Wednesday, 8 October 2025

WEDNESDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2025

WEDNESDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

SPEAKER: A paper has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Connie Bachle requesting that the House reject the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 16 papers.

CLERK:

2024-25 annual reports of

AgResearch

Orillion

Callaghan Innovation

the Charter School Agency

the Ministry for the Environment

the Institute of Environmental Science and Research

the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences

Landcare Research

the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Scion

Airways Corporation

MetService

AsureQuality

Plant and Food Research, and

the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company; and

the report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations within the space portfolio of Vote Business, Science and Innovation in the year ended 30 June 2025.

SPEAKER: I present the annual report for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for the year ended 30 June 2025. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement “We’re going through a very difficult recovery.”, and, if so, on what basis does he consider an economy that’s shrinking to be in recovery?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are going through a difficult recovery. As I’ve said, it’s two speed at the moment. In our provincial industries, in the South Island, and our rural communities, they are experiencing growth but certainly in our cities it’s been very difficult.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders believe him that we are in a recovery when earlier this year he said that New Zealand was in a recovery, right at the very time the New Zealand economy was shrinking by almost 1 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, you know, we had a good level of growth in quarter 4 last year. We had very good growth happening in quarter 1 this year. We had international tariffs and uncertainty around tariffs that hit us on the second day of April. That impacted on our quarter 2 result. We’re growing, now, and expected to grow stronger from this point onwards.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much smaller is the New Zealand economy today than it was when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the former Prime Minister needs to understand this: he created the problem. You cannot increase spending by 84 percent, drive up inflation, drive up interest rates, put the economy into recession, and raise unemployment. That is the consequence of your failed economic management. I’d just say for the 66 billion dollar man, who increased debt threefold, that we now write out a $10 billion interest bill each and every year, thanks to your mismanagement. We’re sorting it out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think what the Prime Minister might be struggling to understand is what the question was, which is a very straightforward question: how much smaller is the New Zealand economy today than it was when he became the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: He certainly addressed that question; you can’t say he did it any other way. The other thing is: I’d just make the point that while there is always more leniency for interjection when there is the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, that was just getting a little bit excessive on that occasion.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that horticulture is “crying out for young people”; if so, is orchardist Paul Paynter wrong when he says, “We’re not crying out for staff at the moment [and] … we don’t have a lot of seasonal jobs.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, unlike the member, I get out of Wellington most weeks and I actually get out and see the real economy and I see real businesses. The number of people that I talk to that say, “Look, there are real opportunities for people out there.” Yeah, it’s difficult, unemployment has ticked up a bit, but it’s the same as what it has been over a 30-year average, it’s significantly below what it has been over the last 15 years, and—unlike that member—we’re just not happy to actually be the party of people who don’t work. We are the party of workers, and we want people to come off welfare and get connected to work; it’s that simple.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he’s been out and about, why hasn’t he been talking to the businesses who say that hiring staff is not their primary constraint for growth—given that only 4 percent are saying that—whilst 63 percent of businesses, according to the NZ Institute of Economic Research, are saying their real problem is not enough customers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because the economy has been in a recession caused by your reckless spending, caused by your Government running up inflation, and your Government running up interest rates. You put the country into the biggest recession in 35 years, you created the longest COVID hangover of any in the Western world, you actually made sure that you tripled the debt, for goodness’ sake, and we now have a $10 billion interest bill. We’re cleaning up the Labour Government’s mess; it’s that simple.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the dire state of the economy is all someone else’s fault, why is it that the New Zealand economy shrunk by nearly 1 percent [Interruption]—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Please, start again.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the dire current state of the New Zealand economy is all someone else’s fault, why is it that the New Zealand economy shrunk by almost 1 percent at a time when other economies around the world that have been hit harder by Donald Trump’s tariffs—many of whom had a higher rate of inflation at the peak of the global pandemic—have been growing faster than New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In quarter 4 last year, this economy was growing. In quarter 1 this year economic growth was increasing. In quarter 2, our economy—as a small economy, a trading economy—got smashed around by uncertainty associated with tariffs. It’s now growing again in quarter 3; the growth in quarter 4 will step up. The recovery is coming. As I’ve said, it’s been two speed at the moment; we’ve got to make sure that we get growth coming through our cities, and that will come.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the—[Interruption]. When a supplementary question is being asked, no one else is speaking.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I ask the Prime Minister: does he remember, with respect to the policies that he inherited, that the then former Prime Minister had had a huge sort of Guy Fawkes burn-up one night, and got rid of all those policies—how much more quickly could we have recovered if he had done that much earlier in his career?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member that I think there must be a lot of—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could clarify for the House what the current Prime Minister’s responsibility for that matter is.

SPEAKER: Well, I took it as the fundamental part of the question being how much more progress might this current Government have made if they weren’t dealing with policies from a previous Government. That is a legitimate question. The bits—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: He didn’t ask that.

SPEAKER: Yes, he did. He did, with all due respect. Have a read of the Hansard tomorrow. The Prime Minister will give a very brief response to that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I agree with the member that there must be tremendous regret from the Labour Government that had an absolute majority in the last three years and did very little with it, delivered nothing, increasing debt, spending, and borrowing.

SPEAKER: That’s sufficient.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee has just released its latest decision on the official cash rate (OCR). The committee has decided to reduce the OCR by 50 basis points. This is the 8th OCR reduction since August last year. At that time, the OCR was 5.5 percent. It is now at 2.5 percent.

Nancy Lu: What role does the OCR play in the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OCR plays a very important role in the economy. It is the key tool the Reserve Bank uses to influence economic activity in both good times and tough times to meet its target for low, stable inflation. The level of the OCR and expectations about its future track affect the interest rates paid by households and businesses. Those interest rates, in turn, affect economic activity—households have disposable income to spend and businesses can borrow to invest. Today's announcement represents stimulus that will help push along the economic recovery.

Nancy Lu: By how much have mortgage rates fallen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Since the Reserve Bank started loosening in August last year, floating mortgage rates have fallen in line with the OCR. Everyone's circumstances are different, of course, but let me give one example. Assuming today's reduction is passed on in full, a family with a 25-year $500,000 mortgage would have minimum repayments of $400 less a fortnight than they were in the middle of last year. Fixed rates have also fallen, and it's important to remember that many fixed-term mortgage holders are yet to roll off higher rates and refix lower, so past OCR reductions as well as today's reduction will continue to flow through to households over the remainder of this year and beyond.

Nancy Lu: How is the Government supporting the Reserve Bank?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as the Treasury's recent report made clear, macroeconomic stabilisation stimulating and de-stimulating the economy should almost always be left to monetary policy run by the independent Reserve Bank. However, through its spending decisions, the Government of the day can help that task or it can hinder it. I could give numerous examples of a previous Government hindering that task through excessive spending, keeping inflation higher for longer and preventing reductions in interest rates. This Government is helping. We have introduced discipline to Government spending and we remain focused on responsible economic management that supports recovery, delivers the public services New Zealanders expect, and drives reforms for growth.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his cuts to jobseeker will impact over 2,000 18- and 19-year-olds who may be disabled, sick, or experiencing severe mental ill health, and, if so, how does he justify this?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our policy is designed for 18- and 19-year-olds that are on jobseeker benefit. When you go on a jobseeker benefit, you’re deemed able and capable of working.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister guarantee, then, a job for every job seeker in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That will also be up to the individual, the parents, and the Government’s economic conditions to create those jobs. But, again, we are sending a message very clearly to young people in New Zealand, unapologetically: we want you connected to work, we want you connected to training, we want you connected to education.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why are there 10,000 more unemployed young people and 36,000 fewer jobs in this country since he took office, if not because of his Government’s billions of dollars of cuts to investment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There are five immutable laws of economics. The first is about spending; that drives into creating inflation. When you have high inflation because spending went up 84 percent, you end up with 12 to 13 interest rate rises. That then, because of high interest rates and high inflation, means that, actually, businesses get squeezed because the economy’s in a recession, and, as a result, people, unfortunately, lose their jobs. That’s why if you care about low and middle income, working New Zealanders, like this Government does, you actually make sure you run the economy well and you’re a fiscal conservative.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand, then, the basic maths that if there are four job seekers to every job that is available in this country, all of his cuts to jobseeker support couldn’t hope to possibly punish people into ghost jobs but will only deepen poverty and homelessness?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders are very clear that a question needn’t contain irony or any more imputations that are required to make the question intelligible. That’s not actually a question designed to get information for the public; it’s an attempt at theatre and making a speech.

SPEAKER: Let me be very clear. Attempts at theatre are a regular occurrence in this House, but I would say that putting in an expression like that is outside of the Standing Orders, and I encourage the member to rephrase it some other way and start the question again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand that if there are four job seekers for every job that is currently available in this country, all of his cuts to jobseeker support could not possibly punish people into jobs but actually will deepen poverty, suffering, and homelessness?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: On this side of the Government, we care about young people. We’re not prepared to actually just have them languishing and consigned to welfare, like a Labour-Greens Government. In the last administration, with 3.2 to 3.5 percent unemployment, the Labour-Greens Government drove a 50 percent increase and put 60,000 more people on jobseeker benefit. That is utterly shameful and unacceptable. We care about those young people and we want them connected to work, training, and employment. We don’t just say we’ll leave you on welfare and that’s good for you.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How many jobs did his $3 billion tax cut for landlords create?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is—I’ll tell you what the landlord cut did create: rents have gone down $5 a week, instead of up $180 a week. In even more good news on housing, if you want to talk about housing and landlords, we’ve got 6,000 people—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, Prime Minister—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —off the State house wait-list.

SPEAKER: That’s the last outburst for the day. People who want to sit in their seats and barrack through question time can do it in front of the TV screens in their offices.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister made statements in support of the America and Arab - led peace process, and how many letters has he received in support of that from members of the Opposition or their leaders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I actually think we should be very proud of the efforts of President Trump and the Arab nations that actually are creating a pathway to peace, to stop the killing, and to create the ceasefire, but I have received zero letters that I am aware of.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Is her economic plan the reason the economy is smaller now than it was when she took office; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): No. The economy is where it is now because harmful and painful inflation in 2021, in 2022, in 2023—fuelled by reckless Government spending—had to be brought down over time with high interest rates. As I said in my previous question, interest rates affect economic activity. New Zealand experienced a deep protracted downturn. We are coming out of that downturn, but the recovery has been difficult and not helped by international events. The member might want to look at the actions of the previous Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she is taking credit for the latest interest rate cut, will she also take responsibility that this cut is because of a stagnating economy caused by her Government’s inaction?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve taken no such credit.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is her economic plan to talk about growth, hope interest rates come down, and house prices grow?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Our approach, as a Government, is to address the underlying foundations for growth which includes low and stable inflation to create a lower interest rate environment; having responsibly managed books; driving reforms across the areas that have held New Zealand’s economy back for too long, including low rates of educational achievement, byzantine consenting processes, excessive regulatory burdens, and a dire approach to overseas investment. These are the reforms our Government is driving. I would like to play the same game that the member played with me yesterday and quote someone from the Mood of the Boardroom who said, “I find it difficult to reconcile responsibility for the policies of the last Government with critiques of the current Government’s attempts at managing the consequences of those policies”.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Well, then, does she agree with another business leader from Mood of the Boardroom, who said—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait, wait. The member’s own side is making noises. Please just wait for silence in the House.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with another business leader from the Mood of the Boardroom, who said, “The Government is ineffective. There is no compelling leadership and strategic plan evident that will turn New Zealand around.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Now, I prefer the view of the leader who said, “I … like Chris Hipkin’s but am frustrated by his lack of leadership.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree, then, with another business leader from the Mood of the Boardroom, who said, “saying ‘growth, growth, growth’ doesn’t actually help. Growth just isn’t evident, and the benefits seem to be for top-end only.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I disagree with that assessment, because the Government is doing far more than simply talking about growth. It has often been a reflection I have had that if some of the reforms that we are making had been made six years ago, how much better off our economy would be now. If only fast-track legislation had been in place such that we didn’t still have major infrastructure projects in this country being held back by red tape. If only we had moved earlier to invite in more foreign investment. If only we had moved earlier to ensure our children were learning to read, write, and do maths; to ensure that our welfare system encourages people into work. These reforms are necessary and overdue.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on the Government’s health targets?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Good news: the latest quarterly results for April to June show clear improvements after years of decline. We’re starting to make progress, wait times are starting to fall, and more patients are being treated faster. In our emergency departments, 73.9 percent of patients were admitted, treated, or discharged within six hours during that quarter, up from 71.2 percent during the same period last year, despite increased attendances. For faster cancer treatment, 86.3 percent of patients started their treatment within 31 days following diagnosis, up from 83.5 percent at the same time last year. Our focus is on performance and on putting patients first. Whilst there is still a long way to go, we are absolutely committed to ensuring all New Zealanders can access timely, quality healthcare when they need it.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What do the results show about improvements in childhood immunisation rates?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, 82 percent of children are now fully immunised by age two, up from 76.5 percent last year, representing the largest annual gain across all health targets. This is a significant achievement and milestone, and it is a huge thanks to our GPs and outreach providers and vaccinators up and down the country, who have done a tremendous job after years of decline, but there is still more work to do. The current measles cases serve as a timely reminder to get immunised, and I encourage more families to ensure that our children receive the healthy start to life that they deserve.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What progress has been made to improve elective wait times?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re making progress against our electives target to ensure New Zealanders are able to have their hip, knee, and cataract operations and other elective surgeries done in a timely manner. The elective targets saw the biggest quarterly improvement across all health targets, with the proportion of patients waiting less than four months increasing by 6.6 percent compared to last quarter, with every single district across the country seeing improvements. After years of ballooning wait-lists, the trend is starting to shift. Since January, the total wait-list has been reducing, with the total number of people waiting over four months also falling by around 24 percent. This is thanks to our Government’s Elective Boost, which has delivered more than 16,000 additional procedures, including hips, knees, and cataracts, between February and June by partnering with the private hospital sector.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What progress has been made in reducing wait times for first specialist assessments?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good progress is being made. The proportion of patients being seen within four months has lifted 3.8 percent in just one quarter, with Health New Zealand delivering 104 percent of planned first specialist assessments—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: You missed the bit about how it’s worse under your Government.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —in the June quarter. The Opposition member wants talk about the wait-lists; I would just remind her that the number of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment (FSA), under her watch, increased by over 6,000 percent while they were in Government. We are turning around a big wait-list, and we have a huge amount of work to do. Thanks to the hard-working doctors, surgeons, and specialists at Health New Zealand, they delivered a 104 percent of planned FSAs in the June quarter, meaning more patients were seen than planned.

Hon Peeni Henare: It’s still getting worse.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Some regions have seen—well, actually, they’re completely wrong; it is improving. That’s what the target says. That’s why we released them, and you can’t manage what you don’t measure, which is why we’ve got targets. Some regions have seen significant increases, with Whanganui up 18 percentage points, Bay of Plenty up 10.1 percent, and South Canterbury up 4.6 percent. It is good to see wait-lists for these critical assessments starting to reduce, but we acknowledge there is still a long way to go.

Question No. 6—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

6. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he agree with the former Minister who introduced the Marine and Coastal Area Act that his proposed amendments “do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them”; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): No, I don’t, but I do agree with Mr Finlayson’s statement at the time when the bill did go in, in 2011, where he talked about a very high threshold for customary marine titles being granted. That, in essence, is what we are seeking to establish with this legislation. What we’re trying to achieve is that balance between the natural expectations of all New Zealanders to have an interest in what occurs in the marine and coastal space and the opportunity for Māori to claim customary marine title. There was always a very high threshold involved in that, and that is what we are seeking to restore.

Tākuta Ferris: How many customary marine titles have been granted under this Act that will now be subject to challenge on the passing of his amendment bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There are several cases that have been heard that will have to be re-heard in light of this legislation if it passes. That’s not something we have undertaken lightly. It’s a significant thing to overturn Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, but we have done it because we believe it’s important to restore that balance, recognising the interests of all New Zealanders in what happens in the coastal area and recognising that customary marine title grants valuable rights, including the right to have a say over resource contents in that space. That’s why we had a high threshold.

Tākuta Ferris: If his goal is to guarantee the rights of all New Zealanders, when will his Government be introducing legislation to address the 13,000 privately owned parcels of land that actually prevent people from accessing the foreshore and seabed?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, anybody in a boat can access the foreshore and seabed, from any particular angle.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he consider that his decision to arbitrarily limit Māori rights to only 5 percent of the coastline is an example of a fair and durable framework, as was intended in this Act when it was first passed?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: When I was asked for a figure, I proffered one. I point to the fact that the previous Minister the member quoted at the start offered a 10 percent figure at one point. Both of us immediately made the point that, of course, ultimately it is up to the courts to decide where that lands through the process or through decisions made through the Government. It’s not an easy thing we’re trying to achieve. What we’re trying to achieve, as I said, is that balance between the expectations of all New Zealanders to have a say in what goes on in their coastal and marine environments and also to provide an opportunity to apply for customary marine titles. We think we’ve got that balance right, but it requires this legislation to be entered into the House.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he stand by his statement that this bill will “give effect to a commitment in the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to amend section 58 of the Act to make clear Parliament’s original intent”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, indeed.

Question No. 7—Minister of Education

7. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does teachers, principals, support staff, and Ministry of Education specialist staff all going on strike show that she is “growing and strengthening the education workforce”; if so, how?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Growing and strengthening the education workforce is exactly what this Government is doing, and, as I’ve already told the member on numerous occasions, the schooling teacher workforce grew by 2.5 percent in 2024, delivering 864 new teachers—the largest year-on-year increase since records began in 2009. On provisional figures for 2025, there’s been a 30 percent increase in domestic students enrolling in initial teacher education for the first time. We’ve strengthened the workforce by training 30,000 teachers in structured literacy, 20,000 in structured approaches to maths, and we’re delivering high-quality resources, professional learning and development, and, through Budget 2025, three-quarters of a billion dollars into learning support so that every single school has access to a learning support coordinator, along with 349 literacy intervention teachers for over 1,240 schools—exactly what the sector was asking for. No wonder more people than ever are flocking to the teaching profession.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why were teachers offered a pay rise of less than inflation when Crown board members are getting up to an 80 percent increase?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the member might like to go and chat with the unions, because the offer on the table at the moment is a fair and reasonable offer that meets the unions’ calls for meeting inflation. The 4.7 percent that is on the table at the moment is a fair and reasonable offer that we hope the New Zealand Educational Institute and Post Primary Teachers’ Association members will take seriously.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does the Minister for the Public Service’s comments that people are striking just to have a long weekend increase or decrease the likelihood of strike action?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not responsible for those comments.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask her if she was responsible for them; I said, “Will they increase or decrease the likelihood of strike action?”

SPEAKER: Yeah, but that’s not something—she can’t be responding to some other comment like that. That’s not at all reasonable.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m that Minister. I’d like the member to table the evidence of that quote that she said I said, because I don’t recall I ever said that, although it may be her interpretation.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was in order because the Minister does have responsibility—oversight—of the negotiations, and the question was, essentially: how are the negotiations going in light of the behaviour of one of the other Ministers?

SPEAKER: No, it wasn’t. The question was: given a particular statement, what was the likelihood of it either increasing or decreasing strike action? The Minister cannot know that—she has no responsibility for taking strike action. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, point of order.

SPEAKER: The Hon Willow-Jean Prime—oh, sorry. We’re all over the place. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, don’t tell us you’re going to accept his?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, well, you might learn something for the first time, sunshine.

SPEAKER: No, hang on, hang on, don’t do that—no, don’t.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I’m listening to “Idiot Features” here when I’m trying to give my—

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —point of order. My point of order is that Willow-Jean Prime has been challenged as to the veracity of a comment she made in her question, and she should not be able to get away with it just like that. Can she please now show us the background support of her quote?

SPEAKER: Look, here’s how we’ll deal with this. Firstly, the question has not stood, because it’s not an appropriate question, and so there’s no question about the need for the proof or otherwise, other than if the member is standing in the House and saying something that is a misrepresentation of another member, then that member has a course of action that they can follow.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she front up and speak to the strike on 23 October?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll tell you what I will do: I will be at four around-the-country, full-day curriculum roadshows where I will be presenting to teachers, principals, and school leaders, where we will be providing information on resourcing for new curriculum and professional learning and development, and unpacking some of the strategic leadership things that teachers and principals should be doing. I’ll be spending the entire day with hundreds and hundreds of principals around the country, and that is an excellent use of my time.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she accept responsibility for the anger that teachers, principals, and support staff are feeling, or will she continue to stick her head in the sand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This Government has been backing teachers since the day that we took office with more professional learning and development, more resourcing, more moving of back-end resources to deliver to the front line, three-quarters of a billion dollars into learning support, and more intervention teachers in mathematics and literacy. The amount of resources that we’ve been providing to the teaching profession to make their jobs easier is unparalleled, and I’m extraordinarily proud of that.

SPEAKER: Question No. 8, Greg Fleming—just wait for a moment and the House will quietly settle itself.

Question No. 8—Education

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): E te Mangai o te Whare. To the Minister of Education—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. I’m clearly going to have to get some additional microphones put down to the back end of the House because I’m missing far too much of a conversation across the aisles which shouldn’t be going on.

8. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made regarding school infrastructure?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Well, we’re continuing to supercharge the delivery of school infrastructure. We’re surging $413 million into improving classrooms and schools across the country. The investment package includes $58 million for maintenance work for all schools, which is a 50 percent uplift in their school maintenance grant; $255 million for improvements for small, rural, and isolated schools; $100 million over five years to fund urgent and essential infrastructure work. Our Government has turned around the delivery of school property, we’ve halved the cost of building new classrooms, and children deserve to live in safe, warm, dry classrooms and we’re delivering just that.

Greg Fleming: How many schools will benefit from this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, every school in New Zealand will benefit from the supercharge to school investment funding; in particular, 935 rural, small, isolated schools that have been crying out for increased funding and support, and we’re delivering that to them. That is for internal and external refits and increasing the number of small schools that are eligible for that. This funding allows for schools to do significant maintenance over the school holidays so students arrive in 2026 to improved classrooms—so they can focus on their learning and teaching the basics brilliantly.

Greg Fleming: What are the wider benefits of this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, more projects in the infrastructure pipeline mean more jobs for our hard-working tradies up and down the country. Schools will be able to do maintenance over the summer holidays, providing more work for our construction sector in every part of New Zealand. Tradies are going to be in schools up and down the country over the Christmas period. We are powering up the trade and construction sectors to create a steady flow of jobs for builders, plumbers, roofers, and more. This announcement is great for tradies, and what is great for tradies is great for our economy.

Greg Fleming: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve received a range of feedback from school leaders to the boost in infrastructure investment. One particular piece said: “Thank you. Great property announcement today. Very much appreciated. Great news. Loving the minimum top-up allocation component. Well done.” That was Andrew King, co-president of the Rural Schools Leadership Association. “Thank you, this will really be helpful and make a huge difference for us.”, “Wow, what a great opportunity not to be missed.”, and “We’re spending the money on gutter cleaning, downpipes replacements for our two to three - storey blocks. We are most grateful for the funding.” Our focus remains on driving efficiencies across the school property portfolio so parents, teachers, and communities have clarity and certainty about their school’s future.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the estimated reduction, if any, in the number of people receiving jobseeker support because of the proposed parental income test for 18- and 19-year-olds?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This policy is about fairness and personal responsibility, and our expectation that all 18- and 19-year-olds will be in employment, education, or training. I’m advised that around 4,300 fewer 18- and 19-year-olds will be eligible for the jobseeker support as a result of the parental assistance test, which has two parts: the parental income test and the parental support gap test. Where parents have the means to support their 18- and 19-year-old, taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to do so instead. The parental income test was not included in Budget 2025, which means more 18- and 19-year-olds are eligible than would have been. We are determined to reverse the trend we inherited, which saw people under the age of 25 on jobseeker spend an average of 18 more years on benefit. This has been 49 percent longer than in 2017.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why has she incentivised parents on the threshold of the income requirement to reduce their hours just so 18- and 19-year-olds can access jobseeker?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We haven’t. What we have done is said that parents with 18- and 19-year-olds should be supporting their children to ensure that they are in further education, training, or a job.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why should parents who are receiving Working for Families for a younger child have to choose between receiving the help they need or giving it up so their dependent 18- or 19-year-old can access jobseeker?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On this side of the House, we believe that all parents want the best for their children and to ensure that their 18- and 19-year-olds are set up for a great life, which means they’re in employment, education, or training.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why has she made it so that two parents who are both working 27 hours each on the minimum wage can now work 11 hours less a week and yet be financially better off?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because what we don’t want to see is the welfare dependency that we saw blow out in the six years of the previous Government; as I said, a 47 percent increase in the length of time a young person under 25 would go on to spend on welfare. It’s not good enough, which is why we are making sensible policy changes to interrupt a life for young people who should not be stuck on welfare.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim that this change will incentivise young people when her Government has increased university fees, increased youth unemployment, cut the Apprenticeship Boost, and made life even harder for working Kiwi families struggling with the cost of living crisis?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I reject the comments that member makes. The Prime Minister today—for, I don’t know, the hundredth time or the thousandth time—outlined a lesson in economics, which is why we are where we are. My concern is the welfare dependency that we inherited where we don’t accept it is good enough for a young person to spend 18 future years of their life stuck on welfare.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister explain what giant leap in comprehension it takes for people to realise that the first responsibility for a family member lies with the family and not the taxpayer?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Indeed. That’s why our side of the House wants to see young people prepared for a life of opportunity so more of them are in education, training, or in a job.

Question No. 10—Education

10. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent reports has he seen on school attendance, and why does he think going to school matters to students’ futures?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I've seen a recent report from the Education Review Office called Back to class: How are attitudes to attendance changing? The Education Review Office, and in particular Ruth Shinoda, have done a superb job surveying 15,000 students, teachers, and parents about how they view the importance of school attendance and what ensures that children are more likely to attend. This survey follows an identical survey in 2022, and most critically, it shows that in nearly every single measure for nearly every type of person, attitudes to attendance are improving. That is important to New Zealand, because when people want to attend and believe it's important, they're more likely to do it. I believe the most important number in New Zealand today is the number of children who go to school, because the amount of education that we pass from one generation to another more powerfully defines our future than anything else we can do on this day.

Laura McClure: Does the report show that poverty is a barrier to school attendance?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Indeed, the report does show that in some cases, poverty and the lack of things such as school uniforms, transport, or stationery are a barrier to attendance. That's one reason why the Government has put aside 3 percent of attendance service funding as money to be put to precisely those sorts of barriers for particular students. However, encouragingly—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The answers to parliamentary questions are supposed to be short and to the point, and this answer has multiple layers. The question was answered, in fact, in the first sentence.

SPEAKER: This answer was only something like 20, 24 seconds into its delivery. It may be—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, he’s making up for the last time, which was four minutes.

SPEAKER: Well, the longest answer today was one minute and 16 seconds. It was the Minister of Health, but that was as a response to a whole lot of interjections that he was responding to across the House. So thank you very much for your timekeeping efforts. I deeply appreciate it, but they're not all that accurate.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Critically, 82 percent of students from poorer families said that going to school is important for their future. That compares with 84 percent of students from wealthier families. In other words, they're almost exactly the same. Three years ago there was a 10-point gap. Now they are almost exactly the same, and that gives me real hope for the future of New Zealand. While education may not have done well for Duncan Webb, this Government thinks it's important.

Laura McClure: What role do parents play and how have their views changed?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It's true that parents are a critical link in the attendance story, and what is so important in this survey is that the number of students who say that they are comfortable keeping their kids off school for a week or more remains far too high at three out of 10 parents. It has fallen in the last three years. Three years ago, it was four out of 10 parents who thought it was OK for their children to miss a week of school. The Government's message is that that's taking away from their future and it's not OK.

Laura McClure: What can teachers and principals do, and how is this changing?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: One of the key findings is that the expectations set by principals and teachers are critical, and yet there has been an enormous improvement in that, too: 93 percent of teachers and school leaders report that they set clear expectations with students, and 60 percent of students say that they have increased their efforts to set clear expectations for school attendance in their school community. I want to thank the Education Review Office and all of those school leaders, parents, and students for joining us on a journey to where going to school regularly becomes the norm. It’s vital to the future of our country.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. STEVE ABEL (Green) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: Does he agree with the SPCA that “the use of farrowing crates causes significant animal welfare problems for both sow and piglets”; if so, why has the Government introduced legislation to extend the use of farrowing crates by at least another decade?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): The changes that the Government are proposing are a significant strengthening of the animal welfare standards for pig farming. Advice I have received shows that confining sows just after farrowing is an effective tool at reducing the number of piglet-crush fatalities. An analysis of 22 scientific articles that are relevant shows that piglet mortality risk is 14 percent higher in systems that do not confine sows after farrowing. The 10-year transition time I have proposed is significant but this is a very big shift in farming systems for most of the pig industry. With the other changes I’m proposing, an independent economic analysis estimated the cost of transition at more than $675,000 for the average indoor pig farm. It’s only reasonable that those farming families have an opportunity to make this change.

Steve Abel: Why is the Minister going against independent welfare experts who say farrowing crates cause significant suffering for mother pigs and piglets; they increase the risk of stillbirth; restrict normal nesting behaviour of mother pigs; and cause boredom, sores, pain, and distress due to prolonged confinement? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. Someone was speaking during that question.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I still heard it.

SPEAKER: Hold on. You might have heard it. That’s not the point. No one speaks when a question’s being asked, no matter what you might think of the question. So you can ask it again.

Steve Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is the Minister going against independent welfare experts who say farrowing crates cause significant suffering for mother pigs and piglets, they increase the risk of stillbirth, restrict normal nesting behaviour of mother pigs, and cause boredom, sores, pain, and distress due to prolonged confinement?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: As I explained in the primary question, farrowing crates reduce piglet mortality by 14 percent. This is important. This is based on advice that comes from scientific experts in this field. It is the result of looking at a range of a number of studies. So I am completely comfortable with the changes we are making. We are reducing the time from 33 days down to seven. Most of the rest of the world is at 33 days; we are reducing down to seven.

Steve Abel: Is he aware that it is a profound behavioural need of mother pigs to build a nest 24 hours before giving birth, and if they are caged it is deeply distressing for them, they will literally paw the ground, often bloodying their snouts, trying to build a nest?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: That is why we are introducing a requirement that nesting materials must be provided prior to farrowing. So we are covering this. I have visited pig farms, where I have been there after piglets have been farrowed, and I saw absolutely no sign of any of that.

Steve Abel: How does he justify extending the use of cruel farrowing crates indefinitely when every animal welfare organisation in New Zealand, including the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee [NAWAC], and 73 percent of New Zealanders oppose the use of farrowing crates because of worse welfare outcomes for mother pigs and piglets?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Whilst NAWAC’s initial advice was that temporary crating was not acceptable, a reconsideration recognised that limited use of crating after farrowing was acceptable, although they remained concerned around how the pre-farrowing crating would inhibit nest building. But as I said, we have strengthened those requirements for the material to be available for the nest building.

Steve Abel: Why was targeted consultation only undertaken with the pork industry across 2024 and 2025, while animal welfare organisations were blindsided on Friday with his plans to cancel the phase out of farrowing crates, and does he regard protecting animal welfare as his primary responsibility, or enacting the wishes of the pork industry?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I will make zero apologies for talking to the people that regulations in this House will affect the most. These are going to be massive changes for your average pig-farming operation. They needed to be consulted. We needed to ensure that we had a system that was practical and affordable for them, otherwise we would not have a pig-farming industry in New Zealand.

