belich again on another fantastic bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

NANCY LU (National): I rise to speak on the third reading of the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. As a Government MP, I want to acknowledge the intent of this bill, its progress through the House, and the work that has gone into it at each stage.

Now, this bill has had a clear and consistent aim, which is to reduce the information barriers in workplaces that may allow pay iniquities to persist. Specifically, this bill will amend the Employment Relations Act to protect workers who wish to voluntarily disclose their pay—now, underscore: who wish to voluntarily disclose their pay to colleagues and prevent contractual clauses that prohibit those discussions.

This bill was introduced actually quite some years ago as a member’s bill and passed its first reading in 2022. It was then considered by the Justice Committee in 2023. That committee heard a wide range of submissions from unions to employment groups to academics to business representatives, and I must acknowledge some of the important people sitting in the gallery today. The committee then reported the bill back with a majority recommending it to proceed, although noting a range of reservations about its scope and practical application in reality. We are now at the third reading, finally, in 2025 and the final stage before it becomes law.

I do want to take some time to highlight the National Party and the National Government’s track record in this, and I need to place on record our longstanding commitment to addressing inequity in the workplace, particularly in pay gaps. It was a National Government that introduced mandatory pay gap reporting in the public sector. It was a National Government that legislated for superannuation payments for women. It was also National who introduced the Equal Pay Act, helped establish the Equal Opportunities Trust, and advanced initiatives like Women in Trades and the Future Directors programme. We also amended the Human Rights Act to strengthen protections against discrimination.

Under the last National Government, the gender pay gap actually reduced significantly, from 12 percent down to 9.7 percent in 2017. Since then, despite many promises and some actions, the reduction has been minimal but still successful, with the gap now sitting around 8.6 percent today.

This is why the National Government has acted, including developing a voluntary pay gap calculation tool which allows businesses across New Zealand to measure and report on their pay equity with consistency and accuracy—finally producing data that is available in the market for employers to compare, for sectors to compare, and also for employees to have a fair comparison. I have to take the opportunity now to thank the Minister for Women, the Hon Nicola Grigg, and her office for all that work.

Now, back to the work, particularly on what the select committee have done on this bill. The select committee have worked hard to hear from a wide spectrum of voices. Some examples: unions have strongly supported the bill, noting that pay secrecy clauses often prevent women and minority groups from challenging inequitable pay.

Employer groups, however, have raised valid concerns, such as Business New Zealand, which warned of potential unintended consequences once this bill becomes law, such as tensions in workplaces between employees or workmates where remuneration reflects factors way beyond just a base salary—for example, performance incentives, experience, location, specific projects that people are working on, or other specific considerations for the specific employee that is not otherwise mentioned or widely known within employment.

The Law Society also presented and raised questions about whether this bill might interact with existing contractual confidentiality provisions in ways that may need careful monitoring, going forward. The departmental report acknowledged that while pay secrecy clauses are not a widespread phenomenon in New Zealand, their existence can contribute to pay inequities. Evidence from other jurisdictions, particularly Australia, shows that removing secrecy clauses does support pay transparency and can, over time, reduce inequities.

Now that we’ve talked about Australia, let’s look at other places too, because this is not an isolated move from New Zealand. Across the OECD countries, there is a clear shift toward a greater transparency, particularly with our pay. Australia has already moved to prohibit pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts as part of its 2022 reforms. In the European Union, countries have moved to a pay transparency directive that now requires large employers—now note: the large employers—to provide salary range information that allows workers to request pay data. In the United Kingdom, mandatory gender pay gap reporting has been in place for years, covering organisations with 250 or more employees.

Now, New Zealand should not fall behind. Our businesses compete internationally for talent. We are a migrating country, and we need workers to expect pay transparency with their remuneration as part of the modern workplace culture.

That said, a balanced approach, it is also worth keeping in perspective. This bill will, hopefully, close some gender pay gap, but I also note that pay gaps are influenced by such a wide range of factors, including—like I said a bit earlier—the years of experience, etc., but also including occupational segregation or location of work or career interruptions. As a mother, when I had to take maternity leave, of course those considerations pop into my mind and I struggle with them. Career interruptions are a part of why we have a pay gap between employees, but there are also broader societal expectations and many come into play when an employer or an organisation determine the remuneration package for any employee.

