Thursday, 18 September 2025

THURSDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

THURSDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

Te Māngai o te Whare took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 7 October. That week, the House will consider the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, and the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day, and on Thursday morning we will have extended hours for Government business.

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 Diane Cross requesting that the House require a lawyer or trust company to fully disclose to a client the cost and method of administering their will.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered three papers.

CLERK: Annual reports for 2025 for:

the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand

Kiwi Group Capital

New Zealand Parole Board.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:

petition of Qin Qin

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Ministry of Education: Promoting equitable educational outcomes

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:

inquiry into performance reporting and public accountability

Standard Annual Review Questionnaire 2024-25

report of the Health Committee on the briefing on suicide prevention in the construction sector.

SPEAKER: The reports on the Controller and Auditor-General’s report, the inquiry, the briefing, and the Standard Annual Review Questionnaire are set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes—in particular, a number of actions where a group of Ministers and departments have worked together very effectively to reduce youth crime. In Northland, for example, that is down by 40 percent, and it comes from a focus by Ministers, such as Karen Chhour and Oranga Tamariki, and Mark Mitchell and the police, who have allowed young offenders to be detained and corrected rather than continuing on with ram raids.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the New Zealand Government recognise the unfolding genocide taking place in Gaza, particularly following the UN-commissioned report that concluded that “Statements made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent.”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As has been made clear by a range of Ministers across the Government, that is a matter under active consideration by the Government at the present time. Our position will be made clear by the right Minister, at the right place, and at the right time, which is coming up very soon.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Minister of Foreign Affairs correct when he said that the Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour, was “talking out of his field” regarding the Government’s position on Palestinian Statehood?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, actually, he was speaking as the leader of his party, and that’s a matter for him, which I don’t have responsibility for, as is abundantly clear from the transcripts.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Minister of Foreign Affairs correct when he said that David Seymour’s statement regarding the recognition of Palestinian Statehood “was made by someone who’s got no authority to make it.”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it is certainly correct that the authority to make that statement on behalf of the Government rests with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, it is also true that this is a Government of three different parties, with leaders who each lead a party with its own identity, and, from the point of view of the Opposition, this Government is dangerously united.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the constant public disagreement between two of the Government’s most senior figures undermining the clarity and credibility of our foreign policy and the reason why this Government is still sitting on its hands?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: In answer to the first assertion in the question, there is not constant disagreement. There is a group of parties that have their own identities and are able to keep those identities and continue to work together in a cohesive and effective way. There is a real problem with many people’s view that you cannot have differences of opinion; you must conform. That is a view that is often associated with the left. People find it smothering, and, around the world, it’s making the left of politics very unpopular.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he instruct his Deputy Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs to stop bickering, join our international partners, recognise Palestinian Statehood, recognise the unfolding genocide, and implement the sanctions that thousands of New Zealanders are calling for?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, first of all, we have a team that works together very effectively, and far too effectively for the Opposition’s liking; in fact—

Hon Peeni Henare: Sound dangerously evasive.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —dangerously effective in such a way that it’s going to keep the Opposition right where they are for a very long time. On the substance of the issue: you see, the reason that this Government is taking a deliberative view and considering all the details carefully is because we believe this issue deserves the careful consideration that we’re giving it.

Question No. 2—Trade and Investment

2. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent steps has the Government taken to strengthen New Zealand’s trade and investment relationship with Saudi Arabia?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): The Government has moved quickly to deepen ties with one of the world’s most dynamic economies, worth nearly US$3 trillion annually. In the last month, we’ve established the New Zealand - Saudi Arabia Business Council; agreed with Saudi’s investment Minister to create a cooperation framework between Invest New Zealand and the Saudi Government’s investment agency; and led a trade mission just this week to Riyadh of high-quality New Zealand businesses, where five new commercial partnerships worth more than $100 million were secured. These are practical outcomes that will mean more opportunities and stronger returns for New Zealand exporters, and more jobs for New Zealanders.

Tim van de Molen: What will the New Zealand - Saudi Arabia Business Council deliver for New Zealand exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Business councils are a proven way to build stronger commercial connections and support exporters to succeed. A dedicated New Zealand - Saudi Arabia Business Council will raise awareness of opportunities, strengthen relationships, and help Kiwi firms do well in this growing market. It will play a key role in contributing to the Government’s goal to double the value of exports in 10 years. The establishment of a business council is an important step in strengthening trade and investment links between our two countries.

Tim van de Molen: What was agreed in order to boost investment ties with Saudi Arabia?

Hon TODD McCLAY: With my Saudi counterpart, the Minister of Investment, we agreed to establish a cooperation framework between Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Investment and New Zealand’s new investment agency, Invest New Zealand. Saudi Arabia is set to be the world’s sixth-largest economy by 2050, and New Zealand is well placed to attract the Saudi investment into high-growth sectors across the economy, including renewable energy, clean tech, advanced food production, wood processing, aquaculture, transportation, and tourism. The Government’s making it easier for foreign investors to do business in New Zealand through streamlining investment settings and stronger commercial engagement.

Tim van de Molen: What will the five new commercial partnerships mean for New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In the trade mission that we concluded this week in Riyadh, we saw high-quality New Zealand businesses sign five new commercial partnerships with Saudi companies. This is expected to generate more than $100 million in commercial value for New Zealand. These partnerships mark an important step in deepening New Zealand’s trade relationship with Saudi Arabia and showcasing the strength and diversity of New Zealand’s offering with food and beverage, animal management, agritech, health, and the creative industries sector. I congratulate these businesses on their achievement—achievements of which you’ll see many more in the near future.

Question No. 3—Education

3. BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green) to the Minister of Education: Kei te whakapono ia ki āna kōwhiringa katoa me āna mahi katoa kia whai putanga pai mō ngā ākonga Māori?

[Does she believe all her decisions and actions support positive education outcomes for ākonga Māori?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Minister of Education): On behalf of the Minister of Education, yes, absolutely, particularly the outcomes around attendance. It’s difficult to learn when you’re at school—some of us have the school reports and transcripts to prove it—but it’s impossible if you’re not there. If you take term 1 data from 2022 to now, in the last three years, we have seen a 20 percentage point increase in Māori school attendance. That is the biggest thing that will make a difference: more Māori at school.

Benjamin Doyle: He aha tāna whakamāramatanga i tāna kī atu, “I don’t want to be talking about the Treaty. I want to be talking about reading, writing, maths, achievement.”, ā, kei te whaiwhakaaro ia ki te hononga o te mahi whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi me ngā putanga ā-mātauranga mō ngā ākonga Māori?

[What is her explanation of when she said, “I don’t want to be talking about the Treaty. I want to be talking about reading, writing, maths, achievement.”, and does she acknowledge that upholding Te Tiriti is related to education outcomes for ākonga Māori?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I’m not getting any translation through this earpiece.

Hon Member: Plug it in.

SPEAKER: No, there will be none of those sorts of comments, thank you very much. It is a problem.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’ve got two here. I’ll try the other one, if that helps.

SPEAKER: Try the other one for a minute.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: OK.

SPEAKER: Would the translator please repeat the question. [Translation repeated.]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I do absolutely stand by that statement, on behalf of the Minister of Education. It is simply a fact that if you don’t have the basic literacy, the basic numeracy, and the basic understanding of the world of science and history, then your ability to uphold anything, including Te Tiriti, is going to be greatly diminished. That’s why this Government is focused on the simple idea of one teacher in one classroom with a knowledge-rich curriculum—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, whose knowledge?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —that is examined through proper examinations so that we are transferring knowledge from one generation to the next. I hear the member opposite asking which knowledge. Well, the simple fact is that there are curricula being developed in te reo Māori and in English.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. If the member has got a question, take a supplementary. Don’t yell them across the House like that.

Benjamin Doyle: He aha ia i kōwhiri ai kia whakakore i NCEA, ahakoa ngā pōrahurahu o Te Runanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa mē te kōrero tohutohu ōkawa, ka whakataumaha ake tēnei kōwhiringa ki ngā ākonga Māori?

[Why has she decided to scrap NCEA despite concerns from Te Runganga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa and official advice that it will further disadvantage ākonga Māori?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Education, the Government has decided to replace NCEA because we believe we can do better for all students, and that involves a more rigorous system of examination that ensures that students must learn the information in order to pass the test. Now, it is true that there is a range of perspective on the changes to NCEA, but this Government utterly rejects the idea that, somehow, all Māori students are disadvantaged by a more rigorous examination system. That’s the kind of thinking we need to get rid of.

Benjamin Doyle: Kei te kūraruraru ia i tā Te Budget 2025 whakaheke i te ahumahi mātauranga i ngā fulltime-equivalents toru tekau mā tahi kia uaua ake te ako mō ngā ākonga Māori? Ki te kore, he aha e kore ai?

[Is she concerned that Budget 2025’s reduction of the Māori education workforce by 31 fulltime-equivalents will make learning more difficult for ākonga Māori, and, if not, why not?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I’m getting nothing here. Can we try again? I don’t know what’s going on with it.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the translator to say it again. If the Hon David Seymour could tell us if he’s getting that translation. [Translation repeated.]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Education, while there have been some changes in staffing across the system, overwhelmingly, this Government is ensuring resources are focused on fixing what matters in education, and that is the quality of the curriculum, the amount of learning support, the quality of the assessment, and the quality of the buildings and infrastructure. Those are the things the Government is focusing its resources on to make a difference for all students.

Benjamin Doyle: He aha te Minita i kāti ai i ngā kaupapa kia akiaki, kia whakamana hoki i te māia me te matatauranga i te kōrero reo Māori, pērā ki te Resource Teacher Māori me Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

[Why has the Minister cut programmes that encourage and enhance the confidence and fluency of speaking in te reo, such as Resource Teacher Māori and Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Education, it is absolutely true that we are committed to developing the resources and retaining the staff required to educate in both languages. In fact, in the last Budget, we have committed more resources to upskilling teachers in te reo Māori for exactly that purpose.

Benjamin Doyle: Kei te whaiwhakaaro ia, he tauira te whakaheke pūtea i te Resource Teacher Māori me Te Ahu o te Reo Māori i te whai kōwhiringa, e ai ki te Toihau o Te Taura Whiri i te reo Māori, ko Ahorangi Rawinia Higgins, tāna whakatūpato “reversing decades of progress in protecting and promoting te reo Māori,”? Ki te kore, he aha e kore ai?

[Does she acknowledge cutting funding for Resource Teacher Māori and Te Ahu o te Reo Māori are examples of decision making that Rawinia Higgins, Toihau of Te Taura Whiri i te reo Māori, describes as risking “reversing decades of progress in protecting and promoting te reo Māori”, and, if not, why not?]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister, the reason that I don’t agree with that statement is that the Government is reorganising its resources to make sure that we get the best outcomes for all students, and that includes significant investments in Māori language teaching and Māori-medium curriculum. We are doing the work to ensure that Māori language teaching is strengthened, along with the entire system, by removing a huge amount of wasteful spending that we discovered upon being elected into office.

Question No. 4—Economic Growth

4. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): In context, yes.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does she agree with Nicola Willis in 2022, when GDP shrunk by 0.2 percent, that “Today’s release of GDP data is more bad news for New Zealanders already struggling with the cost of living crisis”; and if so, what would she say now that GDP figures published today show a 0.9 percent decline?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question: yes. I note that in the first three months of the year, the New Zealand economy grew by 0.8 percent—faster than Australia and twice what Treasury were forecasting.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Did her Government’s decision to cancel major infrastructure work, resulting in a 9.4 percent decline in construction for the year ending June 2025, contribute to the shrinking economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The Government has increased the amount of capital investment going into infrastructure projects. What I can confirm is that the fast-track regime, which has already ensured that the Auckland Port project will be under way before Christmas and has indicative approval for more than a thousand houses to be built in Auckland, along with around a dozen other projects—its cancellation, which his party believes in, would stop major private construction projects.

Hon Damien O’Connor: What does it say about her performance when half the time she has been Minister, economic growth has been negative, just adding to the growing list of negative outcomes in the New Zealand economy that highlight the reality of her growth agenda?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is the case that I cannot take responsibility for all the decisions made in the years leading up to my period as Minister of Finance. What I can take responsibility for is fixing it. What I can also say, quite confidently, is that things would be a heck of a lot worse if you lot were in charge.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why does she blame international events for her 0.9 percent decline, when for the same period Australia grew by 0.6 percent, Japan by 0.5 percent, and the UK by 0.3 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’d note that in that quarter there was also negative growth in Germany, Canada, and other countries. I also do not recall that member congratulating me in the first quarter of this year when our rate of growth was many multiples more than Australia’s, but I look forward to him being able to do so in the future again.

SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. [Interruption] Just wait until everyone is settled and quiet.

Question No. 5—Māori Development

5. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister for Māori Development: Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka. E whakapono ana ia ki ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga kia whakapūmautia te reo Māori?

[Does he stand by the Government’s track record on upholding obligations to te reo Māori?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Āna. [Yes.]

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: E whakaae ana te Minita ki ngā kōrero a te Kaikōmihana mō te reo Māori e mea ana, “e raru ana te reo Māori i ngā kawenga me ngā mahi a tēnei Kāwanatanga”?

[Does the Minister agree with the statements of the Māori Language Commissioner that states, “the Māori language is endangered by the conduct and activities of this Government”?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: He mihi kāmehameha nā te ngākau iti rawa ki te kaikōmihana, ki te toihau o Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, me te mōhio hoki ka nui āna kīanga kōrero ahakoa ko wai te Minita, ahakoa ko wai te Kāwanatanga.

[Significant acknowledgments of my humble self to the commissioner, the toihau of the Māori Language Commission, and I am also aware that she has made many statements regardless of who the Minister is, regardless of who is in Government.]

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Hei whakanui i te 50 tau o Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, e whakaae ana te Minita kia kāwhakina te kaupapahere a te Kāwanatanga e aukati ana, e tuaruatia nei rānei i te whakamahi o te reo Māori i roto i ngā tari kāwanatanga?

[In celebration of the 50th anniversary of Māori Language Week, will the Minister agree to remove the policy of the Government to stop, or make subordinate, the use of the Māori language within Government departments?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Hei whakatairanga hoki i Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, kua kite hoki au i ngā mahi nunui, roroa hoki, ngā tāngata i hīkoi atu ki te taimoana ki konei, ā, tae atu ki ngā rangatahi i kōrero atu ki ngā Manu Kōrero. Kāre au i kite i te mema o te Rōpū Reipa ki reira. Heoi anō, hei whakautu hoki mō te kōrero nei, he wā ka piki, he wā ka heke, engari me kore tātou e pōhēhē mā te Karauna tō tātou reo e whakarauora. Heoi anō mā te ranga whānau, mā te ranga hapū, mā te ranga iwi e whakarauora tō tātou reo, ā, ka riro hoki mā te Kāwanatanga me te Karauna ia e whakatūwatawata.

[In the promotion of Māori Language Week, I have seen many significant and wide-reaching activities, the people that marched to the oceanside here, and including the young people that spoke at the Manu Kōrero speech competition. I did not see the member of the Labour Party there. Anyway, in response to this statement, at times it improves, at times it declines, but we should not mistakenly believe that it is up to the Crown to revitalise our language. However, it is up to the many ranks of whānau, of hapū, and of iwi to revitalise our language, and it will be the Government and the Crown to fortify it.]

Question No. 6—Housing

6. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements have been made about improving social housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Last week, the Minister of Housing and I released an update on the allocation of the 1,500 community housing provider (CHP) social houses funded in Budget 2024 for delivery up to June 2027, and the 550 social homes in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland funded in Budget 2025. Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga—Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga—MHUD), and community housing providers are getting on with approving, contracting, and delivering these homes. We’ll also publish a monthly dashboard summarising the delivery of these social houses funded from Budgets 2024 and 2025, as well as Māori housing houses. Just on that, since coming into Government, we have allocated and funded over 1,000 Māori housing places across Papakāinga, affordable rentals, and other types of housing. This dashboard means that public providers and members of the Opposition can see progress being made.