Question No. 12—Infrastructure

12. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his statement, “we make it too hard to deliver and maintain the infrastructure New Zealand needs”; if so, how is that consistent with a $2.6 billion drop in planned spending on capital commitments by the Government for the 11 months to May 2025?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: Yes, and, to the second part, the member misunderstands the statement of commitments in the latest Crown accounts. Let me explain: the statement of commitments does not indicate a drop in planned spending, it records, instead, at a particular point in time, where contracts have been signed that would involve the Crown spending money but the money hasn’t yet been paid or even owed. It doesn’t include forecast infrastructure spending where there is not yet a contract. For example, the figure she is referring to does not include many major upcoming projects that are being funded by this Government, including the Northland Expressway, main works for the new Dunedin Hospital, Christchurch Men’s Prison, and the Nelson Hospital redevelopment. In fact, this Government is investing more in infrastructure than was planned when we came in. Over the next four years, we have budgeted to invest a record $61.8 billion in public infrastructure, and this number is only set to grow with new capital earmarked for allocation and is a huge step up from the $50.6 billion the previous Government invested between 2019 and 2023.

Arena Williams: Isn’t the point that the damage is done, with 20,000 jobs gone after he decided to stop and pause infrastructure builds?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I will reiterate the answer I just gave to the previous question, which is that investment in infrastructure has increased under this Government. I invite the member to look at the Budget allocations and see that we have chosen to allocate more funding to infrastructure than was previously the case. The member seems to be labouring under the same misunderstanding her colleague Ginny Andersen had yesterday, in the last round of “Who’s got talent?”, in which she said that all changes in the construction sector are due to what public investment is happening in infrastructure. The private sector builds a significant amount of New Zealand’s infrastructure, and when private sector projects like Auckland port and major housing developments can’t even get a consent, that holds it back, which is why fast track is so important, and which is why today’s 50-basis-point Official Cash Rate reduction is also pretty important.

Arena Williams: Does he know that, to build his infrastructure pipeline, he will need the 761 private sector construction employers who have shut their doors and laid off their people in the last year, and how does he plan to stop the liquidations of two construction firms every day on his watch?

SPEAKER: Concise answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it is the case that, as the economy recovers, we expect that more jobs will be created in the construction sector.

Arena Williams: If the economy is recovering, then why are 200 New Zealanders leaving every day, including thousands of builders, heading to Australia instead of staying here to build in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as has previously been traversed in this House, it is the case throughout New Zealand’s history that, as economies recover, fewer New Zealanders leave, and we expect that to be the case.

Arena Williams: How will he get those builders back on the tools here at home when our economy is shrinking, everyday costs continue to rise, and wages remain flat?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member has failed to engage with the basic premise I set to her in the answer to the primary question, which is that this Government is investing a record amount in public infrastructure. In fact, we built more classrooms in the last year than the last Government did. We built more social housing in our last 23 months than that Government did in its last three years. I will not stand here and have that fact barracked—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is a fact that I will repeat again: we have built more social homes in the past 23 months than the last Government did in its last three years. Between now and Christmas, more than $7 billion worth of infrastructure projects will commence, including upgrades to Auckland City Hospital, Middlemore Hospital, Hawke’s Bay Hospital, the construction of a new acute mental health unit at Hutt Valley Hospital; over $5 billion worth of roading projects—the Ōtaki to north of Levin highway, Melling interchange, Waihoehoe Road, the Ōmanawa bridge; and more than $800 million in school property projects, which we’re building better and faster than ever before. This is a Government that believes in public infrastructure and is getting it built.

Question No. 7 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers to question No. 7.

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

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. In question No. 7, in the third supplementary, I mentioned that I will be spending the entire day presenting to hundreds of principals. I should have said I will be spending the week presenting to principals. I mentioned that all schools will be receiving a learning support coordinator, and to be clear, I should have said all schools with years 0 to 8 students.

General Debate

General Debate

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

We just heard the Minister of Finance waxing and waning lyrical about some basic facts and basic maths, so let’s provide some of those basic facts and basic maths. If there are four job seekers that are available for every job in this country—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Ha! Why don’t they just give up?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that means that there are four times as many people looking for jobs than jobs that are available—I say to the Hon Paul Goldsmith. There are not enough jobs in this country for the beneficiaries that this Government is intent on punching down upon. It does not matter how hard you seek to punish people when there are not enough jobs for them to move into.

We asked the Prime Minister at question time today if he could guarantee that there was a job available for every job seeker that he seems so intent on punishing, and he deflected from the question. So our point to the Government is that New Zealanders, and young people in particular, can’t work your ghost jobs.

The Prime Minister says that these young people should move to where the jobs are. But, again, some of those basic facts: there are 36,000 fewer jobs and there are 10,000 more unemployed young people in the two years since this Government came to office and implemented their economic policies of firing up the shredder and cutting billions of dollars of investment in our economy and in our people. That probably explains why New Zealanders are, unfortunately, leaving in boatloads to the tune of approximately 200 every single day to Australia, because that is this Government’s policy on where the jobs are.

Cuts are not how you build a country. Evidentially, it’s how you break one, and it is abundantly clear that this Government’s economic policy is to kill the golden goose: to whittle down our infrastructure to such an anaemic state and then to pass it off at bargain-bin prices to the private sector, and also then to exploit the very environment that we trade on on the international stage. They have cut thousands of State home builds. They have scaled back infrastructure in hospitals, resulting in 15,000 fewer construction sector jobs.

If I can reiterate that point: there are 36,000 fewer jobs and 10,000 more young people that are jobless under this Government, and the Government’s response? To punish those young people and to make them dependent on their parents, unless their parents are earning no more than $66,000 per year combined.

We asked the Prime Minister today in question time if he had any awareness whatsoever about the specific 2,000 young people who would be disproportionately impacted under the jobseeker support health condition disability benefit. These are young people who are currently experiencing severe mental ill-health, who are disabled, or who are profoundly sick, whom this Government has decided to make dependent on their parents or force them to move somewhere else, to where jobs currently don’t exist, because this Government has gutted those very jobs.

This is just the latest in a long line of policies, which this Government has been warned will make more people poor, will make more people homeless, and will actively increase inequality. What is this Government’s response to these statements in the House right now? To laugh. I really hope that New Zealanders understand just how much this Government laughs at the state of affairs which this Government is handing down to future generations, because this Government is choosing to intentionally make life harder for New Zealanders. What that is exposing is that we are not so much currently in a cost of living crisis; we are in a cost of greed crisis. This Government is fanning the flames with their intentional decisions.

But the message that we want New Zealanders to hear is that things do not have to be this way. The Greens have spent the last 18 months outlining our solutions and our clear policies, which would see free early childhood education, free dentistry, and free GPs. We would create 40,000 good, green jobs because we used to make things in this country and we can do it again. The way that we get there is through having a fairer tax system—which I know terrifies those guys more than anything.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The jeering on the other side of the House—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute, we might start again. There’s far too much barracking across the House. It could be because people have got various mouths full for various reasons, but they shouldn’t have. The Hon Barbara Edmonds, start again.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The jeering from the other side of the House during the last speaker’s speech is exactly why that side of the House and the Government is so disconnected from everyday New Zealanders, because you can jeer and laugh at the teenagers who need jobs, you can jeer and laugh at the fact that we are doing nothing for climate change in this House because of that Government, and you can jeer and laugh at the fact that this economy is tanking because of their inaction, but they won’t think that’s funny, because they are so disconnected from everyday New Zealanders.

Do you think Christopher Luxon has any idea what life is really like for everyday New Zealanders? Do you think he knows what it’s like to stand at a supermarket aisle, to think “Can I afford this? Should I put this bread back? Should I get that bottle of milk”? Do you think he has any idea how everyday New Zealanders feel in the supermarket aisles? Does he have any idea of what it’s like to sit at your kitchen table with papers and papers of bills, trying to make those numbers add up and wondering “Where on earth am I going to get this money for my power bill, am I going to get this money for my insurance premiums, am I going to get this money to pay my rates?”? Of course he doesn’t. That is the reality for New Zealanders all across this country right now.

The Prime Minister is so out of touch that I bet you—and I’m willing to take a wager from anyone here in Parliament—that he hasn’t got a clue at all, because, in his own words, he is “wealthy and sorted”. In his own words, he is “wealthy and sorted”. He promised to make life better for New Zealanders.

Grant McCallum: He works hard; nothing wrong with working hard.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: What has he actually done? He’s made it worse. The members on that side say, “Well, he worked hard for it.” Do you know what? There are people up and down this country who are working extremely hard, who are not just working one job but are working two jobs, that are working three jobs just to make ends meet. That is the problem when you’re so out of touch that working hard is not just about working hard; it’s about making sure that jobs are here in New Zealand. If you stayed connected to your community, you’d understand that. This Government isn’t on the side of ordinary New Zealanders; they’re on the side of tobacco companies, of property speculators, of the oil and gas industry. It’s the wealthy few who are sorted, not everyday New Zealanders.

When they stand up and they say, “Oh, the economy is turning a corner—turning a corner”, let’s be clear what that really means: it means thousands of people with no work; it means 200 Kiwis per day leaving Aotearoa New Zealand for Australia, for better opportunities; it means Kiwis here are unable to afford to see their GP.

Rawiri Waititi: No, not “Go the Wallabies!”, no!

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Those “Mozzies”—yes, those “Mozzies”. They have lost control of this economy, and we all know that. They can dance on the head of a pin and say, “Oh, we brought interest rates down.” It’s quite interesting to see, today, the Minister of Finance saying, “I didn’t take any credit for it”, despite, in the first question before that, saying the Government takes credit for it. That is a system of a stagnating economy where we have lost jobs, we are losing Kiwis, we have a health system in crisis, and a Government who is more than willing to make people homeless, to say to our teenagers “Just go under the support of mum and dad.” Well, you know what? The support of mum and dad would be great if mum and dad didn’t have to try and work two or three jobs just to put a roof over their heads. According to the National Party MPs, they do not work hard.

New Zealanders can demand a Government that they deserve. The Government has lost control of the economy. This is exactly what the National Party wants to do: to blame everyone else, give support to the wealthy people, and never mind the “bottom feeders”, because they’re wealthy and they’re sorted.

The next Labour Government won’t just be a Labour Government; it will be a Government for everybody in New Zealand, because when everybody thrives in New Zealand, our country thrives. When we invest in our people, when you create jobs, they will want to stay here, and they will want to make New Zealand a better place. At the moment, that Government is giving them no option but to leave.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Can I start by offering that member Barbara Edmonds a history lesson. Back in 2008, the previous National Government came in, inherited a financial shambles and an economy in recession, and had a very tough couple of years at the start of the first term to get things sorted. After a period of consistent clarity about building, focusing on growth, focusing on investment, and giving confidence to the broader community, in our second and third terms the economy was growing well, and we managed to reverse the flow across the Tasman, and that’s going to happen again this time. Again, we came in, we inherited a shambles, we inherited a lack of growth, and we’re going to turn it around. We’ve got every confidence that New Zealand will be zinging in the future and providing the opportunities for New Zealanders to get ahead and for their families to do well.

I wanted to talk about a broader issue, because there’s been a lot of discussion around the world about social division, about polarisation, about incivility in politics, and about aggression in politics. If we look around the world, often the people talk about it and say that it’s the far-right that’s behind that, but the reality in New Zealand, of course, is that it’s the Greens that are driving that level of aggression in politics. It’s the Greens—it’s the sanctimonious “tofu wouldn’t melt in your mouth” Greens—who are the ones who are driving the division and acrimony within our body politic, aided and abetted by Labour.

There is no place in this democracy for intimidation, and yet that is what we have been seeing over the last few weeks, months, and years. People are lining up, banging pots, using loud hailers, and intimidating politicians in their own homes. Chlöe Swarbrick and the Greens have been behind a lot of this, and the hypocrisy is, quite frankly, outrageous. You look at a quote from Benjamin Doyle saying that “No person should have to avoid going to the supermarket or the letterbox because they’ve been advised that doing so would expose them to violence.”, and yet, at the same time, you’ve got Ricardo Menéndez March writing letters in support of people who vandalise MPs’ offices and, at the same time, you’ve got the leader of the Greens in press conferences with a peace-loving actor who hands out the private addresses of MPs for people to go and hassle them.

Ultimately, the Greens are in the area of politics in this country that is most associated with intimidation and aggression. They need to look at themselves quite closely, and the Labour Party needs to ask itself whether they support this or not. It’s interesting that we’ve seen Duncan Webb saying, “Well, no, actually, we’re going to stick to our guns. We think people should protest outside MPs’ houses.” and Mr Hipkins has said that they shouldn’t, but they both voted against the bill that we’ve got in the House that deals with it.

Why does this matter—why does this matter for ordinary New Zealanders? It matters because civility in politics and the ability for New Zealanders to talk to each other and to push back against that global direction of division and polarisation is an important part not only of our democracy but of how we succeed as a country.

We want to succeed as a country and we want to do well, and, yes, there are lots of challenges we face. In my area of the Treaty negotiations, there are lots of challenges. We have big debates about what sovereignty means in the modern context, but the point is that we still talk about it. We get together, we talk, we discuss, and we thrash out ideas. We don’t always agree, but we keep talking.

That is the strength of this country and it’s why we do so well, and so we need to defend that civility that we have inherited in this country. We need to preserve it. We need to do everything we can to ensure that it continues. My challenge, particularly to the Greens, is that they need to change their approach, and my challenge to Labour is to be clear about where you stand on these issues.

When it comes, ultimately, to the ongoing success of this country—which we all have a huge belief in as a country as a great place to live, and also a great place to raise a family, make a living, and do well. The economic foundation of that is so important, and that’s why we’re focused on that as a Government, but the broader democratic traditions that we’ve inherited and that we benefit from need to be preserved. My encouragement to all parties across the House is to just think twice about the approach that is taken around intimidation and, frankly, to support this legislation that we have before the House to ensure that no New Zealander has to suffer people intimidating them in their private home—in their castle—and to do the right thing by that.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): My speech today is directed at the fourth estate—the media—and the Government’s constant attack on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There have been 14 inquiries in the last 18 months into Māori organisations and Te Pāti Māori, and not a single allegation was upheld. Public Service inquiry against Manurewa Marae, Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust, the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency: no negative findings or evidence found in this inquiry. In other words, despite widespread attacks by political parties and the media, innocence was maintained.

Stats NZ: claims of misuse of census data—claims proven to be false, and the CEO of Stats NZ resigned over this manner. Te Whatu Ora: allegations of misappropriation use of data. Findings were that Health New Zealand did not sufficiently protect public data. Subsequently, Health New Zealand’s CEO resigned. Electoral Commission investigation into Manurewa Marae, polling booth, and Te Pāti Māori: investigation found no evidence of political interference despite immense negative media and political scrutiny. Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency Māori enrolment initiative, investigated by Te Puni Kōkiri, was proven to be fully legitimate—it was found to be part of their contractual terms.

Political parties and media relentlessly attacked Te Pāti Māori and Māori providers in the public domain regarding these allegations over the last 18 months, yet since the news of these allegations being found false has come to light, where are the headlines? Where are the apologies? Other than Waatea News, no one has condemned the allegations to date. No headlines from the fourth estate—the media—proving they will be deafening in our condemnation and silent in our innocence. This only further highlights that Māori will always be guilty by whakapapa, and that we will always be tried, convicted, and executed before the truth is revealed, whilst the wealthy get to hide behind name suppression and privilege. That’s how Māori are treated in this country’s media. If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead.

When allegations were made against Manurewa Marae, Whānau Ora, Te Pou Matakana, and Te Pāti Māori, the headlines screamed corruption before a single fact was proven, and, when the truth came out—when the Police, Stats NZ, the Public Service Commission, and the Serious Fraud Office found no evidence, and when the successful Māori kaupapa were cleared—the media went quiet. That silence speaks volumes because, in this country, the presumption of guilt still has a whakapapa, and it’s brown.

We are not afraid of scrutiny, we welcome truth, but what we reject completely is the colonial gaze that turns Māori excellence into suspicion and Māori success into scandal. We will not apologise for being powerful, unapologetically Māori, and politically awake. The real corruption is not in our marae or our movements; it is in the headlines that still treat us as intruders on our own land. I want to acknowledge Takutai Moana and the attacks that she withstood under the investigations of Manurewa Marae by those in this House and the media. I wish you were here still to see the outcome of the innocence upheld by Manurewa Marae. We wait the apologies you are due, Takutai, now posthumously, as a rangatira who endured these false allegations alongside your whānau and your marae.

In addition to accusations and inquiries, the Government still attacks our people by continuing to keep te iwi Māori struggling: the cost of living crisis; the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority; section 7AA, Oranga Tamariki; the Regulatory Standards Bill; Treaty principles bill; Marine and Coastal Area; removing tikanga Māori from justice systems; removing $30 million from Māori education. Despite the continued attacks, our people continue to rise. When faced with the Treaty principles bill, over 100,000 people hikoi-ed and over 300,000 submissions were made—over 90 percent in opposition. The latest Electoral Commission figures show that, since April 2023, almost 31,000 voters have switched to the Māori roll, and more than 25,000 first-time voters have gone for the Māori electoral option. Over a billion people saw the haka led by Hana in Parliament. The world is watching the continued rise of a movement against this Government.

Our people are rising, and there has been unity demonstrated on a scale never seen in Aotearoa before, in retaliation to this Government. We are committed to our mokopuna. We will activate ourselves. When we vote for ourselves, when we believe in ourselves, we keep sailing towards our Aotearoa hou. Kia ora tātou.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): We on this side of the House welcome today’s announcement by the Reserve Bank to lower the official cash rate to 2.5 percent. This provides much-needed relief for businesses and households right across New Zealand. Today, I wish to touch on my home city of Auckland, because we are facing a long COVID hangover. That COVID hangover was caused by the previous Labour Government spending $66 billion of taxpayer money and raking up debt, over twice, to 44 percent of gross domestic product. That was the largest debt-fuelled spending binge in the developed world, according to the IMF.

Now, the good news is there are some good, green shoots for the economic recovery. I’d like to focus on three areas of green shoots, today. The first is infrastructure. My colleagues—some of whom are here today—and I visited the Port of Auckland on Monday. Under the fast-track regime, we have just consented a new project at the Port of Auckland to improve the extension of the Fergusson north berth. That will enable cruise ships that are bigger to dock here in Auckland, and it will enable about 200 jobs. That approval took place in 66 days, in record time—record time that would have never happened under the previous Government.

The second area is the Milldale development in the Auckland suburb of Wainui. I had to look up Wainui. I’ve never been to Wainui. It’s in the north of Auckland. We’ve got Fulton Hogan Land Development, and they’re delivering around 1,100 housing units to the total of $595 million—again, under this Government’s fast-track approvals regime, which never would have happened under the previous Government.

Let’s talk about the previous Government. What did they deliver in infrastructure? Light rail to nowhere; the Skypath, $50 million of money spent and nothing delivered. We are getting on with it. The second key area is around red tape—red tape in regard to earthquake remediation. Don’t we have a great Minister in Chris Penk, everyone? He has announced significant reforms in the area to the tone of removing the whole of Auckland from the seismic zone and the earthquake-prone buildings system. That is going to have real benefits for Aucklanders. That’s going to mean an estimated $4.5 billion does not need to be spent on strengthening buildings right across the Auckland division. That money can be spent on expanding your business and employing extra staff to encourage economic growth.

The third area is around sports and entertainment. We’ve got some great announcements around a better utilisation of stadiums like Eden Park. What an untapped potential. I think the only person in Auckland that doesn’t want that to go ahead is Helen Clark, but that is going to provide real economic opportunity for this country.

Grant McCallum: The tennis centre.

DAN BIDOIS: “We’ve got the tennis centre,” said Grant McCallum. He’s a regular at the ASB Classic. That’s going to be a $5 million co-investment, and that’s going to, again, provide real opportunity. It’s a huge opportunity.

There are some really good, encouraging initiatives going on in Auckland, on top of things like declining mortgage rates and on top of things like improved confidence. These will all mean a really great future for those in Auckland. It shows, if you look at economic forecasts, we’re already growing as a country and as a city. We know that times are still tough for many Aucklanders out there. I’m certainly optimistic about the future for Auckland and our country under a coalition Government, a Government that believes in minimal government, a Government that believes in a vibrant private sector where people go out there and create the economic opportunities, not some bureaucrats in Wellington. It is a positive future. The economic recovery has only just begun in Auckland.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the 9th floor of the Beehive today, there was a set of numbers that was being eagerly anticipated by the Prime Minister and his staff. It was not the official cash rate; it was their own pollster, Curia, coming out with their latest poll. What has happened? The National Party has dipped into the 20s, that psychological number that has every backbencher shaking in their boots, watching their majority disappear.

Not only has the party dipped into the 20s but Christopher Luxon is not the preferred Prime Minister in this country. That is from the Government's own pollster, Curia, and I think this speaks very much to how weak and out of touch Christopher Luxon is showing New Zealanders he is. It is also showing how weak and out of touch the Government is.

In a week where we've been talking about a 4:1 ratio of job seekers, that applies no more than the National front bench. There are at least four job seekers sitting on that front bench queuing up for that job, and Christopher Luxon’s days are numbered. Those four pretenders to the crown aren't even counting the cosplaying Prime Ministers of Winston Peters and David Seymour; they’re four job seekers from in his own ranks. If John Key was the “Teflon” Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon is showing himself to be the “Velcro” Prime Minister. Nothing he is doing is working for New Zealanders. It is taking us backwards. He made a big promise to New Zealanders that things were going to get better, but they're getting worse.

I want to talk about energy pricing in this country. I want to talk about a report that the Government released last week. Have we seen one Government question to the Minister for Energy this week in this House for the Government to talk about their famed reforms that were going to go on? Have we seen a contribution in this general debate with the National Party crowing about what it's achieved? The answer is no, and that is not surprising. While Simon Watts was out there foreshadowing that this was going to be a fundamental reform and significant but surgical reforms and changes were coming, he oversold it. At best, Simon Watts stumbled to the cupboard and grabbed a Disprin—that's how far from a surgical set of reforms.

How was it received? Well, these reforms were held up to be an abject failure, I think called a “nothing-burger” by some commentators. Simon Bridges, a former leader of the National Party, made it clear that the National Party had let the country down, that it had missed its opportunity and was not delivering what should be there.

There was an opportunity. There was an opportunity to do something to relieve New Zealand businesses and households of the burden of a broken energy system, and they fumbled it. They delivered absolutely nothing. Two reforms were taken on. The only group of people that came out and called these so-called “nothing-burger” reforms bold was a gentailer. What happened to the gentailer’s share prices on the day that the Government announced that set of significant but surgical reforms? The gentailer’s share prices soared. That's how significant they were in reforming a broken market.

The other people that will be absolutely happy are fossil fuel companies, because they are the other beneficiaries of these so-called reforms that were being shared. What we have is a set of reforms that are not going to make energy cheaper for New Zealand households and businesses. It is not doing anything to save jobs in this country or create jobs. We have a Government that has kowtowed once again to vested interests and failed to deliver for New Zealanders who are counting on them. They promised big. They have let New Zealand down, and Christopher Luxon reminds us on a daily basis how out of touch and how weak he is as a leader.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform): For 30 years, the Resource Management Act has turned common sense into a compliance circus. Problem one: absurdity. Up on the Tararua Ranges a regional council told a wind farm that they had to install a fish passage in a culvert under a temporary road, in a sheep paddock that had been dry for 50 years. Now, unless trout grow legs and buy hiking boots, they’re not getting there. That’s not environmental protection; it’s performance art.

Problem two: paralysis by in-box. A council spent a week, at $230 per hour, arguing over email about where a developer of affordable homes should put the clothesline. That’s a week that families spent in their old, damp homes, instead of new, warm, dry homes.

Problem three: petty policing. In the Waikato, I heard last week, a council called a farmer, demanding to know who was living in the other farmhouse on their farm because the consent for that farmhouse said it was for farm workers. Now—

Hon Judith Collins: Mind their own business.

SIMON COURT:—since when did councils become the tenancy police? And Minister Collins, she knows these people; she knows this one.

Problem four: plans that punish growers. In the Manawatū, Canterbury, and Waikato under Plan Change 1, regional rules demand consents for what commons sense says should be permitted: growing food for people. You shouldn’t need a consultant and a lawyer to plant onions. These aren’t isolated tales; this is the Resource Management Act. The result is higher power bills, dearer groceries, slower housing investors who simply walk away.

Now the facts. In a few months, this Government—and it's set out in the Government's quarter four plan—will introduce a new resource management system with two focused laws: a natural environment Act which sets clear environmental rules suited to each region, so we stop arguing over trivia and focus on the real environmental risks that we need to manage. A planning Act will make it simpler and more affordable to deliver infrastructure and housing. Standard rules upfront, not bespoke conditions for every culvert and clothesline.

We will permit common low risk activities by default. We'll cap council fishing expeditions for more information, that drag out consents for months and years. Infrastructure will get a straight path, with spatial planning and national direction that actually enables quarries, power generation, pipes, transmission and, of course, waste disposal facilities without which our cities would choke and die.

We're going to have a low-cost planning tribunal to call time on unreasonable demands, quickly and publicly. Māori engagement happens where it's meaningful, and national direction and plan-making not bolted on to every consent. What does that deliver? Well, energy projects delivered on time; the trout on the ridge nonsense disappears; wind, solar, thermal, gas, coal all on the same consenting pathway, easing bills for infrastructure and households; warm, dry homes sooner; no week-long email epics about clothes-lines; clear, standardised rules and zones across the country; simple compliance; infrastructure planned once and delivered without all the drama; farming and horticulture treated as productive, not presumed to be harmful; growing food permitted and risks managed through farm plans.

Targeted controls and consents will still be necessary, but they should be the exception, not the rule. More time in paddocks, less time in council meeting rooms. The regions will be unlocked; Waikato, Canterbury, Horowhenua and others won't be stuck in the slow lane, hobbled by old plans and nonsensical rules. Treaty settlements will still be upheld, special places protected, freshwater and coastal areas simply managed under the Natural Environment Act. Investment confidence returns, fewer bespoke fights, predictable decisions, and upfront spatial planning.

ACT in Government is stripping back the system to the essentials, protecting the environment with clear limits. I'm fizzing to introduce this reform, alongside Minister Chris Bishop. Let's get it done, let's grow, let's build, let's dream big.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Growth and more growth means jobs and more jobs, it means higher wages, and it means a better future for New Zealanders. That is why we are driving economic growth in the regions, backing our primary sector which creates jobs and opportunities. So the news today of the official cash rate dropping another 50 basis points and decreasing mortgage rates is welcome news for families struggling with mortgage repayments, but it is also welcome news for our growers, farmers, and businesses across Hawke’s Bay because it gives confidence and certainty and more money to invest in growing our economy and creating jobs, and this lifts wages for everyone. This is why we are laser-focused on economic growth.

With the recent recess that we’ve had, I took the opportunity to get out across our amazing Tukituki electorate. A highlight in the last few weeks was visiting the Hastings Stortford Lodge saleyards, and it was amazing to see the farmer confidence back again, with record highs in farmer confidence because finally they have a Government that is backing them and allowing our farmers to do what they do best, and that is farm. We’ve slashed the red tape, we’ve got rid of the bureaucracy, and we’ve been out in the world hustling for trade deals so we have better markets to send our good products to, and, wow, is that making a difference.

There is a massive global demand for our red meat, and it was amazing, actually, to sit next to a farmer at the cattle sale and he said he had never seen such record prices in his lifetime. Cattle were going out the gate for $3,500 each, and this is just phenomenal for the growth of our economy because it motivates more spending and puts more money back into the pockets of New Zealanders.

It’s not just our Hawke’s Bay farmers putting money back into our economy; it’s our growers, too. Hawke’s Bay is the fruit bowl of New Zealand, contributing hugely to our economic growth story. Having a Government backing our Hawke’s Bay horticulture sector is making a huge difference. For years, I sat on the board of New Zealand Apples and Pears, and under the Labour Government the apple industry could never meet the $1 billion export mark. Well, guess what? Under our Government it has exceeded the $1 billion export mark. In fact, our horticulture exports have hit record highs: $8.5 billion this year.

I was just recently out at the Yummy Fruit Co., and I had this awesome guy come up to me in the packhouse and he said to me, “Thank you for all the work that you’re doing in horticulture.” He said he’d been on a benefit but he was now able to hold down a job and provide for his five children, working hard in the apple sector and feeling a real purpose in his life and a bright future. Much better than languishing on welfare. I love these stories. We need to keep creating jobs and opportunities, which is done by supporting our primary sector. Around 360,000 Kiwis are employed in our food and fibre sector, about 15 percent of the total workforce. In Hawke’s Bay alone, our region is set to add another thousand new jobs in agriculture and horticulture.

Not only are we actually delivering for our primary industries, but we’re also giving local hospitality industries the boost they need, too. Just recently, in the recess, I was out at the Common Room in Hawke’s Bay, a very iconic establishment, and they had just invested in a big renovation, putting a whole lot of lighting and new DJ systems into the establishment. They have used the Investment Boost package of this Government, which enabled a 20 percent tax deduction along with depreciation. It’s this kind of investment which grows our local businesses and creates jobs and delivers for New Zealand and gets our country back on track.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thanks, Mr Speaker. Two years ago, Christopher Luxon promised New Zealanders quite a lot of things. He promised that he would actually bring prices down, and that’s what New Zealanders are not seeing right now in this cost of living crisis. The only thing that he’s managed to deflate is economic confidence, the number of jobs in New Zealand, and, of course, his own popularity—and linked to that is his party’s popularity as well. All of those things have been deflated under his watch.

The truth is that New Zealanders are not fooled by the spin of Christopher Luxon. They know well and good that there are no green shoots when they go up and try to pay at the supermarket or pay for their power bill. And it is no green shoots for those people who have lost their jobs lately.

In fact, there are 20,000 fewer construction jobs in New Zealander under his watch. There are 36,000 fewer people employed in New Zealand right now, over the past two years, under the watch of Christopher Luxon.

Every single day, 200 New Zealanders leave our country. The truth is that Christopher Luxon promised us that he would turn this bus around, but somehow he’s driven it to Australia, and that’s where it’s left a whole bunch of New Zealanders right now.

Let’s take a look at those job losses, because I think it’s important. We heard, this week, from the Prime Minister that those people should go the regions, that they should find some jobs in the regions if they’re 18 or 19 and are no longer able to get the jobseeker benefit. Let’s look at the 230 jobs in Karioi Pulp Mill and Tangiwai Sawmill in Ruapehu—230 jobs there. At the Penrose mill in Auckland, 75 jobs gone. Smithfield meat works in Timaru shut its doors after 138 years of operating in New Zealand. Columbine Industries in Gisborne: 45 jobs gone there. We’ve also got 140 workers without a job at Carter Holt Harvey’s Eves Valley Sawmill in Tasman where the plant was closing. And 30 jobs gone in Dunedin fertiliser, in Ravensdown site. Sealord are also proposing job cuts in Tasman—79 jobs gone there, as well as other jobs in the Nelson area. At Carter Holt Harvey’s Tokoroa Plywood Plant, there are 119 full-time jobs proposed to go as well. New Zealanders cannot go to the regions and look for a job, because there aren’t any jobs there.

The solutions—what are the options that this Government has given people who want to find work? They’ve increased university fees. They’ve made it more expensive for people to get training or skills. They have increased youth unemployment—record levels of young people in New Zealand without employment or without any opportunities to retrain or focus on skills development. The Apprenticeship Boost: you would think at a time when 20,000 tradies’ jobs are gone, you would invest in apprenticeships, but those numbers have dropped, and the Apprenticeship Boost has gone down as well. Believe it or not, Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering has been removed at a time when talking about infrastructure, when those people opposite are talking about wanting to drive growth, they have cut the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering. How short-sighted can you actually get?

When people are trying to find some sort of vision, some sort of hope in New Zealand, they’re being driven overseas, because the only green shoots going on here is for those members’ mates in those circles that they operate in. The hard-working Kiwis that are trying to pay for their bills at the supermarket, trying to afford their groceries each week, they don’t see those green shoots happening anywhere.