What this bill will do is to allow employees to have that open conversations if they wish—and to underscore: only if they wish—without fear of breaching their contract with their employer. I believe that this is a modest but also a very important step going forward.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Education and Workforce Committee; particularly to thank the member in charge, Camilla Belich, for bringing this bill to the House, and also to all the hard-working select committee members—from the top of my mind; please excuse me if I have missed anyone—and that includes chairperson Katie Nimon, Carl Bates, Mike Butterick, Grant McCallum, Dr Vanessa Weenink, Parmjeet Parmar, of course Camilla Belich before the bill, but also I believe Shanan Halbert and a number of other MPs from across the House.

Dan Bidois: Willow-Jean Prime.

NANCY LU: And thank you Willow-Jean Prime—thank you, Dan Bidois, for reminding me—for all the work.

Hon Member: Phil Twyford.

NANCY LU: And Phil Twyford. Who else? Who else?

Hon Members: Reuben Davidson.

NANCY LU: There are many members—Reuben Davidson. There are many members, as you can see. As you can see, many members are very interested in the bill and to make sure that they have contributed to this bill.

As the last speaker on the third reading of this bill—and I know that I’m the person keeping the member in charge on the edge of her chair—the National Party will support this bill at the third reading. We do so because it aligns with our long history of advancing fairness and pay equity in the workplace.

We do recognise the limitations, and we are conscious of the reservations raised during the select committee stage, and we will continue to monitor the implementation very, very closely, but we acknowledge the transparency and fairness and equal opportunities that are in the right direction for New Zealand workplaces. I support this bill because it’s giving New Zealanders confidence that their hard work will be valued fairly.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the member who has resumed her seat, Nancy Lu, for that magnanimous speech about what is a bill that we can all be proud of in this House. This is an important moment of bipartisanship which extends a proud record of Labour and National women working together to advance the position of working women in Aotearoa: 150 years of that legislative history where women in this House have come and have brought bills that have slowly stepped out the rights of women to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

I want to acknowledge the work of Dr Vanessa Weenink for being a champion within her caucus for that. It is not an easy thing to go to caucus and to stand up for something which is right, to stand up for a principle that we all should agree on in this House, in the face of the party politics which go on in here.

Everyone knows that it is very challenging as a member to bring a member’s bill and to seek support for this. I want to really underscore—as Nancy Lu would say—the important work that Camilla Belich has done here to bring a bill which finds that common ground. To etch out the things which all parties in this House can support, can agree on, can find something to find some good in is not easy work, and we must do it every day.

This is important work—some of the most important work that we do as parliamentarians—and Camilla Belich is the master of that. If anyone knows Camilla, they will know that this bill here, which is about protecting those workers who are diligent, who are honourable, and they are very honest, and so they are following the letter of the law—that is Camilla Belich. She is someone who gets up every day and makes sure she is doing exactly what is expected of her to serve her country and her caucus and the people she represents. This is exactly the kind of bill for someone like her that would stick up for someone who cannot raise issues at a workplace. This is perfect; this is a perfect example of a bill which we have managed to agree on tonight because of somebody putting in the work to do it. Congratulations to Camilla Belich. Congratulations to everyone who has voted for it. I commend the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be read a third time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 19

ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

7

Bills

Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on clause 1. Clause 1 is the debate on the title of the bill. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m sorry to my colleague Tim Costley, but I’m sure he’ll get an opportunity to speak on the legislation. I’m looking forward to an engaging committee of the whole House with the member in charge—a bit of back and forward, as she would say; a little bit of give and take, as she often says from her seat over there when the Minister’s sitting where she is. Now she’s in the hot seat.

So we’re here today to talk about the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill—clause by clause, we’re going to be going at it. The first clause we’re talking about is the title. I’ve been very diligent in preparation for committee of the whole House today. I’ve come up with a variety of different titles which I’m going to be putting to the member in charge of the legislation. I wonder if the Chair will indulge—I’ve got 25 alternative titles—whether she’s prepared to take—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I won’t be giving 25 calls to Mr Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, I’ve got a sense of direction from her, so I’ll be taking that. So I might as well get started then.