Tim Costley: What type of social homes are being built and delivered?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are making sure we get the right type of houses built in the right places with the right supports for those in genuine need. Around half of the people currently on the social housing wait-list need a one-bedroom home, yet only 12 percent of the homes within Kāinga Ora are one-bedroom homes, and this is not good enough. So we’re changing it up. We’re changing how social homes are prioritised and procured, with a greater focus on data- and evidence-driven needs analysis to deliver the social homes people need, and for the 2,000 places funded through Budgets 2024 and 2025, about 48 percent of the homes will be one bedroom, around 42 percent will be two bedrooms, and around 22 percent of them are expected to be accessible or accessible-ready homes.

Tim Costley: Whereabouts are the social and Māori homes being built and delivered?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga—MHUD has, for the first time ever, deliberately allocated houses on the basis of identified housing need across regions by, for example, looking at the housing deprivation data, emergency housing use, and the social housing wait-list. This is the first time, actually, this has ever been done. But based on the pipeline data in Budgets 2024 and 2025, places across this set, including Māori housing, include nearly 1,000 in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, over 500 in Te Moana-a-Toitehuatahi Bay of Plenty, 350 in a beautiful place called Waikato, 300 in Heretaunga Hawke’s Bay—great place; I went to school there—250 in Northland Tai Tokerau, and nearly 100 in Whakatū, also known as Nelson. Let’s build houses where they’re most needed.

Tim Costley: In addition to the over 2,000 social houses funded by the Government, how many net new homes have been delivered?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Since we came into Government, tata kite whitu mano whare—nearly 7,000 net new social homes—have been delivered, and this includes over 5,400 net new homes delivered by Kāinga Ora and over 1,400 net new homes delivered by CHPs. These homes, of course, are additional to the over 2,000—rua mano—community housing provider social homes funded by this Government so far, and I look forward to further announcements in this space, at a beautiful location coming near you.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve traversed the issue of this Government claiming they’ve built 7,000 houses in this House before, but the question was: of the 2,000 houses funded by this Government, how many have they built? How on earth can the Minister claim to have built 7,000?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not for me to judge whether or not the answer is correct or otherwise, but, simply, has it been addressed, and it has been addressed.

Tim Costley: Speaking to the point.

SPEAKER: I don’t think there’s any more to say, but—

Tim Costley: Well, the member is completely incorrect in what he said. My question was in addition to the 2,000, how many net new homes were there, and the answer I heard was another 7,000 additionally.

SPEAKER: That should have been a correction that came from the Minister.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: To the Minister, how can he credibly stand in this House and claim that there is “progress being made” when the number of Kāinga Ora homes under his watch has reduced by 177?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m not aware of the fuzzy maths that the member opposite has presented, but I’ll gladly receive a question by way of written parliamentary questions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The claim by the Minister that brought into question the integrity of the claim is at direct odds with claims by Kāinga Ora themselves. I think it is unparliamentary, and certainly not good for order, when Ministers are able to claim that a member in this House is deliberately—well, I think the term was “fuzzy”, when his own department that he’s referred to in the answers have stated this in news reports just last night.

SPEAKER: Well, you could go back to the comment I made in the House before, but if the member’s got counter information, he can always table that in the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s publicly available, though, sir, so I can’t.

SPEAKER: Well, OK.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement regarding the bowel cancer screening age that “We are committed to matching Australia. The critical restriction to enable that is access to more colonoscopies”; if so, why?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes. That is why this Government expects Health New Zealand to continue work to expand access to colonoscopy and improve management and access for people of any age with bowel cancer symptoms through the roll-out of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for symptomatic pathway.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Health New Zealand’s colonoscopy capacity will be significantly freed up by those changes in 2026, enabling the screening age to be lowered to 45 years without additional funding, capacity, or workforce?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: What is correct is that when we’ve said we’d commit to Australia’s age, they took 15 years and a stepped approach, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. The first step goes down to 58—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: But capacity is coming on in a year’s time.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: —and the member wants to ask me a question while I’m answering the first question. But, yes, we will have to increase capacity for the colonoscopy workforce.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the Minister aware that the changes he mentioned for FIT testing in his response to my primary question would mean that so many colonoscopies would no longer be needed, the Government could screen down to the age of 45 without any more workforce, any more facilities, or any more colonoscopy capacity?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, in answer to that question, I actually agree with Grant Robertson, the Labour Minister of Finance in 2023, who said that the bowel cancer screening age would need to be lowered in stages, and that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the Minister saying that even though the opportunity is presenting itself, they are not going to take it, and, if so, why?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: No. What I’m saying at the moment is that if you take one of the targets around urgent 14-day colonoscopies, the target is 90 percent; we are at 83 percent at the moment. That is the reality of the health system we inherited. That’s why we’re taking a stepped approach. There is a pressure on the colonoscopy workforce. It is a doctor-led workforce, and that’s why we’re building capacity with nurse-led colonoscopies. We want to take a staged approach, and that’s what this Government is committed to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the Government saying now that the reason he’s not willing to take this cost-free opportunity to expand screening to the same level as Australia—as per their election commitment—is because they’d rather use the capacity to address Health New Zealand’s deficit?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, isn’t it funny how everything seems so simple when you’re in Opposition, and you’d wonder why it wasn’t so simple when they were in Government. This Government is committed to lowering the age to 58, and that is showing more evidence of saving lives than their policy of going down to 50 with certain population groups. We’re committed for health need across all New Zealanders. We’re committed to comparing ourselves to Australia, but, as I’ve said in previous answers, that took Australia 15 years. That’s why we’re taking a stepped approach, and that’s why even her colleague Grant Robertson, when he was a Labour Minister, agreed with this Government.

Question No. 8—Energy

8. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he made on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy): This week, we announced changes to the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill that will help unlock investment and accelerate New Zealand’s transition to clean energy. These amendments enable the Government to designate marine areas for offshore renewable projects while giving developers the certainty to invest, while providing clarity for those exploring under the Crown Minerals Act. This positions New Zealand to lead in offshore renewables and unlock high-value jobs.

Rima Nakhle: Why has he made these changes?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, offshore wind requires a significant upfront investment and that is why we are establishing a clear regulatory regime through the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. However, during the select committee process, offshore wind developers raised concerns about their projects coexisting with other activities, particularly seabed mining. This change is a clear signal that we’re open for investment.

Rima Nakhle: What will these changes mean for existing permit holders?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, these changes are about balance. We want to clear the way for offshore wind, but we also need to protect the rights of existing permit holders. The Government will take into account the impact on existing mining permit holders when determining these areas, and we expect that the offshore wind and mineral sectors will enter into constructive discussions on how their activities may coexist near each other.

Rima Nakhle: What could offshore wind mean for New Zealand?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I’ve been blown away with the opportunity that offshore wind presents. New Zealand has some of the world’s greatest offshore wind potential. While there is a lot of hot air coming from the other side of the House, offshore wind can be more powerful and more consistent than onshore wind, which is critical when so much of our electricity comes from intermittent sources. Offshore wind could bring jobs and abundant energy to grow our economy. This Government has a strong commitment to double renewable energy by 2050, and offshore wind will play a critical part in that plan.

Question No. 9—Oceans and Fisheries

9. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: E whakaae ana ia ki tā te Environmental Defence Society kī atu ko tā Tiriti o Waitangi he whakatakoto “obligation on the Crown to legislate for effective marine management”; ki te kore, he aha e kore ai?

[Does he agree with the Environmental Defence Society that te Tiriti o Waitangi sets out an “obligation on the Crown to legislate for effective marine management”; if not, why not?]

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Ngā hoaketanga kei ahau, me kaua te moana me wana pānga e tītōhea ai, ahakoa nā raro i Te Tiriti, nā runga rānei i te ngākaunui o te marea ki te moana.

[The responsibilities I have, the ocean and its interests must not become desolate, whether that’s under the Treaty, or on the value placed on it by the public.]

Teanau Tuiono: He aha te oranga ki roto i te whakaiti i ngā ara arotake, arā judicial review, mō te whakahaere i te ahu moana, ā, he aha te take kāre ia i whakarite i tetahi tukanga kia rongo i ngā kōrero a te katoa?

[What is the benefit in reducing the judicial review process for managing ocean assets, and why did he not arrange a process by which all of the public’s statements might be heard?]

Hon SHANE JONES: Preparing a strategy and approaches that reflect what the Environmental Defence Society is seeking to achieve, including a special oceans Act, will take time. It will never eventuate in the absence of priority given to economic development. These things take time.

Teanau Tuiono: He pātai tāpiri: He aha āna kaupapahere kia tiakina te oranga o ngā popoto, ngā Māui dolphins, ā, ka whakaaetia e ia kia aukati te set-net me te trawl fishing ki roto i ō rātou kāinga, ā, ki te kore e whakaae, he aha te take e pērā ai?

[What are his policies for protecting the health of the Māui dolphin, and will he agree to a moratorium on set nets and trawl fishing within their habitats, and if he does not agree, why is that?]

Hon SHANE JONES: Over the years, a host of restrictive measures have been put in place for this mythological creature sadly known as the Māui dolphin. This has had a significant impact on the ability and the viability of the fisheries sector, but we should not devalue the work that has already taken place on the west coast of Te Ikaroa-a-Māui to provide remedial measures for this declining population of mythical Hector’s dolphins.

Teanau Tuiono: Kei a ia he māharahara, he āwangawanga rānei i te heke o te tautoko a ngā kamupene hī ika nā runga i tana kaha aronga ki a rātou noa iho, kei tua atu i te hapori whānui?

[Does he have any worries or concerns regarding the decline in support of fisheries companies due to his focused attention given to them alone, beyond the wider community?]

Hon SHANE JONES: Ā, ko te koronga kei ahau, me pēhea rānei e whakaranea ai te oranga mai i ngā mau o te moana, ehara i te mea mō ngā kamupene hopu, hao ika ānakenake, otirā ko ngā whānau, ko ngā hapū, me te iwi hoki i whiwhi ai i ngā pānga kia āhei ai rātou kia haere tonu ki te moana, hīhī haohao ai kia riro mai i a rātou he oranga. Koia tēnā te hoaketanga whakaharahara kei ahau.

[Oh, the desire that I have, how might wellbeing be expanded from the ocean’s haul, not only for the companies that catch fish alone but indeed for the families, the hapū, and also the iwi that have acquired interests so that they may go to the sea and go fishing with line and net so that they may have some benefit—that indeed is the enormous responsibility that I have.]

Teanau Tuiono: Ka whakaaetia e ia kia aukati i te wāhi hī ika ki Chatham Rise i te mea kei te tata ngaro te orange roughy ki reira, ka hiahiatia rānei te whakapakaru i ngā māra kāoa rānei?

[Will he agree to close the fishing area on Chatham Rise because the orange roughy is nearly gone from there, or would he prefer the coral gardens be destroyed?]

Hon SHANE JONES: That fish referred to as the orange roughy is known in Māori as niho rota. That area has been the subject of considerable public discussion and any decisions made under law, in the future, governing the amount of fish that may be taken from that area will be announced in due course. But I would say to the member: less uncritical repetition of untested science is best.

Teanau Tuiono: Ka whai mahere ia kia whakauru i ētahi atu anō panonitanga ture kia tāwharau ai i āna kaupapahere; mēnā i pērā, ka kōrero ki te Attorney-General kei ngoikore haere ngā tukanga ture?

[Is he planning to introduce any other law changes to protect his policies, and, if so, has he spoken with the Attorney-General about how these may erode legal processes?]

Hon SHANE JONES: I’ve been known to have multiple discussions with the Attorney-General, and I am very conscious that there are a host of court cases pertaining to fisheries. Who knows what fresh bouts of litigation might take place, but any decisions made and plans introduced will be done in a way that strikes a balance between utilisation—but I will not be guilt-tripped about mythical creatures living off the west coast of Taranaki.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: E whakapau kaha ana tōna Kāwanatanga ki te tautoko i te reo Māori ki Aotearoa nei?

[Is the Government doing all it can to support the Māori language here in New Zealand?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Āna, kei te whakapau kaha te Kāwanatanga me te Karauna, ki te hāpai, ki te tautoko i te reo Māori. Heoi anō, he nui ngā mānuka takoto kei mua i te aroaro o te Kāwanatanga me te Karauna, hāunga ko ngā iwi, ngā marae, ngā hapū me ngā whānau.

[Yes, the Government and the Crown are working hard to promote and support the Māori language. However, there are many challenges in front of the Government and the Crown, not to mention the iwi, marae, hapū, and whānau.]

Hon Peeni Henare: Did he discuss with Minister Stanford that rationale why te reo Māori is important for children’s learning before she removed it from children’s reading resources; and, if so, what was her response?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ka nui hoki ngā kōrero i waenga i a māua ko te Minita Mātauranga e pā ana ki ēnei momo take, me te mōhio hoki ka nui tana tautoko i te ahunga, i te anga whakamua o te reo Māori, ā, ki āna pukapuka motuhake, arā ko ngā decodable books, i roto i te reo rangatira. He nui ngā kōrero e pā ana ki āna mahi tīkaro mai i te reo Māori i ngā pukapuka reo Ingarihi engari kāre anō au kia kite i te kōrero ōkawa e pā ana ki āna mahi.

[There have been many discussions between myself and the Minster of Education regarding these types of issues, and I know that she is very supportive of the direction and the progress of the Māori language, including with her special books—i.e., the decodable books in the noble language.]

Hon Peeni Henare: Did he raise with Minister Stanford the concerns from Professor Rawinia Higgins, who said she had “significant questions about the commitment to supporting te reo Māori” when the Minister cut the Te Kawa Matakura programme?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kāre au i te āta mōhio ki ngā whakanekenekenga katoa e pā ana ki tērā hōtaka, engari ia te rua wiki, ia te rua wiki, māua ko Minita Standford e kōrerorero ana mō ēnei take, arā tō tātou reo Māori hei pītau ira tūāpapa hoki mō te nanahi, mō te nāianei me te āpōpō.

[I am not entirely aware of all the ins and outs regarding that programme, but every fortnight, Minister Stanford and I discuss these types of issues—i.e., our Māori language as an excellent foundation for yesterday, for today, and for tomorrow.]

Hon Peeni Henare: Will the Government financially commit to the language and culture of rangatahi Māori in Tāmaki-maka-rau by funding the $850,000 per year it costs to host the Māori stage at the ASB Polyfest, or will his Government leave this important rangatahi kaupapa high and dry?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kua kite hoki i te nui tautoko a tēnei Kāwanatanga me ngā Kāwanatanga o mua i ngā mahi a Te Matatini. Ka riro anō mā tērā ohu a Te Matatini ēnei momo kaupapa e whakatūwatawata. Me te mōhio hoki kaua e riro mā ia te maikuku o te Kāwanatanga e whaiwhai haere i āna pūtea, pīnati pūtea nei, e whakatū i tētehi kaupapa. He kaupapa nui, he kaupapa whakahirahira hoki tō te kaupapa Polyfest, e mihi ana ki ngā kaiwhakahaere me ngā kaiwhakamaunu i tērā waka.

[I have seen the great support of this Government and previous Governments for the activities of Te Matatini. It will again be left to that board of Te Matatini to fortify these types of initiatives. And I also know that it won’t be left to each finger of Government to pursue its funding, its peanut funding, to manage such initiatives.]