Every parent wants the same for their kids in New Zealand. They want them to be safe. They want them to have a chance to grow up, get a good job, and do well and stay here in New Zealand. That’s our aspiration. But right now, there are far too many families who have lost that hope.

Under Christopher Luxon’s watch, people are working longer hours and still struggling to be able to pay the bills and put food on the table. The job opportunities just aren’t there. We believe in an economy that serves everybody, not the other way around. We believe that every person deserves a fair pay that pays a decent wage; good jobs that grow local economies and grow local communities. That’s what we believe in. We do not believe in simply serving ourselves and letting people drift off to Australia. This Government has no vision.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. Water: it is life, it is sustenance, and, in Northland, it is also the literal liquid gold that helps underpin our economic future. For decades, our region has wrestled with a cruel paradox: abundant rainfall for half the year, followed by summer droughts that stifle our potential. This cycle has limited us to lower-value land uses, while our fertile soils cry out for water. But we are writing a new chapter.

Today, I want to show you, with tangible evidence, how strategic water storage is not just an environmental solution but a powerful engine for economic growth, using the proven track record of the Kerikeri dams to highlight the incredible promise that new projects the Matawii, Otawere, and Te Waihekeora reservoirs bring.

Let’s first look at the blueprint just down the road in Kerikeri. The Kerikeri irrigation scheme with its two dams was completed in the late 1980s. It was a visionary project and the results are undeniable. Before the dams, Kerikeri was largely a pastoral land area. Today, it is the horticultural heartland of the North. A 2016 report confirmed the scheme contributes more than $100 million annually to the regional GDP and supports over 1,300 full-time job equivalents. Think about that: one infrastructure project generating $100 million a year. The evidence is also visible in land values, which can be three to four times higher for irrigated land within the scheme area, reflecting the substantial, proven economic benefit of a secure water supply.

Now we are taking this proven success and scaling it across Northland. The Te Tai Tokerau Water Trust is delivering three major reservoirs, and the first of these is the Matawii reservoir near Kaikohe, which already provides a powerful real-world example. Completed in May 2023, Matawii has a capacity of 750,000 cubic metres of water and serves two vital purposes: it acts as a crucial backup to Kaikohe township’s water supply, and also, most importantly, it has unlocked land for high-value development.

We see this success in the Ngawha Innovation and Enterprise Park, where the Matawii reservoir directly enables a key business success story—a joint venture between Ngāpuhi and horticultural giant T&G Fresh to grow strawberries and blueberries. This isn’t just theory; it’s happening right now. This venture provides sustained skilled employment for local kaimahi and allows Ngāpuhi to generate wealth from their own land, diversifying Northland’s economy and demonstrating how water security fosters new industries and jobs.

Building on the Matawii experience, we are scaling up with our two larger projects. Otawere reservoir holds 4 million cubic metres. This will be the largest new facility built of the three dams and will irrigate up to 1,000 hectares. Te Waihekeora reservoir: this reservoir near Dargaville—which I was privileged to attend the opening of recently, along with the Prime Minister—enables the development of nearly 1,000 hectares and provides crucial water supply to the largest employer in Dargaville, Silver Fern Farms, and also to the Dargaville township. This has already enabled enterprises like Te Uri o Hau to establish new avocado orchards, attracting whānau back to the area with job opportunities.

So I say to 18- and 19-year-olds in Northland that there are opportunities out there, opportunities that are better than being on welfare. I look forward to the day that we are employing young motivated workers in these projects, rather than so many recognised seasonal employer workers. The lesson of Kerikeri, reinforced by the rapid success of Matawii, is clear: water security is the foundation of economic growth in Northland. These reservoirs are investments in climate resilience and catalysts for attracting private investment, particularly for Māori land owners. They are changing the face of Northland agriculture, and we have seen the future in Kerikeri: it is green, productive and prosperous. With the Matawii, Otawere, and Te Waihekeora reservoirs, we are now extending that prosperity across Northland, building a stronger and more resilient economy for the generations to come.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Tuesday morning this week, it was wet and it was raining in Christchurch East. It was a cold spring day in New Brighton, and so it was disturbing to know that three primary school - aged children were waiting barefoot outside a local food bank. Instead of being in a warm home or a classroom, they were waiting in the rain—children waiting in the rain for food. The question is—

Hon Judith Collins: Where are their parents?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —how has this been allowed to happen? The answer is worse, because this Government is making it happen.

Over the past few years, New Zealanders have heard a lot of promises from this Government—including that Minister there asking, “Where are the parents?” New Zealanders could ask the same thing right now, because Christopher Luxon promised a laser focus on bringing down the cost of living. Nicola Willis promised that cost of living relief is on its way. She even promised before the election that National will take action to get food prices under control once more.

Christopher Luxon made big promises on tackling the cost of living and fixing the economy, but, instead, he’s making things worse. He’s out of touch and he’s refusing to take responsibility. Instead of a plan, he has only excuses—excuses for the decisions this Government chooses to make.

The Government’s mismanagement and waste comes from cancelling new ferries and stopping and cancelling projects, contributing to 20,000 jobs—20,000 jobs—gone in construction; manufacturing closures in several regions across the country, costing vital, local jobs; and handing over hundreds of millions of dollars to tobacco companies, and billions of dollars to property speculators, to name just a few. It is hurting businesses. It is no wonder that 200 people a day are packing up and leaving, every single day, and what that looks like in New Brighton is three children standing in the rain outside a food bank—and all that member can say is “Where are the parents?” That’s all that member can say.

New Zealanders will remember when Christopher Luxon told them before the last election that “Nicola Willis and myself understand economics. We understand budgets and we understand numbers.” Well, people at home might be forgiven for questioning that. Our economy hasn’t grown; it’s gone backwards.

Hon Judith Collins: Because of your lot.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: In the last quarter alone, GDP fell 0.9 percent, and whilst Christopher Luxon, like that member, likes to talk about rights and responsibilities, you’ll never hear him—or her—take responsibility for the damage they are doing to our economy.

According to them, it’s anyone else’s fault. They’ll blame Trump, they’ll blame Labour, they’ll blame international headwinds, but let’s look at the real story, because the countries we compare ourselves to are doing a lot better. They’re growing. Australia is up 0.6 percent, the United Kingdom is up 0.3 percent, the United States is up 0.8 percent, Japan is up 0.5 percent, and China is up 1.1 percent. They’re all going up, but the economic ineptitude on that side of the House is having real impacts on everyday Kiwis which looks like soaring unemployment, record homelessness, and children standing on the footpath in the rain outside food banks, instead of inside warm, dry homes or in their classrooms.

Now, New Zealand has enormous strengths. We have a skilled creative economy and workforce, proven innovators, and a financial sector that can channel investment into the future. With a real long-term plan, we can build on these strengths to grow New Zealand, to create new, good jobs, better healthcare, affordable homes, and real action on the cost of living.

We will move beyond this Government’s short-term thinking to a plan that eases pressures on families and tackles the long-term challenges that will shape our country for generations to come, because people don’t fall into poverty. They’re pushed there and, right now, those members are pushing.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): In the last moments of the House sitting before the recent two-week recess, we were forced to endure insult and indignity in this House by the dishonourable speech given by an MP for whom we had accommodated his desire to give a departing speech, an MP who had spent, in terms of the life of this Parliament, a matter of moments here. We had to endure a narrative that was not only an insult to members of this side of the House but to the party that brought that member to this Parliament. The member was an MP in a party led by two women, yet we were told this is a hostile and toxic place unless you’re a cis white man in a black suit and a briefcase.

Let us pause and reflect on the make-up of this Parliament and identify the number of “cis white men with black suits and briefcases”. Let us look at the history of this House and the shoulders on whom we all stand. Our first Māori MP was elected in 1867—James Carroll. There was also Peter Buck; Āpirana Ngata; Māui Pōmare; Iriaka Matiu Rātana, the first female Māori MP who served for 20 years; and Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan, the first female Minister, who, at the time she left Parliament, was the longest-serving female MP. What of Georgina Beyer? The first, in the world, transgender MP, serving two terms of Parliament. I would also look at my own party, led by Mr Winston Peters, who has carved out a political legacy that is unrivalled not because he is a cis white man but because he is a statesman unrivalled for his political acumen. Then there’s our deputy leader, a true champion of Māoridom of the provinces and most importantly a Māori Dalmatian who could far unlikely be described as the cis white man that is apparently needed to survive in this House. Let us also not ignore our youngest wahine, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, who has paved a proud place in our political landscape and, without doubt, could not be categorised as a cis white man.

I cite this legacy because I want to put the record straight following the insults laid at all of our feet. We were told we had to be cis white men to succeed. I am appalled that a member of this House talked of a political system imposed on our land. What an insult to our proud legacy, to the country that was the first to give women the vote in the world—the cowardice and ignorance of that passing shot by a member who did nothing to use the privilege afforded by being an MP in this Parliament and who threw passing shots and ran out the door, believing there would be no right of reply. Well, I am replying.

Yes, to stand in this place requires fortitude, it requires strength, it requires character, it requires courage, and it requires determination, but it does not require any of us to have to be a cis white man to succeed. It is a privilege and an honour to be here. It behoves each of us to forge relationships, to find common ground, but, most of all, to show up. Not only did this member insult us, our legacy, and this House but also, in the same speech, called for revolution that must “rise up from the land and from the people.” That message was clear.

Then, over the last days, the party that Benjamin Doyle represented has been associated with an attack on a Minister of the Crown’s home. Apparently, we are to believe it is a really long bow to draw to suggest there is a connection. Well, I think not. To stand here is an honour, to serve is a privilege, and here is the place you prove your worth. If you can’t handle the heat, you are welcome to leave, but do not sling mud at our democracy and our legacy.

Do not, for one minute, suggest that only cis white men can succeed. Neither our race or our sexual identity is relevant. We succeed because of the content of our character. We succeed because we stand up, because we show up, and because we do the hard work that needs to be done every single day. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to consider the following Government orders of the day: consideration in committee of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and the Parliament Bill; and the third reading of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill

Second Reading

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill be now read a second time.

The Auckland Future Fund bill is a significant and forward-looking piece of legislation that will help shape the future of New Zealand’s largest city for generations to come. Auckland is not just our largest urban centre, it is the beating heart of New Zealand economy, culture, and diversity. Home to more than 1.7 million people, around one-third of the country’s population, Auckland's continued growth affects our national progress, but with that growth comes real and complex challenges: purchase of infrastructure, transportation, environmental concern, and the ongoing needs for sustainable investment. Meeting these challenges requires more than a short-term fix; it demands long-term vision and innovative financial tools. This bill represents precisely that.

Before I go further, I want to sincerely thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their details and for their consideration of this bill. I also want to acknowledge all those who took the time to submit their feedback. Your contribution has played an important role in shaping the legislation before us today.

This bill establishes the Auckland Future Fund, a mechanism to secure growth and protect long-term capital that can be used to support Auckland’s most important needs. It provides Auckland Council with dedicated and enjoined financial assets capable of generating sustainable returns to help address the city’s most pressing challenges, from infrastructure and transport to climate action and housing. It represents a shift in how we think about public finance. Rather than relying solely on rates, debt, or central government funding, the Auckland Future Fund creates a pathway to financial resilience. It gives Auckland Council a tool to invest in the future while insulating it from short-term uncertainty and political pressures.

One of the questions raised during the select committee process was whether a local bill is truly necessary. Auckland Council and the trustee answered this directly in their joint submission. There are two key reasons why legislation is required. First, having a statutory protection gives Aucklanders lasting confidence in the fund’s purpose and governance, unlike council policy or trustees, which can be changed by future councils. Legislation provides enduring safeguards that are not easily altered. This ensures the fund’s integrity over the long term. Second, the bill introduces a higher threshold for key financial decisions. This requires a 75 percent super majority of the council’s governing body to approve certain distribution resolutions. That’s way above the simple majority normally required under the Local Government Act. By setting this high bar, the bill ensures major decision about the funds are made with board consensus and clear public support, a level of protection only legislation can guarantee.

Another issue raised during the committee process was whether the fund’s investment should be limited to the Auckland region. It’s important to be clear about what the bill does and what it does not. This bill governs how the fund’s capital is invested in generating long-term returns. These decisions are made by independent investment professionals guided by a responsible investment policy adopted under Auckland Council’s long-term plan. That policy, which the trustee must follow, includes environmental, social, governance, and climate change considerations. These are responsible, diversified investments. Restricting them to Auckland alone would reduce this diversification, expose the fund to unnecessary regional risks, and could undermine long-term return and limited performance. It would also conflict with the fund’s responsible investment policy, which is designed to ensure ethical and sustainable investment across sectors and markets.

To be clear, this bill separates investment decisions from how returns are used. Investments are managed independently, but how the income is spent remains a council decision subject to normal consultation requirements. Under section 12 of the Local Government Act, any spending must benefit Auckland. That safeguard remains fully in place and is unaffected by this bill. Clause 9 further ensures that investment decisions are made independently of elected members and their interests. Under existing law, councillors and local board members cannot serve as a director of a council-controlled organisation. This provision reinforces the fund’s independence and safeguards the integrity of its operation.

I want to give the House an update on the fund’s performance to date. In December 2024, the board sold Auckland Council’s shares in Auckland International Airport Limited at $8.08 per share. By comparison, had the sales occurred in late August 2025, when the share price had dropped to $7.60, Auckland would have received $78 million less. That timing protected significant value for ratepayers. Also, between December 2024 and June 2025, the fund delivered a return of 4.06 percent, a strong result in a volatile global market. Over the same period, the S&P 500 rose about 2.5 percent, while Auckland International Airport shares fell by over 7 percent. The income difference is so clear.

In the 2024-25 financial year, the fund generated $38.4 million in distribution income compared to just $10.2 million in dividends that would have come from retaining the airport shares. Combining both the capital value and income, the council is currently around $100 million better off than it would have been without the fund. These are real, measurable gains and clear evidence that the fund is already delivering strong financial outcomes for Aucklanders.

This bill is about more than just sound financial management; it's about laying the groundwork for the future, where Auckland can meet its challenges with confidence, ambition, and physical resilience. It’s about ensuring our largest city has the tools it needs to invest in infrastructure, deliver housing, protect the environment, and plan for generations to come. It is a bill rooted in responsibility, independence, and public trust. It provides the structure, the safeguards, and the vision required to deliver long-term benefit to the people of Auckland.

Before I conclude, I would like to acknowledge Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, Councillor Christine Fletcher, Auckland Future Fund chair Christopher Swasbrook, and all the council officers for their contribution. Your engagement has strengthened the legislation and helped shape a better outcome for Auckland.

Finally, I want to emphasise that this fund is not just a financial tool; it’s a commitment to the people of Auckland and future generations. It’s a commitment to the people of Auckland by securing sustainable return and embedding strong governance. The Auckland Future Fund will present a model for responsible stewardship that other regions can look to as they plan for their own future. It’s an investment in resilience, innovation, and the wellbeing of our communities. This bill sends a clear message that Auckland is ready to meet the challenges ahead with confidence and care. I commend the Auckland Future Fund bill to the House.

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

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Auckland is, or can be, the greatest city that we see in Aotearoa New Zealand. We are bursting with diversity, potential, and life. It can be a city that truly is about all of us, but it has to be about all of us and not leaving anyone behind.

Labour supports this bill and its provision of statutory protection for the Auckland Future Fund. It will help provide Aucklanders with confidence; they can know that it will help current and future councils to invest productively, helping to support our city to grow and to become more and more prosperous. The fund operates as a council-controlled organisation and regional fund under high-level direction from council, but through an independent structure where the trustees board makes key decisions. This is esteemed to return 7.24 percent per annum over the long term, with 5.2 percent returned to council as an annual cash distribution, and the rest protecting the real value of the fund. That is approximately $60 million to $70 million per year returned to council from 2026—$70 million that goes back into our greatest city in Aotearoa, and back into the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau.

Many people in the House today, and watching online, will have read the State of the City report. It’s the third rendition and benchmarks our city of Auckland Tāmaki-makau-rau up against other great cities in the world—other great cities—and it tells us how well we’re doing. The neutrality of this report largely talks about productivity, how we do better, how we stay more connected, both through transport but also how we build a society that looks after everyone and ensures that everyone has access to the opportunities of the city that we live in. We know that, in many of these measures, we are going backwards: prosperity, innovation, knowledge, culture, experience, place, connectivity is a big one, resilience, and sustainability. The last one: opportunity.

I moved to Auckland for opportunity—to learn, to get a great job, to do what I do now: to represent people on the North Shore and across Auckland. I love that job, but times are tough for them. The thing is, the promises that this Government made to Aucklanders haven’t been achieved. I cite the article that comes from the Heart of the City survey, which outlines that the business association for Auckland’s city centre has reluctantly released their report; that officers believe that homelessness, too few police, neglect, and disorder—and this is when Government members start to chitter-chatter amongst themselves and heckle—

Hon Judith Collins: No one’s heckling you, honey, because you’re not worth it.

SHANAN HALBERT: Judith Collins is heckling me right now—

Hon Judith Collins: Don’t bring me into it.

SHANAN HALBERT: —because homelessness, too few police, Minister—open your ears—and frightening antisocial behaviour are crippling their trade. That’s the realities of Auckland, and so the call for this future fund is the call of Mayor Wayne Brown. This is not a call that’s come from this Government, nor the National Party, nor any Government MPs that represent electorates in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. I acknowledge Mayor Wayne Brown for the work that he’s done, along with his council, to move this Government to take one action—one action—to generate better outcomes for Aucklanders, because the Government has been woeful on real action on the cost of living for Aucklanders. Explain that!

Hon Judith Collins: It’s called interest rates coming down.

SHANAN HALBERT: Coming down—coming down. The Minister might want to explain to people in Papakura how that tangibly makes a difference in their households in her own community. No change—no change.

The important stuff today in this House is that we get on and move through legislation that actually creates real change to Aucklanders, and this change, in my 10 minutes to have my say, is to talk about the progress that Auckland Council is making and Mayor Wayne Brown. The National Party members and the ACT Party members who are heckling across the other side, I challenge them to step up. Step up and invest in Auckland.

Simon Court: We will.

SHANAN HALBERT: Your investment in transport has taken us backwards. Where’s your investment in public transport? It’s gone backwards—there’s less. People are paying more for public transport in our city than they ever have in the last two decades.

Simon Court: Wait for my speech. It’s coming.

Cameron Luxton: Shanan Halbert could sit down and we could get to the answers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shanan Halbert still has time left on the clock.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to the other contributions from member across the House. I hope they understand—

Ryan Hamilton: Back to the bill—back to the bill.

SHANAN HALBERT: —the needs of Aucklanders and their call for help—

Ryan Hamilton: Three minutes to go.

SHANAN HALBERT: —particularly the member from Hamilton. When we look at the statistics, National is taking us backwards. We see it in homelessness; we see it in an unemployment rate up to 6.1 percent in the June 2025 quarter, the worst of all regions; increasing food insecurity, as highlighted by Auckland City Mission; the closure of the North Shore Women’s Centre—that’s a big one for our community that we have heard nothing about from North Shore MPs, five of them—

Hon Melissa Lee: Talk to the bill.

SHANAN HALBERT: —five MPs. I am talking to the bill, because what you’ll understand about the Auckland Future Fund is that it’s about investment in our city—something that you have not done, Government members have not done. It’s time for them to step up and answer the call of our city, of business leaders, of community leaders, and this is a great example of something that can be achieved. When there’s a will, there’s an absolute way. I commend the bill to the House.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill. The Green Party supports this legislation. It's good legislation. It's good legislative practice, both in its substance and in the process that brought it here. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee that examined this bill, I can report that we've unanimously recommended that it be passed without amendment. That unanimity reflects both the straightforward nature of this legislation and the quality of the process behind it.

I'll just say a few words about what this bill does, rather than getting into a Wellington - Auckland competition, which is very tempting. The Green Party, first of all, does not support the sale of assets, but that was done. Auckland Council decided to sell its airport shares. The council chose to commit those proceeds to a dedicated investment fund, and this bill provides the legislative framework to safeguard that fund as a long-term financial asset for the benefit of Tāmaki-makau-rau’s communities, both present and future, and it's a refreshing change to look a little bit further ahead into the future.

It requires the council to ensure that the fund is governed and managed with the intent of maintaining or increasing its value, and it mandates that investment decisions are made by suitably qualified and formally appointed managers. So it's sound governance and it's appropriate financial planning, but it doesn't lock these resources away without any means of access—it could be in emergencies or various sorts of things that we haven't even thought about yet.

The council does retain the ability to make distributions from the fund, but only through a very robust process. It requires public consultation through a long-term plan process and a resolution to be passed by at least 75 percent of council members.

Now, that's the way, in my view, that Minister Goldsmith should have been looking at any changes to voter enrolment. It's the way that we should have been looking at the purpose of local government. Those are quasi-constitutional issues that should not be decided by a narrow and ephemeral majority. Additionally, council must demonstrate that the proposed distribution will achieve a benefit that is better for current and future communities than just maintaining the capital. These are appropriately high thresholds that balance that sort of flexibility with responsibility.

I also want to highlight something else significant about this bill which is sadly growing rare during this Government. It represents a statement of support for the autonomy of local government. We often see central government imposing rules and unfunded mandates on local authorities, and this bill takes a very different approach. It respects Auckland Council’s decision making. It provides the legislative tools that the council requested to ensure long-term security, and it recognises that Aucklanders, through their elected representatives, are appropriately placed to make decisions about Auckland's future, not this House.

The Green Party supports the principle that decisions should be made as close as possible to the people they affect—appropriate decision-making. This bill, though modest, embodies that principle. It's a partnership between central and local government rather than an imposition or a straitjacket from this House.

I also want to briefly address the process that brought this bill before us today. I think every bill that passes through this House should go through that kind of proper select committee scrutiny. We were able to ask the Auckland Council and other submitters some matters of detail about why the legislation was required, what was necessary, and what the changes were that should be made. We were made more confident about the effect of that bill through that thorough scrutiny. There have been far too many bills going through a curtailed process and it will not only have bad effects in the community but it will waste time in the next Parliament when we could be working constructively.

I just want to note that this bill’s probably unanimous passing should be a more frequent occurrence in this House. If we have the same aims as are often expressed in this House about the future wellbeing of our communities—economic, environmental, social, and cultural—then we would do better to work together and have more shared legislation.

There were legitimate questions raised about the local bill process, but in this case, given the Auckland Future Fund's significance and the confidence that this fund will offer Aucklanders, we agreed that a local bill was justified. I want to thank Auckland Council, I want to thank Dr Carlos Cheung for bringing forward this bill, and I thank the Governance and Administration Committee members for a collegial and thorough process. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the member Dr Carlos Cheung, from Mt Roskill in Auckland, the member who’s brought the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill. Congratulations, Carlos. Your bill will succeed. You’ve put in a lot of hard work, and Aucklanders now and Aucklanders in the future will thank you for this.

I also want to acknowledge the courage of Auckland Council in the face of the regressive forces which say, “No matter what assets you’ve got, whether they’re performing well or badly, you should never sell them. Assets should always remain stashed in a cupboard under the stairs or at the back of the garage because they’re assets.” That makes no sense. Auckland Council has seen sense that recycling assets and transferring the capital into an arrangement that can earn a better rate of return and, potentially, if they make more courageous decisions, lead to the deployment of that capital into new infrastructure that produces economic growth and makes Auckland a better place to live. If they can show that kind of courage, then the outcome from this Auckland Future Fund will be dramatic for Auckland.

That’s going to take a commitment. It’s going to take, as I said, courage. It’s also going to take some significant planning and weighing up of priorities because, boy, oh boy, I’m an Aucklander and I can tell you there’s a lot of infrastructure lacking. We’ve got waste water overflowing into our harbour in places like—where I live, in Te Atatū Peninsula—Henderson Creek. Here’s one of my Te Atatū mates, Phil Twyford, who’s just joined us today. He knows what I’m talking about. We’ve got transport issues. The city’s going to grow by another million people, and I can tell you that despite those who would say, “You could just get out of your car and walk. You could just take a bike. We’ll put on more buses. We’ll tell you what: we’ll take out the car parks, and we’ll create bike, bus and bike lanes. You can catch a bus.”, with a million more Aucklanders coming to live in Auckland, they are not going to catch a bus and ride a bike. They are going to need to drive their cars on roads.

That is why, in addition to all the other things that Auckland Council already has on its list—there’s a $4 billion shortfall between the infrastructure it knows it needs to fund and the amount of money it can get from ratepayers—it also is going to have to turn its mind to another million people coming, according to the Auckland plan. We’re going to have to increase the capacity of our existing and new roads by at least 60 to 80 percent to deal with the growth. That must sound like Armageddon to the Green Party. I’m sure that Julie Anne Genter would be having an absolute meltdown if she was here right now, but, in fact, growth demands infrastructure, and it’s not always the infrastructure that we like.

How did this infrastructure deficit occur, and how will the Auckland Future Fund help deal with that? Well, for many, many decades, Auckland Council and its predecessors have had a “Maybe if we don’t plan the infrastructure, maybe the growth won’t happen” approach. That’s not reality. Auckland has grown. It’s a very attractive city to live in—I’ve lived there most of my life—and it’s attracting more and more people who want to share in the benefits. There are thousands of kilometres of coastline. There’s the Hauraki Gulf marine protection areas—we’re going to restore the gulf. There are so many good recreation opportunities—not to mention jobs and manufacturing, high tech, and finance. There are so many good reasons to move to Auckland.

But we have an infrastructure deficit caused by an anti-growth council over many years, poor planning, and, of course, poor financial management. I’ll give you an example of poor financial management: every week in Auckland, trucks go round and round the city intending to pick up a tiny little bin of food scraps. Auckland Council said that every household must have this bin. They must put all their vegetable peelings in this tiny little bin, and they must put it on the kerbside every week. They bought a fleet of trucks to pick it up. Now, I’ll tell you what: most households don’t bother putting out that bin. They’ve got another plastic bin they’ve probably used to store something useful, like the plastic bags that they’ve hidden from the “plastic bag police” that they can still keep under the kitchen bench at home. It’s projects like that that have cost half a billion dollars or more, wasting Auckland ratepayers’ money and that have led to the situation where Auckland’s run out of money for infrastructure.

By selling the airport shares and transferring those funds into the Auckland Future Fund, that actually provides money to be spent on infrastructure we might need. What could Auckland Council spend it on? Well, in their regional land transport plan, they’ve identified public transport and other infrastructure that needs funding. They don’t have the money. Of course, the City Rail Link is near completion, and there are over a dozen level crossings approaching the city from the west and from the south and some to the east, but, because the road traffic and the trains meet at the level crossing, you can’t actually increase the frequency of trains and move more passengers through the City Rail Link unless you separate the rail lines from the road. Well, that was never planned or funded by the previous Labour Government or the previous ex-Labour mayor, Phil Goff.

Now, we have potentially another decade of disruption and billions of dollars that need to be spent on funding the grade separation on the Auckland train network, before we can start to see even the first meagre returns from the Crown’s $6 billion or so investment in the City Rail Link. There’s been poor planning, poor financial management, and a lack of courage, and it’s, basically, a “Maybe if we don’t plan for it, they won’t come” council. Well, this Government has committed to the City Rail Link projects and put down around $200 million for the first stage of grade separation in some of those really important parts of the network out in South Auckland. But, of course, you’ve got Kingsland, and then you’ve got Morningside and Sandringham all the way out west where Auckland’s intended to grow. If we don’t do the grade separation, the city will literally grind to a halt.

What about supporting growth outside of the city? Well, we have a supporting growth programme, which is an alliance between central government, Auckland Council, and Auckland Transport. It’s intended to deliver the infrastructure to allow the northwest of Auckland, places like Kumeū—near where I live in West Auckland—to actually grow and meet their potential. Every day, 15,000 vehicles—including heavy trucks and freight and stock trucks—trundle down the main street of Kumeū and the neighbouring town of Huapai on their way to and from Auckland City. That traffic volume is only going to increase. Hundreds of thousands of people are intending to live there. That land is zoned future urban and future commercial. None of it can be enabled. None of those homes can be delivered without the enabling infrastructure, such as a four-lane bypass around the little town of Kumeū, which, if that bypass goes in, will be able to grow and flourish just like other towns are when bypasses go in. Think of the Kāpiti Coast. Think of all of those towns that benefit from Transmission Gully and that are now able to grow. Kids can walk to school safely. All of these benefits are available if we put a bypass in. Northwest Kumeū deserves a bypass. Maybe the Auckland Future Fund could be allocated to that kind of project.

There are similar issues in Pukekohe and around the city. That’s before we get to the massive deficit in stormwater infrastructure. The fact is that large parts of Auckland are subject to flooding when, really, they shouldn’t be. It turns out the teeny-weeny little pipes they put in in the 90s, 70s, and 80s can’t cope with the tens of thousands more homes that have been built in those places those pipes were never built to service. We’ve got a huge stormwater deficit. Telling Aucklanders we’re going to take your golf course away and turn it into a wetland isn’t going to be the answer for everything. That’s before we get to the need to build our resilience against weather and other natural hazards, because, of course, Auckland is in the path of cyclones, like so many other parts of New Zealand, but a million and a half people live there. We really, really need to make sure that coastal defences, sea walls, and all of those things that protect our assets, protect our roads, and protect community facilities are actually funded and delivered.

I’m proud and the ACT Party is proud to support the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill to progress, to pass into legislation, and to be given effect too. I also want to make it very clear that Auckland Council is on notice. The future elected members of Auckland Council will need to be courageous and take decisions that mobilise this fund into impactful investments, otherwise all this effort that proud Dr Carlos Cheung has put into it will be wasted. Go, Auckland Council! Get on with it!

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): What a fascinating speech to follow on from! Look, I wanted to start off by congratulating—

Hon Member: No money for Wellington.

ANDY FOSTER: I’m going to mention Wellington later on—tale of two cities.

I just wanted to start off by congratulating Dr Carlos Cheung, my good friend there, for your sponsorship of this bill. I also wanted to congratulate the Auckland Council because they brought this bill to the House. They didn’t have to do it, but they brought this, and I think it’s a matter of great responsibility on their behalf to safeguard this Auckland Future Fund. They’d already established this Auckland Future Fund before coming to the House, so they didn’t have to do this. What they’ve done is said, “We want to wrap some extra rules and controls around this so that future councils cannot spend that money too easily.”

It was fascinating listening to Simon Court there. I think he probably spent the fund about a hundred times over! What we’re talking about here is the ability to spend some of the income from the fund, not to be able to dip into the fund itself, unless you generally have a real emergency that the Auckland Council, by a 75 percent majority, have said, “Actually, we do think it’s more important to be able to spend some of that money to run down some of that capital, and to keep growing that money.” It might make $40 million, $50 million a year, that’s going to be a significant benefit, but it’s not going to pay for all of those things—and certainly not all the things that Simon Court was talking about—in a short period of time. It might contribute to them over a longer period of time; that will be a significant contribution.

I just wanted, also, to credit Auckland Council—because I’ve been given a little bit of a serve there—not only for their responsibility in bringing this legislation to the House but also for their responsibility in the way in which they are managing their finances and their rate increases. I would note that of all the big metropolitan councils in the country, their rates increase over the last two years is the smallest. The one thing we hear from ratepayers all across the country at the moment is their concern about rates levies. Auckland Council: last year, 6.8 percent on the residential rates; this year, 5.8. They’re not tiny rate increases, but they are the smallest of the big metropolitan centres, and some of the smallest in the country. So I want to congratulate them for that.