Tim Costley: One for every year.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, it is nearly one for every year.

But at present, the title of the legislation is the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. So let’s just keep that at the forefront so we know what currently is the benchmark for the legislation. Now, some of the alternatives I’ve come up with are the “Companies (Director Safety) Amendment Bill”, the “Companies (Director Protection) Amendment Bill. I’ll go a bit slower because I can see the members writing these all down. She’d hate to miss any of the 25. The Companies (Director Privacy and Safety) Amendment Bill. Did you get the first two? Got the first two OK? Great.

The “Companies (Director Address Protection) Amendment Bill”, the “Companies (Personal Safety Information) Amendment Bill, the “Companies (Director Privacy) Amendment Bill”, the “Companies (Private Address Information) Amendment Bill”—that’s relatively similar, actually, to the current title of the legislation that we’ve got, but it’s adding in “Private Address Information”, which I think, actually, is really important, because many directors put their address information currently associated with their companies, and put their private home address where their family resides, where their husband or wife resides—they may well have children as well. So it’s really important to be clear that it is, often, for many of them, their private address information.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What if they work from home?

TOM RUTHERFORD: That’s quite correct.

The “Companies (Confidential Address) Amendment Bill”, the “Companies (Director Personal Information Protection) Amendment Bill”—that one’s a little bit slightly more of a mouthful and might take a couple of pages of the member in charge’s notes, but I do think the “Companies (Director Personal Information Protection) Amendment Bill” is one of my personal favourites. We’ve got the “Companies (Address Privacy) Amendment Bill”. We’ve got the “Companies (Alternative Address) Amendment Bill”. What about the “Companies (Service Address) Amendment Bill” as an option?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Slow it down.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Slow it down a little bit? Yeah, sorry. The pen’s potentially running out of ink already.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good shorthand going on here.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Good shorthand? OK. We’ve got the “Companies (Director Contact Information) Amendment Bill”. I’m wondering if the members are considering any of these, and are potentially open to potentially change the title of the legislation. What about the “Companies (Address Disclosure) Amendment Bill”? We also have the “Companies (Anti- Harassment) Amendment Bill” because if we actually think of the intent of the legislation, it does hark back to that, in ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of those in companies and having their information included; anti-harassment is a component of that.

We have the “Companies (Director Harassment Prevention) Amendment Bill”. We’ve got the “Companies (Protection from Harm) Amendment Bill”, which also fundamentally comes back to the earlier point I made around trying to protect the directors of these companies from harm and having their private information publicly disclosed in some occasions. We’ve got the “Companies (Threat Protection) Amendment Bill”; the “Companies (Violence Prevention) Amendment Bill”. That’s a core, fundamental part of the legislation. We’ve got the “Companies (Director Residential Address Protection) Amendment Bill”.

What about the “Companies (Public Address Information Restriction) Amendment Bill”, which is part of what this legislation is doing in restricting the publicly available address information of company directors? We’ve got the “Companies (Director Address Confidentially) Amendment Bill”.

We’re in the last 20-odd seconds, so we’ve saved the best two until last; you’ve made it to numbers 24 and 25, We’ve got the “Companies (Safe Contact Information) Amendment Bill”, and the “Companies (Protected Address Information) Amendment Bill.” May I remind members: my personal favourite is the “Companies (Director Personal Information Protection) Amendment Bill”. I would welcome the views of the member in charge of the bill on any of those proposed titles.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): To the member in charge of the bill, is it true that the member has had cross-partisan and bipartisan discussions with the Minister in charge of this portfolio and has come to arrangements about the introduction and timing of this bill? And is she surprised that there is filibustering from the other side of the House?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I do want to respond to both the speakers so far. I’d like to congratulate Tom Rutherford on his clever use of AI to generate 25 titles. Some of those could have been perfectly suitable titles. There’s no reason not to, but there’s also no reason to change it either, so we’ll just stick with the title of the bill as is. I just don’t see any particularly strong reasons in favour of them—or against them, for that matter. It’s just irrelevant, really. We’re going to stick with the way it is.