Hon Peeni Henare: How can anyone have confidence in Ministers responsible for the Māori language when the Government cuts funding, cuts courses, cuts te reo from books, cuts te reo from official invitations, and then expects to reach 1 million speakers by 2040?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kua kitea hoki ngā kīanga kōrero a tō mātou, ko te Kāwanatanga, Manu Pūtea te whakatuarā hoki i Te Matatini. Koia hoki tētehi o ngā kanohi nui o te ao e pā ana ki tēnei iho pūmanawa, ko tō tātou reo. Kāore ia i tapahi i ērā pūtea, engari i whakatuarā i ērā pūtea tautoko i Te Matatini, tae atu ki ngā kaupapa pērā i te Māori Manaaki Trust, tae atu ki te $700 miriona - $800 miriona e whakapau kaha ana ēnei Kāwanatanga ki ngā kaupapa reo Māori, ki ngā kura reo Māori me ērā o ngā hōtaka ki roto i ngā kura. Nā reira kia āta haere, kia āta whakatūpato i te kupu kōrero ka maringi mai i te arero o te tangata e tapahi ana tēnei Kāwanatanga i ngā pūtea tautoko katoa.

[The statements of our, the Government’s, finance Minister have been seen that support Te Matatini. That is one of the most visible visages in the world regarding this true talent, our language. She did not cut that funding, but instead backed that funding that supports Te Matatini, including initiatives such as the Māori Manaaki Trust, and including $700 million to $800 million that the Government has expended on Māori language projects, Māori-medium schools, and other such programmes within schools. And so we must take it easy, we must take care with the words that pour off our tongues—that this Government has cut all support funding.]

Question No. 11—Transport

11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about the Ashburton Bridge?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport): Earlier this month, I announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency has signed a contract with Fletcher Construction to progress the detailed bridge design so that the construction on the new Ashburton bridge can kick off early next year. This is real progress towards the National Party’s campaign promise to start construction of the bridge in our first term. We are a Government that is delivering on our promise to the people of mid-Canterbury.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is a second bridge needed?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: With about 24,000 vehicles using the current bridge daily, we need to ensure that people and goods can get up and down the South Island. Futureproofing this bridge is important to improving network resilience south to Otago in case of emergency events like flooding. The new bridge will be a vital connection for Tinwald to Ashburton and to relieve congestion on State Highway 1.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the next steps for the bridge?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Along with building it, we have to do the geotechnical investigations in and around the Ashburton River. They have now been completed and the bore hole samples are being analysed to better understand the ground conditions for building the bridge. The project team is progressing property purchases, statutory approvals, and procurement. Design and construction contracts are expected to be signed at the end of the year. All this demonstrates the need for things like our fast-track approvals process to make sure that we can get things built in this country. I look forward to announcing the next steps once negotiations have been concluded, and we’ll be pitching for the bridge to be named Browns’ Bridge in honour of two of its strongest advocates.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that “this Government is delivering for all workers”; if so, why?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, I do stand by my statement in the context in which it was made. This Government is delivering for all workers by reintroducing 90-day trials to ensure greater opportunities for those who may not otherwise have a shot at a job. We’re removing the 30-day rule that binds new employees to collective agreements to ensure all workers have freedom of association. I could go on about all of the changes, but it is the last question on a Thursday.

Camilla Belich: How can she stand by her statement when the Government is offering teachers an effective pay cut leading to strike action?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can’t get involved in individual collective bargaining that’s happening across the public sector.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not asking the Minister to comment on that; it was asking her to defend her statement in light of the industrial action that is under way.

Hon David Seymour: This Minister does not have responsibility for that negotiation. It puts her in a very difficult position.

SPEAKER: That probably is a fair point. Camilla Belich can ask the question without losing one of the allocated questions.

Camilla Belich: Can I ask the same question again?

SPEAKER: No, slightly—

Camilla Belich: Different?

SPEAKER: Think about the exchange we’ve just had.

Camilla Belich: Given that the Minister stands by her statement that the “Government is delivering for all workers”, how is she delivering for nurses when they are complaining and taking action in order to achieve safer staffing?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I said before, I won’t be getting involved in individual collective bargaining that’s happening across the public sector, but what I would say is that this is a Government that also takes into consideration patients, who are also workers, and it is deeply disruptive for all workers who have surgeries—they might have things that they need to go to hospital for—which get disrupted, and they may have taken annual leave off for those procedures, and then, they’re cancelled at the last minute. This is a Government that takes all of that into account.

Camilla Belich: How can she stand by her statement when she has extinguished 33 pay equity claims and only one union is even considering filing new claims under her changed scheme?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Because, of course, we want our laws to do what they say they do. I would just suggest that it’s a very interesting circumstance that, when that member, after all of this time, said that this pay equity system doesn’t exist and it can’t be used, there is actually a union using it.

Camilla Belich: How can she stand by her statement when doctors have no choice but to take industrial action in the face of an effective pay cut?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’m not responsible for doctors or the actions that they take. They are responsible for their own actions. This is a Government that believes in personal responsibility.

Camilla Belich: How can she stand by her statement when thousands of workers will be gathering around New Zealand on Saturday to protest the Government’s actions against pay equity?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Like I’ve said, the equal pay system remains. Pay equity remains. Some unions are looking to use it, and I would suggest that that member might wish to encourage others to use the system that has been established under the law.

Urgent Debates Declined

Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory—Findings

Associate Minister of Health—Compliance with Public Records Act 2005

SPEAKER: I’ve received a letter from the Hon Marama Davidson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The situation in Gaza is one of great importance and concern to this Parliament and to New Zealanders generally. However, there is no ministerial or Government responsibility for the findings of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry. That is a mandatory element of any urgent debate under Standing Order 399(2)(b) and without it I cannot grant the request for an urgent debate. This application is declined.

I’ve also received a letter from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 a failure by the Associate Minister of Health to comply with the Public Records Act 2005. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government. The question is whether the matter is of sufficient importance for the House to warrant setting aside its normal business. Compliance with the Cabinet Manual by Ministers and confidence in Ministers are matters for the Prime Minister. I do not think the matter requires the immediate attention of the House. The application is declined.

Bills

Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. We come first to clause 1.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move that—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask for quiet in the Chamber, please. A point of order is taken in silence.

STUART SMITH: I’d like to move that it be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Seeking leave for that purpose?

STUART SMITH: Seeking leave.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is declined. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to all members of this, the committee of the whole House. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. I’d like to thank everyone on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications particularly, and the Government more generally. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate and the discussion and the policy development so far, including the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, as they’re known, along with those who made submissions on the bill, including members of the fourth estate, of course.

As we know, the bill repeals section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. This is the provision that restricts advertising on broadcast TV on Sundays, Anzac Day mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and on both TV and radio on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.

The laudable aim we start by recognising is, of course, to maintain a place for a diversity of less-commercial programming, and we understand that feels important. Nevertheless, in the modern era, of course, it’s important to recognise that there are many different ways and many different avenues—channels, so to speak—in which we consume media. There is a strong argument to be made for alignment across those different platforms and media types.

I’m pleased that the select committee recommended that the bill proceed with no amendments, and we, of course, will monitor the way this plays out across those particular days of interest to many New Zealanders and look forward to the discussion in the committee today.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As a matter of clarity, this is the debate on the title, so the question is that clause 1 stand part.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is good to have the opportunity to step through this bill clause by clause, albeit a very small bill. It’s for a sector that faces some very large challenges.

I think in considering clause 1, and speaking to the title of the bill, it would be worth us getting a solid understanding in the committee of the environment our local media sector is operating in. This is relevant to both the advertising revenue available to our broadcasting, television, and radio sector, but also to the wider sector and the extreme challenges that they have faced over the last two years.

I want to start by acknowledging that on 28 February 2024, the Warner Bros. Discovery company proposed to close Newshub, one of only two linear television news broadcast services. On 7 March 2024, Television New Zealand (TVNZ) announced 68 job cuts, including some large flagship shows at our State broadcaster.

These two events were described by both our Prime Minister and the then Minister of Broadcasting as unsettling. They went on to say that neither had asked them for financial support, but they were keen to do what they could to support both of those companies—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt the member. Can he bring his questioning to the title?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Yes, absolutely.

Arena Williams: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Orders are quite clear on the title and commencement part of a committee stage that the debate is more wide-ranging. Given that there is no part under which to debate title and commencement, it seems appropriate to me that the title clause is the most wide-ranging of the debates. Now, if you’ll give us some guidance about another clause that you would prefer the more wide-ranging questions to the Minister about policy to be undertaken, I’m sure we can accommodate that. But I do invite you to allow at least one speech from our spokesperson on broadcasting around the wide-ranging issues that people following along at home will be interested in.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand. I just want to pull it back; they were getting quite historic. But I do understand your point. So, yes, but we are talking about the title.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Certainly. So to come back to the title, and to relate the points that I was covering around the depth and volume of the job cuts that we’ve seen across the media sector as a result of the challenges that our broadcast media sector in New Zealand is facing, I’ll move through those job losses a little faster.

We’re talking about large numbers of people. We’re talking about 68 people losing their job at TVNZ. We’re talking about more than 200 people losing their job at Newshub. We’re talking about ongoing job losses, again, at TVNZ; a further 50 jobs gone at the beginning of November in 2024. At the same time as those jobs are being lost—and it’s easy for us to talk about jobs and to forget that “jobs” is not just a word; “jobs” is people. Those are people who go home to their families no longer with an income or with a job in an industry that serves New Zealanders and serves democracy.

What this shows us is that this repeal, in and of itself, is a very, very small and limited bill that has a very, very minor impact on the broadcasting sector, on the broadcasting industry, on the ability for us to create new jobs or protect existing jobs in our broadcasting and media sector. So the title and the title clause feels like it doesn’t give adequate acknowledgment to the depth of the challenges and to the small scale of the financial return that a shift like this will bring for the sector.

The job losses—and I’m conscious of time—have continued across the sector. It’s important to note that the Minister who brought this bill forward and introduced it in December 2024—so we’re coming up to 12 months ago, and we are now only at the committee of the whole House stage—said that this would be part of immediate action for the sector. At the rate that it’s moving, and with the impact that it will have for the industry, it really is a very, very small ripple in the pond, as opposed to any kind of meaningful, immediate action that will provide the kind of support that the sector needs.

I did want to signal that at the top. Given the scale of the crisis faced by the sector and the challenges around drawing revenue for the sector, my question was: how much revenue does the Minister believe this will bring for the sector; and does the Minister think, given the very small revenue bought, that the title is an appropriate title for the bill?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. The title’s an appropriate title for the bill because it describes what the bill does.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following some of these questions on the suitability of the title, which is the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, I did want to flag the sort of broader policy intent of repealing advertising restrictions. I wonder if the Minister would put it in the Hansard and on the record: what percentage of the revenue that this bill will bring by repealing advertising restrictions, as per the title, will make up a percentage of the amount of total revenue?

The reason why I’m asking this is that if the title is being advertised to the public as “This will allow more advertising, which in and of itself will bring greater revenue.”, I’m interested to know therefore how much of this revenue will be in comparison to the total revenue that is being brought when it comes to advertisement—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. This is a clause by clause debate.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I hear that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): This is not by part. So the clause is the title and it’s quite narrow.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: And as Arena Williams pointed out, this is also one of the areas where, according to the guidance that we’re given, we could ask broader questions. And if the title is going to be repealed—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, you’re not hearing me. This is a very narrow debate on a clause by clause debate. I refer the member to—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So does the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, I’m speaking. I’m referencing Speakers’ rulings 127/2. It is very different from a part by part debate. We are just confined to the title.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Fair enough. Does the Minister agree that this title adequately represents the amount of insignificant revenue that will be brought by repealing these advertising restrictions, and does the Minister believe that perhaps a different title, such as “(Insufficient Revenue Gathering)”, would be more appropriate as the name of the bill?

This relates to the earlier point I made in relationship to revenue gathering. I noted the comments from the Minister earlier in relation to—you know, this is a simple title that simply describes what the bill does. But for everyday people, it’s worthwhile noting that if you just read “(Repeal of Advertising Restrictions)”, you may be thinking that we had this, like, humongous level of advertising restrictions placed on our broadcasting sector, and the public may be led to believe that the amount of revenue, based on the title, may be really significant. So I did wonder whether the Minister thought about perhaps a different type of title being more adequate in describing what the bill actually does. Because the title, in my view, does not adequately describe what the bill actually does, which is gathering a very insignificant amount of revenue at a time when the broadcasting sector is really, really struggling.

Did the Minister seek any other options for titles for this bill? We talked a lot about using plain language in legislation to support members of the public engage with our legislative processes. So I did wonder whether he thought that a different use of language would have been more appropriate. Did he at any point seek advice on a different name for the bill, and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. The content of this very short bill is to repeal advertising restrictions. It’s appropriate, therefore, that its title is “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions”. Anything more or less than that would be remiss on the part of the Minister, and I’m pleased that he has gone for a very descriptive, straightforward title.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. I understand you made it very clear at the start around the narrowness of the title. It does seem hard for us on the Opposition side to—I’ve only had one call, and only from our spokesperson; not from other members of the select committee; and also having only two from the Opposition side. I just really want you to consider that, in terms of there were at least four people I saw seeking a call. To shut it down so quickly didn’t seem fair on our side.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry that you felt that way.

Glen Bennett: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I haven’t finished speaking yet. I did make it clear on purpose. Usually on a clause by clause, when you’re talking about title, there is latitude given for a summation because the title clause is usually debated at the end. So there is a consideration given to widening the scope. This is up at the front. So it narrows it considerably. Nobody spoke to an Amendment Paper. So I’ve made the call. There was very little room for manoeuvring. The Minister had made his point extremely clear that the narrow title reflected the bill, and there was clearly going to be no movement from that. So we are moving on now to—

Glen Bennett: Speaking to the point of order, I mean, the clarity I seek is you’re unsure of—there were two calls made. Yes, narrow. Yes, I understand it wasn’t clause by clause, but there were contributions that were sitting here waiting that we will never know what those questions were or what the contribution could have been into this specific debate. [Interruption] Point of order, Madam Chair. Just in terms of the order of the House, another point I’d like to make is making noise during the vote, I understand that is against the rules—the fact that the chief whip of the Government did that, I thought, was unhelpful. Taking points of order in silence is another part of that, which I’d ask you to consider, to make sure that they are heard in silence, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll take that point on board. Thank you.

Arena Williams: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We still have a range of questions to put to the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Failed Promise for Immediate Action” is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Advertising on Sundays and Public Holidays” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Melissa Lee Was Gone By Now”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “$6 Million Solution to a $100 Million Problem”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Get to Work Goldsmith”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Not-So-Immediate Action”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Merry Christmas”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Willie Jackson Solved This Problem Two Years Ago”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Job Losses Aren’t Slowing Down”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call on this bill. I hope you’ll allow me, Madam Chair, to take the committee through my amendments to this part, clause 2, because the House Office are in the process of processing my amendments to this and haven’t yet been able to put them on the Table.

The reason for a number of amendments, particularly to the time of Royal assent, is that this is a bill that is important to the Government’s programme for the broadcasting industry. It is one that relates quite closely to funding for certain programmes and certain actors within it, so the timing is important—we believe this should happen before Christmas. But it is actually a bill that amends a number of specific dates, and I will have more questions for the Minister in the chair on the specific dates—particularly Christmas Day and Easter dates. This is a very different debate to what was the context of those amendments in 1993 to the Broadcasting Act. Those amendments were giving effect to those special dates of Christmas and Easter because they were seen as days where advertising was inappropriate, so I’ll be asking him whether there are other safeguards that are appropriate for the sorts of advertising that is shown on those dates.

But if you’ll allow me to take the committee through what I am proposing here for the date of Royal assent, I don’t think the day after Royal assent is the most appropriate date. I think it would be appropriate to choose one of the important days also in the range of Christian holidays to assent to this bill and for it to commence, given that, in the context of the 1993 changes, there was special consideration given for those days. Choosing from a range of 25 amendments I have proposed around the days between now and Christmas that would appropriately recognise those traditions that were being recognised in the changes in 1993 and 2002, I think, would be the most appropriate.