The money that’s made up this Auckland Future Fund has been from the sale of shares in Auckland Airport and, of course, the various constituent parts of what is now the Auckland Council—so the Waitākeres, the North Shores, and Auckland Councils, and so on. They all had shares in Auckland Airport, and they’ve been progressively sold. This was the last big chunk of those. Of course, the Crown itself sold its shareholding probably—what?—20, 25 years ago, I think it was. That means good, logical sense to say, “Instead of having a large chunk of our money in one asset, Finance Management 101 basically says ‘You diversify your assets’.” That is what the Auckland Future Fund is about. It’s about giving this in a controlled way to professional financial managers to manage a fund to achieve at least the kind of return that you were getting from the shares in Auckland Airport, and, probably, at the moment, a greater return from those shares. So it’s a diversification proposition.

It is not a spending proposition. It is not saying “We have sold these shares, and now we’re going to sell them.” Because the shares, of course, are in Auckland Airport. Auckland Airport represents something which has been built up as an asset over a very, very long period of time by the owners of that asset: the Crown, the councils, and, more latterly, private shareholders as well.

In fact, we heard about the investment in City Rail Link in Auckland, that’s a huge investment that’s been made, but, actually, by dollar numbers, the biggest investment in the country at the moment—and I think it probably will be the biggest investment in nominal dollar terms ever in New Zealand—is the redevelopment of Auckland Airport. Air New Zealand might not be entirely happy with the scale of that, but that is the nature of that. It is a very significant investment.

The establishment of the Auckland Future Fund is about not spending that long-developed asset, that long-developed amount of money quickly; it’s about saying that it was built up by past generations and it will be available to continue to provide benefit to today’s generations but also to future generations. The whole idea of wrapping that fund around with this legislation which we’re talking about at the moment is to say to councils that there is a discipline on you that you cannot simply go and raid the piggy bank; you have to do that in a careful and measured way. I think that shows great responsibility on behalf of the current Auckland Council, who have said to the Government—to the Parliament, actually, not to the Government; to the Parliament, “Can you pass this piece of legislation?”

I’d also make the point that the fund is worth about $1.3 billion, and, actually, there’s been an addition to that fund as well. There was a special dividend from another asset of the Auckland Council, that is the Ports of Auckland. They declared not only their normal dividend but also special dividend of $45 million. That has gone also into the Auckland Future Fund, and that came from the sale of their shares in Marsden Maritime Holdings up in the Northport area.

The idea, as I said, is that this fund will be run by appropriately skilled investment professionals—not by politicians; by appropriately skilled investment professionals. They will make sure that there’s properly diversified, proper good returns, there will be asset sales and purchases and so on, as any good professional manager would do.

This fund represents, as I said, the assets which have been built up over a long period of time and it’s something that follows the model that has also been established by the New Plymouth Council. So they have also got a very similar kind of fund. I can see you nodding, Madam Speaker, because you’re well aware of this. So that, again, is another council which has said, “We have a set of assets, we want to sell those, we want to put that into a fund for the benefit of future generations which inhabit this particular part of the country.”

I did want to contrast that with another council very close to here, which looked—I told you it was going to be a tale of two cities in this particular bit—to sell shares in its airport, and that’s the Wellington City Council. They made a complete hash of it. Unlike Auckland—where Auckland said, “We are going to sell these shares.”, they went ou and consulted on that and they said, “We are going to put the proceeds of that into a fund. We’re going to lock it away and hold it for future benefit.”—the Wellington Council, in contrast, in part said, “Oh, we’re going to sell those shares and then we’re going to use it to invest in a whole bunch of pieces of various assets of various sorts, kind of now.”, which would have of course run up their debt and, then, would also have had lots of costs ongoing.

The people of Wellington weren’t particularly keen on that proposition because they said, “Well, look, you’re going to sell an asset which earns revenue and makes a significant contribution to the funds of Wellington, which offsets rates, and you’re going to propose to sell that and transfer that into assets which do not earn revenue; in fact, cost you more.” So, quite logically, Wellingtonians were going “Oh, hang on. I don’t particularly like that.”

They made that worse by, in some parts, saying “We’re going to put it into those kinds of assets.”, other councillors saying “We’re not going to put it into that; we’re going to lock it away.” I think, in the Wellington case, unlike the clarity that Auckland managed to deliver, they got everything completely confused. So, in the first place, they said they were going to sell; they then decided they weren’t going to sell; they then managed to be the only council in the country that that managed to torpedo their entire long-term plan; they then became the only council in the country which ended up an observer.

So it’s an example in Auckland—tale of one city—of how to do it right, and an example in Wellington—tale of another city—of how to do it completely wrong because you got your messaging and your ideas completely wrong, and probably misunderstood what you yourselves were trying to do.

So I just want to finish off with a couple of comments from a New Zealand First perspective. New Zealand First has always been a very, very strong advocate for the retention of assets. We like to see assets owned by New Zealanders, contributing to New Zealand’s economy. The more that we sell, the more that we borrow, of course, the more that the balance of payments is undermined and we keep on paying for that. There is no free lunch when you do these sort of things. We have always supported New Zealand ownership of assets, but in this case, what’s happened, of course, is you’re transferring one asset into another asset, and that is a perfectly valid thing to do because the return is still there for New Zealand—or, in this case, for Auckland. That makes absolute sense to us.

Of course, from our perspective, this also fits very, very closely with our approach, which is, as a party, to say “We want to see New Zealanders saving more and investing more in our country because that is a way of both making individuals wealthier, of making our country wealthier, of providing better for our retirement income—and we know that that is a massive challenge—and it fits very, very strongly with our initiative to say that we want more money invested in the likes of KiwiSaver.”

So I’m delighted just to finish off and, again, to commend Dr Carlos Cheung and to commend the Auckland Council for this initiative, and to commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I want to start by expressing unmet expectations, and we’ll get the gist of it as I go through.

Unmet expectations: originally, in the first reading, Te Pāti Māori supported the intent of the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, a bill that aims to protect whakapapa. It aims to protect intergenerational wealth and secure Auckland's economic future. However—I say to my colleague on the left, who is smiling—we can no longer continue that support. Our change—

Hon Member: Aw!

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —I know; all together—in position reflects a deeper issue. Without stronger and more direct engagement with Māori, that's the missing piece, and it's a critical piece from our party's perspective. This bill cannot deliver on its promise of equity or intergenerational wellbeing. Yes, the bill outlines consultation requirements under the Local Government Act and, yes, the trustee is expected to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. But let's be realistic: expectations are not guarantees, and that remains an issue in this regard.

The current mechanisms, including letters of expectation, statements of intent, and council policies, are weak tools for protecting Māori interests. They do not ensure that Māori voices are heard where it matters at most, particularly at the decision-making table. There is an undeniable lack of Māori representation, as my dear colleague Takutai Tarsh Kemp referred to when she took the previous speech on this bill.

How can we talk about securing the future for generations to come when Māori, the fastest-growing population in Tāmaki Makaurau, over 250,000 strong, are not explicitly included in the governance of this fund? If this bill is to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori must be engaged as partners, not spectators; as partners in managing the fund, not as spectators watching from the sidelines. And sadly, this bill, even with a good intent—and we did spot that initially, but as it's progressed, it doesn't show up well enough in our minds.

This is not a new concern. Māori communities have long fought against the alienation of public- and Māori-owned land—land sold off with minimal consultation, and even less benefit returned to our people. If this fund is to protect intergenerational wealth, then Māori must have a say in what gets sold, how funds are invested, and who benefits from the returns. We acknowledge that the trustee is expected to contribute to the council’s achieving Māori outcomes strategy and work alongside Houkura, formerly the Independent Māori Statutory Board. But Māori must be more than advisers, and we must have the right to decide.

The Disabled Persons Assembly NZ has rightly called for amendments to ensure Māori, including whaikaha Māori, are directly consulted in decisions about the fund. Other submitters have called for mandatory consultation on governance, asset disposal, and capital distribution. These are not unreasonable requests. These are minimum standards if we are serious about upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi and protecting our community’s interests.

If this bill is truly to serve all of those in Tāmaki Makaurau, it must embed Māori consultation and representation into its foundations and not leave it to policy interpretation or vague future promises. Māori voices must be central to the development, governance, and oversight of this fund, not peripheral. This is the only way to honour Te Tiriti—that is our only way forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party, as our previous speaker noted, is voting in support of the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill which, as others have already described, comes through an unfortunate history of the selling of assets—in this case, airport shares—by Auckland Council. It’s important to note that this decision should shine a light on the importance for central government to adequately support our councils, from a financial point of view, to make sure that councils are able to—rather than having debates about selling assets—if anything, on how more assets can be owned by local communities, and devolved to Māori, as well.

I think the previous speaker made some really valid points and a challenge, in my view, to the Auckland Council and to central government, around the need to strengthen our legislation and frameworks that council uses to make sure that Māori are guaranteed the promise of Te Tiriti, rather than just being a footnote in these pieces of legislation. I think that’s a really fair point, and one that the Green party agrees with.

We also note that while we didn't support the decision from Auckland Council, what we have in front of us is the need to establish a framework in how the Auckland Future Fund will go ahead.

I acknowledge the work that the committee did to get to a point of cross-party consensus within the members of the Governance and Administration Committee. I think that is important to at least give people in our largest city a bit of certainty around how that fund will be run in the future, and the frameworks that it will use. But, make no mistake, there's more work that needs to be done to ensure that councils across the country—and certainly in our largest city—have the resources that they need to do well and to provide the basic essentials that people deserve, whether it's picking up the rubbish, whether it's clean drinking water, whether it's adequate public transport, and a thriving natural environment to protect us against extreme weather events.

May this future fund be used for things that actually benefit our community. I do hope the council takes on board the challenges that have been made by the previous speaker to ensure that the promise of Te Tiriti is fulfilled, not just in future legislation and this one as it should have been, but by the way that council operates.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start by acknowledging Dr Carlos Cheung, a great National Party MP for Mt Roskill. As we’ve heard in this House many times, it’s a great day for Mt Roskill. I want to acknowledge the work he’s done, not just in bringing this bill to the House. He was the first, and eager, to come and appear before the Governance and Administration Committee, and he’s been a staunch advocate not just for Auckland but, in particular, for the people of Mt Roskill over the last couple of years. It’s great to see this coming to the next stage. Well done, Carlos.

He’s not the only one. I’ve been suitably lobbied by a good few number of Auckland MPs on this side of the House that want to see the best outcomes for their community. I’m thinking of the likes of the Hon Melissa Lee, who I’m sure we’ll hear from in a minute, Cameron Brewer from Upper Harbour. We did have the Hon Judith Collins here—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can’t speak about people who are not here.

TIM COSTLEY: —I just said she’s here—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not quite.

TIM COSTLEY: —advocating for the bill and the people of Papakura. We heard just recently from a member on the other side of the House, saying, “Well, what good will this do for the people of Papakura?” and “What good are decreasing mortgage rates going to do?” I would like to take the opportunity just to respond to that debating point that was raised here before. Let me explain to you how this is good, not just for the people of Papakura but for the people of all of Auckland, and, indeed, around New Zealand. To answer the question from that member, the official cash rate (OCR) has dropped from 5.5 percent to less than half of that, to 2.5 percent. What that means is, when you refix the average mortgage, anywhere in New Zealand, you are saving $400 a fortnight. That’s real money in the hands, in the back pockets, of real mums and dads and Kiwis. We heard about a four-minute—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What’s this got to do with the bill?

TIM COSTLEY: —don’t start objecting on the other side. They can’t see the woods for the Woods on that side! But I’ll tell you what, we had about a five-minute tirade from the other side of the House saying that lowering interest rates did nothing for the people of Auckland. I’m explaining to that member—

Hon Rachel Brooking: In a general debate.

TIM COSTLEY: —exactly—no, it was not the general debate. It was speech No. 2 of this. If the members had bothered to listen, they would have heard that. It was speech No. 2 of this, and I’m responding to that. This is a great thing, to see what is happening to our economy. They might be a little protective, because their story was taking the OCR from 0.5 percent to 5.5 percent. It’s now back down to 2.5 percent, and that makes a real difference to Aucklanders.

Let’s move away from the distractions of the other side of the House to the Auckland Future Fund. I think one of the questions—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which is where the interest rates might come in.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, it may do. One of the questions that many people watching will be asking is why are we even discussing this in Parliament? This is a fund set up by Auckland for Auckland, for ratepayers under the council. How does it end up here? Those that have been watching recent members’ bills—remember, people often talk about private members’ bills. There are private bills, which apply just to a certain individual or entity; there are members’ bills, which are the ones bought by non-executive members of this House; and then there is actually a third category of “local bills”—that’s what this is. It applies just to a council in this case. People will be thinking of the “Takapuna Ice Cream Bill”, which this House has only just recently passed, which enabled the old boat club in Takapuna—on, as we all learned, Sir Peter Blake Drive—to sell ice creams.

I was in Auckland just recently with the Hon Erica Stanford—another great advocate for Auckland in this House—and, gee, she’s popular up there, isn’t she? As we drove back from there to the Harbour Bridge, I looked across the shimmering waters against the dull, grey, overcast sky, and there was the Takapuna Boat Club—the one that we had passed the legislation for—and I had visions of them selling ice creams; probably not that day. But that’s what this Parliament spent hours and hours and hours working through, and here we are now with a second local bill for Auckland. I think it’s a fair question. Indeed, it’s one that the select committee has considered. Why are we passing this bill?

As Dr Cheung correctly gave us a nice synopsis in his contribution before, the reason—and perhaps one of the only reasons—that it needs to come to this mechanism is because of the supermajority clause: clause 11 in the bill. There are a number of terms set out in clause 8 about how funds should be distributed, and I will just go through those in a minute. Ordinarily, in any other organisation, if you had a majority, you could vote to go outside of that. However, those drafting this legislation saw the need that, in the future, there needs to be adequate protections because this is a considerable amount of ratepayer money that is being put into this fund through the sale of the Auckland Airport shares. How are we going to ensure there is suitable protection to make sure that, in the future, someone won’t just go and change it? That’s why they’re bringing legislation—because, otherwise, under the legislation, you’d just need 51 percent. They’ve put in this clause, clause 11, which requires a supermajority of 75 percent—75 percent.

Let’s just look at what that means. At the moment, when council are distributing funds, they need to meet certain criteria. One of those criteria is that it has got to be managed for the long-term benefit of current and future communities. The second one, and this is clause 8(b), is “with the intent of maintaining or increasing the real value of its capital over time.” In other words, you can’t spend more than you’re earning. If the trust has this much money, it gets a little bit of interest. You can’t spend, effectively, more than the interest that it earns in a given year. The real value of the capital has to increase every single year.

There may be extraordinary circumstances where it’s worth deviating from that rule. Clause 11 is really the crux that makes the requirement for this to be a local bill and to bring it to Parliament, and I would like to go over that. Clause 11(2) is where council may resolve by a supermajority of not less than 75 percent. Three-quarters of the members have to agree—

Hon Phil Twyford: Read it like you mean it.

TIM COSTLEY: —based on—well, it’s Auckland; I’m half-hearted, to be honest, about Te Atatū in particular, in this case. The criteria that are set out and that are being enshrined in legislation—this is really the whole reason this has come here today—are that it must be to achieve a benefit that is better for current and future communities: better for them than maintaining or increasing the real capital value. They have to look at what this project is and say, “This is worth it”, and it has to be provided for in the long-term plan. They can’t just come up with a smart idea and say, “Well, actually, this is a good idea, shall we all vote?”—“We think we should have a second ice cream shop in Takapuna. Let’s go and vote for that.” No, this has to be in the long-term plan; it’s been publicly consulted on; it’s going to be publicly notified in accordance with the documents as set out in the Local Government Act; and then get the 75 percent majority. There are suitable protections.

I guess we’re thinking, what are the kinds of examples? We heard earlier from one of the ACT Party contributions, from Mr Court, that perhaps it is new roads to open up a new community, to bring new communities to life, to provide for that. Local roads that will be locally funded or local public transport might require that level of investment. Maybe it’s a stadium or a sporting or community facility in town, so we can have more of those late-night concerts that Helen Clark loves! Maybe it’s something like that. The plan has, firstly, to be consulted on with the community, it has to be adopted into the long-term plan, and then they still need that supermajority of 75 percent.

That’s really what it comes down to. That’s why this, ultimately, becomes worth setting aside the time of this House to come and pass legislation through all stages, through a long select committee process, to give the public opportunity to consult over and above what the council might do. I do want to recognise some of the officials at council who have done a lot of work with the Governance and Administration Committee. I’m particularly thinking of Grace and Katy Bexley, who have done, I think, a superb job of representing their community and working through some of the niggly issues.

Some of those niggly issues might be worth touching on just at the end, around clause 7. One of the submissions we heard in the select committee process was about—clause 7 sets up the governance and management structures—could it not just be an independent statutory body, much like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund? But, actually, what we have learned as we’ve teased out these ideas is that the protections that are coming through this bill mean you get the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 legislation that have requirements for auditor-consolidated financial statements, for an auditor’s report, and Auditor-General reviews. That provides, I think, the peace of mind that Aucklanders would be looking for when we look at the sizeable capital that’s being invested into their future. That’s what makes it worth bringing this in the form of a local bill.

There are great things happening for Auckland aside from the investment, like the new City Rail Link, and, of course, the great news that members seem so disappointed about today, with those lowering interest rates saving them $400 a fortnight—great news. I commend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, but how revealing that we had a National Party MP just stand up and tell us that he was half-hearted about Auckland—a third of New Zealand's population. He really ought to come and visit and see the beautiful, beautiful thing that is West Auckland in all its glory. We have an amazing city council who some around this room across the aisles have recognised. They're doing an excellent job in terms of proposing that this bill come to the House.

I do want to recognise all our councils today. Some of us had the opportunity to sit in on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill this morning. They do so much. They do so much, and often not just the things they choose to do but what they're directed to do under statute and under legislation. It's examples of funds like this that will allow them to secure a good future for Auckland.

I must also mention that Auckland is a city that has seen emergency circumstances before, so I do think that it's prudent that the system will allow the liquidity of some of these funds in an emergency situation and it'll do so in a more effective way than the previous system. The previous system would have, if it had been continued, cost an additional $1 million to administer that fund, so it is useful to have that system.

I did read the third-quarter report of the fund, so we're looking at a new fund here. It hasn't been all smooth sailing. There were delays in terms of the appointment of the global investment manager, and while the distribution to the council measure was achieved, the gross return and net return for that third quarter weren't, so no doubt there will be things that we will need to continue to watch, but certainly this fund is placing Auckland in the right direction. I commend it to the House.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an absolute pleasure to rise to support this local bill from Auckland Council that is sponsored by my younger brother Dr Carlos Cheung—very tall younger brother—who does amazing work in his electorate of Mt Roskill and in all of Auckland as well, it seems. It is wonderful to see that the council had the confidence in my colleague to make sure that he shepherds this through Parliament. I’m so very pleased that we are here supporting it. He is a very great local MP indeed.

There have been many speeches made on this particular bill, the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, in our second reading stage. I’d just like to echo some of my colleagues in the Governance and Administration Committee who talked about the unanimous way that we had worked and the cooperative way that we had actually looked at this bill. I also want to acknowledge Mr Andy Foster, who, despite the fact that he was a former Wellington mayor and a Wellington local government politician, acknowledged the great work of Auckland Council. This did not necessarily have to come to Parliament. The only reason this actually came to Parliament via Dr Carlos Cheung as the sponsoring MP is that Auckland Council wanted to make specific protections to make sure that the fund is protected for the future.

This fund was, essentially, established for the long-term financial security and resilience of Auckland and its communities, It’s all communities; it’s not one community or another community but all of Auckland, because Auckland is the biggest. It is the economic hub, the centre, the heartbeat of New Zealand. It is, in fact, one of the world’s most diverse cities, and more than 30 percent of its population is, in fact, Asian. I’m one of those people who migrated to New Zealand 37 years ago. I think my parents had the intention of moving to Christchurch, but they stopped at Auckland and never left. When they first arrived in New Zealand to actually tour and visit, they thought they would stop in Christchurch, but then they stopped in Auckland because it was, in fact, the place where businesses can actually thrive and the infrastructure was there, and they felt that that was where they wanted my brother and me to settle.

Let me actually get back to the establishment of the fund. The fund was established through the sale of Auckland Council’s shares in Auckland International Airport. They sold the shares for $1.3 billion. When Dr Carlos Cheung was speaking, he was actually talking about how those share prices dropped soon after they had, in fact, sold their shares. Potentially, if they had left the shares or if they were still holding the shares until this year, they could have lost $78 million of whatever they actually sold. The value of their share was $1.3 billion, not million.

That is what is actually financing this Auckland Future Fund. It is, in fact, a protected trust that, hopefully, will generate assets. It, in fact, started from one entity that Auckland Council had shares in. They sold that and set up the Auckland Future Fund so that they could actually own a few others rather than just one entity. That is the investment vision of the Auckland Future Fund and the value of the international assets that they could actually own—not just in Auckland or New Zealand. They can, actually, purchase shares and invest. Their expectation is that they will receive 7.24 percent in terms of returns, and they will invest 2 percent of that return back into the fund to grow the share of the fund and return 5.25 percent to the council where they can actually spend it or invest it on whatever the Auckland Council deems fit to use that fund for.

This is a visionary way in which Auckland Council has actually decided to not be reliant on ratepayer’s money to pay for things. More and more people who are ratepayers are getting very uptight and angry, and I suppose they should. When councils decide to spend the ratepayers’ money—and the rates are constantly going up—ratepayers get very angry about that because they feel that the council’s not doing enough or spending their money well.

Numerous members have actually talked about the potential growth of the Auckland population. We are expected to grow so much. When I first arrived in Auckland in 1988, there wasn’t—

Cameron Brewer: As a small child.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Yeah, I like to pretend that I was a very small child—you couldn’t even find a decent flat white. Now, Auckland prides itself as a place where baristas make amazing coffee, and we are better than Australia, I say. Considering I came from Australia back in 1988, I am very proud to actually say that. We are so good at what we do. We have amazing facilities in Auckland, but we can actually grow with the benefit of the Auckland Future Fund.

While other members were actually talking, I went to the Auckland Future Fund website just to see what they have actually said. It says, and I quote, “As a council-controlled organisation, the Auckland Future Fund operates under the high-level direction of Auckland Council but through an independent structure, where the trustee’s board makes all key decisions. The board oversees the fund under a clear set of investment objectives and policies. Established as a trust, there are strict protections over the fund’s assets. In particular, the protections require the fund to maintain the real value of its capital over the long run.”

When you actually consider the fact that, between December 2024 and June 2025, the fund actually delivered a return of 4.06 percent, which my colleague Dr Carlos Cheung said earlier was a strong result in a volatile global market. When you actually consider the fact that, at the same time, the Auckland International Airport shares actually fell by more than 7 percent, that is good fortune—good luck—in a way. It was also good investment and good foresight to think that Auckland needed to fortify their future and the finances of their council and that they needed to structure the fund so that it has a 75 percent supermajority vote in order for them to decide how they’re going to spend the money and how it needs to be consulted with the people of Auckland. They didn’t just say, “This council decides that we’re going to set up the fund, and the next council will potentially do whatever the heck they like.” It didn’t happen that way. This is protected for the future with a 75 percent supermajority.

I’d like to congratulate the Auckland Council and all of the councillors, and everyone involved in the establishment of the Auckland Future Fund, and the operators and the financial experts and the geniuses that have been employed to look after the Auckland Future Fund. I hope that you can actually do an amazing job to provide a much brighter future for Auckland City ratepayers and also citizens of Auckland City, as I’m one of them. I’d like to, once again, congratulate my colleague Dr Carlos Cheung for bringing this bill to the House. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call—the Hon Phil Twyford.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I have a question for the Hon Melissa Lee. If she thinks this is such a great policy and such a great bill to put in place protections around safeguarding public assets in an elected organisation like Auckland Council, why didn't the National Party do that when they flogged off a 50 percent share of the energy gentailers in 2013, 2014, and promptly frittered away the billions of dollars that came into the Government coffers as a result of that privatisation exercise that the National Party did? That's quite a contrast, and I invite parliamentary colleagues on the National Party benches to think about that for a moment.

There are two good reasons to vote for this bill. The first is that Auckland Council asked this Parliament to legislate these particular safeguards, for example, a 75 percent supermajority before these publicly owned assets can be sold, and also a set of criteria that require a justification for the public good. But the second reason is that this, I think, is a genuine effort to manage public assets in a new way and to get the best out of public ownership. I think it's right and it's good to see the great majority of votes in this House supporting this bill.

The $1.3 billion that currently sits in the Auckland Future Fund comes from the sale of the Auckland Airport shares, a 9.71 percent stake. I won't dwell on that. There were a range of views about whether selling that asset was a good thing or not, but what I do want to comment on is the fact that there are, in our view, some important reasons for public ownership—for example, the holding in public ownership of strategic assets, particularly in situations where you've got infrastructure or an entity that's a natural monopoly. Other reasons: public ownership to deliver a service in a case of market failure, or, as is so often the case in New Zealand, where there is a market that suffers from lack of competition and a duopoly or oligopoly, and non-commercial assets that just intrinsically have a strong public-good value.

Since the 1980s, the left and the right in New Zealand politics have been locked in a political argument over asset sales, and the John Key - Bill English flogging off of the energy gentailers’ 50 percent share is, I think, the case study of how badly the right has approached this question of public ownership. As I said before, they frittered away billions and billions of dollars of public value without actually reinvesting that in things that would seriously improve the productivity of New Zealand's economy. It's for that reason that the left always resists the selling of public assets and why that has become such a hot-button issue in New Zealand politics.

What I hope is that the wide support in the Parliament for this bill could suggest the possibility of a new consensus about how we approach public ownership. Auckland Council's Future Fund is based on the idea of strategic management of publicly owned assets. Its charter includes a commitment to growth of those assets, shepherding them and growing them so that Auckland Council is able to use public ownership in a smart way to deliver on its task and to meet the needs of the people of Auckland. It is about using public ownership for the public good.

I urge members—I don't have any hope for the ACT Party, to be honest, but I urge the National Party at least, and certainly New Zealand First, who, I know, feel strongly about this issue of public ownership, that we must build a consensus around how to properly preserve and look after and grow public ownership in New Zealand in the interest of the public good. There are lots of models around the world that would allow us to do that, and Auckland Council's initiative with the Future Fund is a modest but positive effort to do this for the people of Auckland.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It’s with great pleasure to rise for the second reading of this Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill. It is a master stroke for our leading region—certainly when it comes to population—and our commercial capital. It is growing at a rate of about 50,000 people per year. In fact, Auckland could reach 2 million people by 2030, so that just gives you some indication of the challenges that lie ahead and the infrastructure need that is unrelenting. This is not about asset sales; this is about asset recycling. This is about selling the old family silver and buying new family silver, and, as others have said, this is ring-fencing this fund in perpetuity, protecting it for future generations. The sell-down of council’s final shareholding in the airport last year, as has been articulated, formed the basis for this $1.3 billion fund that now sits as the Auckland Future Fund.

As has also been mentioned, there have been other contributions—one being in June, by the Port of Auckland, when they announced the special dividend of $45 million to be paid as a capital contribution into the Auckland Future Fund. That came on top of its $52 million dividend for the council. I want to just use this opportunity to acknowledge the success—because it was never guaranteed—of the Port of Auckland and its CEO Roger Gray. I want to also acknowledge the success of the Port of Auckland as it pertains to the chairperson, Jan Dawson, and I congratulate her on being appointed just in the last few days as board chair of ACC. If you want to drive performance in ACC, Jan Dawson is a very good appointment. In fact, I think the mayor said in jest to Jan, and possibly to the CEO of Port of Auckland, that if you don’t get the Port of Auckland going, there’s always the option to sell down the operational arm of the Port of Auckland, but that’s not on the books now given that it’s a contributor to this fund and it’s a contributor to our region and city of Auckland.

As Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson said at the time of the formation of this fund last year, this fund will give our council much needed headroom. I want to thank Desley Simpson for her leadership, not just at the council but around the formation of this Auckland Future Fund. I want to also acknowledge my long-time colleague and friend, former MP and former mayor Christine Fletcher for the work that she’s done on the formation of this Auckland Future Fund, not to mention the landmark legislation that was passed yesterday around the Hauraki Gulf. Christine Fletcher has been key in that. Wayne Brown, of course, has been leading this, and I also, of course, want to acknowledge my good friend and colleague the MP for Mt Roskill, Dr Carlos Cheung. Can I also acknowledge Chris Swasbrook, the chair of the foundation board for the Auckland Future Fund. Chris is going to do a great job there. He’s got a great track record, and he is going to do well.

This Government is working very closely with this council, as you can see. It’s happening before our very eyes, not just with this bill but when you look at the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill that’s before the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—congestion charging, that is—the reforms of Auckland Transport that will soon kick off and return more democracy and more accountability to Auckland Transport, and a 30-year integrated regional transport plan for Government and council to work on together. Let’s not forget the City Rail Link that’s opening next year, guys, and that being a council and that being a former National Government that kicked that off and that will be there to cut the ribbon. Let’s not forget that it was a former National Government that delivered the amalgamated city, which has given it such clout to create a fund like this for the perpetuity of Auckland. I commend the bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity for the second day in a row to talk about Auckland. Yesterday, it was about the wonderful Hauraki Gulf and doing some marine protection there—it took too long but it’s great to have it over the line. Today, I’m very happy to be talking, again, about Auckland, which is, of course, our only international city—

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and of great importance to all of us here. It’s great, I’m talking up Auckland here! It’s really important.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): What about Palmerston North?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I recognise that as a South Islander. That’s two things to be happy about today: talking about Auckland, one; and, secondly, talking about the future. It’s great to be talking about words like “long term” and “future” in this. The purpose here is to safeguard these funds, so it’s to continue as a long-term financial investment for the benefit of the current and future communities of the Auckland region. It’s so good to have these safeguards in place so that this money will be used for the long-term benefit. I wish we could see more of this in the House. I commend the bill.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): It’s a great day to talk about Auckland. I’ve long been a big fan of Auckland.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Talk for 10 minutes, James.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: What was that sorry, Dr Russell? Dr Russell would like to say that she wants me to speak for 10 minutes. Well, I could only possibly speak for 10 minutes if I had a plethora of notes in front of me, because that’s what some members obviously need to spend 10 minutes talking in the House—but not me. I don’t need speaking notes. I don’t need a copious amount of assistance for my colleagues. I don’t even need a copy of the bill to speak to this, because today we’re here to talk about a fantastic bill, promoted by my excellent colleague Dr Carlos Cheung. Hasn’t he done a great job in bringing this bill to this House, this Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill? Isn’t it an excellent bill that Dr Cheung has brought to this House?

I don’t know if there’s much more to say in this short contribution that my colleague Cameron Brewer hasn’t already well and truly covered off. He gave an enormous amount of praise to the likes of Ms Fletcher and Mayor Wayne Brown. He even said that Mayor Brown had been talking about how, if Port of Auckland doesn’t improve their performance, maybe he’ll sell down their operational arm. Well, hasn’t he been shown about what a success story Port of Auckland can be, with the tremendous results, and of course, with the development that they are undertaking? Just last week, I believe, they turned the sod on the berth extension down there at Bledisloe North. Of course, that was only made possible by the likes of the fast-track legislation, another amazing bit of legislation that this Government has passed through the House for the economic growth of New Zealand and of Aucklanders—similarly, this key bill as well, which will also add to that economic growth.

Now of course, we’re not talking about short-term gains here; we’re talking about a long-term financial investment fund to support the long-term growth of Aucklanders. That is the kind of Government we are; we are a Government that is focused not on the here and now but on the next 10, 20, 30 years. What does Auckland look like for future generations, for our children and our grandchildren? Possibly not my children and grandchildren, because, of course, they’ll be required to spend the majority of their life in the South Island, unless they give up their passport!