To the member who asked about whether I had been in discussions with the Minister: yes. As soon as this bill was drawn, the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs had a word with me and pointed out that he had a bill that would address this issue that he would have in the House soon. But he said this back when I had red hair! That was quite a long time ago, and “soon” turned out to be quite a flexible word. We had the first reading of this bill in March 2024. I took the Minister at his word, and I continue to take the Minister at his word. The Minister has said that he will have a company’s amendment bill into this House and through the first reading, and he has said sometime this year.

To be absolutely clear, the Minister’s solution will be a better solution, but given that that word “soon” has taken so long to turn into a reality, I have said to the Minister that I will withdraw this bill only after the first reading of his bill. I’ve also said that no matter what, I will go to a third reading in December this year. That’s the projected timing of this bill. I cannot wait on that word “soon” any longer to ensure that people have adequate protection from having their address disclosed, in a way that was never intended when this law was set up in the first place. Hopefully, we’ll get that in place in due course, and as I’ve said, the Minister and I are operating on a very good faith basis. He’s taking me at my word, I’m taking him at his word, and it would be good to see that good faith being replicated here.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): I just want to take a short call to respond to the outrageous accusation made across the House about the intentions of members. We take our responsibilities as legislators very, very seriously on this side of the House and the committee stage is a very important part of legislation. If you tune in to the Parliament at any day of the week when the members opposite are scrutinising legislation, they are going through it part by part, clause by clause, giving it the due diligence it deserves. I just want to put it on record that we are taking this as seriously as members opposite do with theirs.

Now, the title of this bill is, I think, a perfectly adequate one. I do like the suggestions for amendment made by the member Tom Rutherford. I understand the member in charge of the bill has indicated that she’s probably not going to accept those if they get put into a tabled amendment. I’m not sure if Mr Rutherford’s going to propose any amendments, but I think that’s perfectly reasonable. The points about the commencement can probably be made in the next clause, which would be about when the bill should come into force. I look forward to debating that forthwith.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): New Zealand First has a memory as well, and we agree with the member who said she was waiting with bated breath around the members on my left bringing to the Parliament, through the Minister, the new Companies Act. In fact, we also remember that members voted for this bill at that point when New Zealand First voted against it. The Employment Contracts Act—oh, sorry, that just slipped in; nothing to do with the Employment Contracts Act and 90-day trials, but we do have a memory. This is important in terms of process, because we need to rely on their confidence. The Hon James Meager just gave us more confidence that the Companies Act will be forthcoming. Am I correct, sir?

Tom Rutherford: You can’t ask members questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You have to ask the question to the Minister in the chair.

Dr DAVID WILSON: We look forward to the Companies Act coming forward, so our vote on this stays the same. We oppose this bill on the condition that the Companies Act arrives at something more defined than “soon”.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Tim Costley, but before I do, I’m just going to make a note that there has been criticism of a member to my left for bringing up points around filibustering, but when members actually bring long process speeches and 25 names to the debate, I think the member’s point was fair. And I’ll be the judge of what’s going on in the debate. I urge members to keep their content relevant.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will take your encouragement to stay relevant; I’m going to stick to clause 1. I appreciate the member in charge’s comments about commencement but we’ll get to that in clause 2, I’m sure.

I guess, as a new MP in my first term, I’m shaped a lot by experience, and my experience of committee stage, I guess, is shaping the approach to this. I can only learn from what I see, like this morning, sitting in this Chamber. I try and replicate what it is that I see and learn from the honourable members on the other side who have set such a good example of how a committee stage should run. I intend to adhere to that great experience that I’ve picked up over the last two years.

I would like to focus on just the title. I’m not coming with a filibustering list of dozens of names. I just want to focus on one, because in one of the select committees I sit on, there’s been a lot of discussion around clarity of language, ease of understanding, and accessibility of legislation for people. The proposed title is the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill, and while, of course, address information is the subject that we’re talking about, actually, I think we can be—and, indeed, maybe have a responsibility to be—a little more specific in terms of what the problem is and what we’re addressing. It’s not just about address information; it’s really about having alternative addresses. It’s about the safety of directors in certain circumstances—whether it’s for their safety or the safety of those that they live with—who need to withhold their home address, their residential address.

If I wanted to filibuster, I probably would have come with amendments that had “home address” and then “whare address” and then “residential address”, as we have come to see over the last few months from members opposite, but that’s not what I’m suggesting—

Arena Williams: No one’s going to shut you down.