I’m going to very quickly sign these amendments for the Minister so that he can have a look at them to consider whether it would be appropriate for this bill to come into effect on one of those days. For instance, just to give him a taste, I have “in clause 2, delete the words ‘on the day after Royal assent’ and replace it with ‘on Gaudete Sunday 2025.’ ” Or, if it is his preference, “in clause 2, delete the words ‘after Royal Assent’ and replace it with ‘on All Saints’ Day 2025’.” Those would both be appropriate days and would recognise the tradition that we are wiping away with this amendment.

Labour does support this bill and will be voting for this part, but it’s important that we recognise the tradition that is being wiped away here. It is useful for everyone in this Chamber to appreciate why those days were singled out for advertising restrictions. Given that this bill is called a repeal of advertising restrictions bill—but it does, in fact, take away only the advertising restrictions that were on those Christian holidays and Anzac Day and does not repeal any other advertising restrictions that are still in law—it’s quite useful for us to understand not only what we are doing here but the historical context that we are, effectively, erasing here by taking away those two particular dates.

That is why I have made some other suggestions like: “in clause 2, delete the words ‘on the day after Royal assent’ and replace it with ‘on the Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle 2025.’ ” I would suggest to the Minister that he could also consider: “in clause 2, delete the words ‘on the day after Royal assent’ and replace it with ‘on the Feast of St John of the Cross 2025.’ ” It would also be useful for the Minister to consider my amendment: “in clause 2, delete the words ‘on the day after Royal Assent’ and replace it with ‘on the Feast of St Lucy 2025’.” I’ve also suggested “the Feast Day of St Nicholas 2025.” The Minister might like to enlighten the House about which of those are his favoured saints.

I have also made some amendments suggesting various Sundays in Advent. Though this is not my area of expertise—I was raised both Anglican and in Te Hahi Ringatū, which does not have special celebrations of many of these feast days—I also did celebrate, in my youth, the Mondays and Sundays of Advent, so I have suggested each of the Mondays and Sundays of Advent. The Minister might like to clarify for the committee which of the Sundays in Advent is his favourite.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I commend the member Arena Williams for her thoroughness. It’s clear, however, that—from the Government point of view, and as members Opposite have actually pointed out—this is a well-signalled move. It’s important to bring it in as soon as reasonably possible. We’re not talking about doing this on Christmas Eve or on Maundy Thursday or on 24 April; there is sufficient time for arrangements to be made such that advertising will be restricted in the way that the bill sets out.

I note that there are other dates of significance in the Christian calendar, but also of various other cultural and ethnic significance to New Zealanders throughout the year. But to the extent that those already allow advertising, there is no need for the restrictions on those to be repealed by this bill. So I commend her breadth of knowledge, but I don’t think it’s particularly helpful. Certainly, the Government won’t be entertaining any changes to that which was put forward, namely, to bring into the bill as soon as reasonably possible—namely, the day after Royal assent.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a further call on this bill and particularly to take a call at this point where we’re talking about clause 2 and about the date of Royal assent as the potential time frame for the bill to come into effect. We know what the impacts of that will be. I would like to thank my colleague, St Arena, for taking us through a number of potential religious holidays that could be observed—or through the action of a bill such as this, no longer observed—by the removal of the restrictions or the repeal of the part of the Broadcasting Act.

The answer I would like to hear from the Minister is around the potential timing of the assent of the bill. Given the slow speed with which the bill has moved through the House so far, and given the religious holidays and public holidays that are observed by the existing Broadcasting Act in the section proposed to be repealed, those public holidays—and there are a number not observed in the Act, many of which were detailed by my fellow MP here, but the ones that are covered in the Act—cluster; they all seem to happen within a single quarter of the year.

For a Government that’s very focused on specific quarters and targets, for example, we see that we would have Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Monday all fall, more or less, into a single quarter of the end of 2025 and the commencement of 2026.

So if the assent was to miss the ability to be implemented prior to that quarter, in the next 12 months from now, then the net benefit of the projected, very optimistic, $6 million that this change claims to return to the industry would in fact be significantly eroded because four of the five potential public holidays would be missed altogether.

So the question really is around whether the Minister has given that any consideration, whether the Minister has a sense of what the specific revenue value of each of those days is, whether there’s much of a variance there, and the impact that Royal assent would have on that so that the bold claim of a $6 million return in new revenue to the industry can actually be calculated far more accurately, based on what we can anticipate seeing being returned through new ad spend on broadcast radio and linear television broadcasts, on the basis of Royal assent falling at a specific point over the next 12 months, which is certainly when I think everybody would like to see this bill coming into effect.

So it’s really a question around the potential for the Minister to be able to move the balance of this bill in its final stages through the House so that the revenue can be returned to the industry that, as I outlined in my initial speech, desperately needs income now to support the people who keep it working. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll make a very brief contribution on this clause. I think, perhaps, while various members might be invoking saints and speaking about religious days, it’s really important that, perhaps, we should have commenced our procedures this afternoon with a prayer to Saint Claire of Assisi, the patron saint of television broadcasting.

I’d just like to highlight a point from our broadcasters who this bill will affect—is that as soon as possible for this bill to be put through the House, giving them time so that, if possible, they are able to get advertising booked in time for this Christmas? That is what they are hoping for. So I just wanted to pass that on for the Minister in the chair. Something they wish is that there is not a long and protracted period of time in the House today and for the third reading—that we just get this bill done.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. It’s interesting to listen to the different arguments coming from the committee. It is always a part of the committee stage to thrash it out and try to understand and make it better if it needs to be made better, or if it’s a lemon, it will always be a lemon.

The Minister talked about Maundy Thursday, which is a significant day. I think that we need to consider the facts of that day and where it fits—in terms of the Royal assent—and what it could be. For those who don’t know, it is the Thursday that leads into Easter. It has several names. Maundy Thursday can also be Holy Thursday. It is something that we respect and we consider. Would that be a significant date? As we know, in the Christian calendar—if we look at when the Act comes into force—at Easter time, it is a significant time of the rebirth and of new things coming. Maybe that’s something to consider.

The Minister did talk about Maundy Thursday. It could also be known as Holy Thursday or also known as the Thursday of Mysteries. I thought that may be quite relevant to consider, in this Part 2 of the commencement, that, maybe, the Act would have Royal assent on the Day of Mystery.

For those who do attend church occasionally during Easter or for those who don’t, let me explain: on Maundy Thursday or the Thursday of Mysteries, on that evening, is an event called the service of the shadows, when the church candles are slowly extinguished and it turns into darkness. I thought it would be quite appropriate for this bill, that, maybe, the day of Royal assent is Maundy Thursday. As the lights fade and the mystery and the darkness comes, it’s the darkness of the future of the broadcasting industry and what it looks like.

I ask the Minister to consider the fact that maybe Maundy Thursday would be the day of Royal assent because it is mysterious and the darkness of the future of broadcasting is upon us.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. At the risk of encouraging the member Glen Bennett along the Easter theme, I do rise again—to simply point out that today is the day of mystery, because I don’t understand what the member’s talking about. He’s contradicting his own colleague around the fact that his colleague is talking about bringing in this as soon as possible to ensure that we include the weight of Christmas in those first quarter occasions. Nevertheless, if we were to delay until some other date, as significant as it may be, then that would defeat the purpose. So, I think, for all these reasons, as I started by saying, the sooner that we can bring this into effect, acknowledging the point made by Jenny Marcroft—the day after Royal assent is literally the fastest that we can do that.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On the Monday prior to the first sitting of the House of Representatives in 2026”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “Three weeks and one day after Royal Assent” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On a date appointed by the Minister for Media and Communications”, is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On the day after publication in the Gazette”, is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “Three months following Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On the first sitting day of the House of Representatives following Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On the first anniversary of the date on which it receives Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “90 days after Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “14 days prior to the next Christmas public holiday following Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On New Year’s Day 2026”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “On the day after Royal assent” with “on a date appointed by the Governor General by Order in Council”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 2 stand part. All those in favour, please say “Aye”; to the contrary, “No”.

Celia Wade-Brown: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Ayes have it.

Clause 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to—

Celia Wade-Brown: Party vote, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ve already finished the vote; I’ve moved on. We now come to clause 3. Clause 3 is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Celia Wade-Brown: Point of order. I said “no” and then “party vote” immediately. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you call the vote. I would like to make a request to record our vote against that part, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You’re seeking leave for that?

Celia Wade-Brown: Yes, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Does there seems to be any objection? There does.

Clause 3 Principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’ll move on to clause 3. This is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a privilege to take a further call and, as we step into clause 3, to be able to fully examine the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 words that comprise that clause. That’s part of the issue with that clause. The entire repeal that we’re dealing with here has 73 new words. But also what it does is it repeals an Act from 1989, which is only 36 years ago—

Tom Rutherford: Doesn’t repeal it; it amends it.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —you’re welcome take a call, sir—before the member who corrected me was probably even born. But that just gives you an idea of how old the bill is and how much has changed since. So I think it’s worth looking at the fact that—

Tom Rutherford: Things that are old still have value. Look at Grant.

Grant McCallum: Hey!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It’s a rare occasion when one of the jibes from the other side is actually funny. It’s worth looking at some of the other tools that are in the toolbox here, because what we’re dealing with is an Act that is very old. I think, as we look at how we word the amendment, we really ought to look at some of those other ideas that are in the mix there and that are opportunities for the Minister to take the immediate action promised for the industry to actually help with some of the very real and very immediate challenges they face.

One of those is the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, which is a great piece of legislation that was sitting there ready to go and was, for a time, worked on by the Minister and by a select committee, but, unfortunately, progress has slowed significantly or, potentially, entirely on the important work happening there, which means that we are relying on this Act—the Broadcasting Act 1989—which is the Act referred to in this third part.

The other ideas that are available for the Minister at any time—and he’s got my number; he’s welcome to call me and talk about how we can move these at pace into law for the protection and enhancement of local media—one of those is a member’s bill, which is a levy for streamers. So what that would actually do is ensure that our international streaming platforms, who provide some amazing content and draw a lot of eyeballs locally and gather a lot of revenue locally, are compelled to pay a small percentage of their profits of their income back into the New Zealand market so that that can be invested in local content—the kind of local content that would be governed by the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. So I think that would be a very simple step that the Minister could take. I’ve already drafted the bill for him. All he needs to do is have a chat and we can make that happen.

The other one which I have in the biscuit tin at the moment is the Online Safety Bill. That one’s a really good bill, because we know so many people are getting their media content from online platforms now. What this bill does is it makes sure that those online spaces are safe for everybody. We know we have a number of vulnerable communities and that, ultimately, we’re all vulnerable in those online spaces and platforms. That bill would make sure that those spaces are much safer for everybody.

Those are some of the tools sitting there in the toolbox or in the biscuit tin or at the end of the phone that, should the Minister want to at any stage take the immediate action he’s promised—that immediate action could be as simple as a cup of tea, and we could get those agreed to and in the House here. We could all continue to work as constructively together as we have today on moving the solutions forward, the sharing of ideas, and the sharing of amendments.

Now, the amendment that I wanted to share here is on clause 3, “Principal Act”, which says: “This Act amends the Broadcasting Act 1989.” The flaw here is that there is then a full stop, and I think that that should really go on to say “by” and then explain exactly what it is intending to do in that clause. I think there’s a real missed opportunity here, and perhaps the Minister was trying to really work within an under-100 word limit for the repeal, but he does have 17 spare words to play with. You could fit that in. Is there any reason the Minister has chosen not to do that at this point of the bill?

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the chance to take a call on this. We’re talking about the principal Act, which amends the Broadcasting Act 1989. The form of that amendment, of course, is the repeal of section 81, which we will discuss at length in the next section.

For us to understand the consequence of the amendment, it’s important to understand the purpose for there being an amendment. The purpose of that amendment is, of course, to take away those restrictions that exist on advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Anzac morning.

Before the debate was, I think, somewhat hurriedly shut down on the title, I was going to suggest—because there has been some humour expressed around religious holidays, around the Minister for Building and Construction himself referring to “rising again”. A comment that was made in the first debate on this bill was: “Is there nothing sacred? Are there no days and no hours in our days when it is not appropriate for us to have no advertising?”

Grant McCallum: Your birthday?

STEVE ABEL: Thank you. I would be happy to not have advertising on my birthday, Mr McCallum.

We may make light of the significance of these religious days—those members who are not Christian, for example. But in the case of Good Friday and Easter Sunday, these are among the holiest days for people of the Christian faith. These are days when the absence of commercial intrusion is something that we should think it is appropriate to preserve.

Christmas Day: a day when many of us should be spending time with our families, not being sold more commercial rubbish that we’ve already spent most of the last three or four weeks acquiring, as we are imposed upon to do by our cultural expectations, and Anzac Day—Anzac Day—that day when we commemorate those people who died in some pretty bloody, miserable wars. This, specifically, would lift the restriction between 6.00 a.m. and midday on Anzac Day. The start of that is when many people would be at dawn ceremonies.

So my suggestion for the bill—and I realise we’ve passed that debate, but it gives some sense of the Green Party view on this bill—is that it should be called the “Broadcasting (Nothing is Sacred) Amendment Bill” or “Advertising Everywhere Amendment Bill”.

We propose that this principal Act that amends the Broadcasting Act 1989 should be deleted by way of making the determination that there should be no amendment to the Broadcasting Act 1989, because the bit that’s going to be amended is section 81, which is appropriate and fitting. It keeps in place a restriction on advertising on those very few remaining days in which we are not intruded upon by commercial enterprises trying to sell us stuff, most of which we don’t need. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just responding to the questions posed by the last two members, I’m sympathetic to the point that Mr Abel makes, in general terms, about whether we preserve something as sacred. I suppose, as legislators for all of New Zealand, we do need to consider if there are anomalies such that we’re recognising some days as being specially significant such that advertising is restricted and not others. You know, we’ve canvassed briefly the fact that there are days of significance that are beyond those recorded in this, and I’m pleased that the member rightly mentions Anzac Day has been one of the important days to many New Zealanders—I hope all New Zealanders, in fact.

But, of course, it’s the case that unless we were to regard as sacred, from the point of view of restricting advertising, every single day that is important to some New Zealander or other, we will simply not have any advertising at all. It might be that the member would be pleased to have that—I wouldn’t be displeased myself, speaking personally—but I think it’s not realistic to expect our media to operate under those restrictions, including in the context of the point that I made earlier, which is that there are other places that advertising is able to continue other than these traditional broadcast media, in which there aren’t restrictions. So it’s a matter of fairness and consistency across the board. I would certainly, you know, endorse Mr Abel’s comment that we have more useful ways of spending such special days than watching advertising, but my personal views on that don’t come into the matter in terms of a matter of public policy, for the reasons I’ve said.

As for Mr Reuben Davidson’s point, he’s outlined a number of policy proposals that he’s keen for the Minister to consider. I’m sure that the Minister of Broadcasting will give those the attention they deserve, but I don’t think, within the scope of this bill, it would be possible to adopt them, so I’m sure that he’s not proposing that it actually be the case.

In terms of whether there’s a missed opportunity in the brevity of clause 3, it’s always the case that the principal Act clause simply states that this Act amends the name of parent legislation, so to speak. So I don’t intend to entertain, on behalf of Government, or entertain at all really, any changes to that.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair, for an opportunity to take a call on clause 3. It’s helpful that the Minister has, in this debate, recognised, I guess, the principles at play here, and though Labour is supporting this, we have a number of questions around those days which are important to New Zealanders. They are also important to our history and traditions that are recognised in law, in a dwindling number of our laws, and this is one of them.

These are my questions about clause 3. Is it not important for the Minister to recognise that in this clause, we are calling the bill “Advertising Restrictions” and then we’re saying in clause 3 that what’s being amended is the Broadcasting Act, with no explanation there, and then in the next clause, it’s simply a repeal. Does it not look to your average reader or user of the legislation that what is being repealed here is advertising restrictions when, in fact, what is being repealed is the advertising restrictions on Sundays, Anzac Day, Easter, and Christmas because those days are no longer days that this House considers to be important enough to have specific restrictions at those times?