I need to raise an issue with the contribution of the previous speaker, the Hon Rachel Brooking, who said Auckland is our only international city. Now, I’m not going to denigrate the speaker—I’m sure she misspoke and was just trying to give the right amount of praise to Auckland—but, of course, we have a number of brilliant cities in this country: Christchurch, Dunedin, Timaru. These are all fantastic cities that could do with similar investment to what we’re getting through this particular fund. But I digress. I talk too much about the South Island on a day which is really specifically supposed to be about the Auckland Future Fund (AFF) local bill.

Now, of course this bill is one which aims to protect the real value of Auckland Council’s assets for generations to come. I think it’s worth looking at that for a second, because you’ve seen a lot of this in this Government: thinking about, well, how do we actually make sure that we secure the future for New Zealanders for the next 10, 20, 30 years? Along with this particular piece of legislation, I also reflect on the work of the National Infrastructure Plan, which is one of those pieces of work which has received bipartisan support across the House. When you look at what Minister Bishop is trying to do in that infrastructure space and the needs of cities like Auckland, who need to grow not only now but in the future, you’ll see that the investment opportunity that funds like this produce are key to that investment.

We’ve got to provide certainty to the international community if they’re looking to invest heavily in New Zealand, if we’re going to invest in our ports, in our roads, in our infrastructure, in our tunnels, in our bus lanes—let’s say some day, in the far distant future, light rail may even be a possibility in some of our big cities. It might not come now, but funds like this at least give us the opportunity to explore those options, and it means we don’t have to go cap in hand across the world looking for every dollar and cent; we can actually get it from within.

Now, I will talk a little bit about the management of the fund. My understanding from my colleague, and I spoke to him about this a short while ago, just before taking this call, was that it is important to highlight that the management of the fund will be flexible. Of course, it allows for internal or external governance structures, including trusts or other entities. That’s important, because we don’t want to put this investment fund inside a square box with very hard, thick, bold outlines that they can’t be manoeuvred in and out of. We want to provide some flexibility, because we don’t know what the future’s going to bring in the next 30 years for Auckland. We don’t know whether, in 30 years’ time, it should be in a trust or the fund should be in another kind of entity, or whether or not there’s some sort of third entity that exists in 30 years’ time. Providing that flexibility for management is very important for this kind of bill.

It is also important to note, for those who may have some concerns about the management of the funds in this, we are going to make sure—and we have made sure in this legislation—that only appropriately qualified and independent individuals will be responsible for making investment decisions related to the AFF assets. It should come as a lot of reassurance to members opposite that only those with the highest and most prestigious of qualifications will be entitled to participate in this process. I’m not going to point out any single particular university, but I know you could name the likes of the University of Otago, for example. If you’ve got master’s degrees or PhDs from that university, that would be, I think, the kind of qualification that would qualify you to be a manager in this fund. Not any qualification; you wouldn’t necessarily want your law graduates, like myself, running around doing that kind of stuff, but maybe your accounting or your finance graduates—or maybe someone with a PhD in tax or revenue or something like that; some of those really intelligent individuals that we have here in the House who, in fact, make a decent living out of teaching future generations about this kind of ability, these kinds of jobs that you can gain when you have a high-quality qualification in New Zealand.

Now, I’ve talked a little bit about the management of the fund. I’ve talked about how only appropriately qualified and independent individuals will be able to be making investment decisions. We also need to talk about how the decisions about distributing the fund will be made very carefully. I’m not too sure whether there is scope for further amendments, but whether or not we put some sort of qualification requirement on how those individuals make those decisions. I mean, I’m not sure we necessarily want them all to have to have PhDs; you want, maybe, some business experience or some investment, real-world experience from those who haven’t necessarily spent the five or six years grinding away at the University of Otago, going into the Burns Lecture Theatre or down to the Quad to get their master’s and then their PhD under the supervision of one of the excellent professors—sorry, very excellent professors, my colleague Vanessa Weenink says, from experience, I think.

I think that you could actually extend maybe those kinds of criteria to those who are making decisions about distributing the funds, because we’ve got to ensure that they align with the intended benefit of enhancing the region’s wellbeing. I’m talking about all of the regions, and my colleague before mentioned the amalgamation that is, I think, close to 15 years old now. I know there were some road bumps along the way, some maybe $500,000 speed bumps along the way, to amalgamation, but I think, on the whole, it has been good for Auckland. I think one of the good things about the region and securing its future is that there is a consistent approach across all of Auckland. Having not spent a lot of time in Auckland myself, much to my great shame, I think—I’d love to spend more time in Auckland but there are mountains to climb and tahr to hunt down in the “Riviera of the South”. I understand that bringing that disparate grouping of Auckland councils together to create this single entity has really—you know, I think Ms Brooking maybe had a point; it has really turned Auckland into a great international city, a city that we can be proud of, and we can be proud of the people that have been born and raised and come from Auckland, and those who choose to move there and live there.

I actually think that bills like this that are aimed at securing the future of regions like Auckland are incredibly vital to its success, so kudos to Mr Brewer, Mr Cheung, Ms Nakhle, and all the other Aucklanders who are in here. I see Mr Wilson down there as well. There’ll be a fierce battle in Upper Harbour this year, I would imagine. Who can be the “king of the bridge” up there? Hopefully they do better than their rugby team, but we’ll talk about that later on!

Look, I know I can’t get another call, and as much as I would love to take another 10 minutes exhorting the values of Auckland, I just think we should really sign off this brief contribution by recognising that it is important that as a country—I know I’m the Minister for the South Island and it’s not a North versus South thing—we do need to come together as a country. We do need to make sure that all parts of our great nation are contributing to the economic success of New Zealand; whether that is the far Far North, in Grant McCallum’s electorate—which he sees as miles above the rest, but I think he’s looking at the map upside down—or whether we’re right down in the deep South, where I was last week, in Invercargill, looking at some of the fantastic on-land aquaculture opportunities that are there.

It’s the kind of approach that we need to take to make sure that “New Zealand Inc.” as a whole operates to make sure that we have the kind of country and future that generations want to live, work, play, and raise a family. So, with that, bearing in mind that I will be in Auckland this Saturday and I will be enjoying the economic growth and vibrancy that we are seeing there over the coming years—I haven’t yet been able to get a ticket to the train, but I’m hoping that all going well with my associate transport role, maybe I can get a brief delegation to join the rail link. But, in saying that, I really do think this is an excellent bill. I’m glad it’s supported across the House, and I commend it to the country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that was a real lesson in opportunity!

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 116

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 5

Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 20 August.

Clause 2 Commencement (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. When the committee was last considering the bill, we were debating clause 2. Clause 2 is the debate on the commencement of the bill. The question, again, is that clause 2 stand part.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): When we were last debating this a few weeks ago, Tom Rutherford had just asked a series of questions about the commencement clause. He had asked what was an Order in Council, and I think that was for the benefit of people who might be watching at home and might not know what an Order in Council was.

Tom Rutherford: That’s right—simple language.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, we do need to have language that specifies legally what’s correct as well. An Order in Council is an order that’s issued by the Executive Council—that’s the Ministers of the Crown—to put something into effect, and it’s often used to bring legislation into effect. So, in effect, what it will take for this legislation to come into effect is a Cabinet decision. Unless that hasn’t happened, there’s a hard line there of a year from the date of Royal assent.

Mr Rutherford also asked whether 12 months was sufficient for the officials to complete the necessary preparations. The officials assured us during the select committee process that that was indeed the case. Of course the Minister is responsible for the officials, rather than me. I take the officials’ word for the fact that they say that that is enough time.

He asked what regulations were needed to be made and did they need consultation—no regulations need to be made for this, so no consultation is needed—and what if all the preparations aren’t in place from day one? Well, I’d have to go back to what the officials told me, which is that they assured me that they would be able to have this set up in time for the legislation to take effect.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to clause 3. This is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 3A Section 2 amended (Interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to clause 3A. This is the debate on the amendment to section 2, which is the interpretation section. The question is that clause 3A stand part.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I might just seek your guidance for a moment, actually, if that's OK. I actually want to pay credit firstly to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for returning to the Chamber with answers to those questions I posed about four weeks ago. I had been actually sitting on the edge of my seat here for the last four weeks waiting with bated breath for those responses. So I appreciate her seeking those answers and getting the clarity for me.

Mr Chair, I was just wondering if you can just clarify for me: we're looking at section 4—sorry, Part 4. No, clause 4, clause 3A—clause 2A, the transitional savings and related clause provisions?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): No, no, clause 3A—this is the debate on the amendments to section 2, interpretation. That was on page—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Got the right bill there, Mr Rutherford?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s on page 2.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much—that's what I was looking for. Thank you very much for clarifying, Mr Chair. While I'm on my feet, I will take the opportunity, then. I'm keen to understand: if we look here, where it says “appropriate alphabetical order”, I want to clarify from the member in charge, firstly, why that was decided upon. Then it says: “alternative address, in relation to the person, means—(a) the address given for the person in an application under section 360D(3)(c); or (b) a new alternative address given in a notice under section 159(1)”.

Can the member in charge just clarify what both of those sections actually are, for those who are potentially watching along from the gallery up the top, or watching along at home. It would be really interesting to get some clarity—

Suze Redmayne: There’s no one up the top.

TOM RUTHERFORD:Suze Redmayne says there’s no one up there. She can't see behind me—she can't see what's behind me.

I'm just keen if the member in charge could just clarify for us around those particular sections and what they're getting at in there, because it is really important to understand, so we know, actually, what this slight amendment around the interpretation is actually looking to achieve. So I'd ask if the Member could clarify that, please.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The member Tom Rutherford asked, really, about what this clause is amending in the original Act. The principal Act here is the Companies Act. Section 159 of the Companies Act is to do with the notice of change of directors, and in order to give a change of directors, you have to specify a number of things that are listed. So that's what it amends there.

So inserting the term “alternative address” in its appropriate alphabetical order—of course, this is amending the interpretation section of the Act, and, as I'm sure Mr Rutherford actually knows, we don't just randomly bung terms in there, but we actually do list them in alphabetical order. So there you are. It’s specifying “alternative address” and it flows through into effects on section 159 of the original Act.

Mr Rutherford also asked about, I think, sections 215(1A) and 215(1B), or sections 360D to—

Tom Rutherford: No, I didn’t get to that yet.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, well. Just so—

Tom Rutherford: That’s for my next call.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: When you do, those are actually new clauses in this particular bill, so you can read further through the bill and we will end up discussing them later in the bill.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to see you back in the chair there, Dr Russell. You’ve been great at giving us some back and forward so rapidly. You almost seem to have really pre-empted and thought ahead of what my questions were going to be. Oh, look at that! You’ve got a matrix—you’ve got a matrix of all the possible things that we could ask. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if I could get a copy of that? That would be just amazing and really helpful. But these are the things where, as new MPs, we’re actually learning a great deal on these members’ days about how we debate these issues and the very important elements. Even seeing your matrix there has given me great inspiration for the next time we go ahead with these.

It will help as we go through this section by section and clause, almost, by clause. You’ve taken us to clause 5A, which looks at—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): No, no. We’re on clause 3A.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: New subsection (5A), yes. So it says that subsection (5) does not affect section 215(1A). But when we’re just flicking through this bill here, it’s quite hard to see—and that must be in the original Act, in the Companies Act, because I can’t—“Public inspection of company records”. So does that mean—because I don’t have the full original Act in front of me, I’m just wondering if new section 215(1A) must refer to the original Act. If it doesn’t affect that, which is about public access to it, I just wonder, not being able to look at it, how that is actually going to be a functional thing.

If you are wanting to provide an alternative address, part of what we’re trying to ensure is some privacy around that, that there’d be a way that people can say what their address is, other than their home address for those directors or shareholders. So I’m just wondering if you could explain a little bit more about what that new section 215(1A) is about. I can understand a little bit—and we can read through for new section 360D and where those apply, because this subsection doesn’t affect section 360D, which is about alterations of entries on the New Zealand Register. So that’s where the registrar can actually, in accordance with this Act or with other regulations—and, as you pointed out just in your previous answer, the other regulations are not going to be required, but I’m assuming other regulations mean other regulations similar or around this that could be caught up.

Also, subsection (5) doesn’t affect the fact that the registrar must take reasonable steps. Now, one of those things is: what is “reasonable” and what are “reasonable steps”, and is there anywhere where that’s defined or is there any potential challenge that could come from the definition or working out what reasonable steps are and whether or not that creates any difficulties for those who are trying to use this law change to be able to protect their privacy—if there are any barriers that that might then put in the place of a swift passage of changes on the part of the registrar so that people can be protected? Because as we were working through this process, we know that the real reasons why we’re doing this change, this amendment to the Companies Act, is that we really want to protect those people who have put themselves forward to be directors of companies, who are going ahead and are part of, really, the economic drivers of this country. They need to be able to feel safe in their own homes and their privacy is protected. We heard so many submissions about this. So it would be a shame if there was a process reason why things could be slowed down because of those reasonable steps of having to include extra steps in the process for the registrar to be able to make changes so that they prove that it was reasonable, because, you know, when it comes to these things, people are always trying to protect themselves from future issues and problems that might come up as a result of exercising their duties and their roles.

When it comes to people who are of the legal profession or with a background in anything to do with law, I’ve noticed that they can be quite pedantic in their interpretations. Also, sometimes they take different understandings and different interpretations than we may have expected when we are drafting the law. It’s one of those issues where it can seem really sensible to us, and for all of the time and care that we as a committee have taken, I just hope that there is not any problem that we’re going to be putting in there with that “reasonable” word in there. So just thank you in advance for that and also for your inspiration on that matrix.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I thank the member Dr Vanessa Weenink for her speech. A large part of what she referred to is to do with the new sections 360D to 360G—I think they are. I’m going to suggest that the member defers those questions until we come to clause 5, because that’s actually the operative section of this bill, which actually does all the work. This clause 3A is a pretty technical one.

The member asked what section 215 is about. Section 215 is about the “Public inspection of company records”. The member will see that it’s dealt with in clause 4 of this bill. So that discussion could wait until then. Section 215(1A) and (1B) are new subsections in the Act, and they are introduced later in the bill. So I’m going to suggest that we just defer that discussion until we actually reach that point.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Mr Chair, though—now that I’ve stood up and made that—I might be a little bit ahead. I was wanting to look at new section 360F and take it down that track. Is that—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’re on clause 3A.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Ah, all right. Dang!

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): You can wait until then, if that works?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Wait a while? All right.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent, brilliant—and I also want to thank the member for the very useful contributions that we've heard. I appreciate that we're focusing on clause 3A here, around the alternative address. Clause 3A(1) says, “In section 2(1), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: “alternative address”, in relation to a person, means—”, because, of course, section 2 is amending the interpretation. The “alternative address” is “(a) the address given for a person in an application under section 360D(3)(c); or (b) a new alternative address given in a notice under section 159(1)”.

This is really important, and I do want just to kind of note what we're trying to do here. Unfortunately, there are safety concerns for some of these addresses, and, of course, we've even seen people in this House having issues with their addresses being made public. There is a reason why we want to have alternative addresses. It is to make sure that there is some sort of accountability for people, and, really, my question is around the interpretation of alternative addresses, and what kinds of mechanisms will be in place to ensure that substitute addresses, or, as they’re called, alternative addresses—I suppose it could have been called substitute addresses—are still functional for legal and services purposes, because, of course, we’d want to make sure that any director is held accountable.

Of course, there's phoenixing, when businesses may go a little bit sideways and then they're reborn—I think that's quite a clever kind of analogy there.

Hon Member: What’s phoenixing?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Yeah, rising from the ashes is where it comes from, but of course we want to make sure that the directors are accountable. Really, it's about what mechanisms are in place in this interpretation to ensure that the alternative addresses that are given are still functional for legal and services purposes.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come from me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, when we broke for the dinner break, we were debating clause 3A of the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I just want to answer some of the questions that members asked previously. One of the members was asking about new sections 215(1A) and 215(1B). I’m just going to direct the member’s attention to clause 4 of this bill. That’s where those particular sections are. They’re new sections. They’re sitting in clause 4, so we may want to have a discussion on them under clause 4 rather than this stage. Similarly, with sections 360D to 360G, which actually contain pretty much the operative work in this bill, they’re actually in clause 5 of this bill.

Clause 3A amends the interpretation section, so it’s pretty technical, and it really is just technical, linking bits and pieces of the bill back and forth. If members wish to discuss the issues of what is reasonable and so on, I genuinely suggest that they save it for clause 5.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just on clause 3A, I had a look through the select committee report on this bill, and it had in it that the select committee recommended replacing “address for service” with “alternative address”, which, from my understanding—I wasn’t from a member of the select committee—was to avoid confusion with the existing definition in the Companies Act.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Filibustering members—outrageous!

TOM RUTHERFORD: Interesting. Dr Duncan Webb seems to have an issue with members of this Chamber scrutinising legislation as it comes through the passage of Parliament. Isn’t that a novelty as to the role of what parliamentarians do on a day-to-day basis—holding those who bring legislation to the House accountable and trying in the committee of the whole House stage—

Hon Jan Tinetti: It’s a pity you don’t do it on other days!

TOM RUTHERFORD: Jan Tinetti pipes up,

Hon Jan Tinetti: That’s right!

TOM RUTHERFORD: Jan Tinetti pipes up. She might finally have something meaningful to contribute to this Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can we address the bill, not each other, please? We don’t need the cross-Chamber debate going on.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to finish the point there because I am on my feet and I do have the call. The role of the committee of the whole House—particularly in this bill because it is just one part and we’re going clause by clause—is to dive into the minutiae of the details of the legislation. Being a clause-by-clause debate, we’re on clause 3A, and I’m asking a question about clause 3A.

Before I was rudely interrupted—

Hon Jan Tinetti: I can’t wait until the next time you take a closure motion.

TOM RUTHERFORD: See, here we go. This is brilliant. Why don’t you take one now, Jan Tinetti, and try your luck with a closure motion, and I will see how I will, potentially, vote on it. Just keep going. Keep oiling me up. This is great. I’m having a good time.

Clause 3A, around the definition of “alternative address”: the select committee recommended replacing “address for service” with “alternative address” to avoid confusion with the existing definition in the Companies Act, hence why there’s clause 3A, which we’re talking about here, which inserts a definition of “alternative address”, while new section 360E sets requirements that mirror, but also differ from, existing section 192, “Address for service”, requirements.

The select committee amendments created new section 3A to define “alternative address” rather than use the existing address for service concept. I am keen to first understand, from the member in charge, why they thought it was important to shift from the previously used “address for service”, as is the case in, say, the Companies Act, to the change, which was the “alternative address”. Can the member also explain why new section 360E was necessary when section 192 already provides address for service requirements. How do the requirements in new section 360E differ from section 192? Why couldn’t the existing framework have been used? This seems, in my view, to create unnecessary complexity in the Act.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Duplication.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, a bit of duplication, Vanessa Weenink says. I would agree with her around “address for service”, but now we’re creating an entirely new term and calling it “alternative address”—for some reason—to avoid confusion. If the member could clarify that for me, I would appreciate it.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I note that a large part of the member’s discourse was related to clause 5 and the new sections that are introduced under that. He did ask one question that is quite interesting and is worth speaking about in relation to this clause, the interpretation section. As he’s pointed out, during the select committee process, it was realised that the term “address for service” is used in the Companies Act and, actually, used elsewhere for a whole variety of technical purposes like serving papers, as a place to contact directors, and so on. The point of having a director’s home address in the Companies Office records is, at least in part, to ensure that people can identify who a director is and where they’re located. It’s not to do with having a place where papers can be served—papers can always be served at the company’s office and so on—it’s to do with locating the individual director.

However, this bill has a different purpose. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that, in some cases, a director doesn’t have to put their own personal address in the Companies Office records; they can use an alternative address. Calling it an address for service would confuse it with the legal reason of having a place where papers can be served. It is to do with enabling the director to have an alternative address so that she or he is not subject to stalking and is not subject to people standing out in the street and protesting at their home address, and so on. It has particularly been requested by women who have been stalked by people who obtained their home address through the Companies Office records.

That is the purpose of this bill. It is quite a separate purpose from the legal service of documents, hence the different term that is introduced in this bill: the alternative address. The other thing is that using the term “alternative address” does quite clearly mark out a particular set of circumstances, which is relevant in this case, rather than confusing it with all the other reasons one might need an address for companies.

Clause 3A agreed to.

Clause 3B Section 159 amended (Notice of change of directors)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to clause 3B, “Section 159 amended (Notice of change of directors)”. This is the debate on section 159. The question is that clause 3B stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was inspired by my burst of activity prior to the break to have a real good long hard look at clause 3B, which is, of course, the section that has to do with notice of change of directors. I have, I would say, probably about five real key topics or areas I'd like to examine this clause with the member on, and, within each of those topics, a number of probing questions around this particular clause 3B.

The first topic I'd like to speak to is around what I would describe as the clarity and purpose of this particular amendment, and I'd like the Minister to explain a few things, or at least try to attempt to explain a few things. The first one—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Oh, I will explain them—there’s no attempt about it.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Oh, no, there will be no attempt about it. Well, I mean, I've outlined quite a lot of content coming down the barrel, and I want to give the member time to rigorously examine the questions and provide thorough responses.

But the first one, and this first topic, is the clarity and purpose of the amendment. I just want to see if the member can explain the purpose of inserting that phrase “or the alternative address” into section 159. What is the problem that the amendment seeks to address here? Is the member looking at this from primarily a privacy perspective, is it a safety issue, or is it just administrative convenience? That's the first question within this topic.

The second one is an interesting one, actually. There are a number of sections within the principal Act which could have been amended, and I point to section 360C or section 360D. I guess the question is: why amend section 159 rather than some of the other address-related provisions in order to make this particular clause amendment?

The final question in this introductory topic of examination is around the inclusion of alternative address anyway. Is that a mandatory requirement, or is it optional for directors when they're notifying a change of details? Are they required to give an alternative address, or can they use one of the other options listed there? That's the first set of questions on that first topic.

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

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I’ll ignore that, Mr Whip.

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, Mr Webb?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Dr Webb—Professor Dr Webb.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I haven’t even got to my feet and I’m being heckled already. That’s when I know I live rent free in his head—that’s when I know. That's when I know it's very good. There's not much else taking up the brain space; I'll tell you that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): 3B.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Madam Chair, clause 3B, “Section 159 amended (Notice of change of directors)”. Following on from my colleague James Meager, I’m keen to understand about, actually, the administrative burden for companies. So how will clause 3B, which amends section 159 to include alternative addresses in change notifications—how will clause 3B, amendment to section 159, effect the administrative burden on companies? Because with this change, companies will now be required to track and notify—so both track and notify—changes to both residential and alternative addresses.

They were previously just doing the one—they were just doing the residential address, which is the change that this bill is looking to make to provide that security to people. So you're potentially not having people turning up at your property, who knows, throwing things through your windows, not putting pots and pans and banging things outside, disrupting the neighbourhood—who knows? Who knows? Hypothetically, that could happen. You wouldn't know—you wouldn't know—

Hon Member: Common decency.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —some common decency. You would think if you had such an issue with it, you would support legislation to change that sort of thing.

Companies will now need to track and notify changes to both residential and alternative addresses. What guidance is going to be provided on how companies should manage these dual address requirements? What guidance is going to be provided to the companies to say you've now got the required residential address of the director, but now you've also got what we have termed—and we just fleshed it out in the previous clause, was now going to be called “their alternative address”. [Interruption] Potentially, Stuart Smith. How will you be able to differentiate between what will be their residential address and their alternative address and the burden that that may put on companies?

How will companies also know when a director's alternative address has changed if the director deals directly, say, with the registrar, which is required under section 360D. So I'm keen to understand from the member, how would the company know when a director's alternative address—let's remember it's not their residential address.

Hon Member: No, the alternative.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Their alternative address that they have nominated has changed—if that director just deals directly with the registrar and does not inform the company, how would the company know? Because under section 360D, all the requirement is is for the director to advise the registrar, and maybe the company might not find out. So how would I know if I was said member of the public and I go to the company and say, “Well, this was the alternative address that was provided, that was notified publicly.” I turned up there with my documents to serve them or whatever it might be and suddenly it's now no longer accurate.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: They also go and change the actual director.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, Vanessa Weenink is going to take a 5-minute call after me to talk about what if there was the change of the director but the alternative address potentially stayed the same. What if it goes both ways?

So my question to the member in charge is, if the alternative address changes, but the director tells the registrar, how does the company know? Where is the check and balance and stopgap in the middle there to say to the company that you need to change the alternative address as well? Because the director has only told the registrar and hasn't actually told the company itself. They've actually just taken the initiative, told the registrar, and then someone turns up and they're grumpy and they say, “Well, I went to the alternative address that you advertised and it was not accurate.”

David MacLeod: What was that clause again?

TOM RUTHERFORD: It was quite clear. Well, under section 360D, which says the director just has to advise the registrar of the alternative address; they don't actually have to tell the company specifically themselves. How do you actually mitigate that from happening? Otherwise you're going to have grumpy people out there who are saying “I went to the alternative address and there was nobody there. I couldn't drop things off. It's out of date.” How do you ensure that information stays completely up to date so that people can actually get to the alternative addresses that they need to get to?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you. I will just go through the questions that have been asked. The Hon James Meager has asked whether this alternative address is a matter of safety or administrative convenience. The safety is the whole point of this bill. The point of the bill is to ensure that directors who are concerned that their home address is readily available through the Companies Register can actually use an alternative address. It provides a level of safety so that the Companies Register, which is easily available online, cannot be used to stalk. So that’s the point of this bill.

The second question said, “Well, why did we not look at amending other parts of the Act?” I just want to draw Mr Meager’s attention to section 159. So clause 3B is looking at amending section 159, and that’s the “Notice of change of directors”. The obligation under section 159 of the Companies Act is that the board of a company must ensure that notice is given, in the “prescribed form”, to the Registrar of any changes in director or in the name or residential address of a director. This amendment will add in “or the alternative address” of a director of a company.

Now, directors actually have obligations to the company to keep the company itself up to date with where they live and what their names are. The member—and I note that his colleagues seem to think the same thing—sort of assumes that directors are at very arm’s length from a company; they are not. They are tied up quite closely in the governance of a company. Companies actually have an interest in knowing who their directors are and where to contact them and so on. So companies do this anyway. In particular, if the member goes to section 159(3) of the Companies Act, the board of a company has an obligation to comply with the section. Boards already have the obligation to keep the names and addresses of companies up to date with the Register of Companies.

So that goes to the third question that Mr the Hon James Meager asked, which is—oh, no, sorry, something that Mr Rutherford asked. I’ll go back to the third one that Mr Meager asked: is it mandatory to have an alternative address? No. It’s not mandatory. This is an option that someone may want to adopt. When we get on to discussing clause 5, you will see the steps that a person needs to go through in order to adopt that option.

Then Mr Rutherford talked about the administrative burden for companies. There is no extra administrative burden for companies. They already have to keep track of the addresses of directors. A director who wishes to use an alternative address has to go through a procedure for that, then she or he will need to keep that up with the company. The company reports either the address or the alternative address of a director to the Register of Companies. So there is no extra administrative burden there. It’s not a dual address requirement; it’s an alternative address. So the company only needs to keep one or other of those addresses up—and, yeah, alternative address only if the director has opted for it.

The other thing is that there was a question about “Well, what if there is a change of director?” Again, this is just standard in the Companies Act. It has to be notified to the Register of Companies. There is already a set of procedures in place; there is no extra burden there. It is just the ongoing compliance cost of running a company, anyway.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, can I just remind members that clause 3A, B, and C are quite consequential to the substantive changes which are found in clause 5. So if members wish to canvass issues that will be in clause 5, they could already be deemed to be repetitive by the time we get there. So just a caution there.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the very satisfactory responses from the member in the chair, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, to those questions. I was wondering, when she said “the young Mr Meager”, who she was referring to—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I meant the young Mr Rutherford.

RIMA NAKHLE: —but, obviously, she got me confused with Mr Rutherford, and that's where the “young” part came in from, so I acknowledge that.

Look, I am going to move on to the second topic of this clause, and it sort of follows on from Mr Rutherford's contribution. It is around the definition of “alternative address” and its administration, and I think it's important to address this here because it doesn't appear in clause 5. It's a question around how it is defined. Is it defined identically as the “address for service”, or is it a different meaning under the Act? I really want to touch on how you tell whether an alternative address is suitably qualified.

Now, I think it's quite straightforward when you have a residential address that those tend to be, first and foremost, legitimate addresses. They tend to actually exist in an actual property, a place, and a physical location which someone can actually seek information from. How will the company's office ensure that an alternative is a real place so that when you turn up to undertake the activities that you might want to for those addresses, such as providing service, it is a physical location that you can drop something to? Who will be determining what qualifies and constitutes an alternative address?

I can imagine a situation where it could be quite simple, where there's a basic search on the Google machine. But what kind of proof of address do you have to provide that this is an actual physical location, and I'm not just going to sort of turn up to 242 Beach Road and find some rock or a set of sticks or a stone circle that someone has put into the system?

Just following that, do the registrars themselves have the power to reject an address that appears to be false or inadequate in that case? And as that is the case, what is the process to go through in order to make sure that the address is actually a legitimate alternative address? I only raise this because it is quite straightforward for residential addresses. They are in the system, so when we're now talking about alternative addresses, that might not be physical locations. I think they are legitimate questions to ask.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Chair, as you suspected, the member was discussing material that is in clause 5, however I will address it now so I don't have to address it later.

I will draw the member’s attention to new section 360E, inserted by clause 5, where it talks about the requirements for an alternative address and it says what it must not be. It's not the company's registered office. It can't be a post centre or a document exchange. It can be, say, at the offices of any firm of accountants, barristers, or solicitors, but you've got to state that the address is at the office of that firm and the particulars of the location in any building of those offices. If that doesn't apply, but the alternative address is located in a building containing a number of premises, the alternative address must state the particulars of its location in the building, so a physical address is assumed, and it must be reasonably well specified.

The member asked as well, “Who verifies the address?” Well, that problem arises with existing company addresses or addresses for service anyway, so it's no different a problem than already exists for the registrar of companies.

Can the registrar reject addresses? Well, I'm sure the registrar can. That would be in the powers of the registrar as already contained in the Companies Act. It's not part of this bill, but the alternative address functions in exactly the same way as the ordinary, regular address, so all the same powers apply. So we've now discussed new section 360E.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I understand the interpretation that the member’s taking on, dragging us up to clause 5, and so I won't dig into some of the consequences of amending section 159, which may well be covered under clause 5 and new section 360E in the subsections. But I will talk about the broader policy and the precedent being set here.

We're going to be changing the Companies Act to provide for an alternative address for company directors. Now, I was involved in a number of club constitutions when the new Incorporated Societies Act came , and I just want to raise a question around consistency with other Acts and other address requirements for potentially slightly more vulnerable people. You've got offices of incorporated societies and charities, who now have to provide their information, and they have to actually provide a physical address. How is this consistent with existing legislation, and is there any intention for the member to go further and look at the other requirements for address provisions in other similarly stated entities such as incorporated societies, charities, and other entities that may well have address publication requirements that, perhaps, members of those organisations are entitled to receive as well?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): No, not in this bill. This bill is quite narrow. It confines itself only to companies. However, I invite the member the Hon James Meager, in his capacity as a Minister, to perhaps look at introducing a bill that would deal with that, or, indeed, any of his colleagues to put forward their own member’s bill dealing with those particular issues.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate your words of wisdom about the narrowness of this clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: We are, of course, talking about clause 3B, “Section 159 amended (Notice of change of directors)”. My colleague has already brought up the burden for directors and businesses, and I just wondered whether there's actually been any look into the burden on the registrar for this extra bit that we're adding into the notice of change of directors.

Of course, in clause 3B we have subclauses (1) and (2). Subclause (1) says, “In section 159(1)(b), replace ‘name or the residential address’ with ‘name, the residential address, or the alternative address’ ”. I wasn’t part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee at the time that this bill went through, but if I was, I might have brought this up then, but luckily, I have been transferred on to that select committee now.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: We are very lucky to have you.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Yeah—very lucky. So the thing is that I am just questioning about the wording, and whether it is actually clear. Instead of having the name or residential address and changing that to the name, the residential address, or the name and the alternative address, just to make it clear, because otherwise it might not necessarily—people might think that they could have a name, or the alternative address.