TIM COSTLEY: I am just suggesting a less frivolous approach than the rather vocal member over there tends to bring, at times, and instead bringing a more specific one, to really drive into what this bill is about. A lot of people that I meet in the great Ōtaki electorate, in the Kāpiti region in particular, as they look at legislation don’t maybe have a legal background. Maybe they don’t have a background of reading this, and they just want to know that it does what it says on the tin, and when it says, “address information”, it kind of gets them halfway. If we could be more specific, if we could include a little more information and really lead them down the path and help them to understand, I think, actually, there’s a duty on us to do that, because it means they can understand.

There will be people out there who own the average small business on the Kāpiti Coast, for example, who would have one, maybe two, employees—often family run. If it is a director of a company like that, they won’t be across every bill and every piece of legislation that comes through. It is a good thing—I commend the member for bringing it—but can we help people to understand the tools that are now going to be available if this goes through third reading—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, if we focus on the title at this point, then we can talk about some of the other points at a later stage.

TIM COSTLEY: That’s right, and the title is the mechanism that helps them to understand. If it was to be a title like the “Companies (Ability to Withhold Residential Address) Amendment Bill”, that immediately says to people that, actually, there is an ability to withhold your residential address if you are the director of a company. I’m thinking of those people in regions like mine, in regions perhaps like yours, Madam Chair, like many people on this side represent—their home electorates—where small business, which is the backbone of New Zealand, is one or two people. It is the title that will lead them down that path.

That’s why I’m just wanting to hear from the member in charge: could we be more specific? Would she be open to a title that would make it really clear what this does—that this gives the ability to withhold a residential address or to protect directors through withholding a residential address; the ability to provide an address for service in lieu of that. Could we be a little bit more specific so that the people that I represent, that we all represent in this House, would understand what this does? I don’t raise this by way of criticism of the member for what comes in the bill, but by way of: is it possible that we could just improve this slightly by bringing a little clarity and a little specificity to this? My question to that member is: is she open to a title such as the “Companies (Ability to Provide an Alternative Address) Amendment Bill”?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The member Tim Costley does make a good point that perhaps the title could have more in it, but, of course, the title also needs to be succinct. I think the particular title does the job perfectly well.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take one more call. I want to see a sensible one, and I recognise that it’s a members’ day. I’d also make people aware that, while they think nobody watches Parliament TV, there are quite a few people probably still watching. Cameron Luxton—that’s not directed at the member who’s about to speak!

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): I understand, Madam Chair, but I take the note to welcome those who are listening in to this debate, where we actually get into a really important part of any bill, and that is its name, Madam Chair, as you pointed out. The member in the chair, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, has spoken about—is it the “member in the chair”, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, this is the member in the chair.

Tom Rutherford: The member in charge.

CAMERON LUXTON: The member in charge—thank you. The member in charge has summarily sort of waved away many options for a title that have been put on the table from this side of the House, which I think might have gone a little bit prematurely, because we do need to have people understand what’s trying to be achieved.

I’ll get right into a couple of suggestions that I have, Madam Chair—and taking your advice on board, as to being succinct. The “Companies (Safer Businesses, Safer People) Amendment Bill”—I think the member in charge has really made it quite clear that safety is a core part of why this legislation has been brought forward. Making sure that it’s understood that safety is at the core of what the member is trying to achieve would, I think, do a lot to communicate what is her intention in this bill.

Also another suggestion I’ve got here is “Companies (Supporting Privacy and Security) Amendment Bill”, because it’s not a matter of forcing people to choose a different address for service—there’s another term in the bill. We’re changing it to “address for service”, so it’s not the address that the directors are at; it’s an address for service. It gives a choice for directors who might not feel safe, as my previous suggestion of a company’s name has given.

I think, if the member in charge was able to consider these two suggestions that I’ve made in the spirit in which they were given, which is a spirit, at the late part of an evening, when things do need to be taken into account in a serious manner despite how we may all be wanting to get to bed—I leave that with the member. I hope that she would address those in the spirit that I’ve put them on the table, and we can move forward.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to clause 2. Clause 2 is the debate on the commencement of the bill. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): In the bill as introduced, the commencement date was set down for three months after Royal assent. The officials who worked so diligently on this bill pointed out that that wouldn’t allow enough time to get systems in place. They felt that, should this bill pass, they needed a longer time to get the system set up within the Companies Office and to get the new legislation communicated. I think they suggested 18 months, or perhaps longer; I can’t recall exactly what they suggested.