There is something a little bit misleading about the simple word “amends” there—maybe it’s not misleading; maybe a faithful characterisation of that would be a very bald way of stating here what is a pretty charged-up debate, really, about the principles and values that are at play in a change like this. I’m not taking either side of that debate; I’m simply saying that this is a very different context to what it was in 1993, when many in this House would have demanded a conscience vote on this issue. I understand there is one party in this House taking a conscience issue for exactly this reason, and so it is useful for us to at least traverse in the committee stage what the values are and why we think they are no longer part of a lengthy and fraught debate in this House.

To clause 3, and I have a number of amendments that the Minister might consider. Though it is unusual for this clause to include an explanation about further changing the word “amends”—because, if the bill was to say something like it “removes” restrictions on advertising during Sundays, Anzac Day, and Christmas, instead of the word “amends”, that would be clear about what was being changed in the Broadcasting Act. When we think about the various restrictions about advertising in that Act, there are many; most are given effect to by secondary legislation or by codes. There are the Advertising Standards Authority codes, for example, which lay out a number of grounds about the kind of advertising and when it is restricted and to whom, and those are important considerations.

At the primary legislation level, there were, for a long time, prohibited grounds to advertise on a Sunday morning, when people would presumably be at church or observing their faith in their homes, and now there are none. So let’s just be clear what we’re saying here. Now there aren’t restrictions about whether you can, say, advertise alcohol; you can advertise gambling; you can advertise to children; or you can advertise debt products to vulnerable, and so only the normal restrictions at secondary legislation apply. We’ve gone from a situation where we thought that any advertising on a Sunday morning was not fine to a situation where all of that advertising on a Sunday morning is fine.

It would be very useful if we said that quite clearly in clause 3 with an amendment like “amend clause 3 by deleting the word ‘amends’ and replacing it with ‘dismantles longstanding limits on Christian holiday advertising in’ ” or “amend clause 3 by deleting the word ‘amends’ and replacing it with ‘opens the door to commercial breaks on sacred days in’ ”. Those amendments are not frivolous amendments; they are amendments which say clearly what this legislation is doing, and the Labour Party is supporting it.

We are supporting that because we have made a judgment call about what the values at play here are and what the principles are, but we are clear about that. It’s not fair to draft legislation which takes away the recognition of important days to a number of people and to what are, frankly, days that are semi-constitutional in nature that everyone understands and that are a framework of New Zealand’s legal system because they are well-understood phrases in our law—that they would be taken away with absolutely no mention in the primary amendment bill is what is in fact happening here.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s not appropriate for that type of provision to go into the explanations the member is seeking. If she wants a statement on the general policy, there is a general policy statement. If she wants a note as to explanation, there’s an explanatory note.

I take her point about thrashing out the issues and the underlying philosophical points. I note that she and I could just about reach out and touch the Gallipoli wreath here, so in relation to Anzac Day, for example, New Zealanders have choices as to whether they sit down and watch linear broadcast television that morning, or they might, for example, attend Anzac Day services. It’s not the same thing as to say that there is no significance to these dates and, therefore, that’s the reason we’re removing it. It’s a matter of fairness, it’s a matter of consistency, and it’s a matter of updating our legislation for all the reasons that have been discussed today but also in the select committee.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are almost there—

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Point of order—Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Reo Māori. Tēnā koe, e te Māngai o te Whare. He maha ngā tāima kua tū au ki te whai wāhi ki te kōrero. Kei te mōhio mātou katoa ko tētahi āhuatanga motuhake o te ao pāpāho o roto o Aotearoa nei ko te reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori. Kāore anō tētahi o roto o te Whare nei e whai wāhi ki te tuku pātai ki te Minita e pā ana ki ngā whakaaro Māori. Nā reira, ko taku pātai atu ki a koe, kia whai wāhi awau ki te tuku pātai ki te Minita?

[I will speak Māori. Greetings, Madam Speaker. I’ve stood many times to speak. We all know that one distinctive aspect of the media sphere here in New Zealand is the Māori language and customs. No one in the House has yet had the opportunity to question the Minister about Māori perspectives. Therefore, my question to you is: can I question the Minister?]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll have to ask you to say that again because the earpieces aren’t working, sorry.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just raising the fact that several times I’ve stood to seek a call, because we all know that part of the uniqueness of broadcasting in New Zealand is the Māori language—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, the point of order is?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: The point of order is that no one who’s spoken yet has had the opportunity to seek a call specifically regarding considerations of the Māori language and Māori world view with regard to this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): So seek a call.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā rawa atu koe, e te Heamana. Ka kōrero Māori au. Tēnā tātou. Tēnei hoki te mihi atu ki a koe, e te Minita, e kōrero mō tō aranga ake anō, nā te mea tērā pea ā tērā kōwhiringa pōti kāre tō pāti e ara anō. Heoi anō rā, kua kōrero mātou mō te tau i puta mai tēnei pire, arā, 1989. Ko au tētahi i ora i aua tau, nā reira kei te maumahara tonu awau i te wā kāre ēnei mea, ēnei rawa i hangaia, mēnā i pīrangi koe ki te mātakitaki pouaka whakaata me noho tō whero i mua i te pouaka kia mātakitaki koe i tāu e hiahia ai. Ā, ko ngā pānui hokohoko tētahi āhuatanga o taua wā. Heoi anō rā, ko taku waimarie hoki ki te mahi i roto i te ao pāpāho. I mahi au i runga i te hōtaka e kīia nei a Marae, nā reira kei te tino mōhio au ki te wāriu o ngā hōtaka Māori.

Heoi anō rā, e te Minita hoki, i a koutou e rapangia i ngā whakaaro kia tīnihia tēnei kaupapa, arā, te pire e pā ana ki ngā pānui hokohoko i roto o te ao pāpāho, i pēhea koutou, i kōrero tahi koutou me ngā hunga pāpāho Māori? Koirā taku pātai tuatahi, i kōrero tahi koutou me ngā hunga pāpāho Māori? Ā, ki tua atu i tērā, kua rongo mātou i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā rangi tapu. Ko au anō tērā, i tipu ake au i roto i te Hāhi Mihingare, nā reira kei te mārama pai au ki ngā āwangawanga a te hunga e haere ana ki te hāhi. Nā reira, ko tētahi atu pātai kua kōrero tahi te Minita, te komiti whakahaere rānei, ki ngā hāhi? Kua kōrero, i whai wāhi ngā hāhi ki te kōrero tahi ki te Minita, ki te kōmiti kōwhiria rānei? Pērā i te Hāhi Mihingare, pēnā i te Hāhi Katorika, ngā hāhi katoa?

[Greetings, Madam Chair. I will speak Māori. Greetings to all. I also acknowledge you, Minister. You speak about your re-election, because perhaps your party will not be re-elected in the next election. However, we have spoken about the year this bill was introduced—that is, 1989. I was around at that time, so I still remember the time when these things weren’t made; if you wanted to watch television you had to sit in front of the TV to watch what you wanted. Advertisements were also a feature of that time. And I was fortunate to work in the media sphere; I worked on the programme called Marae, so I am very aware about the value of Māori programming.

However, Minister, as you were seeking opinions to change this issue—that is, the bill relating to advertising in the media—did you talk to Māori broadcasters? That is my first question. In addition to that, we’ve heard the discussion about holy days. I also grew up in the Anglican Church, so I am well aware of the concerns of churchgoers. So another question is: has the Minister or the select committee spoken with the churches? Did the churches have the opportunity to speak to the Minister or the select committee, such as the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church—all religions?]

Hon James Meager: Talking to churches has nothing to do with the principal Act—

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: E kī, e kī, kei te kī mai tērā taha o te whānau kāre te hāhi e whai wāhi ki tēnei kaupapa. Ka pāpāho ēnei pānui hokohoko, tērā pea ka pānui rātou i ngā pānui hokohoko mō te waipiro i runga i ngā rangi tapu. Koirā te take e whai wāhi tēnei kaupapa ki ngā hāhi. Kia tika rā koe! Heoi anō rā, ka haere tonu.

[Is that right? The other side of the family is saying that religion has no place in this issue. These advertisements are broadcast—perhaps they will broadcast advertisements for alcohol on the Sabbath days. That is the reason this is important to the churches—you’re having me on! However, I will proceed.]

Hon James Meager: He aha te reo Māori for clause 3?

[What is the Māori language for clause 3?]

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: He aha? He aha? Kāre he kōrero o te Minita i tēnei wā. Turituri tō waha, e hoa.

[What’s that? What’s that? The Minister has nothing to say at this time. Be quiet, my friend.]

Heoi anō rā, ka haere tonu ki tētahi atu rangi whakahirahira rawa atu, ehara mō te hunga Māori anake, mō Aotearoa whānui, arā te rangi whakamaumahara i ō mātou hōia. I tēnei rā i roto o Tikitiki kī ana te whare i te tangata. Ka hoki mai ngā whanaunga ki te wā kāinga ki te maumahara i a rātou kua wehe atu. Rātou i haere ki te whawhai mō mātou katoa o roto o tēnei whare, otirā mō Aotearoa whānui. Waimarie mātou e tae ana ā-tinana rā, engari ko ētahi kua korouatia, kua kuiatia. Ko tā rātou he noho ki te kāinga mātakitaki ai. Kāore rātou e pīrangi ki te mātaki i ngā pānui hokohoko. Kei te pīrangi rātou ki te mātakitaki i te karakia e haere ana me ngā kōrero o rātou kua wehe atu. Heoi anō rā, ko te pātai, i kōrero koutou ki te hunga e kīia nei ko te RSA—Returned Services Association—i kōrero rānei koutou ki ngā hōia? Ngā hōia e ora tonu ana, ngā hōia e whawhai tonu ana mō mātou katoa?

Nā reira, ahakoa te whakahīhī o ētahi o tērā whare, kāre rātou e pīrangi ki te whakarongo i ngā āwangawanga a te hunga Māori, i ngā āwangawanga a ngā hāhi, me te āwangawanga o ngā hōia me ngā whānau e manaaki nei i ngā hōia. Koirā aku pātai. Tēnei te mihi atu ki te Minita i whakarongo mai.

[So much for that; I will continue on to another very important day, not just for Māori but for all of New Zealand, and that is the day that we remember our soldiers. On this day in Tikitiki, the houses are full of people. Relatives return home to remember those who have passed, those who went to fight for us all in this House, and indeed for all of New Zealand. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to be there in person; however, some of the elderly are not able. They watch from home. They don’t want to watch advertisements. They want to watch the prayers and stories about those who have passed. And so, the question is: did you talk to the RSA—Returned Services Association—or to the soldiers, soldiers that are still living and soldiers who are still fighting for us?

So despite the contempt of some of the House, they don’t want to listen to the concerns of Māori, the concerns of the churches, the concerns of the soldiers and families who take care of the soldiers. Those are my questions. I acknowledge the Minister for listening.]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take this next call, can I just say the details in the member’s contribution were probably best dealt with in clause 4; however, given the difficulties we were having, I let the member continue. Did the Minister want to address that question?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Yeah, Madam Chair—thank you. Just to address briefly the points helpfully raised by the member, starting with the final one: the Minister for Broadcasting interacted with a wide range of stakeholders, and I can answer the question on my own behalf, wearing a different hat, so to speak, as Minister for Veterans. I was and remain interested in the views of ex - service personnel in terms of the restrictions being lifted from Anzac Day. However, there’s a diversity of views among the veteran population—I see my colleague and friend Dr Vanessa Weenink nodding, and she’s one herself, of course. It’s impossible to characterise the general view, except to say that the issues that we’ve been canvassing as a committee, now for some time, in terms of the modern technological advances and so on, are broadly distributed within that veteran community as well.

As for those within the Māori world and also various Christian denominations, there was a thorough select committee process at which various views were canvassed. I understand from the report that there was consultation with Whakaata Māori, Te Māngai Pāho, and Te Puni Kōkiri, among others, who pointed out a number of different things but didn’t indicate that there was any inconsistency with the Treaty of Waitangi—or Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Also, the point was highlighted that Māori audiences, overall, represent a younger demographic than other viewers, and, increasingly, there’s an age dimension in the direction of younger New Zealanders accessing content online, in a non-linear broadcast sense, where, of course, advertising is more relevant and where the restrictions have hitherto applied.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams’ 25 tabled amendments to clause 3 are ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 81 repealed (Advertising hours)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clause 4 and the repeal of “Section 81 (Advertising hours)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you. I can’t believe how quickly this debate has gone. It’s been lightning speed this afternoon, moving through it. Hopefully, we have some time at this crucial point of clause 4 to really focus on some of the questions still remaining at this point of the process.

I am hoping for a number of calls on this clause because I do have a large number of questions. Many of them are on the basis of things that the Minister for Building and Construction has said or answers that the Minister has given or points that he’s referenced throughout his very generous answers, for which we’re very grateful as we’ve stepped through some of the meatier issues across clause 1, clause 2, and clause 3 of the bill as we’ve gone through it this afternoon.

This clause really deals with the repeal of section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The point I’m wanting to dig into a little here is subsection (3), which talks about every person committing an offence being liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000. That’s for someone who contravenes either subsection (1) or subsection (2).

Just to look at what those are, because I know with the number of days and potential opportunities we’ve discussed very robustly across the afternoon, it would be worth clarifying what is actually in the Act to ensure that the Minister can answer this as accurately as they are able. In subsection (1), it speaks to no broadcaster broadcasting advertising programmes on television during the hours between 6 a.m. and noon on a Sunday or on Anzac Day; then it goes on to say on Christmas Day or Good Friday or Easter Sunday.

Now, subsection 2—and bearing in mind this is the part that we are repealing—is: “Subject to subsection (4), no broadcaster shall broadcast advertising programmes on … radio”—the distinction there between television and radio is very important—“on (a) Christmas Day; or (b) Good Friday; or (c) Easter Sunday.” So to come back to the potential offence and the potential conviction, there is a fine not exceeding $100,000 for anyone who contravenes either of those sections.

So when you are repealing this part of the Broadcasting Act, the question here really is: are we at a risk here of losing a source of revenue for Government, because all money that comes into Government can be spent on other things? We might argue about what it gets spent on and how, but we probably don’t argue about the fact that that revenue comes in and can be quite useful.

So the question here is: does the Minister have a sense, since 1989, of the—

Hon James Meager: Do you know what happens? It gets absorbed in the cost of administering the system at significant and net detriments to the country.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —take a call if you like, sir—total revenue that’s been gathered through those penalties? Or even if that stretch of time—36 years—is too long to quantify, even in the last three years, six years, nine years? I don’t know why we’re counting in threes but across, potentially, the last three electoral terms, can the Minister clarify the level of revenue that has come in, and, therefore, if this part of the Act is repealed and that revenue can no longer be gathered? Can the Minister clarify the revenue that won’t be coming in as a result of the repeal of this part of the Broadcasting Act? I think it would be irresponsible of any Government, and any Government Minister, not to have a sense of the amount of money that will not be raised and that would not go into central government to be invested and spent wisely in other areas.

One of the questions there, particularly, is because we know that our broadcasting and media sector is really in need of support at the moment. So there is the potential for revenue from people who breach regulations to then be reinvested by way of potentially some sort of hypothecated fund structure back into the very sector that needs our support at the moment, but other than this very small amendment to the Broadcasting Act, the sector has seen nothing from the promised immediate action.

So, really, an answer from the Minister about what potential revenue central government is being denied by the potential repeal of section 81 of the Broadcasting Act would be great to have.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his question. I think any foregone revenue in the form of penalties that won’t be able to be applied would be outweighed by the taxable activity being the payment for the advertising.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve come to the pointy end of this debate about what is the effect of the repeal and whether there are any amendments that the Minister might accept for this part.