So that was in subclause (1). In subclause (2), once again, we have “In section 159(2)(d)(ii), replace ‘name or the residential address’ with ‘name, the residential address, or the alternative address’ ”. The wording here just seems a little bit clunky and it probably has a kind of different meaning, and so I was just wondering what was discussed in the select committee about that and whether we’re actually adding more burden on to the companies register with that.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I've covered this already. One needs to go to the actual original Act. This is an amendment to the original Act, so one needs to read the original Act. Clause 3B amends section 159(1)(b). At the moment, it says that the board of a company must ensure notice in the prescribed form of a change in the name or a residential address of a director of a company. We're inserting the words “name, the residential address, or the alternative address”. I just invite the member to perhaps look at the original Act because often it provides its own explanation.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I was just going to remind the House that unless you are a garden gnome living on a mushroom at the bottom of the garden, I think we've canvassed this clause 3B and so I'm going to suggest that the question is that clause 3B stand part.

Clause 3B agreed to.

Clause 3C Section 189 amended (Company records)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to clause 3C.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Clause 3C is about section 189 being amended, the “Company records”. My question relates to the record-keeping complexity that may potentially arise from this change. The amendment requires companies to maintain records—as I outlined in my previous contribution—of both, now, the alternative addresses along with the residential addresses. Now, the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell answered the question by saying that there will be no administrative burden, there will be no additional record-keeping complexity; whereas I say, in clause 3C, which amends section 189, to include alternative addresses in company record requirements—how will clause 3C’s amendment to section 189 work in practice for company record-keeping? Companies now will need to maintain both the residential and the alternative addresses. How will this interact with the privacy protections that the bill is trying to create? If a director’s alternative address is meant to protect their privacy, should companies be required to maintain records of both addresses?

I think that’s a really important point we haven’t canvassed, because what we’re trying to do here with the alternative address is provide those directors the privacy so they don’t necessarily have people turning up to their home residential address. But how will this change interact with the privacy protections in the bill that it’s trying to create? If a director’s alternative address is meant to protect their privacy, should companies be required to maintain records of both addresses?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’m going to make two points here. One is that I invite the member to look up section 189 of the Companies Act. I’m assuming the member uses a smartphone and that, in fact, he could call up the Companies Act himself and have a look at it. Section 189 is about “Company records”, where it says, “a company must keep the following documents at its registered office:”—this is section 189(1)—“(a) the constitution of the company: (b) minutes of all meetings and resolutions of shareholders within the last 7 years: (c) an interests register: (d) minutes of all meetings and resolutions of directors and directors’ committees within the last 7 years: (e) certificates given by directors under this Act within the last 7 years: (f) the full names and addresses of the current directors: (g) copies of all written communications to all shareholders or all holders of the same class of shares during the last 7 years, including annual reports …: (h) copies of all financial statements and group financial statements required to be completed by this Act or any other enactment for the last 7 [years]: (i) the accounting records required by section 194 for the current accounting period and for the last 7 completed accounting periods of the company: (j) the share register.” Frankly, having to have the alternative address as well is neither here nor there, particularly if we’re a small group of people who are the directors of the company.

The member then said, “Well, hang on a second. If a director’s alternative address is going to be available in the company’s records, which can be available for inspection and people can find it.” I’m going to take it the member’s now moved on to discuss clause 4 because, in actual fact, if we look at it, clause 4 addresses exactly that privacy concern that the member was worried about. If the clause applies, a company can replace a director’s residential address with an alternative address on the company’s records that are available for inspection. That particular issue has already been addressed, and we’ve now addressed clause 4 as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): For clarity for the House, too, the question is that clause 3C stand part?

Clause 3C agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 215 amended (Public inspection of company records)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to clause 4. This is the debate on the amendment to section 215, “Public inspection of company records”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, clause 4 amends section 215 and it relates to some of the content in clause 5 in so far as it refers to new section 360D and 360F, and it says that section 215 applies if those other sections apply.

I’m not going to talk about the content of those other sections, but I want to talk about the content of this particular clause for itself. The first part that I want to question the member about is the use of the word “may” in both of those clauses—well, new subsection (1A) and new subsection (1B). The use of the word “may”: “a company may replace a director’s residential address with their alternative address”—and also in (1B)—“a company may replace a shareholder’s address”. “May” indicates an optionality there. Why is it not a requirement on the company?

If someone chooses to use an alternative address, wouldn’t there be, therefore, a requirement on the company to update their records rather than just give them an option? This is about the public inspection of those records, and if an individual changes to an alternative address but then the company is not required to update their records, how does that meet the intention of the legislation, which is to provide a sense of privacy if the original residential address remains on the record and the company is not therefore required to do it?

The director may well go to all extents to provide an alternative address, but if there’s no requirement to actually change it and make sure that the public record reflects that fact, wouldn’t that therefore defeat the intention of the bill in the first place?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I'm going to suggest to the member the Hon James Meager that a director of a company has quite some power to ensure that the address on a company's register has changed to the alternative address. Directors have that kind of power. I'm going to suggest further that a director who goes to the efforts to have an alternative address—and there is a process there—will also be similarly motivated to ensure that the company's register is updated. This just gives the company's register, the person who's maintaining it, the capacity to do so.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Further to that, what is the harm in allowing this to be optional? Why is there not a direct requirement that the company must replace the residential address with an alternative address? It could even be qualified if the particular director asked them to do so. I don’t understand what the harm would be in requiring this. If the whole purpose of the bill is to provide—yes, we provide the option to provide an alternative address. But I assume that the director may need some sort of resolution to ask for the board in order to do so. It depends on how hands on they are with a particular company. What is the harm caused by changing “may” to “shall” and actually saying to companies you have an obligation to do this rather than leave it up to a particular board of directors at a particular time?

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ll wait with bated breath the answer from the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in the follow-up question from James Meager around the changes to potentially requiring it, as Minister Meager outlined.

My question is around company record accessibility. Clause 4 inserts new subsections 215(1A) and (1B), which allow companies to replace residential addresses with alternative addresses in public records. How do the new subsections in 215(1A) and (1B), inserted by clause 4, interact with the main protections in new section 360D, which is if the Registrar removes public access to residential addresses, under new section 360D(2), why do companies also need the ability to replace addresses in their own records, under section 215(1A), and doesn’t that create potential inconsistencies between what are company records and the official register? Haven’t we then suddenly created some discrepancies between the two?

My question is: if the Registrar removes public access to residential addresses, under new section 260D(2), why do companies also need the ability to replace addresses in their own records, under section 215(1A), and does that not create potential inconsistencies between what are then on the company records and the official register?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’ll repeat the answer I gave to the question that the Hon James Meager repeated about why it is using “may” rather than “shall” or “must”. A director has an incentive to get that address changed to an alternative address. I don't think we need to legislate that the director needs to do that, and it gives the company the capacity to act. That's why the word “may” is used.

To the question from Tom Rutherford about inconsistencies between the company's records and the register of companies records, if the member cared to go to section 215 in the Companies Act, he would see that a company is required to keep records available for inspection by a person who serves written notice of intention to inspect on the company. That enables the company to ensure that an alternative address is used rather than the residential address, so it just does away with the concerns that there might be an inconsistency.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the very clear replies to our questions from the member in the chair. It is really helpful and is really getting through this very well.

This is one of the very important aspects that I remember during the select committee process. We did spend quite a bit of time debating around what the implications on the company records are. If you look at the company records through the Business New Zealand website or anything like that, you can find quite a rich amount of information on those company documents. Some of those documents, whether they’re in PDF form or other forms that you can actually look for, actually have pages and pages of information about the company, about the work that the company’s doing, some of their records. Sometimes they’ll even have annual reports or sort of AGM-type notes and minutes that are recorded in there. Depending on how the company chooses to share their information or record their information, it can be quite verbose. There can be quite a lot of words used in there, so that, if you were to trawl through a lot of the documents, you may find that there are addresses or references to people scattered throughout.

One of the things that we discussed during the select committee process was—well, actually, when you look at the companies register, you see as a highlight the addresses come up, but in the actual documents on the company’s records themselves, and those that are available for inspection, they can actually have the addresses throughout. Although it’s beholden on the company to check all of that, it is potentially quite a manual process to go through some of the old records. If you look at the company’s website, the access to the information and how far it goes back is quite rich in history now. You have records that go back many years. If one wanted to expunge the e-record of an address from all of the documents that are available publicly, it would be quite an intensely manual process.

I think my question to the member really is: do you think that would be quite a technical process and quite a long, drawn-out, manual process to do? Is the expectation and the safety that we’re relying on here for people really buried in the fact that it would be an intensely detailed process to go through to get that information? We hope that people—the criminals or the slightly fixated individuals—might not actually have the energy or the tenacity or the understanding to really go to those extremes of really combing through past histories of old company AGM and annual reports and the kind of rich detail that is available on the company’s website to find that information. It would be impossible for somebody to completely expunge all records.

I know, when we had these discussions at the time and we were involved in some of those very interesting and edifying discussions and hearings, that we heard from a variety of people that were representing those directors, and especially from, for example, the Institute of Directors, who really implored that there be no requirement for anyone to have any residential address information available anywhere. I think we have some sympathy with that because, really, what it’s about is identifying, as you discussed, a person, not where they live. It’s not actually about the address. We don’t want, necessarily, to know exactly where that person lives. It’s about making sure that of the 30-odd John Smiths that you have on the companies and directors register, that it’s actually—

Stuart Smith: There’s very few of them.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah, well, there’s 40-something on the page in there. There’s a lot of the same name. It’s about identifying the person, not about that. Are we relying on the tedious nature of going through the data that is there to protect people from the risk that they still may have somewhere there might be an address? Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’m just going to note, first up, that clause 4 concerns itself with section 215 and that section 215 is to do with the public inspection of a company’s records at the company’s offices. It’s not at the Registrar of Companies; it’s at the company’s own offices. It’s a much smaller operation there. Presumably a director will have some direct access to those records and can ensure that her or his alternate address is used rather than their residential address.

The member, then, really went on to discuss the matters that are sitting in clause 5, new section 360D(2), which is that “The Registrar must—(a) take reasonable steps to prevent public access from the New Zealand register”. We did discuss this at length in select committee, discussing where a director’s address might be available. Indeed, it might be available on old PDFs and need to be redacted from it and so on. This is why we have, in there, the reasonable steps. We expect, in the first instance, that the registrar of companies, or whoever’s there, will actually do what they can to erase that residential address and replace it with the alternate address. My expectation is that, having done a good job of that, if the director themself comes across other places where the old address is still visible, then it may be possible that they can bring it to the attention of the Registrar of Companies.

There’s a whole variety of mechanisms there. It’s reasonable steps, not every single possible step. We would expect a reasonable standard of care. Of course, that’s a term used quite frequently in the law. It’s to take reasonable steps that can be tested, so I think that’s a perfectly good way to do it.

Finally, the member did talk about—this does float through the entire bill, so I will address it now—the issue raised by the Institute of Directors, who said, “Well, why are we using these private addresses at all? Why are we using them for shareholders? Why are we using them for company directors?” In fact, there’s a whole variety of instances where it seems odd that people’s home addresses are so readily available. Indeed, those of us who are in public office often take steps to get our addresses removed from the electoral roll because, for good reason, we don’t want people turning up and protesting outside our homes—or, at least, perhaps they might care to do so in a peaceful fashion. However, I’m just going to point out here that this is a good little piece of law. It does serve a very particular purpose.

There is better legislation coming. The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has assured me that he’s working on his Companies Amendment Bill and that he anticipates having it in the House sometime soon. We don’t know when that soon will be. I’ve had a pretty upfront exchange with him as to what I intend to do with this bill, and my commitment to him has been that, if his bill has its first reading before the end of the year, I will withdraw this bill. That is the commitment I’ve made to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and I intend to keep it. It’s now on him to get his bill into the House. Having said all that, I take the point. There are many cases where we would prefer that we don’t have home addresses readily available—as they are at the moment, with just a few clicks on a keyboard. The Minister’s bill will provide a better solution. In the meantime, I want this band-aid.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Member: Madam Chair? Directly relevant, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I did give notice earlier that these clauses are very consequential to the substantive part of the bill, which is clause 5, which we are coming to next, so I am going to put the closure motion.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 4A Section 328 amended (Registrar may restore company to New Zealand register)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to clause 4A. This is the debate on the amendment to section 328, “Registrar may restore company to New Zealand register”. The question is that clause 4A stand part.

Clause 4A agreed to.

Clause 5 New sections 360D to 360G inserted

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to clause 5. This is the debate on new sections 360D to 360G. The question is that clause 5 stand part.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I’m sorry to my colleagues Minister Meager and Vanessa Weenink. This is the substantive part of the bill. This is the nitty gritty. This is what—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Which you’ve already canvassed.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Ricardo Menéndez March says, “You’ve already canvassed this.” See, here’s the irony. In 24 hours, we’ll be in this House, less than 24 hours, and Ricardo Menéndez March will be speaking at liberty. He will be waxing lyrical on things—

Hon Member: About nothing.

TOM RUTHERFORD: About absolutely nothing. It’ll be just full of hot air—hot air. And we’ll come up and say, “Madam Chair, I move that debate on this question now close.” Then he’ll get up with a point of order and he’ll complain about it and say, “No, no. It’s got many substantive points to raise.” How the boot changes.

Hon Jan Tinetti: And back to the bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, I look forward to you taking a call, Jan Tinetti, and contributing something to the committee.

Now, clause 5, main provisions, new sections 360D to 360G—I firstly want to ask about application volume and resource planning. The briefing materials indicate that there are over 650,000 directors currently on the Companies Register. The Institute of Directors survey found that privacy was the number one personal concern for directors, supported by 44 percent of directors generally and 61 directors who are on high profile NZX-listed companies.

Clause 5 creates new section 360D, which establishes the application mechanism that could potentially be used by hundreds of thousands of directors. Can the member, firstly, confirm how many directors currently have their residential address publicly available on the Companies Register and what volume of applications the Companies Office is expecting under new section 360D?

Has the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) provided the member any modelling on expected application volumes with this change and what additional resourcing does she believe will be required to process applications without creating, for instance, significant delays under the section 360D framework?

I’m keen to understand from the member what volume of applications the Companies Office is expecting under new section 360D, and has any modelling been provided through, say, the select committee process or to the member directly on how many expected application volumes—

Ricardo Menéndez March: That’s what the select committee process is for—ask a colleague.

TOM RUTHERFORD: He says, “Ask a colleague”. I am asking a colleague. I’m asking the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. She’s a parliamentary colleague and I’m asking her—yes, very well.

Before I was rudely interrupted, has MBIE provided any modelling on expected application volumes and what additional resourcing, if any, will be required to process applications without creating significant delays under the new section 360D framework?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): In terms of the volume of applications that we’re expecting, we don’t know. No, there was no modelling done. That’s the nature of a member’s bill. However, I note that the application has to be made in a particular form and there are some steps to it, including a statutory declaration. I doubt that there are going to be frivolous applications.

In terms of whether or not it could be done in time: as we discussed earlier in this debate, officials assured us that they could do the work, and we have to take the officials’ word at that, and certainly I do as I am not a Minister; I am just a member. They assured us that they could do the work.

In terms of the resourcing that’s required for it, well, that’s the Minister’s issue. If it’s going to be a problem, the Minister can apply for funding through the ordinary Budget process.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the opportunity to ask a question on this bill. The member has just referred to a process which creates some challenge for chartered accountants across the country. Given that chartered accountants have a large amount to do with the management of companies in New Zealand, I want to understand if the member has canvassed, or engaged with, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, regarding my member’s bill, about statutory declarations. The member just referred to statutory declarations and said that there will be a large number of these that will require a statutory declaration. Currently chartered accountants cannot sign a statutory declaration, so they’re going to have to deal with the large volumes that my colleague Tom Rutherford has referred to if potentially up to 650,000 directors who could apply go to their accountant as part of the annual reporting process, etc., and have these statutory declarations signed.

I’m interested to understand whether the member has considered the impact on small and medium chartered accounting firms across the country and whether she has spoken to her parliamentary colleagues on that side of the House about whether or not they would be supportive of the additional member’s bill, which enables chartered accountants to sign statutory declarations to make the implementation of this particular legislation—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can’t trust an accountant.

Tom Rutherford: Call that out.

CARL BATES: Yeah, I would call that out actually. Duncan Webb’s saying I can’t cross-reference. Of course I can.

Tom Rutherford: No. He said, “You can’t trust an accountant.”

CARL BATES: “You can’t trust an accountant.”—I think that that is disgraceful. Not only is that an insult to myself as a chartered accountant but it’s also an insult to every chartered accountant in New Zealand. I’m interested in whether the Hon Deborah Russell, the member in charge of the bill, was able to consult any chartered accountants from—

Tom Rutherford: And does she agree with that comment?

CARL BATES: Hold on! Was she able to consult any chartered accountants in her caucus about the impact of this? I understand that there aren’t any chartered accountants in the caucus on that side. I’m interested to know who she has engaged on the importance of signing statutory declarations and the impact for small and medium firms across New Zealand, which Duncan Webb has just said can’t be trusted. It’s an insult to business in this country. It’s outrageous. It should be withdrawn and apologised for.

To get back to my question regarding this clause and the comment that the member made—that there will be a large number of statutory declarations that will be required to be signed as a result of the implementation of this legislation—has she considered the impact on those firms, and would she, to reduce the impact, go to her caucus and encourage them to support a practical change that will support the implementation of her bill, as well as informing her caucus that chartered accountants can indeed be trusted and should be trusted? I’m sure we’ll understand a lot more about the implementation of any tax policy that that side comes up with, because, clearly, without any chartered accountants on that side, they don’t know.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I was, of course, admitted to the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants myself in 1992. There are plenty of us in the Labour caucus who have owned businesses, have business experience, and know our way around the Income Tax Act, amongst other things.

In terms of the burden on chartered accountants, if the member thinks it's going to be a burden on chartered accountants to take statutory declarations, I suggest he withdraw his bill. However, I would invite the member to take notice of what needs to go into the statutory declaration. That is in new section 360D(3)(b), inserted by clause 5, and it includes “a statutory declaration … made by the director verifying that public availability of the director’s residential address … is likely to result in physical or mental harm to (i) the director; or (ii) a person with whom the director resides;”.

These are not mere frivolous applications for the sake of it. A person has to be able to say that they think they are at risk of physical or mental harm. I sincerely doubt that all 650,000 directors on the register of directors are going to turn up tomorrow the minute the bill is through asking for one of these, and I think it's not reasonable to engage in that kind of scaremongering.

In terms of getting a statutory declaration sorted out, it's interesting. It's actually comparatively easy these days. Most justices of the peace run public desks in libraries or in malls and so on. LynnMall on a Thursday night—the JPs are there. It’s pretty easy to get a statutory declaration sorted out there.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Many Māori organisations’ trustees, Dr Russell, are listed as shareholders in their personal names, and not because they own the shares themselves but because they’re often holding them on behalf of iwi, hapū, and whānau. These trustees often aren’t directors, and yet they can face the serious risk and pressure and even the harassment from within their own communities, especially when decisions are contested.

I’m coming to new section 360D, Madam Chair. Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa recommended that all shareholders should be able to apply to keep their residential address private; not just those connected to a director.

Tāku pātai ki a koe: could any shareholder, particularly those in sensitive roles, like Māori trustees, apply for address protection in their own right? First question. Second—and I apologise if you may have already covered this, but I just wanted:

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

in those contexts particularly. And, Dr Russell, would you consider extending the protections under new section 360D to all shareholders, not just those linked to directors? Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The member raises a really important issue, and it was raised during the select committee process: why doesn't this apply to shareholders as well? She's quite right. It ought to, but it's beyond the scope of this bill. Again, if the Minister's new legislation comes into this House, it ought to address that issue as well, so that shareholders are not necessarily identified by their home address, by their personal address. It ought to have some mechanism for dealing with it. Can I invite the member to write to the Minister now and raise that particular issue to make sure that it gets considered in the legislation that he's considering bringing to the House? Having said that, once this bill is, I hope, through the House or is—who knows how things will go. That is an issue I had thought I might pick up as the next issue I might try to address, is that one about shareholders, because it is an issue. It's a shame we didn't address it in this bill, but perhaps in the next one we try for.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the time to gather my thoughts after the shocking revelations from Dr Webb—rich coming from a lawyer, of course, which is one of the least trusted professions alongside politicians. Perhaps Dr Webb could start a podcast and get media and get the holy trinity?

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on clause 5, which, as we were reminded earlier on, contains the operative provisions, new sections 360D and 360F. Of course, it contains the provision around public access that the member was referring to before, and alluded to some of my questions around public access to company records being those physically held by the company under inspection rather than the website.

I think it's entirely relevant to raise that point here again, because, of course, one of the intentions of this bill is to provide that protection, that privacy right—and to require the registrar to take those reasonable steps—including to redact information. Now, that relates directly to the questions I had around the optionality for companies to “may” replace residential address or “may” replace shareholder’s address. If we're talking about getting into litigation about what defines “reasonable steps” of the registrar, surely one of the ways we could reduce the risk of litigation as to whether or not the registrar has indeed taken reasonable steps to ensure that privacy by removing or redacting a residential address and ensure it's replaced with an alternative address would be to just require those companies to replace the address with the alternative address where requested.

That is the crux of that question around “may” or “shall”. If you change that term to “shall”, you then remove one of the uncertain criteria as to whether or not it is a reasonable step for the registrar to take. Upon being notified that a residential address remains on company records and has not been removed by the company, despite the fact a company director has chosen to put in place an alternative address, I can easily see litigation where the registrar is unsure as to what the reasonable steps would be to take if they are notified. We could take that risk of litigation out of this by simply saying that a company is required to replace it and reduce and remove that optionality.

That's the question: what is the harm, and is it not a good thing to reduce some of the risk of litigation and uncertainty about what reasonable steps could be when a registrar is required to perhaps redact that information?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that there is quite a lot of meaty substance in this clause. I’d like to thank Dr Deborah Russell for her kind of full answers that she’s given to date.

Something I want to touch on—and I nearly kind of touched on it in clause 4, when it talks about “a company may replace a shareholder’s address”, because, of course, we realise that directors don’t exist in isolation; they have family members that also may be affected. Of course, in new section 360D, inserted by clause 5, “Alteration of entries on New Zealand register on application for safety reason”, in (3)(b), it talks about “a statutory declaration made by the director verifying that public availability of the director’s residential address is likely to result in physical or mental harm to—(i) the director;”—which, of course, that’s very clear—“or (ii) a person with whom the director resides;” and it goes on.

Really, my question is about who determines who resides and what “residing” actually means. How will “reside with” be defined in practice? And what proof will be needed to kind of furnish, to actually prove that this person, then, does reside with the director? Does it actually have to be for 365 days of the year? We do realise that people do move round. Relationships can be dynamic. I suppose it kind of comes down to: should we be actually extending this to all household members, not just who resides with the director? Bearing in mind that there are a lot of family-run businesses here in New Zealand which may have intergenerational shareholders. There may be multiple generations actually involved in it. Maybe we should extend it to all households? It may be even broader relatives, because we do want to make sure that everybody in New Zealand does remain safe. We’ve already talked about stalking behaviour; we would hate that to spread not only to the director but to the wider family members.

The question would be—really, there’s probably a couple of questions in there—how would “resides with” be defined in practice, and what proof will be needed to actually prove that a director resides with someone?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I just want to respond to one really important—well, a number of points. I think the one really important point that Dr Hamish Campbell picked up was other people who get affected. I think it's going to be the same answer as the answer I gave to the member Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. It's actually that, yes, it would be good, and the legislation that is promised by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs should create that capacity.

This is, unfortunately, a very narrow bill. It really does just deal with directors and people they live with. It would be good to have taken it wider, but members’ bills are often necessarily quite narrow, so it's a shame it didn't go wider. I trust that the Minister's legislation that is promised will deal with that particular issue. If not, again, it is something that I will look at as perhaps the next step, depending on what happens with the Minister's legislation.

Then Dr Campbell also asked about “resides with”. It’s the ordinary meaning of the words, as often is the case in the law. There's the obvious one of a husband and wife residing together. I have to say, I haven't seen a lot of my husband in recent weeks. We've gone back and forth past each other, but we live together most of the time—aspirationally live together, the way it is for MPs. It's just the ordinary meaning of those words.

Then, in terms of what is the test for whether someone really does reside with the director, of course, again, that director has to sign a statutory declaration saying that the person who resides with them could be in danger. A statutory declaration is—I know it seems like just signing a piece of paper, but it is actually a legal test. It does have legal standing. People can be prosecuted if they commit fraud, I suppose, when signing a statutory declaration, so there is that protection there as well.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm going to focus particularly on section 360D(3)(b). That's what my primary focus is going to be. It says the application must “include a statutory declaration made by the director verifying that public availability of the director's residential address is likely to result in physical or mental harm to—(i) the director; or (ii) a person with whom the director resides”. The bill requires directors to make a statutory declaration that public availability of this address is “likely to result in physical or mental harm”. Now, I note that Bell Gully's legal commentary noted that this standard appears to be subjective, with no guidance on actually what constitutes harm.

Under section 360D(3)(b), it now requires a statutory declaration verifying that public availability is “likely to result in physical or mental harm”. The language in the new section requires the statutory declaration that public availability will result in physical or mental harm, but can the member explain or clarify what threshold of likelihood is required and whether any guidance will be provided on what constitutes physical or mental harm?

The bill itself provides no definition of these terms in section 360D, so will this be addressed in regulations, or is the subjective assessment by the applicant intended to be the sole test? Are we solely taking the applicant at their word, or is there going to be some rules, some requirements that people must meet? How are we going to actually understand that that director has actually met the threshold for what may constitute physical or mental harm?

Now, my next question, on that same section, is in Chapman Tripp's submission to the bill and to the select committee. They recommended that the service address option should be available as a matter of preference without any need to establish safety risk. They were saying no need to have that requirement to say a person is likely to result in physical or mental harm if they disclose their physical address. Chapman Tripp was saying, “Get rid of that, don't have that provision whatsoever, don't have—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Winston Peters wouldn’t have put that in.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, Winston Peters would have, I'm sure, really appreciated had that requirement not been in there and then wouldn't have had to necessarily declare his address being a director of a company, for example, and being publicly available—let alone people knowingly sharing it widely, which is just terrible, the harm that incited and the support that's been given from political parties in this House.

Chapman Tripp, in their submission, recommended that the service address option should be available as a matter of preference without any need to establish safety risk. Why does section 360D(3)(b) limit eligibility to situations involving potential harm rather than allowing directors to protect their privacy for other legitimate reasons? Why is it only physical or mental harm that has been specified? Why aren't there other legitimate reasons as to why they necessarily don't need to have it disclosed publicly?

The harm-based test in this provision is, in my opinion, quite restrictive compared to what, I've read, what many submitters have said, including the one from Chapman Tripp. That said, it should be available as a matter of preference without any need to establish a safety risk. What evidence does the member have that this narrow approach in section 360D is the most appropriate for this legislation and for New Zealand? Why is it necessary to have the physical and mental harm component? Why can't a director just say, “I want to put this address rather than my residential address” without having to provide the justification; or who's going to be the sole discretion on that one?

Madam Chair, while you're finding your way and we're having a replacement, I will carry on, but I want to be really clear is that I will continue to—Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Tom Humphries. [Interruption] Sorry, Tom Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD:I seek leave to recall—ha, ha! Tom Humphries? I’m blushing, that’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Such a quiet, retiring member, that it’s—

TOM RUTHERFORD: I'm certainly not retiring to my seat, Mr Chair, but thank you very much.

My question I asked was with clause 5, section 360D(3)(b), around likely harm and Bell Gully having their commentary that noted that this appears to be subjective, which I agree with. There's no guidance on what constitutes physical or mental harm, so who's going to create the discretion and the description of what that is? Then the other part around Chapman Tripp’s submission recommended—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Play it three times and then say it again, Tom.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I love being heckled from the member in the chair. Isn't it great? Isn't it great? It means I’m contributing a lot. Chapman Tripp's submission recommended that the service address option should be available as a matter of preference without any need to establish safety risk. Why does section 360D(3)(b) limit eligibility to situations involving potential harm, both physical and mental, rather than allowing directors to protect their privacy for other legitimate reasons?

The harm-based test in this provision, in my view, is very restrictive compared to what many submitters requested. Many submitters said we don't want to have the physical or mental harm provision, just give us this change option altogether. Don't require us to have to prove that we have threats or potential of physical or mental harm. Don't require us to prove that. Just allow us to say we want to have an alternative address, and that should be enough. Rather than our residential address, let us just provide an alternative address, and that should be enough. Don't make us have to justify to the register, or through our business as a director of it, or to the company's office why we feel we are in such a position.

What if that actually relitigates things for that person? What if it triggers them around what potentially may be raised from it, the trauma that could be associated with then having to say to the Companies Office, to a person they've potentially never met, and say, “For XYZ reason, I want to remove my residential address and I want to provide an alternative address.”

Why can't they just turn up and say to the Companies Office, “I am a director of XYZ business limited and it is my view that I want to change what is disclosed from being my residential address to an alternative address” and for the company's office to say, “OK, we will action that change. No further questions. We will go about it as long as you provide the necessary paperwork. We will go about actioning that change”—rather than requiring them to prove why they believe they could potentially be impacted with either physical or mental harm? I would welcome the member’s opportunity to answer that question.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Two interesting questions from the member Tom Rutherford. The questions rather pull against each other. One of them was asking why the standard is so tight, and the other one was asking why shouldn’t the standard be much looser.

In terms of physical or mental harm: again, the answer is the same as before, it’s a statutory declaration. That’s all that’s required. If a person is willing to say that about themselves or someone that they live with, well, then that is taken to be enough. We do take people at their word when they sign a statutory declaration. That’s a good thing there.

I take the member’s point about the submission from Chapman Tripp. In fact, I had a bit of correspondence during the course of this bill with Roger Wallis, one of the partners at Chapman Tripp.

Again, I just say to the member—that point about “Why shouldn’t it just be a preference?”—it is exactly the same point as was raised by Dr Campbell and raised by Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: “Why couldn’t it just go further?” It would be good if it went further. It’s a narrow bill. It is just applying to directors and it also, of course, is to directors who happen to be the shareholders as well, so it applies across their shareholdings too, for a particular company.

I trust that the Minister’s legislation will actually address those particular issues. From the way he has described it to me, it should. In the meantime, this is just a narrow piece of work that will actually help in what we hope are reasonably few cases where people have stalked through the Companies Register. We don’t actually know, but I do know that I have had people write to me and say, “Hey, I’ve had this real problem.” It is a real problem. It does exist. How big it is, we don’t really know. The Minister’s legislation will solve it properly. This will be a band-aid.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent—thank you, Mr Chair. I probably will take up where my colleague just finished, talking about this criteria—why limit it? I appreciate your answer that it is a statutory declaration, but should that statutory declaration come to light to be untrue, what role, then, does the Companies Register have in actually challenging it, kind of rectifying the situation? What mechanisms are there, or would the Companies Register leave the alternative address in there, even though they know that, actually, the statutory declaration is not correct, and it may not be likely to result in physical harm or mental harm for the director, or as, of course, the clause lays out a person with whom the director resides. What sort of time frame would the registrar then have to correct the issue? I'm also bearing in mind what my colleague Tom Rutherford said: that maybe this is a little bit of an overkill, that we should just be able to say that we want an alternative address.