The committee said, “Well, hang on a second, that’s a little bit long, maybe.” The committee also wanted to set a time limit on it. So you’ll see in the commencement clause that it will come into force on a date set by Order in Council, but they’ve got a year: “If [the Act] has not come into force by the first anniversary of Royal assent, it comes into force then.” That gives officials a year to get the necessary administrative procedures in place, and that’s exactly why we had that change in that commencement date. I’d just like to thank the officials for working pretty willingly on getting to that compromise, more or less, as to how we set the commencement date.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You haven’t got 25 commencement dates, have you?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Madam Chair, I’ll provide reassurance to you, to the member in charge, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, and to those people who are, apparently, watching at home at 9.50 p.m. on a Wednesday, that I don’t have 25 alternative commencements.

Hon Member: He’s got 30.

TOM RUTHERFORD: And I don’t have 30, either, all right?

Miles Anderson: He’s got 365.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I don’t have 365, Miles Anderson. I thank the member in charge, firstly, for the clarity around why this was changed. I wasn’t on the select committee that considered the legislation, but when I looked at the bill, initially, as she rightly said, it had under “Commencement” that this Act comes into force on the day that is three months after the date on which it receives Royal assent. It has now been changed to “This Act comes into force on a single date set by Order in Council.” I think it would actually be quite important for the people who are watching at home if the member in charge can clarify what “Order in Council” actually means for people. That might not necessarily be a phrase that people know. Does the general public understand what the phrase “Order in Council” means?

The next part is: “If the Act has not come into force by the first anniversary of Royal assent, it comes into force then.” and “An Order in Council made under this section is secondary legislation (see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements).” My question to the member in charge—I have two here, Madam Chair—is that the select committee recommended extending the implementation time frame to 12 months, noting that three months, as was initially included by the member in the legislation, would be insufficient time to complete public consultation and regulatory changes, make those changes, and operationalise them in the Companies Office.

Clause 2 as amended by the select committee changes the commencement from the fixed three-month period to an Order in Council with that 12-month backstop that I outlined. I’m keen to understand: can the member explain why clause 2 required such substantial amendment to extend the implementation period to 12 months, and what specific operational preparations are needed during this time? The original three-month period in the bill as introduced was clearly inadequate. Why do regulations need to be developed to support new sections 360D to 360G? What public consultation is required, and what happens if the operational preparations aren’t completed within the 12-month time frame, which is the backstop that I outlined earlier?

The next point is that the success of the bill depends entirely on the Companies Office being ready to implement it effectively from day one. Given the complexity of the amendments and the potential volume of applications, operational readiness is really, really crucial. Clause 2 in this legislation—Order in Council commencement—depends on adequate preparation to implement those new sections that I outlined, which are 360D to 360G. What assurance can the member in charge provide that the complex operational requirements for new sections 360D to 360G will be ready before the clause 2 commencement provisions take effect? Given the complexity of the new processes in those sections 360D through to 360G, what contingency plans exist if operational preparations aren’t completed within the 12-month backstop, which is outlined in clause 2? Will all necessary regulations, forms, and guidance for sections 360D to 360G be ready for immediate implementation?

Let’s remember that the Act comes into force on a single date set by Order in Council, but if the Act has not come into force by the first anniversary of Royal assent, it comes into force then. What if they’re not ready? What if they haven’t got everything set up in a position to go after 12 months from Royal assent? What happens then? Do we just enable it and so be it, and we roll with the punches, and what happens, or actually, are there contingencies that the member in charge has considered or thought of to ensure that, whatever happens, whether it’s 12 months from Royal assent or whether it’s by Order in Council, there are plans, contingencies, preparations, and regulations in play so that we can ensure that this legislation is simply workable from day one, so that once it’s enacted, once it has received Royal assent, once it is into law, once it’s enacted, it can be ready to go? I’d welcome the member’s answers.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.