As I’ve said, we’re going from a situation where there was no advertising allowed on Christmas, Easter, Anzac Day, and Sunday mornings, and there will now be unrestricted advertising at those times. What’s unusual about that is that those are still important days, as the Minister has said, but for linear media to now have no restrictions at those times is something that some people would consider unusual.

The first question I want to ask the Minister is: is it the case that after this repeal is through, it will be acceptable, and does the Minister think it is acceptable, to advertise gambling, alcohol, and tobacco products on a Sunday morning?

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a further call on this part. I signalled that I would have several further questions for the Minister as we get to this final part of the bill, which I’ve inconveniently tucked down here, but there it is again, thank goodness for that.

One of the questions I had here, and we did speak through this at some length at an earlier point, but it was about the days that are affected by this repeal of section 81, and that was Christmas and Easter. One of the things that was interesting is that in that detailing, the bill doesn’t include Waitangi Day and it doesn’t include Matariki. So there are two other public holidays that the bill could have considered that would have been repealed. I guess the question there for the Minister is: would consideration have been given to retaining those two uniquely—and potentially Anzac Day is a uniquely New Zealand public holiday, as well. Would there have been further consideration given to keeping those public holidays there—so only amending the religious holidays, but leaving the specifically New Zealand holidays?

One of the other questions I’ve wondered about, when I’ve looked at the structure of this bill and what it does and what it allows, is whether we are leaders or followers. I ask that in the context of the fact that a lot of the time, the justification for the passing of this bill and for the existence of this bill is that there are two standards. There is a standard for online advertisers and online content that sits on digital platforms that can advertise almost whatever they want, whenever they want, on any day of the year for New Zealand audiences to see, and so this bill is about ensuring that linear broadcasters, both on television and radio, are able to enjoy the same rights and ability to share content in advertising as the digital platforms. But the question is: if the digital platforms hadn’t chosen to advertise on those days, hadn’t chosen to observe those holidays, would we have seen the need to follow? Are we chasing a space and an environment and a platform and an audience and eyeballs on days of the year that we would rather leave advertising and commercial free?

Similarly, what this Act never prohibited was the sponsorship of content. An event such as Coca-Cola Christmas in the Park could still be broadcast on Christmas Day and could still contain commercial content. So it was nibbling away at the edges and, potentially, has been nibbling away at the edges, and whilst we’re happy to see that kind of sponsored content sitting in broadcasting and media, I don’t think any of us would be comfortable with seeing that kind of sponsorship and underwrite and financing coming into this House and into the kind of policy and ideas that we bring forward and that we constructively work on together to turn into legislation and law.

Now, the other point that I wanted to raise—and I hope if I can’t fit it into this call that I may be afforded a further call on this final clause of the bill to be able to explore this more fully—is there are a number of businesses and there are a number of enterprises and trades and services that we would not expect, and often, by law, are not able to access or enjoy on specific public holidays. So by now granting those businesses, those enterprises the right to advertise on those public holidays, there are two questions here. One is: does this signal a liberalisation of things like liquor licensing? Does this signal a liberalisation of trading hours for a number of businesses across religious and observed holidays? If it doesn’t, does this bill, or the repeal, make it a possibility that those businesses will, in fact, be false advertising, or be guilty of false advertising, because they’ll be offering a good or a service on a day that they’re not open and that they’re not trading and that they’re not, by law in New Zealand, able to provide? It’s whether or not the Minister has considered that in this 73-word repeal bill.

But I would like to finish this contribution by acknowledging that we have had some fun today in some of our contributions. But at the heart of this bill is the immediate need to serve those people who continue to lose their jobs by the hundreds in our broadcasting media industry in New Zealand, and this Government has delivered only a 73-word bill in almost two years.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased take a call on this part of this bill that we are discussing here today in the Chamber. There are two things I want to speak to. I’ll start with the first one. Looking at the advertising revenue, which is the basis of this piece of legislation, and enabling a greater flow of that into our broadcasters, it’s important to note that radio, which has 2.7 million listeners every week tuning in with their pairs of ears, has a strong, stable audience. They’re doing pretty well in the media landscape in comparison to other media. They already advertise on a Sunday morning, but it’s television advertising that will be freed up here on the Sunday morning as well as on Anzac morning, and both TV and radio broadcasting advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. There is some advertising from radio on a couple of those days already.

I’m really interested to know about how much advertising is expected to be generated by freeing up these days. It would be great if the Minister could explain the advertising revenue expectations and how those assumptions were made. Is there any guarantee, in fact, that there’s any new money that will be generated into the industry because their advertising revenues have been diminished for multiple reasons? Will those that are advertising actually increase their budgets to the expected amount that this piece of legislation will enable and the numbers that have been forecast for it? Or will they simply cut the pie so that they stretch their advertising budgets over extra days and, in fact, actually not provide any further assistance financially for our various broadcasters that relate to this particular bill? Has the Minister considered any other levers to enable broadcasters to find other ways of generating new revenue? That’s the first theme—with a couple of questions in there.

Also, as I didn’t get the opportunity, in earlier debates, to talk about the importance of these sacred days, I do want to just traverse that briefly. Now, when the Broadcasting Act 1989 was drawn, we were a different society then. We generally went to church. We had those religious days put aside for that religious observance. It was meaningful to us. While not so many people might be attending a regular structured service any more, it doesn’t mean to say we’re not still religious and we’re not deeply spiritual. About half of the submitters on this bill opposed it as they came through the select committee process. I particularly note the likes of National Pacific Radio Trust. They felt that there was great disrespect not just towards our fallen soldiers but also towards Christianity as well. Perhaps the Minister in the chair could elucidate for us whether there were any other considerations that the Government made—like the Sweden model, where they do not allow any advertising around religious programming. Now, we know, on a Sunday morning, Praise Be is a religious programme. Was there any consideration that maybe that programme would not have any advertising around it to protect the observance of that spiritual consideration and importance for many people? Those are the questions I have. I look forward to hearing from you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the phrase “praise be” is most likely to come up when we finish this committee stage.

In terms of the questions asked by Ms Jenny Marcroft, and I acknowledge her expertise and experience in this space: it’s impossible to know exactly how much will be generated. The figure of $6 million per year is considered a conservative estimate, but, of course, we’ll see that in due course. As to other sources of Government funding, I suppose New Zealand First conferences could be live streamed—that could be entertaining, to watch those reruns appear. In terms of other sources or policy proposals, I suppose we’ll have to tune in to anything else the member may have.

In terms of the questions asked prior to that, first by Mr Reuben Davidson—he’s described Anzac Day as a uniquely New Zealand holiday. I think Australia might want a word, but, of course, he’s right to acknowledge that it is a particularly New Zealand holiday, maybe. In any case, the question of partial repeal, I understand, was considered, but it would be difficult to enforce. Even so, we then end up with that same difficulty about the inconsistencies between broadcast, linear products as compared with the online environment.

As for online advertisements, if they hadn’t been engaging commercially on these particular days, would we still be in a position of seeking to repeal the restrictions on TV and radio? It’s impossible to know—it’s a hypothetical question—but I don’t know if we can resolve the question of whether we would have followed or led, as the member has framed it.

As for whether this legislation heralds some general liberalisation in relation to, for example, alcohol law, I think it’s worth just seeing the legislation on its own terms and on its own face value.

As for whether there would be a question of false advertising if an ad were to flash up or to be heard saying that if you were to enter some premises that you could get a certain product or service on that day, I think the standard regime for advertising standards—with the authority having jurisdiction over any false or misleading or otherwise objectionable content—remains in place.

I think this does lead us, then, to the question posed by Arena Williams as well: whether it’s acceptable to advertise certain goods or services on these days that some people might take offence to. Taking the question of acceptability as a legal one, as opposed to a moral one, on which we can all form our own view, it seems to me that, again, there are existing regimes in terms of what might be regarded as offensive or appropriate material. If there’s additional sensitivity that consumers and viewers—consumers of commercial services, as well as consumers of the media content—might regard as being unhelpful or unwarranted on those particularly significant days, then that might be a question of judgment for the broadcaster and/or the advertiser.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā rawa atu koe, e te Heamana. Ka kōrero Māori anō au. Tēnā koe, e te Minita. Tēnā koe, e whakahoki ana i ō mātou pātai i tēnei ahiahi, tēnā anō koe i ō kōrero katakata i tēnei ahiahi. He pātai anō āku e pā ana ki te ao pāpāho Māori. E mōhio ana mātou i te wā i mahi au i te pāpāho a Aotearoa, arā, TVNZ, i tū tētahi wāhanga e kīia nei ko Te Reo Tātaki. I raro i te Kāwanatanga a Nāhinara i whakakorengia Te Reo Tātaki. Ā, i tonoa ki waho ngā hōtaka. Nā reira kei te āhua māharahara ētahi o ngā umanga hanga hōtaka, arā, production companies.

He pai te whakaaro o tēnei pire, kia whai pūtea ngā kamupene nui, engari kei te haere te pūtea ki ngā kamupene nui, ehara ki ngā kamupene hanga hōtaka. Nā reira, me pēhea kei a koe he oranga mō rātou? Ki tua atu, i nukuhia ngā hōtaka Māori ki ngā ata o te Rātapu i raro i te whakaaro ehara taua wāhi o te maramataka pāpāho, arā, schedule, ehara taua wāhi o te rangi i te wāhi whai pūtea—non-commercial.

Nā reira, mēnā ka whai pūtea ngā umanga nui i tēnei rā, ka pēhea ngā hōtaka Māori? He pai ki a au te whakaaro a te mema o Aotearoa Tuatahi, arā a Jenny Marcroft. Kei te whakaaro koe ka rāhuitia ētahi o ngā hōtaka pērā i a Praise Be, pērā i a Marae, ērā atu kaupapa, aha rā nei. Ki te kore, me pēhea koe e ārai, e manaaki nei i ngā hōtaka Māori? Tēnā anō koe, e te Minita, i whakahoki mai, i whakautu i ō mātou pātai. He mihi hoki tēnei ki te hunga whakapākehā i ngā kōrero kia tarea te rere o tō tātou reo rangatira i roto i tō tātou Whare. Kia ora.

[Greetings, Madam Chair. I will speak Māori again. Greetings, Minister. I acknowledge you for responding to our questions this afternoon, and I also thank you for your humour this afternoon. I have some more questions relating to Māori media. We understand that at the time I was working for TVNZ, a branch was set up called Te Reo Tātaki. Under the National Government, Te Reo Tātaki was abolished. Programmes were outsourced, so some production companies are concerned.

This bill has good intentions—that big companies will get a lot of funding—but the funding is going to big companies, not production companies. So do you have a solution for them? Aside from that, Māori programmes were shifted to Sunday mornings based on the view that that part of the broadcasting schedule, that part of the day, is non-commercial.

So if large businesses are getting funding today, what happens to Māori programmes? I concur with the view of the NZ First member, Jenny Marcroft; you are of the view that some of the programmes like Praise Be and Marae and those types of programmes be restricted. If not, how will you block and look after Māori programmes? Thank you again, Minister, for responding and answering our questions. I also acknowledge those translating the speeches and enabling our Māori language to resound within our House. Thank you.]

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I have one area of questioning. For many New Zealanders, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas, and Anzac Day are deeply significant days. They will separate off the Sundays, which I think we’ll probably live with. Those four days are really, really significant days for New Zealanders.

There is another bill which is being considered by a select committee at the moment, and that is the Online Casino Gambling Bill. Now, the online gambling bill includes the involving of advertising. My question to you, Minister, is: has there been any consideration to how having advertising for online gambling is going to go down in many New Zealand households, if they are faced with that on those deeply significant, spiritual days of Anzac Day, Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter? I suggest to you it probably will not be very well. I would like your comment on that and whether that has actually been thought about at all in the compilation of this bill.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. The proposed legislation that the member references is not legislation. I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on what the ultimate shape of that might be as it relates to this. The comments that I’ve been making in the committee previously have acknowledged the special significance of various days, and I would encourage, as far as is appropriate for a Government member to do so, advertisers and broadcasters to think carefully about content that might be viewed as appropriate by their respective audiences.

In relation to the thoughtful questions posed by Cushla Tangaere-Manuel—thank you for sharing your experience with us—in terms of the flow of revenue internally or as between content creators and the platforms themselves, I think that’s an internal matter for those media companies. I would only comment that in terms of this bill, by lifting the restrictions, it will enable for more revenue to be generated and, therefore, a larger pie that can then be sliced and distributed as they see fit and as legally required, as the case may be.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on something that one of the previous speakers—Reuben Davidson—mentioned in terms of the idea that this bill is intending to address a double standard between linear platforms and online platforms. I’m particularly looking at, in the department report, paragraph 48, around the fact that you do get these online and on-demand services that do allow advertising.

However, my question to the Minister is—first of all, first question: is the Minister aware that YouTube, for example, as an online platform, doesn’t allow advertisements on these days, therefore you get YouTube—

Hon Member: That’s not true.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Anyone who watches YouTube on Christmas Day will know that YouTube doesn’t have advertisements on Christmas Day. If the idea is to provide a certain consistency between online platforms and linear platforms, that already exists in the current environment? The first question is: is the Minister aware that YouTube doesn’t have advertisements on certain days, similar to linear platforms?

The follow-up question is: if, indeed, it is to provide consistency and now we are allowing it, is it also the situation that we are now then allowing online platforms that traditionally didn’t have advertisements on those days to now have advertisements on those days? Has the Minister, or, in this case, potentially, the Department of Internal Affairs or any other areas, consulted or had conversations with those online platforms such as YouTube, as well, on that?

For those on the other side of the House who are saying that is not true, please provide a counterargument. [Interruption] I mean, I’m saying that this is my experience—that, on Christmas Day, there are no advertisements on YouTube. Tell me how you have seen advertisements on—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member doesn’t need to answer to those people; just ask questions to the Minister.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Anyway, those are my questions to the Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his questions. My understanding is that some YouTube users choose not to monetise their content on certain days, including—that must be the experience the member’s had, so I respect that and understand that. I certainly respect and understand that that’s a choice that those content creators and uploaders may wish to take. To be clear, we’re not mandating or requiring that people should advertise on those days, and that goes for the linear broadcasters, too, for that matter. But it will be a matter of choice for all the reasons that we’ve been discussing this afternoon.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to get really tight now because it’s a very narrow, small bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. On this clause—clause 4—which repeals section 81, I have asked the Minister in the chair, and he has provided, helpfully, some background on what he says legal goods and services are, when he was referring to alcohol, tobacco products, and gambling, and he gave us some advice that he wouldn’t expect that to be at all prohibited on Sunday mornings.

But I want to pose to him—really cutting to the chase of this, because I hear you, Madam Chair; I won’t take him through all of the things that might be sensible middle grounds for this repeal, because the Minister did say that there was some consideration of whether this needed to be a full repeal from zero advertising with fines to then no restriction on what could be advertised or to who or in what way on those dates, because, obviously, there’s a big range of options in the middle there. You could have restricted who might be advertised to, like children. You could have restricted the hours of advertising and carved out specific times. You could have also changed the nature of what could be advertised.

But what I want to ask through you, Madam Chair, to the Minister is: would it not be appropriate, then—if the primary legislation is not the place to do it—to be a bit more explicit about what the Advertising Standards Authority needs to do for those days? He has said that it’s a moral judgment—that is, the business of the Advertising Standards Authority. But they don’t have specific powers around these days because they have never needed them, because there hasn’t been the need for the Advertising Standards Authority before to think about, say, advertising to veterans or about veterans on Anzac Day. They haven’t had to consider advertising to Christian families and the followers of the church on Easter. They haven’t had to think about whether it is appropriate to buy an advertising slot where you’re not selling something but it is, in its nature, something like an advertorial on a Sunday morning for a church, or for another sort of organisation, like the Destiny Church, to buy time in linear media on a Sunday morning. There are no restrictions on that, even though there is well-established case law on what might be considered something of an advertorial, something of editorial content about how you might flag that up as something you have bought and not something that a broadcaster has deemed to be the right type of content for that slot and something that most New Zealanders would want to see in that slot.