This is a slightly different situation, and the fact that when information has come to light, once something has already happened, what way does the registrar's office have to kind of challenge the alternative address and rectify a situation that has arisen because this clause has been then inserted into the Companies Act? Of course, unfortunately, situations change. Also, maybe if there's no longer that risk of physical or mental harm, what then happens? We've spelt it out that they can apply for it if this is likely to result, but times change, people move on, relationships move on. Maybe it no longer actually matters. What then? What challenges or corrective actions will then be taken?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Very straightforwardly, there will be the same remedies the Registrar of Companies already has with respect to false information being provided to it.

STEVE ABEL (Green): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Chair. At last! I have so many questions. In this section, if you will indulge me a little bit, I want to take a few of the subclauses of clause 5. I may go forward and back and forwards a little bit when I’m getting to my point. There’s a bit of a theme that I think is developing in some of our lines of questioning around the barriers that are put in place for people who are trying to get this remedy. We’ve really traversed a little bit about the fact that there does need to be a statutory declaration.

We talked about this at length, and, as has been discussed, many submitters also asked why this was a requirement. As the member in the chair has pointed out, we expect that that will be quite a low barrier. The fact that there are many people who can sign off a statutory declaration—not just chartered accountants but JPs and the like, where you find JPs quite common and easy to find at any of the service centres or MPs’ offices. I’d just like to shout out to Anna Matthews who’s a JP in my electoral office down in Ferrymead in Christchurch. She’s recently become a JP, and, very frequently, those services are used at our office there on Ferry Road. Although it’s a low barrier, it’s still a barrier. Given that there are 650-odd-thousand directors, I think part of the rationale for this, if I’m correct, was that we need to have some small barrier so that there isn’t an a tidal wave of requests that then aren’t able to be actioned and, then, in the volume itself, create a barrier to people having this actioned through the Registrar of Companies. This is a small barrier but potentially a necessary one. I wonder if the member agrees with that.

Then the other barrier that we did really talk about and discuss quite a bit at length at the committee was in new subsection 360D(3)(d) that it may “be accompanied by the prescribed fee (if any).” We weren’t sure if this was going to be something that would be applied, whether a fee would be required to carry out the service, whether or not that would actually create much of a barrier to people using the service, and whether it was a fair and equitable thing to impose any fee. As Te Pāti Māori members will appreciate, we considered whether that created any additional barriers for Māori or other lower socio-economic groups or others who might be otherwise economically challenged. I’m not saying all Māori are, because that’s certainly not the case, but if that was creating any barriers, was that fair and was that equitable? There was quite a discussion about the fact that there may not need to be any fee. That’s why it’s important that “(if any)” was in there, because if we’d said “prescribed fee” and then didn’t actually have a fee, then we could end up with a ridiculous situation where, actually, there was some fee that had to apply, even though it might not really mean anything or be just a notional thing.

The other thing that I think is a useful thing that has been put into this is that each application can apply to more than one company. It would be, again, a nonsensical situation if every company that each director was a director of had to be individually applied for. Given that some people can be a director of multiple companies and have different roles, they may have multiple companies that are nested within one company. It is a very sensible thing, but, again, a small barrier has been removed, and others have been put in place.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, sir. I only have two questions. One of them has been touched on by the Government member just now. But I wish to take a slightly different tact, and that’s on what will become section 360D(3)(d), which is the words “be accompanied by the prescribed fee (if any).” I just wonder, having sat through a couple of select committee deliberations where it was discussed, I think, of citizenship, “Would there be a fee?”—I understand the reason why it says “the prescribed fee (if any).”, to give some latitude and this can be set in regulations. But I wonder if there is consideration given to removing that or to making it clear at this point in the legislation that there would not be a fee.

The reason I ask that is that this is about safety and security and the wellbeing of directors of companies, and these are not all the big corporate companies that we might be thinking of. You know, when you look at an electorate like mine on the Kāpiti Coast, but it’s representative of all of New Zealand, that the average company has one employee, maybe one director, they are working hard to get this country ahead, and not everyone necessarily has the means to pay for a fee. But should that be inherently a barrier or an obstacle to receiving the protection that this bill brings? I commend the intent of this because it’s about providing that safety-net protection to Kiwis who are getting about their business but feel there is a genuine risk to them. But should money ever be an obstacle to receiving that protection?

It would be easy for some to look at this and say “Well, look, it probably won’t be much. It might not be that much. We don’t know what it will be.”, but, actually, there is just an inherent access to justice and to the private enjoyment of their own home that is worthy, I think, of consideration here. So I would be interested to hear from the member: is there consideration to make it clear now in regulation that there will not be a fee, that, actually, we don’t sell security in New Zealand; we provide it? That’s ultimately what brings most of us to this Chamber.

The second question that I wanted to ask [Interruption]—thank you—is about new section 360E(2). I just wonder—maybe it’s the way I’m reading it, because not everyone reading this is going to be a trained lawyer—if there is just a little bit of wording that needs clarification. If there is, I’m happy to bring an amendment, but the member may have a response. This is talking about the “Requirements for alternative address”. New subsection (1) talks about the things it must not be, it must not be a post centre or a registered office or service; it needs to be a physical location. We covered some of this in the earlier clauses, also. In (2), it says “If the alternative address is at the offices of any firm of accountants, barristers and solicitors, or any other person, the alternative address must state—(a) that the address is at the offices of that firm or person; and (b) particulars of the location in any building of those offices.”

Now, it is the words of “any other person”. If I’m reading this correctly and that it is correct that I could nominate some other persons—maybe it’s not their place of business; it’s their address; it’s not an office; it is in the category of “any other person”—does it have to be in an office, can it only be in an office? The way I read (2)(b) is because it’s an “and”, not an “or”, between (a) and (b), it must state the “particulars of the location in any building of those offices.” But what if they’re not offices? I’m not trying to be pedantic here, but I think it’s important that we just understand “of those offices”, “of the location”, could it be anything at all? Could someone use their mum’s house? Could they use a different address that’s maybe not an office, but it’s an outlet, it’s some other kind of place? What if it’s, I don’t know, the director of something that’s held by a church and can it be the church, can it be something else? So are we narrowing ourselves inadvertently by saying it must be of “those offices.”, or could it be actually those offices, that location, that community hall, that church, whatever it might be?

So I’d just be interested to hear an answer on those two points. One is about the fee for service, and the second is about whether it is restricted only to a physical office. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): It'd be good if the members on this side of the House made up their mind about the fee. Some of them think it's not sufficient of a barrier; others think it's too much of a barrier. It's fortunate the words “if any” are in there. We are trusting the judgment of officials on that and we do trust the officials to get that right. So thank you for the points in different directions, but we are trusting the officials to manage that “if any”.

I just have to say to Mr Costley, not to be pedantic, as he was not being pedantic either—I just want to draw his attention in section 360E(2), inserted by clause 5, to that little word “if” at the start of that, so if the alternative address is at a set of offices. The implication is that offices can be elsewhere. It could be your mum's address, it could be your neighbour’s, or whatever. There are possibilities for alternative addresses. So it's just like if it's at those sort of offices, so that does cover the sorts of concerns Mr Costley had.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon James Meager, and I might say to the side on my right, we're getting down to some very, very nitty-gritty stuff here, so I expect some new material.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. That’s precisely what the committee stage is brilliant at doing, is to get into the pedantry and the nitty-gritty and examine clause by clause, and I’m—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): New nitty-gritty—new nitty-gritty.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I’m disappointed that the member hasn’t addressed the questions that I raised earlier, because we were directed to move from clause 4 to clause 5, and we did so, and then we also have not opposed closure motions nor did we take any debate on new clause 4A, so with that good faith of moving through to clause 5—then the Chair will look at his worksheet and see that there are a number of questions without any ticks beside them that haven’t been addressed by the member. I would like the member to address those questions, in particular around the issue of preventing public access and the requirements of the registrar.

I understand—and the way I read it—there is a drafting error in new section 360D(2), inserted by clause 5, because the provision purports to require the registrar to take reasonable steps to do X, Y, and Z. So the question for the member and even the member in the chair currently is about new section 360D(2), “Registrar must (a) take reasonable steps to prevent public access ... and (b) ensure the alternative address is publicly available from the New Zealand register.” Now, if the intention is for the registrar to take reasonable steps for both (a) and(b), there is a drafting error, because the way it is drafted is that the reasonable steps is contained within (a) and not (b). So the natural consequence of that drafting is, therefore, that the registrar must take absolute steps or all steps to ensure (b), “the alternative address is publicly available from the New Zealand register.” Because if the intention was for (b) to also be subject to the reasonableness standard, then the drafting should have been “The registrar must take reasonable steps to (a) … (b)”, so that the reasonableness is a precursor for both subsections.

My fear is that the way it is drafted now, reasonableness applies to (a) and not to (b). Therefore when the registrar is looking at what they have to do to ensure the alternative address is publicly available from the New Zealand register, they therefore have to take all steps. Because a plain interpretation of that section is that if Parliament had intended those steps to be reasonable, it would have said so. But by deliberately excluding it from (b) and including it in (a), the only interpretation available to a court of law in interpreting the section is that that is an absolute provision. And I don’t think that is the intention of the member.

So if the member can record maybe that question for the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for when she returns and she clarifies whether her intention is for the registrar to have reasonable steps for both new section 360D(2)(a) and (b)—I suspect that an amendment may well need to be put forward. Because if an amendment is not put forward, then the reasonableness test only applies only to (a) and not to (b), and I am of the understanding that that is a drafting error.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My first question is going to be about multiple company applications. As we know, many directors across New Zealand serve on multiple company boards, and the bill makes some attempts, in my view, to address this, but there’s still some outlying questions. If we look at new section 360D(4), “An application under this section may relate to more than 1 company.” How will the new section 360D(4) provision for applications relating to multiple companies actually work in practice? If a director serves on boards of companies with different risk profiles, how does the single application process address varying levels of safety concern? Does this provision work effectively with the one alternative address limitation in new section 360E(4)? That’s my first question to the member.

My next question is around preserving other legal requirements. The bill must not interfere with other legal obligations. If we look at just below that point that I was talking about, in new section 360D(5), it says, “This section does not limit—(a) any requirement to provide residential address information about a director to the Registrar in accordance with this Act or regulations made under it; or (b) the Official Information Act 1982.” While new section 360D(5) preserves the Official Information Act, how will the section 360D(2)—which says, “The Registrar must—(a) take reasonable steps to prevent public access from the New Zealand register to the residential address (including by redacting information from a document that is publicly available from the New Zealand register); and (b) ensure the alternative address is publicly available from the New Zealand register.”—removal of public access affect law enforcement efficiency? Will agencies need to make formal Official Information Act requests for information that is currently publicly available, or does new section 360D(5) adequately address all interactions with other transparency legislation beyond the Official Information Act?

I’m going to carry on to my next point, which is around prospective directors and proposed companies. If we look at the next point down, which is new section 360D(6), it extends definitions to include proposed companies and prospective directors and shareholders. It says, “In this section and sections 360E to 360G,—company includes a proposed company, director includes a prospective director, shareholder includes a prospective shareholder.” How will new section 360D(6)’s inclusion of proposed company, prospective director, and prospective shareholder work in practice when the company does not yet exist? The definitions in new section 360D(6) seem to create some complex scenarios. Who will maintain alternative address records during company formation, for example?

I would welcome a response from the member to my question around new section 360D(4), around allowing applications to relate to more than one company; around 360D(5), which preserves other requirements, and the query I had around the Official Information Act; and new section 360D(6), which is extending definitions to include proposed companies and prospective directors and shareholders.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity, because, on further examination of the bill, the point I raised in my previous contribution is, then, repeated in sections 360F(2)(a) and (b)—the split reasonableness test which applies to paragraph (a) and then not paragraph (b). That question, therefore, also applies to section 360F as well as section 360D.

To further confuse the drafting in this situation, if we then look at section 360G, which is around the removal of the alternative address from the register—and I’ll take the committee through this because it is a step-by-step process. We can fast-forward to sections 360G(2(a), (b), and (c), but if we look at this in its whole, section 360G is about the removal of the alternative address from the register. If the Registrar has taken the steps outlined in section 360D, which is that reasonableness test in paragraph (a) and the absolute test in paragraph (b) and then the following events occur—either the director notifies the Registrar that they no longer wish to have an alternative address or the director ceases to be a director of the company—if we go down to section (2)(a) or (b), section 360D(2) no longer applies and therefore the Registrar, under subsection (2)(b), “must, as soon as practicable, ensure the residential address is publicly available from the New Zealand register;”.

Therefore, already we have a differentiation in the test between section 360G(2)(b), which is “as soon as practicable”, and section 360D(2)(b), which is “ensure the alternative address is publicly available from the New Zealand register.”, which would then lead any interpretation to conclude that it must be an absolute test, because, if the Parliament had wanted to put a qualifier in, such as “take reasonable steps” or “as soon as practicable”, it would have put it in there. But we have left it silent. This is the opportunity to clarify or to remedy those sections, because, then, if you go on to paragraph (c), they then “may make any other relevant alterations to the New Zealand register that they think fit.”

There are multiple different tests here, and I am actually reasonably concerned, for want of a better word, that the drafting here is confused and may be incorrect and may need rectification before we potentially vote on this clause or any other clauses before the end of the evening. I’d like the member to address that point.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I note that the members have been raising various concerns around companies which are to come into existence and directors that may come into existence. The idea is to provide an alternative address right from the start instead of having to go through a process of a residential address and an alternative address. But, further, there’s a wider point on this and it goes to the matter that the Hon James Meager was just raising around the slightly different wording in parts of these. These were all actually drafting suggestions. So our officials and, particularly, the drafters from the Parliamentary Counsel Office said, actually, if we really want to capture the intent of this bill, if we want to capture the nuances, then this is the way to draft it. So we very gratefully accepted their drafting recommendations to try to capture the various different situations that might occur, and it’s all designed to put that in place. So as I said, I have looked through the drafting, am pretty satisfied with it, and I’m happy with it as it stands; it captures the policy intent for the bill.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent, thank you very much. We see a lot in new section 360E, “Requirements for alternative address.” A lot of these are actually kind of very prescriptive, describing the physicality of what an alternative address would look like. But they don’t really kind of address any of the functional characteristics that an alternative address may have. For example, if the service at an alternative address fails—it may be undelivered mail or undeliverable mail—will the service at that alternative address then actually be legally effective, or is there some sort of fall-back mechanism which the Companies Register could then actually work? I think a prime example of some of these alternative addresses is a building that has lots of different occupiers. If you look at a lot of commercial addresses around New Zealand that have multiple businesses, they are not overly well signposted. You just need to be a delivery driver and have a bit of experience in this, but, actually, it’s very hard, even if it’s labelled as a business address, to actually find some of these businesses because of poor signage and it’s not clear where it is.

So there’s nothing really in new section 360E that actually talks about the serviceability of the alternative address. Of course, it’s also important whether, actually, there has also been some consideration that courts and other statutes uniformly recognise the services at an alternative address, or is this something that is actually going to cause conflict with other laws which require a residential address? How will a notice of legal proceedings, or anything, reliably reach a director via an alternative address if we don’t really outline some of the functionality of an alternative address rather than maybe some of the descriptive things that we’ve got in this provision?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Dr Campbell raises a good point. It was a point that was discussed extensively before the dinner break, about the difference between an “address for service” and an “alternative address”, so we’ve already canvassed that matter considerably.

STEVE ABEL (Green): 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 72

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 49.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 373 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5 as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 Section 387A amended (Service of documents on directors in legal proceedings)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to clause 6. This is the debate on the amendment to section 387A, “Service of documents on directors in legal proceedings. The question is that clause 6 stand part. Tom Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Very good, Mr Chair! Clause 6 says: “Section 387A amended (Service of documents on directors in legal proceedings) After section 387A(1)(b), insert: (ba)”, which is “by leaving it at the director’s alternative address (as that address is shown in the register)”. So my question is: these clauses ensure that alternative addresses can be used for serving legal documents on directors—as it’s transpired and gone through, throughout the debate this evening, how will clause 6 and its amendments to sections 387A and 388A—which is actually in clause 7, and I’ll speak to when we get to it—affect legal practitioners serving documents on directors? Will there be any hierarchy of service methods or will alternative addresses under these provisions have equal status with residential addresses?

How will legal practitioners know which address to use for service, say, if actually both have been made available—if it is both their private residential address and their alternative address, as we’ve transpired? How would I as, say, a legal practitioner, maybe a chartered accountant that was slandered recently by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb—how will legal practitioners know which address to use for service? If I was said chartered accountant—very upset comments made by Dr Webb—how would I know which address to use for service? We’ve now enabled both under the changes in this legislation. How would I know which one to go and utilise as their residential address or their alternative address, as with clause 6, “Section 387A amended (Service of documents on directors in legal proceedings”? Will there be any hierarchy of service methods? Is it that you must go to the property that is listed first in the way it shows on the paper, number one and then number two? What if they’re showing side by side to each other?

It could be alphabetical based on the address, could be numerical. If one is 1 Butterick Road and then the other one is 2 Andersen’s Drive, for example, how would I know which one to serve the papers on? How—

Steve Abel: Are you serious?

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, Steve Abel?

Steve Abel: Are you serious?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Am I serious? I am serious. This is the intention of the committee of the whole House stage: to stand in this House and go line by line through legislation. Fundamentally, this is actually the primary role of members of Parliament. The job of members of Parliament is not to stir up hate in the community, not to incite things to take place. No, their number one job is to come to this place and legislate—legislate—and say “Have we got the legislation right? Is the clause written correctly? Has the member’s intention been reflected in the legislation?”. For a member of the Green Party to say “Are you serious?”—am I serious that at 9.25 on a Wednesday night I’m doing my job? Yes, I am serious. That’s why I got elected: to legislate in this House and to ensure that New Zealand has the best possible legislation moving forward.

Hon Marama Davidson: I’ll send Lawrence over to give you the lesson.

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, Marama Davidson?

Hon Marama Davidson: Lawrence will come over and give you the lesson.

TOM RUTHERFORD: He’s welcome to. It’d be a nice change, actually. It’d be very refreshing. He’s the one that actually does the heavy lifting. I’m surprised he hasn’t resigned yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Rutherford. If you want to rewrite the general orders, that’s fine, but, right now, back on the bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Don’t “point of order” at my decision or you’ll be sitting down.

TOM RUTHERFORD: No, no. I’m—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You have spent a lot of time talking about what we might do and why we’re here and giving a job description of a backbench MP. That’s not your job. Your job is to talk about this clause now. Now do it.

TOM RUTHERFORD: OK, I will. Clause 6 is around “Section 387A amended (Service of documents on directors in legal proceedings)”. How will clause 6 affect legal practitioners serving documents on directors and how will legal practitioners know whether to use the residential address or the alternative address to use for service?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): As I have done a number of times before, this evening, I direct the member Tom Rutherford’s attention to the particular section in the Companies Act. Section 387A deals with the service of documents on directors in legal proceedings, and it says, “A document, including a writ, summons, notice, or order, in any legal proceedings involving a director … may be served on the director as follows: (a) by delivery to the director; or (b) by leaving it at the director’s residential address … or (c) by leaving it at the company’s registered office … or (d) by serving it in accordance with any directions as to service … or (e) in accordance with an agreement made with the director; or (f) by serving it at an address for service …”—and so on. There are already a number of methods for delivering documents for service. All this clause does is enable an alternative address to be used as one of the many methods, and lawyers are quite accomplished at delivering those documents already, despite the plethora of methods that are already available to them.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, the problem with this clause, of course, is that it contradicts the clause that we just voted on, which prevents a company’s registered office from being the address for service, and, of course, if you’re a director of a company—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: No it doesn’t.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Sorry, Deborah Russell, it does. New section 360E(3), “Requirements for alternative address”, in clause 5, states, “The alternative address of a director or shareholder of a company must not be—(a) the company’s registered office or address for service:”. That’s the clause you just voted on and just passed. Therefore, when we’re looking at this clause, clause 6, which says that says that service of documents on directors in legal proceedings must be done by leaving them at the director’s alternative address as that address is shown in the register, that alternative address cannot be the company that they work for, which is the legal address of service. So there’s a contradiction in terms there. I’m not sure if the member was aware of what we just voted on, but that is the consequence of voting on clause 5 and now moving to clause 6. So I think the member needs to have a look at what we’ve just passed and how this clause interacts with that, because it may leave us in quite a tricky situation.

I think my friend Mr Rutherford raised some very valid points on that and it raises some questions. I think we’ve had a pretty good crack tonight at being quite serious and quite upfront about actually addressing the content before us, and to be heckled about that is quite unacceptable. So if the member is able to address that point, I’m sure we’d really appreciate it.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I just can’t believe the misreading of the law that’s going on there. I’m just going back to clause 6, amending section 387A. It gives a number of different places where documents may be served. If we go back to new section 360E, inserted by clause 5: the alternative address must not be the company’s registered office, but the company’s registered office can still be used for service. It doesn’t stop it being used for service; you just have an alternative address instead of the residential address. It doesn’t say you cannot use the company’s office for serving documents, it just simply says that the alternative address cannot be the company’s registered office. It needs to be an alternative address.

I think the member is making a mountain out of—it’s not even a molehill, it’s just a blip in his mind somewhere. I think filibustering is all very well but at least it should have some point.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I actually thought that we should just take a moment to pause and just very carefully look again at what the Hon James Meager was talking about, because I think he may actually have a point. We need to be very, very careful when we look at the way that it’s actually written.

I’m going back just to make this point about section 360E: “(1) The alternative address of a director or shareholder … must not be—(a) the company’s registered office or address for service;”, and then it’s got “; or [the other thing]”. It must not be the address for service. In this section, it says: “The alternative address”—blah, blah, blah—“must not be … the company’s registered office or address for service;”, which does contradict, as my learned colleague pointed out, the clause that we are now looking at, clause 6, which is section 387A amended, which is “Service of documents on directors in legal proceedings”.

It’s actually important that we just clarify and make sure that we haven’t—in all of the addresses and alternative addresses and addresses for service that have been put in here—inadvertently just contradicted the law that we were trying to make, and ensure that where it says, in paragraph (ba), “by leaving it at the director’s alternative address (as that address is shown in the register);”. That previously has said that that must not be the address for service. I think we shouldn’t just brush off this question. I think that it’s actually a very, very important question and a very important point, and I think, at this late hour of the night—it’s 9.30 p.m. on a Wednesday—we risk not taking seriously a point of law that has been very carefully and diligently found by one of my colleagues.

I do take umbrage from across the House at being asked whether we are taking this seriously. We are taking it extremely seriously, Mr Abel. We are going through this with a fine-toothed comb and potentially picking up problems with the way that this has been drafted and making sure that we aren’t actually inadvertently creating contradictions in the law that would then create consternation amongst our legal fraternity in New Zealand, where they would be constantly wondering, “Well, is this allowed to be an alternative address, or is this the address for service? Can we use this alternative address? Why have they said that it must not be an address for service where, at the same time, it then says that they may leave it at the alternative address?”

I think that it really does behove us to be careful, to consider this, and to argue this point until we are absolutely satisfied whether this is a contradiction or not. I think it would be a mistake for us to go in haste through this. We have been accused many times by the Opposition of pushing too fast with law, and here we are being very careful with a piece of law, and being attacked for—

Hon Marama Davidson: No, no, this is poetry—poetry.

Steve Abel: This is great. You’re embarrassing yourself wonderfully.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: You’re liking my poetry? That is really a wonderful compliment from those members across the House to say that I’m being poetic about all of this, because I’m serious about this, and I think that it would be a real shame if the Hon James Meager’s point was not taken as seriously as I think—

Steve Abel: It’d be good to hear from James again on it.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —it actually should be. I think we should—I think you’re right, Mr Abel. I think we should hear from him. I think he probably had more to say. He was thinking about taking a point of order, but he could see that I had a good point to make in support of his very, very important, I think, picking up of a potential blunder. It’s really, really important that we take this seriously and look into it in as much depth and as much seriousness as possible.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Members will recall the extended discussion we had earlier this evening about why we needed to use “alternative address” rather than “address for service”. An address for service is a place where documents may be served to someone. They can be served in a variety of places, including the company’s address for service. However, a director’s alternative address, which is not the same as an address for service, cannot be the company’s address for service. Straightforward, right? So it really, really cannot be. But the alternative address can be used for service, as can the company’s address for service. That’s fine; no worries about that. It’s just that the director cannot use the company’s address for service as their alternative address. So there is no confusion here; there’s a very careful delineation of terms.

More to the point, there are a whole set of places where documents can be served on directors, listed in section 387A of the primary Act. There are a whole lot there that can be used. This is precisely why those two terms have been pulled apart: we have the alternative address and the address for service. So there’s a whole lot of places that can be used to serve documents, including the address for service. A director may have a residential address or they may apply to use their alternative address. They cannot, however, use the company’s address for service as their alternative address. Nevertheless, documents can still be served on them at that address for service. That’s fine; it sits in the law already. All this legislation does, and all this section does, is make sure that instead of a residential address, an alternative address can be used for service. There is no confusion in the law; the point’s been addressed.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): There is confusion in the law because section 387A(1) of the Companies Act is in regard to a director in their capacity as a director. Now, you can serve legal proceedings on someone in their capacity as a director or you can serve legal proceedings on someone because they've defamed you and called you an untrustworthy accountant, having nothing to do with their directorship. So the issue is in an ordinary course of action, the member is right, you can get served at your address for service, which is ordinarily your solicitor or your company's office, or you can get served at your residential address.

But we have now created a two-tier system where if you are serving legal documents on an individual, you therefore have to determine whether or not you are doing this in their capacity as a director or you're doing it in some other capacity. Because if it's as a director, you can serve it at the company that they have put as their address for service. If you're doing it as an individual, you have to serve it at their—well, not their alternative address, because you can't have that, because normally most people would use that as the company address.

So that's the contradiction we're creating. You’ve created two addresses where you can provide legal service. So if you are an individual who provides legal services—a person who goes to addresses and provides documents—you are therefore going to have to determine whether the documents you are providing are in the capacity of that individual as a company director or in some other capacity. That's the contradiction we've created, because most company directors around the country would have the address for service as being their company. That's it. That's the contradiction, and that's what I've tried to raise. And to be heckled by members of the Green Party for saying that we're sitting here filibustering, when they sit there day after day after day abusing members of Parliament in title changes of bills, is really disappointing and it only reflects more on them than it does on us.

Hon Marama Davidson: Keep going but just be good at it.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll take up the invitation to continue taking a call. Just to challenge one of the points that Mr Abel made in his interjections, which we are entitled to respond to, where he said, “Take another five-minute call.”, well, if he'd been here for long enough, he’d realise that actually most of us are taking succinct calls to ask direct questions of the member and to seek answers, and we still haven't had answers to questions asked a long time ago. I know we don't retread that because we've passed those clauses, but the Chair has worksheets with a number of questions that won't have ticks beside them. So we will continue prosecuting this, because it's our right as members to sit in this House, as long as we comply with the Standing Orders, to challenge and to scrutinise legislation, as is our number one job as legislators in this country.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 Section 388A amended (Service of other documents on directors)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to clause 7. This is the debate on the amendment to Section 388A—“Service of other documents on directors”. The question is that clause 7 stand part. Hamish—[Interruption] Tom Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Chair. Clause 7—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’re getting a bit of a blackspot over there, I’m afraid, I’m sorry, but carry on and I apologise for my tardiness in your name. Carry on.

TOM RUTHERFORD: No offence taken, Mr Chair. I refer to clause 7, “Section 388A amended (Service of other documents on directors)”: “(1) In section 388A(a), after ‘(b),’, insert ‘(ba),’.(2) In section 388A(b), after ‘residential address’, insert ‘or alternative address’. My question remains: how will the clause 7 amendments to section 388A affect legal practitioners serving documents on directors? Will there be any hierarchy of service methods, or will alternative addresses, under these provisions, have equal status with residential addresses? How will legal practitioners know which address under section 388A to use for service?

I remind the member: if you are a director of a company and you disclose both your residential address and the alternative, if I am the legal practitioner, how will I know which of those addresses to use for service? Is it, as Mike Butterick said earlier, based on the numerical order of the residential and then the alternative? Is it based on the alphabetical order—which one comes first; which one comes next? How would I know, as the legal practitioner, which address I am going to use for service? Or is it expected of our legal practitioners to travel to the first one, to see, potentially, that that is not going to be the address to use for service, and then travel to the next one? Is that potentially an option? What are the expectations that we would then put on those people to use their direction to decide which of the two is the one we’re going to use as the address for service?

My friend Cameron Luxton raises a very, very valid point. We live in a mixed-terrain country with long gravel roads, windy roads—very mixed terrain. What if they are driving a Toyota Corolla and it’s supposed to be for four-wheel drives, hypothetically? What if people want to fly business class but there is only economy available? What would you do if you were a member of the Green Party, with that option? What would you do? What would your option be? So how would that person that is a legal practitioner looking at the director’s information, seeing both their residential address and an alternative address, not showing any particular order or particular preference, with neither one put in bold to say that that is the preferred one or used as number one and the other one as the backup—how are they, then, to know which one they’re going to use for service? How do they know? Or do we expect them to factor that in to the allocation of their time? What if the residential address is somewhere in Auckland, and then the alternative address is shown as an address on Stewart Island?

What do we expect of our legal practitioner in that scenario? Are we expecting them to travel to both and hope they land on the first one, on their first guess, with a 50:50 shot? How are they to know which one, unless we clearly specify and identify that the alternative address is the preference, and if you can’t get them at the alternative address but they’ve made their residential address available so that is number two—but only after you’ve attempted to get them at the alternative address? Or what if it’s the other way around? They’re putting the alternative address as a backstop, as a backup, if something were to happen for the residential address if they weren’t available, if there were accessibility challenges that they couldn’t quite face.

It’s really not that clear, both in clause 6, which I talked about a little earlier, and clause 7—this one around section 388A: how will legal practitioners serving documents on directors know which address to use for service? Will there be a hierarchy of service methods, or will alternative addresses under these provisions hold an equal status with residential addresses? I would love for the member to clarify that for me.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I note that the same arguments apply for the next clause as well, and I note that they are possibly just as irrelevant. Frankly, new section 388A is the “Service of other documents on directors”: “A document, other than a document in any legal proceedings, may be served on a director as follows: (a) by any of the methods”—they’re not hierarchical; any of the methods can be used—“set out in … 387A … (b) by posting it … to the director’s residential address or alternative address … or (c) by posting it to the company’s registered office or address for service … or (d) by sending it by fax machine to a telephone number used for the transmission of documents by fax at the director’s residential address …”—or alternative address and so on—“or (f) by emailing it to the director at an email address”—we are in modern times now. I’m surprised we can’t Snapchat one of the directors or something like that or signal the preferred method of communication for secret documents these days.

There’s a whole variety of methods someone may use—whichever one is most convenient. They are not in any hierarchy. Frankly, I do rather trust our legal practitioners to be able to work it out as to which one is easiest to use. I think we’ve heard that lawyers can be quite smart; I should think they are smart enough to work out where to—

Tom Rutherford: What about chartered accountants?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL:—and chartered accountants too.

Tom Rutherford: Well, have a chat with Duncan Webb!

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I disassociate myself with my colleague’s comments.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent. Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate it is getting late in the evening, but I appreciate you getting the name right. I think Dale Carnegie said, “Isn’t your name the most favourite sound”, or something like that. Anyway, getting back to clause 7, “Section 388A amended (Service of documents on directors)”: so just in subclause (1) “In section 388A(a), after ‘(b),’, insert ‘(ba),’.” But then in subclause (2) of this: “In section 388A(b), after ‘residential address’, insert ‘or alternative address’.”