There hasn’t been established case law, for instance, on Christmas morning, about showing movies which depict Christ in any way—negatively or positively—because that has not been something that people have been able to buy before. But are there people who want to buy that content slot? Yes, there are people who want to show content in those times, on specific days, which are contrary to the views of most New Zealanders.

We have very well-developed case law, for instance, on what is acceptable speech on Anzac Day and what is acceptable to do at an Anzac Day celebration, remembrance day, or parade. There are things which we say are not acceptable, like students presenting wreaths and then turning their backs to protest war. That’s not acceptable because we say those things are protected and those things are things that we as all New Zealanders should treat as remembrance and honourable times. Is it now acceptable to book an ad slot and run an ad, which is not, in fact, trying to advertise any given product, but because you have paid for it, you can make your political views expressed about what Anzac Day should be and what war should be?

We need to be clear that if the Minister’s not willing to entertain any other sorts of changes to this primary legislation—his Government colleagues in the New Zealand First Party have put to him very sensible suggestions—then will he not at least accept one of my amendments—there are only two—that would make it clear that the Advertising Standards Authority needs some extra powers here to consider those specific days and what might be appropriate. A third option would be, I think, the option that he has said, which is that broadcasters need to satisfy themselves what is appropriate. If that is his policy, then the legislation should say that, and I would suggest to him that an appropriate amendment to the body of clause 4 would be insertion, before the full stop, of “and replace it with new clause 81E”, which reads: “broadcasters shall only air advertising programmes on television during the hours between 6 a.m. and noon on Sunday, Anzac Day, and Christmas that are deemed appropriate by them for those days.” That would at least create some sort of reasonable obligation that most New Zealanders would expect, and he himself has alluded to.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really briefly, if I can respond to those important points, the Advertising Standards Authority will continue to have a mandate to uphold standards of decency and social responsibility, and to consider questions of offensiveness. I think that they would do that in the context of all the circumstances, including—as they currently do—the time of day but also the particular day of the year and its special significance. I think these are serious matters, but I also think that we must be able to trust our institutions to be able to make reasonable judgment calls in the fullness of the context in which they occur. For that reason, we think it’s best not to be too prescriptive or to try to over-engineer the solution.

That might seem tempting, devoid of context, to particular members of the House with particular perspectives, bearing in mind the broad range of views of New Zealanders on various different matters, and in the case of Anzac Day, it seems to me that the legal precedent is actually strongly in favour of freedom of expression, under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There was the Morse case, which the member Arena Williams may have studied at law school—as did I—where burning the flag on Anzac Day was not legally prohibited precisely because we value that freedom of expression, notwithstanding the fact that that might be and, in fact, it deliberately was, designed to calculate the offence and the outrage of some.

So I think, taking into account that broader context, we’ve landed in the right place, which is to be enabling. But it is also to say—not as a matter of law, but of encouragement—that people will make appropriate choices and will be judged accordingly.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All of Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to the title of clause 4 are ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81A, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81B, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81C, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81D, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81E, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81F, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81G, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81H, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81I to prohibit the broadcasting of offensive programmes on certain days, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81I to prohibit misleading programmes on certain days, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81J to prohibit advertising targeting children on certain days, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81J to prohibit advertising targeting vulnerable people on certain days, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81J to prohibit advertising of financial products on certain days, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81K is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81L, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81M, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81N, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81P, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81Q, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to replace clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 94

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11.

Noes 28

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Privacy Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 20 May.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, when we were last debating this bill, we were up to call number four, which was the ACT Party call. I call Todd Stephenson.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, it was interrupted on 20 May, so it’s been a wee while since we’ve discussed this bill. But we are discussing the Privacy Amendment Bill. It’s my happy pleasure to speak on behalf of ACT. This was a bill that was before my select committee. It is an important bill, updating some pieces of the Privacy Act; in particular, introducing a new privacy principle to ensure that individuals are properly informed when their personal information is being collected from third parties. It makes sure that public expectations around this information are clear, and we’re operationalising some nice changes.

I don’t want to say too much on this bill, because I think it is pretty straightforward. But I, again, just do want to reiterate one of the important changes that the select committee did make was around ensuring that information, when it’s being used for public good—so galleries, libraries, archives, and museums—wouldn’t be inhibited by these new principles, and there was an exception added to the bill which was accepted. So I’m really very happy to commend this bill to the House and get this new privacy principle in place.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this, the third reading of the Privacy Amendment Bill. It is an important piece of legislation to exercise privacy rights. It is important to have knowledge about the collection of the information when it is not from the source—that is, the individuals themselves. Putting these protections in place will be upholding the individual’s rights to privacy. It is good that there will be a lead-in implementation time, to give that scope to make sure these things are corrected. But in this day and age, it is really critically important that individuals know and have control over the information that is held about them, and you cannot invoke that power if you’re not clear about where this information is sourced from. So this is an important piece of legislation. New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to give our support to this bill. It’s always nice when there are bills that come through the House that most of us can support and work together on. The Privacy Amendment Bill was one of the first few bills that came through the Justice Committee at the beginning of this term and it was great to be contacted by different librarians and archivists who have a real interest in making sure that people’s rights and privacy and information are both protected but also treated with sensitivity, and also that when information is within the public interest, it is able to be accessed.

So we have a fairly short contribution to make, like the two speeches before me, to say that we support this bill and that we hope that this will ensure both private information is held sensitively and securely and that people who collect information, such as libraries, archives, and the like, and all of those groups that have been involved in developing this bill, are able to do their jobs. Thanks.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in this final reading for the Privacy Amendment Bill. What I’d like to just comment on is that in this fast-changing digital world, it’s great to progress a bill like this that further protects the personal information of all my neighbours in Takanini. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I wouldn’t be dismissive about this bill. It is an important bill, but some speakers in this debate have kind of skimmed over why. This bill is about the collection of information and the provision of it to third parties. I just want to identify what a huge trade that, in fact, is. If we think about it, there is a steady business in trading in personal information—for example, marketing schemes. Your loyalty card that you use at the supermarket is gleaning information which, by using that card, you have agreed can be provided to third parties. So they know what kind of pâté you like with your wine on that side of the House or what kind of toast you like with your baked beans on this side of the House. That can be passed on for marketing information. That’s just one example.

Another example, of course, is credit reporting, where any time you go to a bank or another financial institution or get your Q Card or use Afterpay, you are also agreeing to that information being passed on to third parties for their use. I think we need to recognise that each of us will have, if you’ve borrowed money at all—and most of us will have—essentially, a file held at various credit agencies. That information has been provided by third parties.

Then there’s another one that’s cropped up recently—and I see the Minister of Police in the House—and that is the use of digital images that are gained from, generally, security or surveillance cameras. They are private surveillance cameras—they might be in public places or in supermarkets—but they are cameras where the feed is sent to a central repository, raw, and that data can be filtered. So it will know, for example, what supermarket you were in and when, and what your car number plate is. That car number plate can be tracked. This is what the police have been using it for recently, so that if they know that a suspect was in a particular car, they go to this commercial provider and ask for the information that it has gleaned from its network of cameras, and you can track the car. So this use of third-party information is not without its risks and pitfalls. For everyone to stand up and go, “Oh, it’s a good bill. I want to go home. Thanks very much.”, it isn’t really good enough. It’s not doing our job.

So what this bill actually does is adopt some frameworks and standards which are based on the European Union best practice; we have tended to lean towards the European Union for guidance in this area. It is also important that we do that because our trading relationships and so on rely on that. What this bill does, and the guts of the bill is set out in clause 4, amending section 22, is it provides that where an agency collects personal information about an individual, other than from the individual concerned—so if I want to know what cornflakes you get and I don’t ask you but I ask your supermarket, who has your permission to provide that information—then the agency must “take any steps that are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that [the] individual concerned is aware” that the information is being collected, the purpose for which it’s being collected, and who the intended recipients are, so that when we enter into these arrangements, we actually know that our information can be provided to credit agencies and to marketing agencies.

Of course, when your information—and I do think the surveillance cameras raise real issues, because I’m not sure any of us consent to information about our movements being provided to third parties, including the police. So there is a real rights issue in there; not just of privacy rights but wider rights issues about search and seizure as well. So I do think we’ve got to be vigilant around this. This is actually about vigilance, and this is why we had the museums and archives come to us and say, “Well, hang on. We collect information about third parties all the time but in a very non-invidious way.” It’s not really about them; they’re just on record as having been the collector or the author of particular documents. It’s more for historical purposes. But I think there’s going to be a lot of people out there who, once the Privacy Commissioner starts educating people around this, will get a bit of a fright, because they’ll realise, “Oh, I’ve been collecting all this information”. Essentially, they have been harvesting it, either for not-for-profit purposes or for profit, whether it be an NGO who’s got a social purpose, but they’ve still got to comply with this legislation, or someone who’s getting information, using AI to curate it—for the very best, targeted advertising, is the classic example—and then passing it on or selling it off to someone who can best use it. They’re going to have to buck up their ideas. I think they really will need to know about that.

So that’s why we’re supporting the bill, because it’s actually an important privacy protection. Actually, it’s a bit of a gap in the legislation that’s been there to date, where you could get this information from third parties. So, look, we do think it’s good, but we don’t think it’s trivial. That’s why we’ve spent considerable time thinking about it and improving it through select committee and, of course, committee of the whole House. So we do commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I commend the bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): We take privacy very seriously on this side of the House, and therefore I want to lay out a few reflections and thoughts on this legislation, the Privacy Amendment Bill. Obviously, we’re at the stage, in the third reading, where, I guess, this evening, depending on how things go, it has the potential of becoming law. My learned colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has far more to say and has far more eloquently told you the importance of what this legislation does and why we need it.

As I was looking at the legislation, and as I was looking at some of the commentary and some of the information that prepared us for it, it did mention Transparency International and their critique of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government. Transparency International talked about New Zealand having some of the lowest perceived corruption, and ensuring that members of the public know when agencies have collected or held personal information and how it goes a long way to strengthening that trust, and that this bill is in line with high-quality privacy. Now, in this modern day and age, as the world moves and shifts and changes, there are so many places and spaces, as my colleague has said, where information is gathered. We need to make sure that we know, that I myself as a consumer and I myself as a citizen understand and know, what happens with information about myself—where it goes; who has it—to make sure that my privacy is protected but also that the privacy of my family is protected and the privacy of my community.

That’s why this legislation is here. As has been said, it’s taken its time, it’s come through the House, it’s been through the Justice Committee, and it is here today to receive the approval of this Parliament. Currently, there is no requirement for an agency—public or private—to notify an individual when it collects personal information about the individual indirectly. As has been talked about, things like your EFTPOS cards, things like car registrations—for example, how often do you park at a Wilson car park or other private car parks? In terms of the information you have to share on the machines but also the cameras and the CCTV that is around, that actually informs people of what is going on and what your movements are.

I also think about us as parliamentarians and some of the challenges in some of the spaces that we occupy—for example, our electorate and constituency offices—and the fact that when we meet with constituents about issues that are important to them, sometimes those issues are sensitive. Sometimes those issues do involve law enforcement. Sometimes those issues do involve challenges that they’re facing in front of the courts, etc. So it is for us to make sure that their privacy is protected, to make sure, if there are CCTV cameras outside offices, of what happens when they want to actually disclose, maybe, some serious offending or they want to speak to us about something that has happened in their community or someone of note that needs to see us. We need to make sure that privacy is upheld, that organisations like Transparency International can continue to look at New Zealand favourably and say it’s not only the perception of what we’re doing but it’s also that the laws of this land are in place and are set to make sure that we do have decent privacy.

Now, individuals need to know who has collected their information in order to make corrections to information. Individuals need to know who has collected their information so that they are aware of what is going on in their world, what is going on in their wheelhouse, to make sure that they can protect themselves and their families, as I said. We on this side support this legislation. We think it is practical, it is important, and it is necessary. I commend this bill to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Normally, I’d stand here and talk about how focused we are on making life more affordable and on delivering better opportunities to every family in this country—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Except it doesn’t fit in this bill.

TIM COSTLEY: —but for this bill, I just want to say I commend it to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for an opportunity to stand and speak in favour of this bill. Much like my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, I’m of the view that this is an issue that we ought to give the House’s time to. It’s actually an extremely important issue.

When reviewing the bill—I must admit, I wasn’t on the Justice Committee when submissions were being considered—I thought about how the concept of privacy has shifted over the last 30 years. When we had the 1993 Act in place, I would have been probably about 11 or 12—do the backwards math. But it was in the days when most things were on paper, whether you were interacting with your medical practitioner or with your school. Certainly, in terms of interacting online, these were the days of turning up to school to have your five to 10 minutes playing Lemmings before school. It was a very, very different time in terms of how information was generated, a very different time in terms of how information was held, and a very different time in terms of how information was shared.

So it’s unsurprising that when we got to 2020, we absolutely did need a very substantial update of both how those rules of privacy would operate in a modern world and also the associated penalties, which is where we saw a lot of that reform in 2020. And we’re supportive of this reform as well, because I think the massive change we’re seeing is that sharing between third parties. It is no longer about being sure that you can access and correct information when you hand it over to an entity; you simply can’t always be sure of where that information will end up. So it is absolutely the right time for us to be thinking about this important issue in terms of being notified.

However, like Dr Duncan Webb, I would like to point to a few issues where I’m of the view we need to very closely monitor whether the legislation is sufficient, because I do think this is an area where our notion of privacy will continue to shift and move, but also some of the specific exemptions in the current legislation are drafted quite broadly. I think that the House should bear in mind whether those are being used in the way that we intend them in the coming years.

The first thing I wanted to raise was something that was raised by the Law Society. They raised the issue of the connection between knowledge and control. A privacy right should involve both the ability to know where your private information is but also to have it corrected or deleted if it’s inaccurate. There is a bit of a gap in terms of this legislation coming through the pipeline. There are, of course, administrative and logistical issues in terms of why you wouldn’t want to overwrite an ability to demand that something be deleted; however, I do think that it is a valid gap that was raised by the Law Society, and I would to urge the House to keep an eye on how this plays out and whether that gap creates issues.

The exceptions that are in there at the moment—we have the exception of the individual who has already been notified through other processes. This one’s fine; I think that’s absolutely acceptable, and, of course, there shouldn’t be a double obligation to notify an individual who, essentially, already knows.

The second one is interesting. This is new information privacy principle (IPP) 3A(4)(h), inserted by clause 4. It is where it’s the entity that determines there’s no prejudice to the individual. Now, that is extremely broad in terms of the judgment that we’re handing over, for an entity to decide whether there is no prejudice to the individual.

The third one is where it’s not reasonably practical to do so. Now, the rules are helpful, and they state that this goes beyond inconvenience or cost. The burden must be clearly disproportionate; however, there is still a subjective element there, and I do think this is another thing that, of course, we would expect the Privacy Commissioner to be monitoring, but the House must as well.

Then there are additional exceptions which apply in a more limited context. The one that I will note is where notification would undermine the purpose of collection such as an internal investigation. Now, we need to think carefully about that, because these are circumstances where an individual is potentially under investigation by a third party whom they did not share their information with, and the exception here is applying to those circumstances. I think we need to be very cautious about how this might play out in terms of employment scenario and how it might play out in terms of law enforcement scenarios as well.

There are some useful protections within the legislation, having framed some of those broad provisions in terms of decision making. One of them is that the agency should maintain a documented basis for relying on their exceptions. So they can’t rely on an exception and expect it to hold for the end of time; they have to continue to justify that exception. I think that that’s correct.

Another concern I have is the direction that the commissioner should only be notified where there is a risk of serious harm. So we’re coming into the territory of determination again. We’re, essentially, creating a set of rules, which are great. We’re adding additional protections to privacy. But we’re creating huge discretion that we’re placing in the hands of entities to determine when those circumstances happen. So you’ve got the Privacy Commissioner there, and we’re now saying, “only instances where the entity thinks there’s serious harm.” That’s one layer of the problem.

The second layer of the problem, in terms of access to justice, is that when people make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, they don’t have an automatic right to go to the director of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings—the Privacy Commissioner will make a referral. From what I can see, the referrals from the Privacy Commissioner are fairly few and far between. You might have one or two cases progressing every year. Unless you can afford to take your own case through that channel, you’re relying on getting through several more hurdles before you can actually have your case heard by the director’s office and then brought before the tribunal.

Your next barrier is actually being heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. If you’ve got a complaint—“my privacy has been breached”, “someone’s breached the Act”—you go to the Privacy Commissioner; maybe one or two are referred to the director’s office for pro bono representation, and you’re then facing a one- to two-year delay, potentially, before your claim is heard. Now, my issue here is that in this year’s Budget, that timeline is, potentially, much worse, and it’s because we had six decision makers at the Human Rights Review Tribunal—two chairs, four deputy chairs. In this year’s Budget, those four deputies have been taken away—their roles have not been renewed, new appointments have not been made. Essentially, we’ve gone down from six decision makers to two decision makers. If you want to have your privacy issue heard, you may be waiting for several years to have that issue heard.

My point here is this: we commend the fact that the Government are looking at developing the right to privacy in accordance with what we’re seeing happen in our world—that we have departments and entities who are interacting with each other more. We’re looking at an online world, and we’re very much going to need to develop the right to respond to that as well. But the development of the right and legislation alone doesn’t allow people access to justice, doesn’t allow people to have that right upheld. If you change the right but you remove access to justice—you take decision makers down from six decision makers to two decision makers—you have a bottleneck in terms of accessing the right to privacy.

So I just urge the Government to think through the full scope of access to justice when they’re thinking about the development of a right, whether it be privacy or another right, and ensure that not only do we have adequate provisions for the right to privacy but that we’re monitoring how it plays out, that we’re monitoring the discretion that we’re giving, that we’re monitoring whether we should be developing that right in accordance with what we are seeing in terms of the EU, and that, fundamentally, we’re funding our courts and that we have the appropriate number of decision makers to ensure that people truly have access to justice.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): For people in Mount Roskill, this bill is a critical step towards protecting our privacy and ensuring fairness for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Kieran McAnulty won that race by—I guess we can’t call it “by a nose” in this House, can we? But this is the race for the Te Pāti Māori call. I call the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the reference; of course it is a horse racing reference and that is my background, so thank you for saying that. I certainly do not have the background of my esteemed colleagues. I guess, you know, it makes someone a little bit self-conscious when you’re following a professor of law and a distinguished human rights lawyer in Glen Bennett, who contributed to this speech. But at least they contributed; it has been a pretty dismal display from the Government, really, to be honest. They’ve certainly earned their pay cheque today, standing up and saying, “I commend the bill to the House.”, and then they sit down.

But this bill does deserve commentary, and before I do provide some comments on this, I want to acknowledge that, very shortly, a member of this House will be doing their valedictory speech, based on a decision that they’ve made for their safety and the safety of their child. I think that situation should give us all pause for thought—every single one of us in this House, and, indeed, every single member of this country. I think it is a significant moment in the history of this Parliament, and it is a very sad moment, frankly. I wish Benjamin and their whānau all the very best after this moment.

This bill, ideally, would be a situation where the public could see that both sides were cooperating. It is indeed an example of that. Many people, as my mate Duncan Webb pointed out, would be quite surprised that the provisions in this bill that the bill proposes aren’t actually already in place. I would count myself as one of those, frankly: I would have thought that what’s being proposed are pretty basic provisions, really—that people should really know who is collecting that sort of information about them and what their rights are and what they are able to do about it. I do think it is lamentable, though, that we aren’t actually giving the public of New Zealand the opportunity to understand the amount of work and the amount of collaboration that’s gone into where we are in this bill. So often, the proceedings of this place and coverage of politics is portrayed to be adversarial, but, actually, more often than not—well, certainly more often than people are made to realise—there is collaboration in Parliament, and this is an example of it, because, of course, there isn’t much in here that would warrant opposition to it.

My colleague Vanushi Walters pointed out some very sage points of concern, but it doesn’t warrant strong opposition to what’s being proposed. But it does send a warning that we need to be very careful about how we go about this. The fact is that not just with the digitalisation but, in large part, because of it, and all of the things that we have on our phones—the various apps, the shopping cards, everything else, whether it’s your Air New Zealand app or whatever; everything we use to go about our daily lives—collects information. So often, when we just go about our daily business, information about us is being shared, and we don’t know about it. That is actually quite extraordinary.

So it is only right that the bill proceeds and that New Zealanders are given the opportunity to understand who has what information, who is sharing it, and for what purpose, but, more importantly, the rights of the individual related to that, which they have if they want to look into it or do anything about it—or indeed correct the information, because the information that’s being shared might not be accurate, and that’s a concern as well. But we’ve all seen it—various things: it might be social media, it might be all sorts of other things, we might start to get targeted mail; we might start to get targeted advertisements because they’ve been monitoring what sort of garden tools you like that you’ve been searching for, or whatever.

I’ll tell you what: the thing is that when there is an exemption, there needs to be a good reason, and I think, in general, what the bill proposes makes sense. But I do want to echo the concerns raised that, of course, when things of national security are at threat, there should be an exemption. But who decides that? According to this, it’s the agency themselves, and if they are abusing that exemption against the intention of the law, how does an individual have the opportunity to know that, and how long will it take for them to find that information out? I think it’s a valid question, and it’s one that actually deserves ongoing oversight. Yes, this bill is good; yes, we support it; but there are still some questions.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 July.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, when we were last on this bill, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan had the call and has five minutes and 34 seconds remaining to speak.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Madam Speaker, thank you so much. I will be interested to see if my speech gets cut off again this time, because it was cut off halfway last time for a special debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you’re OK this time.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I am OK.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Great. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to pick up where we left off last time, in terms of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, there are a couple of things I want to address. Now, noting that we are in the second reading and there is an opportunity for us to ask the Minister additional questions during the committee stage, but at this stage, in the second reading, based on our understanding in the select committee stage, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not be supporting this bill.

Now, the reasons for that are numerous, and they are because of the fact the bill is complex. Firstly, we saw during the select committee stage that this bill, in terms of the new offences that are going to be created, overlaps with a number of existing offences within the Crimes Act. But I think, more importantly, there are some fundamental concerns that the Green Party has in terms of this bill’s interaction with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA).

There are a couple of points I want to address specifically. One of the first ones is around, let’s say, section 19 of NZBORA in terms of its connection with the Human Rights Act, and specifically section 21 of the Human Rights Act, against discrimination. There is a concern that this bill will inadvertently—even though it’s not necessarily in the content of the bill, but inadvertently—target certain communities more stringently than others.

The other point that I mentioned in the first half of my contribution is that we are seeing a change in the demographics of Aotearoa New Zealand, and, with that, we’re seeing complexities in terms of the interactions within our own communities. With that, we are seeing the potential challenges when it comes to the freedom of association, particularly when we’re looking at things like protest and activism of all forms, which is within the people’s right to do here in Aotearoa. Even though any form of intimidation or violence as a part of that, and potentially coming about as a result of certain protest and activation—that may result in that intimidation of violence, but they are already considered as a criminal offence under the Crimes Act. So, again, the idea is that this bill doesn’t necessarily serve the kind of purpose that the bill is intending to serve that isn’t already captured in the existing legislation.

There is also concern in terms of how the bill is going to be brought about, and then how they are going to be assessed. One of the things that specifically is a challenge within the bill is around the idea of omission. So we are looking at, for example, clause 8, new section 69A inserted. Omission is a really tricky thing when we’re looking at criminal offences because it shifts the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the defendant. I think, particularly in a stage where, if we are going to be having something like this, I don’t know if—at least at the select committee stage, we weren’t able to find out how the defendants, who are now responsible for that burden of proof, are going to be fully exercising their right in order to defend themselves, particularly when we’re still seeing cultural barriers and language barriers within our court system. So that is another one of the major concerns we have, and we’re happy to engage with the Minister during the committee stage to tease some of that out further.

Finally, there is a general trend that we’re seeing, and a concern, that, again, certain communities in Aotearoa are going to be more stringently and critically targeted as a result of some of this bill, and particularly in light of some of the recent trends we’re seeing in terms of our ties with, let’s say, Five Eyes. That is something that is of deep concern for the Greens, and it’s something that also changes the balance in terms of our interactions and our independent ability to have that independent foreign policy. What traditionally forms a backstage, data-collection role has now taken a very prominent centre stage in terms of our foreign affairs policy and also in terms of our ability to defend ourselves.

So the Green Party likes the intention of this bill—that, yes, Aotearoa New Zealand does need to have mechanisms that prevents itself from being a target of foreign interference. But what we’re seeing is that that foreign interference through—the select committee stage hasn’t been able to tease out, to capture, some of the concerns that we’ve had. I think another really important concern, as a part of that, is what constitutes foreign interference. Because, frankly, in some of my portfolios, such as education, we’re seeing a great deal of foreign interference from the US and UK in terms of the direction of our education policy. Would that be considered foreign interference under the current legislation? That is something that we simply don’t know. So, at this stage, the Green Party cannot support this bill.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and speak on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. I was lucky to be on the Justice Committee, which, obviously, looked at this bill. It has been recommended unanimously that it be supported in this House, and that’s what ACT will be doing.

Foreign interference is a clear and present danger. In fact, just this week we heard of a foreign Government interfering with a potential activity at a Victorian university, and so this bill really is ensuring that we strengthen the protections. A lot of it is actually codifying some of the existing laws but making sure that they are much clearer. We do want to make sure that there is no foreign interference from foreign powers within New Zealand and make sure it’s really clear that new offences are created around that. The bill creates some new offences to address some gaps in criminal liability and ensure that police and other enforcement agencies have the powers needed. I do recommend this bill to the House on behalf of ACT.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. As Minister of Customs, I have the privilege of being aware of the growing challenges that we have internationally and, as the Associate Minister of Immigration, a recognition of the challenges that we’re facing across our international borders. The fact that this unrest does create an elevated level of risk from foreign interference is something we cannot ignore. It is important that we continue to evolve and respond and develop the powers and authorities and the abilities for us to keep New Zealand citizens safe; and the protection from foreign interference is exactly one more step in that direction. It is about the protection of our people; it is about the protection of New Zealanders. Having the legislation and the powers that give us the investigation rights gives us the ability to send a clear message that we are ensuring that our enforcement agencies have the powers they need, but also that we are sending a strong message. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted, and when I have swapped seats with Mr Speaker, we will continue.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, we’ll now have a valedictory statement from Benjamin Doyle. Following the valedictory statement, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 October 2025.

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): I did not come here on my terms. I was summoned under difficult and unexpected circumstances, but I accepted that call. Today, however, I leave by choice, not because I want to but because I have chosen to put my child first. If our tamariki are the reason for being here, how could they not be our reason for leaving? Nothing is more important and precious than those we love most. For them, we must live and fight and, at times, choose to leave.

This place was not built for people like me, which is precisely the point. It was built on the basis of exclusion and control, on taking, hoarding, and guarding power. The colonisers’ tools will never dismantle the colonisers’ house. It’s taken me 10 months to truly comprehend what that means, and while I do not accept that change is impossible from the inside, I have come to learn that it comes with a price of violence and hate towards my people. This is a price I am no longer willing to pay.

I have felt firsthand the unbelievable impact that being here can have on a person and those they love. I have seen that play out in violent, toxic, and real-world ways. No person should have to remove their child from school due to threats to their life. No person should have to avoid going to the supermarket or the letterbox because they have been advised that doing so could expose them to violence. No person should have to tell their parents that they can’t attend the next family event, to ensure their safety and privacy is not compromised; and despite that, I have stayed so true to myself and my community.

I returned to Parliament when I was informed it would be unsafe to do so, because sometimes, love is hard and means making sacrifices. Sometimes it means putting the kaupapa first, putting the needs of our communities, the planet, the generations that are yet to arrive, first. I am willing to put my love for these things before my own needs and even my own safety, but no love is more compelling than that which we hold for our tamariki, and I cannot continue to put this work before the needs of my own child.

So I leave this place knowing that the fight will continue, as it always has and always will. But that fight is also happening right now outside these walls, on the streets, on the land, on the sea, in our communities, in our hearts, and in our minds. Power does not reside here. It is not inherent in this place. We have only allowed that to be so. Power resides in the human spirit and in our relationships with one another, and with this precious earth, to which we owe everything. I rejoin that fight now and wish my comrades here my love and solidarity in the fight they continue in this place.

This is a hostile and toxic place, especially if you’re not a cis, straight white man with a blue suit and a briefcase, but most of all it is not fit for purpose. As a nation, we must reckon with this reality. A political system imposed upon this land and its people from a colonial empire that sought to name, claim, and maim is never going to honour Te Tiriti. It will never recognise the dignity of all life or seek justice for the poor and oppressed. It was built to serve a status quo that protects the powerful at the expense of the people—at the cost of community. This system was built, and so it can be rebuilt.

The revolution begins in our hearts and minds, but there it must not remain. It must rise up from the land, from the people, from love and vision, and hope for something infinitely better than what we are subjected to now—if not for us, then for our children and those in every generation to come.

As long as bombs are dropping in Gaza, in Yemen, in Syria, and in Qatar; as long as the lungs of the earth are being burnt and felled; as long as our rivers and oceans are being pillaged, polluted, and desecrated; as long as the land is being ripped open and exploited for finite resources; as long as the dignity of life is being denigrated and discarded in servitude and civil war; as long as indigenous rights are being eroded, trans lives are being taken, disabled folks are being degraded, children’s voices are being ignored, women’s bodies are being controlled, and the rights of people in prison are being stripped, this is a place of no peace and no justice.

Nobody is free until everybody is free, and this House must recognise that fundamental truth. If it does not, it risks being left behind as community forges ahead in building its own future—one we can be proud to pass on to our mokopuna.

I concluded my maiden speech with a poem by Palestinian poet named Refaat Alareer, who was murdered by Israel during the genocide it continues to commit in Palestine. Today, I will conclude with a different poem, one by Tina Ngata titled “Rekindled”:

The truth, while spoken, never dies

It is a flame that may rest as a smouldering ember

Perhaps for generations

Yet through these lines it will rekindle

We are the flame that never died at Hungahungatoroa, at Waerenga a Hika, at Ngātapa

And for as long as I breathe my story

I am not vanquished

I am at once the victor, and the fallen

Still here today, as walking, breathing, laughing, dancing, love-making, testifying proof against any notion of conquest

Speaking our truth, honouring those who slipped between the privileged pages of this story

Loving new generations into being

New bearers of the flame

That never dies.

Mana whakapapa

Mana tuākiri

Mana Takatāpui ē

Ahuahu mai Ahuahu atu

Kia tau ai te mauri

I roto I a koe

Ko Hinetītama koe

Ko Hinenui Te Pō koe

Koia rā ko te whakaahuatanga

Mana māreikura

Mana whatukura

Mana takatāpui ē

Rere mai Nuku

Rere mai Rangi

Kia tau, whakatau hā ē

Uhi, wero, tau mai te mahana

Haumi ē, hui ē, taiki ē!

[The power of genealogy

The power of identity

The power of the gender diverse

It builds up within all

In order for the force of life to settle

Within you

You are Hinetītama

You are Hinenui Te Pō

This is the formation of

The power of femininity

The power of masculinity

If flows through the land

And the sky

It settles, let it settle

It covers and permeates, warmth settles upon us

It coalesces, it assembles, it is bound!]

Waiata—“Ko Te Tiriti”

[Applause]

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.