Surely, the second clause here actually supersedes the first clause, really, because, otherwise, we’re not really adding anything more under (ba). I think it’s maybe a bit of a drafting error here, and we have ended up adding a bit of complexity. I’ve already heard about the risk of confusion in the other uses of some of the addresses and things like that. Really, it’s just making sure we actually have the drafting of this clause correct, because I’m a little bit unclear what the inserting of “(ba)” will actually do, since this subclause, in (2), is probably going to reach the goal of what the bill is trying to achieve. Because, by doing that, of course, it is removing that, kind of, essentialness of the residential address—the alternative address could be used, which, of course, is what I think the bill is trying to do. But I do just want clarification on that issue.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): It’s really quite straightforward—insert the (a) into 388A so that (ba) is you can leave it—leave the document—at the director’s alternative address. At 388A(b) you post it to the director’s residential address. So one envisages envelope, stamp, putting it in the post. The other one envisages walking it up to the door. It’s straightforward.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 Section 391 amended (Service of documents on shareholders and creditors)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to clause 8. This is the debate on the amendment to section 391, “Service of documents on shareholders and creditors”. The question is that clause 8 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. Clause 8—the great clause 8. We are talking about amending section 391. We’re still talking about service, but, now, we’re talking about service of documents on shareholders and creditors. I’ve got a question about this amendment, and it’s possibly a missed opportunity from the member. I wanted to reflect on something that I learned this morning. I got up and I went through my ordinary routine of waking up bright and early and had my bowl of Kornies and got in the shower and got dressed and was heading off to work. I felt very uncomfortable walking those first few steps, and I looked down, and my left shoe was on my right foot, and my right shoe was on my left foot. I thought, “That’s what’s making me feel uncomfortable. The shoe is on the other foot.” That can make some of us feel very uncomfortable, but, for me, it was an enlightening experience this morning. I quickly changed them back, and I got myself sprightly to work. I guess that’s a lesson for me, today, about how I approached my day and how I’m going to approach this remaining clause as we head into the last moments of the night.

I know my colleague Mr Rutherford had a question as well, but my question really is—clause 8 amends section 391(1)(b). If you look at (1)(c), it refers to facsimiles. Now, I was one of those ungodly litigators who worked in a law firm for a brief time, and we had to have a facsimile somewhere in the building—I think it was locked in the records room—because, of course, it was still a valid requirement or a valid method of service. I just wonder whether the member thought for a second about taking the opportunity to once and for all eradicate facsimiles from the record and make our lives just a little bit easier.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): As I’ve said previously, this clause 8 pretty much replicates some of the other ones we’ve just gone through. All we’re doing is ensuring that an alternative address can be used instead of a residential address.

To the member’s question—did I think about taking the opportunity to eliminate facsimile machines?—alas, it would have been beyond the scope of this particular bill. But I invite the member to mention to his colleague, the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, that now would be a good time to remove facsimile machines—although I understand some medical doctors and pharmacists still use them quite a lot. [Interruption] Well, there you are. I invite the member to consider whether it’s appropriate, but please do consider writing to the Minister.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Clause 8, and I'm going to talk about the director identification problem, I think, that has come to my attention. The briefing materials associated with the legislation note that there are currently almost 3,200 registered John Smiths on the company's register—almost 3,200. New sections 360D to 360G remove address information that currently helps distinguish between directors with similar names. How do new sections 360D to 360G address the identification problem when multiple directors, such as the nearly 3,200 John Smiths in New Zealand, share the same names?

The removal of residential addresses under these provisions, in my view, will make it even harder to distinguish between directors with 3,200 John Smiths currently registered. How will the alternative address system maintain adequate identification?

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Or someone like John Smith and they think they’re actually the same person, but they might be John B Smith for John Brent Smith or John Bob Smith.

TOM RUTHERFORD: That’s right. So if you were then to say, “Oh, why don't you include an initial for your middle name,” for example, where you've got John B Smith and then the options open far and wide, hypothetically—then it’s unlimited. Just the list goes on. How will the removal of residential addresses under these provisions make it even harder to distinguish between directors? How will the alternative address system maintain adequate identification? The question to the member is: was there any consideration around whether potentially this should wait for direct identification numbers to solve the identification problem properly?

I understand that the Minister has indicated that he intends to introduce comprehensive reforms which include director identification numbers (DINs). Is there going to be a period between this legislation hypothetically passing—if this passes before that legislation is introduced—before directors then have the director identification numbers; and there will be sort of a period in between those two, that being this bill being completed and that being introduced. Isn't that, hypothetically, something that may well happen in this case?

So what is there to say to the 3,200 John Smiths and many other shared names across New Zealand, and how will the alternative address system maintain adequate identification?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I do have some sympathy with the member about distinguishing between members.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): There are some other people in this country called Deborah Russell. I've always sort of thought it's a bit unfortunate, really. I guess we're all women in our 50s and 60s. That tends to be when Deborahs date from.

Look, in terms of the address problem, unless all those John Smiths adopt exactly the same alternative address, the problem exists already of distinguishing the—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: We’ll solve it with the new Companies Act.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah. It will be solved with the director DNI—the director number—

Hon Members: The DIN.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The DIN, which is promised in the Minister's legislation. As I said earlier this evening, this is a band-aid; it's not a solution itself. I have given the Minister the commitment that if his bill is through the first reading before the end of the year, I will withdraw my member’s bill—I will hold off on the third reading. If his bill is not going to make it, then I'm going to have this third reading in December and then it's up to the Minister to adjust his legislation to take account of my legislation. I'm sure he can do that. The Minister and I have been very straightforward with each other about this. I trust his word and he trusts mine. I've given my word; he's given his. We'll see what happens.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Numbers instead of names for members. That might work, actually.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. The House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider Government orders of the day. Good night.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2025

(continued on Thursday, 9 October 2025)

Bills

Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill

In Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The House is resumed for the extended sitting. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill.

Part 1 Amendments to Children’s Act 2014

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. We first come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate is the debate on clauses 3 to 10, “Amendments to Children’s Act 2014” and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill marks a very important process in the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. This bill was introduced to Parliament on 12 November 2024, the same day the Crown made its historic public apology to survivors of abuse in care.

The changes in this bill are another step forward in the Crown’s response to the royal commission, making an important start on changes to improve the safety and wellbeing of children, young people, and adults in care.

I just want to start by thanking the survivors who made submissions on this bill for your bravery in coming forward and helping to make the care system better for others. Thank you to the Social Services and Community Committee for your significant improvements to the bill. This is an omnibus bill that makes improvements to four Acts. Under the Standing Orders, where a bill is drafted in parts, we will consider it part by part. Each Minister responsible will talk to their relevant part.

I will lead Part 1 on the amendments to the Children’s Act 2014, which falls into my portfolio responsibilities as Minister of Education, before handing over to my colleagues: the Minister of Justice for Part 2; the Minister for Children will lead Part 3 and associated Schedules, and I believe that the Minister for Children will also be looking after Part 4, as well, today.

The two changes in the Children's Act will help keep children safe by strengthening provisions relating to core children's workers with certain types of criminal convictions. So the changes are extending the workforce restriction for core children's workers to include overseas convictions for offences that are equivalent to specified offences and adding offences involving minors in the Prostitution Reform Act to the list of specified offences that trigger the workforce restriction.

The first change to the Children's Act addresses a gap relating to children's core workers with convictions for serious offences overseas: it's unlawful to employ someone as a core children's worker if they've been convicted of a specified offence and do not have an exemption. The specified offences are listed in the Children's Act. They are offences under the New Zealand law involving serious harm, including harm to children, but they currently do not cover overseas convictions. This change will make it unlawful to employ a person with an overseas conviction for an offence equivalent to a specified offence in New Zealand as a core children's worker unless they have an exemption. Exemptions enable a person to still be employed if they would not pose undue risk to the safety of children. Individuals with overseas convictions will be able to access, review, and appeal rights when a decision is made about the equivalency of convictions.

The second change adds offences involving minors under the Prostitution Reform Act to the list of specified offences. These are offences under the New Zealand law involving serious harm, including harm to children. This will make it unlawful to employ a person with a conviction for one of these offences as a core children's worker without an exemption.

These changes will help to close known gaps in the protections in place to reduce the risk of harm to children by people employed to look after them. Guidance will be made available to support employers of core children's workers to understand and comply with the changes. This work is well aligned with the royal commission's findings and recommendations in relation to screening and vetting of workers.

The feedback on the changes during the select committee phases were largely supportive. A common theme throughout the select committee process was that the changes were positive, but that we could do more to improve child safety, for example through further amendments to the Children's Act, which we will consider.

The amendments are a first step. Cabinet has directed further work on options for improved children's worker safety checking requirements, and the Ministry of Education is leading that work. In addition, through Budget 2025, the Government invested up to $71.5 million to build a capable and safe care workforce for children and adults across the care system, and agencies are working on a joint approach which will include consideration of any changes needed to strengthen the workforce safety further.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the people who have suffered under a law that has not protected them for many years. It is something that we can never really say enough about.

Labour is supporting these changes, because they’re a first step, but we are absolutely committed to a much more comprehensive response to what has been an appalling practice in New Zealand. The apologies that came out of the Government were very much an acknowledgment of that, but my own personal concern is that we still have many children who are not being protected sufficiently in New Zealand, and we have a continuing issue. So I acknowledge that this piece of legislation is a start in that direction and while there have been many concerns raised by the community and concerns raised by other parties as well in support of a community that is worried that it has not been consulted sufficiently, we will be supporting the changes, so far as they go, today.

I just wanted to talk about the nature of the changes in an overarching way. We have changes to the Children’s Act, the Crimes Act, the Oranga Tamariki Act, and also to the Public Records Act here. One that’s maybe the most controversial is the issue over search plans and that will be looked at today, and no doubt there’ll be questions asked of the Minister about that. I think we’re all in agreement in terms of the movement to look at convictions overseas and that gap. That’s a really important gap. I was recently in Australia at the women’s shelters conference, and Australia’s doing a lot of work in its children’s safety plan to really make sure that in every state information is being passed and people are not able to move from state to state. It made me reflect that we’re very lucky here. We have a small country and it’s quite possible for us to close that gap, and really that overseas convictions gap was really that one. We don’t have the same complexity as people who can move from state to state. So we’re in a pretty lucky position in that way. But we have had an issue in this area. So that is something that I think we can all support in this House.

I’m also really interested in the changing in the changes to care record access and transparency and the interest in public records. Again, I have been concerned that in places like Canada, while there have been these commissions that have looked at these very similar issues with indigenous populations, for example, being hurt, there is often a lack of transparency over what has happened and a lack of power kept by the people who’ve been hurt. So I think these changes, while they don’t probably look, to the public, like they’re important, are important changes where we make sure that our public record system is acting on behalf of the people impacted, not protecting others in the system. I think those ones are underestimated in terms of their importance and the value of keeping going.

Sorry, I’ve just got a few questions. I would like to start with a question about the issue about survivors and their involvement in this process, because it’s been raised by several parties that there hasn’t been enough. It’s a concern that the Labour Party has had too, that there hasn’t been the consultation that had been expected. And when you have that kind of low trust of people who are deeply traumatised, that seems to be something where we could do better. So why has there not been the consultation and what plans are there to consult? Thank you.

I’ll basically just put that one question to you. I do have other questions, but could we start with that? Because there’ll be people watching today who have been impacted by this and they have expressed a concern that they have not been consulted sufficiently. One example of that was the issue over disability and vulnerability, and its inclusion, that has come to light. So could we talk about why we made the choice to go the way we did—why did the Government make that choice and what will happen from now on in terms of opening that consultation? Does the Minister concede that perhaps we can do better in the future iterations and changes to respond to this abuse inquiry? Can I know about that first? Thank you, Madam Chair.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Mōrena ki a koutou

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

We’re obviously supporting this bill because of all of the work that has gone into it from survivors, from people from all different parts of society and of the community. So our contributions in this committee of the whole House are really an attempt to try and understand particular parts of the bill that survivors have brought up that need to be scrutinised. That scrutiny is deserving because we know that one of the reasons why the scale of abuse of children, the scale of torture, the scale of violence that took place between the years of 1975 and 1999 is because of a lack of institutional safeguards, because of a lack of children’s safety and indeed, children’s rights being put at the forefront of legislation and of all of the rules and conditions around that State care. We know that some of the other contributors to that horrendous abuse that took place in State care and in faith-based institutions was also a consequence of having untrained staff members, a lack of institutional safeguards, a lack of safe regulations, and also the location that some of these institutions were at—for example, Great Barrier Island or Aotea in the 1970s during the Whakapakari boot camp.

Our question, to start off, in terms of Part 1, is similar to Helen White’s questions to start off. And it’s really to understand how survivors have been involved in this process and how, since the first reading of this bill, has the Government listened to that feedback from survivors. We all would have received lots of emails from survivors, whether they’re part of an advocacy organisation who are doing that work on behalf of survivors, or you might have heard from individuals who have reached out to us.

I guess to summarise what our inquiries will be about today, we’re really interested in the use of force and how that has been safeguarded, and we are wanting to ensure that that is a last resort and that all other options have been exhausted before we get to use of force.

Suze Redmayne: Is this Part 1?

Hon Karen Chhour: That’s Part 3.

TAMATHA PAUL: Sure. There’s no problem in breaching what we’re going to be talking about today so that this is a productive session. So we’re in Part 1. Nothing’s changing in Part 1. I’m just letting the Minister know what our areas of inquiries will be.

So I’m interested in the use of force. I’m interested to know how survivors have been involved in this whole process. We’re interested to understand secure care and young people and how long they are allowed to be legally within that secure care. There are other areas in terms of youth justice residences and State care institutions that we’re keen to breach, but firstly, I’m keen to start off with how have survivors been incorporated meaningfully into leading us to the bill we have in front of us today.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to the similar questions asked around consultation in relation to my part of the bill, remember that this bill was a bill we introduced a year ago in response to the royal commission, which undertook extensive consultation. We had a six-year process, which raised some of these issues. This also seems to be an issue that has been known for some time and not dealt with, and when I became the Minister, it was not only something I realised we needed to deal with through the royal commission but something that seems to have been known and not dealt with for many years, as far as I can tell.

First thing: we had a royal commission for six years, and they were very clear in their recommendations. This bill responds to that. Secondly, it’s been a year that we’ve had a select committee process. People have been able to have their views heard. We’ve taken those into account. This part of the bill was relatively uncontroversial. We didn’t have many—hardly anyone, in fact, I believe—saying anything about this part of the bill that meant they were opposed to it. It’s a widely supported, relatively straightforward change that fills a known gap and responds to the royal commission report. Many people were involved in that, but, more broadly, I have set up a ministerial advisory group of representative survivors to help guide the Government in its work over the next few years.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Firstly, can we ask if that microphone can be just slightly tilted more towards you while you’re standing up, just to hear properly?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. I’ll watch that.

GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, and thank you, Minister, for being in the chair. As has been addressed by colleagues already this morning, you know, this is around acknowledging our survivors—those who are still with us, and those who have passed—and we acknowledge them this morning and throughout this process. I also want to acknowledge that last night, in Parliament, we celebrated 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal, and, I guess, the significance that that holds in the space we stand in today and as we talk about abuse in State and faith-based care.

My simple question to the Minister this morning—following what you've just said is: yet there has been a six-year process and survivors have been a part of it all the way through. We understand there's a ministerial advisory group that survivors are part of, but I guess my question to the Minister is just around trust. In terms of where we're sitting in this part of the legislation, you know, trust has been broken. The State and faith-based organisations have breached that trust for many, many years, and so my question to the Minister is: are you confident that we have landed, in this part of legislation—that survivors can trust that you have leaned in, that you've listened, and that you've taken on board what they want?

As we continue to move through the morning, and as this processes through the committee stage and then into the third reading, you know, the fact that survivors and families can actually trust you as a Minister—and I mean that in genuine way, in terms of that they are on board and that in every word that's in this legislation, they can trust that you have listened and will continue to listen; and if anything does need to change, then there is openness to that.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I have quite a specific question, which is about the responsiveness of Part 1 to new offences. I know that we're moving hopefully to a law where we change the rules around trafficking and they're quite a significant change, and I really welcome the work done in that area where we move away from consent. So for the public, that means that we're looking at children—and, in fact, even adults in that situation—who might be enticed into exploitative behaviour, perhaps with offers of gifts, etc., so it's sort of organised exploitation of people.

I can see that we talk about specified offences. I’d be really keen to know, from the Minister, with that kind of law change in the wind, which is really welcome, is that wide enough? Is it that there's a regulation where, in fact, specified offences can be added to and that that would mean that somebody involved in those kinds of activities, which in the past have not come into offences, would be captured? That is a worldwide phenomenon, so those law changes hopefully are happening as we recognise that kind of behaviour internationally. So while we're doing it here, we're also following a trend overseas.

So I'd be really keen to know, what is the Minister's plan with regard to offences here and offences overseas as our recognition of inappropriate behaviour hopefully changes for the better. How are we capturing that? Thank you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): We think it’s already clear, in this bill, that we are adding specified offences, as I mentioned in my opening speech. It’s very clear that, as things come up, we will consider adding them to the specified offences list, as we’ve done in this bill today.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Minister, thanks for your answers before, as well. I really appreciate you illuminating some of these issues for us. I’m keen to ask another, more of an overarching, question just because I understand that Minister Stanford is here with us for Part 1, and then we’re moving to a different Minister for Part 2. So this question is about kind of the broad thrust of the bill, but there are parts relevant in Part 1. It’s the fact that in Whanaketia, the actual report that came out, there were a number of different recommendations made, and some of those span across this entire bill, including within Part 1.

I guess, some of the big feedback that we’ve gotten from mōrehu is that they want to understand why some recommendations have been implemented in this bill and why some have not been implemented into this bill. So I’m really keen to get an answer from the Minister in charge of the inquiry and the follow-through of those recommendations, to maybe talk to the committee a little bit about why some provisions that were called for weren’t followed through with. One of the main ones that we hear about is the request for an independent survivor-led redress system, but I understand that there were other recommendations that haven’t been followed through.

So, yeah, my quick question to the Minister is: what was your decision-making process when you were going through those recommendations, and how did you choose which ones you would implement through this bill, and which ones you weren’t able to?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): As I already said in my opening speech, this was a bill that we introduced a year ago—it was the very first piece of legislation. There is an enormous amount of work to do. There are hundreds of recommendations that need to be looked at, considered, and enacted, potentially, and we’re going through that work. Budget 2025 funded a safe and capable workforce, for example. There will be an enormous amount of work to do there, including lots of consultation to get that right. So a huge piece of work.

This was the piece of work that we knew we could do quickly: identify known gaps, and move on with it, and make meaningful change so we can say to survivors, “We are listening. We hear you.” We want to get something under way as quickly as we can where there are known gaps in the system; this is this piece of legislation. But since then, there has been an enormous amount of work and a huge Budget injection to make sure that we will continue this work.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Helen White, but what I’m going ask for now is we’ve had a good, respectful way of setting the scene this morning. I’d like people now to refer to clauses specific to Part 1.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair, although my wish when I stood up was to just look at this issue about the consultation, because I don’t think it’s been addressed yet, and to explain. This is an issue about how we got to Part 1 and this priority list—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I actually have been listening to the Minister’s answers, and she did talk about the inquiry in the select committee and the consultation and the opportunity. So I feel like we’ve covered that, and I’d like questions related to specific clauses now, please.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. I think that we are in agreement, largely, with Part 1, and I don’t want to waste time on things that we actually agree with, and so I think that we probably could just leave it there on that—I don’t think that’s a problem. Thank you.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Glen Bennett. Do you have a specific point to Part 1?

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): I do, Madam Chair, thank you. I think to do due diligence is to actually spend a bit more time, because people are listening and wanting to make sure that we are held accountable.

I’m looking at new section 28C, in clause 5, in terms of the review process. It talks about going to the chief executive and the process of doing that, in terms of a survivor being able to ask questions, but I want to come through to new section 28D(2). If the applicant wants to appeal against a decision that has been made by the chief executive, new section 28D(2) says, “The applicant may appeal to the High Court against the decision to confirm the determination.”

Now, it’s really just a question about cost, and I haven’t actually been on the select committee, so forgive me if it is answered somewhere else. In terms of a survivor going through the process, they will be able to apply, they will be able to go to the chief executive, but then, in terms of, again, the support for a survivor who has been through trauma, who has been harmed and hurt by the State, and the State then requiring them to potentially pay to have their appeal heard by the High Court—I’d appreciate for that to be illuminated to understand a bit more about, again, for a survivor, who is paying the cost when they’ve already paid the highest cost.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, this part already exists in the legislation for core workers who have a conviction in New Zealand. We’re just aligning the law so that people who have an overseas conviction and now fall under this piece of legislation also have an appeal right. So this is not about survivors having appeal rights. This is about the core worker having an appeal right against not being able to work.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for her responses thus far on this piece of legislation. I do agree that it’s a missed opportunity. I have just a general comment, and then I’ll speak to a few of the specific clauses.

I attended a conference last week on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and met several of the lawyers working in this area. A comment on repeat was around the Limitations Act and whether consideration had been given in terms of that very key limitation on people being able to access their rights of complaint—which was six years, I understand. It’s just a general comment.

In terms of new section 28A, I just had a question about the interaction between the determination under section 28 and name suppression provisions. What consideration is there when a determination is made under the new section 28 and there’s a clear indication that there will be an application for review? This may tie into separate legislation, but I’m just curious about whether there may be name suppression issues in that.

In new section 28B(2), there is a reference to a chief executive receiving an application and the ability to hand that application for review on to another chief executive. I just have a question about the rationale for that and when it would be used.

In new subsection (3), there is a reference to the chief executive confirming whether the applicant has previously applied for a review under the section before making a determination. This is, obviously, a separate ask and just a general question about the rationale for the chief executive to need that information before making a decision on the application in front of them. Thank you.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. OK, to get specific, my questions are around the amended section 28, in clause 4, which talks about core workers—so “Core worker convicted of specified offence not to be employed or engaged”. I guess my questions are around the word “core”, because, obviously, if we’re looking at a youth justice residence or a care institution or if we’re even looking at third-party providers that might provide training or a course or something to the young people in either of these institutions, I want to understand what “core worker” means and why we’ve only focused in on core workers. Does that mean that other workers that are working in and around children are able to have convictions of these specified offences within the Act? Does this go far enough to provide the kind of institutional safeguards that are required of the adults who are meant to be caring for and looking after young people in these institutions?

I just think it’s interesting that there is that use of the word “core worker”. What does that mean for other people who are engaged? I’m thinking there might be, say, trained youth workers or social workers but they might have people who are supporting or volunteering in an organisation, like a third-party provider, whatever; there’s lots of people around. My assumption would be, after the scale of abuse and torture that was experienced for decades and, in some ways, still endures today, how much of that abuse took place by people who are just simply around and had the ability to be around? Do we expect the same requirements of them to not have offences that make them a danger or a risk to be around children, particularly really vulnerable children?

So, yeah, I’m seeking to understand why we’ve specified that only core workers must not be engaged or employed in this business, and what safeguards are in place to make sure that every person that interacts—guides, teaches—in any way, small or big, with vulnerable children are not going to pose any danger or risk to their wellbeing and safety.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to that member’s question, “core worker’ is an existing term defined in the Act. Specified offences only apply to core workers for restriction. The key is that when people are working with children and have unsupervised access to children, they are teachers, learning support people, teacher-aides and those types of people who generally have unrestricted access to children that we need to protect children from. That’s why we had this known gap and that’s why it’s being closed.

Just in relation to some of the other questions, the Limitation Act is outside the scope of the bill, I’ve been advised. The chief executive can hand over a review if the work or person is more relevant to the other child education sector, which makes sense. And in terms of the no-repeat reviews, we don’t want the worker to keep applying for reviews for the same offence.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): 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 53

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

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Crimes Act 1961

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 11 and 12, the amendments to the Crimes Act 1961. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): I’m expecting my colleague to come down and take most of these questions, but I just want to open with one of the things from the select committee process. And I know that there was a huge amount of debate over it, because the bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 to add “disability” to the definition of “vulnerable adult” in section 2(1) of that Act. This is a direct response to recommendation 26 of the royal commission’s final report—a direct response to the royal commission’s report—which states that “The government should amend the Crimes Act 1961 to specifically include disability within the definition of a vulnerable adult.”. The amendment does not expand the scope of what is captured by the definition of “vulnerable adult”; it’s a classification rather than a change, to the effect of the law.

During the select committee process, the Ministry of Justice recommended, in the departmental report, that the words “at risk” be added alongside “vulnerable”, in the definition of “vulnerable adult”; however, the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) suggested that doing so would carry the risk of unintended consequences to the underlying definition of “vulnerable adult”. As a result, the ministry recommended withdrawing this recommendation and retaining the original amendment, as proposed by the royal commission themselves. As I said, this was a direct response to their recommendation. I know that it has caused some disquiet in the community, and we are very sensitive to that, but the word “vulnerable”, in this instance, has a definition, it has meaning, and it was a recommendation by the royal commission, after six years, of their report, and we are responding to that. But I think, as you can see, the select committee—and thank you to those of you who were on the selection committee—did try and come up with solutions to help solve this problem. But in the end, we ended up back in a position as recommended by the officials, that this was the best course of action in responding to the royal commission’s advice.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. The Minister in the chair is absolutely addressing an issue that I’d like to take further. This was perhaps something that was the most passionate response that was given on this area. Just for the benefit of the public, we had a lot of submissions. I wasn’t on the select committee at the time, but I have had approaches about this very issue. There was a lot of people who considered the words inappropriate. What they wanted was a replacement of “vulnerable adult” with “adult at risk”. I continue to think that it’s incredibly important and that it is something that we never dismiss, this actual on-the-ground experience, because of the trauma involved. I appreciate that the Minister has given an explanation that we’ve gone back to what the commission has suggested, but the very purpose of submission process is that we listen to the New Zealand public and we listen to those voices. I, for one, think that one of the best things about our system that we do is we listen very clearly to those voices in our process and that we respond to those often by changing where we’re going. I would like to know whether the Minister would consider—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just interrupt you. Because we’re changing Ministers, could you just set that scene again for the question that you are asking, just so we’re clear?

HELEN WHITE: Thank you very much. Good morning to the Minister in the chair. What we are talking about here is Part 2, and we’re talking about the significance of the use of the words “vulnerable adult” and the potential replacement of those words with “adult at risk”. While I acknowledge that the last Minister in the chair, the Hon Erica Stanford, explained that what has been done here is we’ve continued with the language that was proposed by the commission itself. I was explaining that one of the best things, I think, about the New Zealand democratic system is the force of us listening very genuinely to submissions in select committees. This was a submission that was made repeatedly and very articulately by people who had suffered this trauma and had thought very deeply about these issues. The preference of many of those people was to swap out the use of the words “vulnerable adult” with “adult at risk”. It seems to me something that we really could do, but I would like the Minister’s explanation as to whether he would entertain a change of language there by amendment. I could put an amendment on the Table doing that.

The select committee rejected the suggestion out of concern for what was seen as unintended consequences. It would be great if the Minister, for the people who are listening who actually made those submissions—they will be listening today, because this is something so close to people’s hearts—could explain what, specifically, some of those unintended consequences that the majority of the select committee were worried about are or were. I’d really like to drill down here because I am conscious that it is really, really important we respond to the select committee. It’s related to an earlier point made, right at the commencement of this committee stage, where we were really talking about the concern over the lack of consultation. The one thing that I think has been done well is the select committee process, and this is what the people said, so it’s a really heavy thing not to listen to it.

I just wanted to emphasize that, in an area of great trauma for people—that’s very real and absolutely rests on, and was the responsibility of, the State—listening to people at this point builds trust, and that trust starts at an all-time low. Listening, in this case, and responding here today to this suggestion by altering the language or accommodating the worries of the people involved in this process would actually be its own step in terms of trust, rather than overriding it with something that can be seen as an institutional override. Can I have an explanation as to what the fear was of unintended consequences of using the alternative language, and can I have an explanation of whether the Minister would consider swapping out the language? Including the language is the other way to go, perhaps, by having both those parts of language. I’d be very grateful for a proper answer on those things. Thank you.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, and kia ora to the Minister. We have a number of questions on the term “disability” and, again, on the term “vulnerable adult” versus “at-risk adult”.

I guess the problem that my colleague Helen White is canvassing is that “vulnerable adult”—the term “vulnerable” kind of suggests something inherent within somebody, almost something that you can’t change, or shift, or shake. The connection between “vulnerable adult” and having a disability kind of implies that, if you are disabled, you are a vulnerable adult. Now, I’ve got multiple disabilities—I’ve got rheumatoid arthritis, I’ve got lupus—but I wouldn’t consider myself a vulnerable adult. There are many people who live their lives and who have disabilities who we wouldn’t consider vulnerable; they’re completely independent, they’re capable of making their own choices, and they’re capable of moving around and exercising their own discretion and power in whichever way they see fit. So, I guess, the question we’re trying to understand is: what was the decision making behind connecting the existence of a disability and the term “vulnerable adult”?

Again, “vulnerable” suggests something inherent that will always be there, whereas the term “at-risk” points to or suggests maybe the circumstances that somebody is living in that makes them vulnerable. I’m thinking about the children and the young people who end up in youth justice residences or end up in State care. There might be a number of factors that mean that they are at risk—it could be their home environment, it could be the town or the community that they’re growing up in, it could be influences around them, like the use of drugs and alcohol, violence in the home. These are things that would suggest that that young person is at risk, but if we can remove them from those environments and put them into a safer environment, that factor might be mitigated, meaning that they’re not necessarily a vulnerable adult any more. I’m really keen to understand that choice to use “vulnerable adult” over “at-risk adult”, but also the choice to connect disabilities to that definition of being a vulnerable adult.

The other thing we’re interested in is the term “disability” and how that fits into the definition. In this country, some disabilities are treated differently to others. Some are not recognised, some come with funding, some come with better methods of diagnosis, and some disabilities have far better understanding in the health world and in the kind of children’s world as well, in terms of those professionals that are working with children. But they’re not all treated equally. The example that I want to give is foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). FASD is very prevalent in our prison population, and I would assume, based on my one visit to a youth justice residence last year, Te Puna Wai in Christchurch, that foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is probably prevalent in a lot of the young people in there. I know traumatic brain injuries definitely are. If you’re a kid with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, you don’t get access to certain types of funding. Ongoing Resource Scheme (ORS) funding, which gives that extra funding to kids in the education system with disabilities—if you’ve got FASD, you can’t even access that, and that’s not the only disability that is not recognised or funded or supported in this country.

What definition or list were you working with when you were thinking about disabilities? Is there a defined list, or would that be up to the courts to determine whether that child is disabled or not? Or is there a list that you’re working from, and is there a recognition that not all disabilities are treated or identified or supported evenly?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I thank the two speakers for their questions and their introductions. I think that the first point I’d make is that of course the Government has been listening to the submissions in the select committee process, and that’s very much our intention. It doesn’t always mean that you’d necessarily agree with the suggestions made, but that does not equate with ignoring. It is just recognising that what we’re doing here is responding to the recommendations of the report of the royal commission, which has spent many years on this and has had an enormous amount of consultation with the broader affected community.

The royal commission’s conclusion and their recommendation to us was to acknowledge the concerns from the broader disability community about describing people as “vulnerable”, but they recommended changing the Crimes Act to strengthen the protections for disabled people in the current legislative framework. That was the recommendation, which was to include or add “disability,” to the definition of “vulnerable adult” which is currently in the Crimes Act, and it is well-established and it has a lot of case law around it. That was their recommendation, and that’s what we’re undertaking in this legislation.

If you were to change “vulnerable adult” to another definition such as “at risk”, well, that obviously has consequences much more broadly than this particular instance because it would change that for everything that applies in that situation in the Crimes Act, with ramifications that may be unintended and not necessarily helpful to other elements of that regime. So we’re following the recommendation of the royal commission. We understand that there will be a variety of views on this, but we do take some confidence in the process of the royal commission and the very extended process and significant amount of consultation that went into that in order to recognise that that was a sensible thing to recommend, and that’s why we’re carrying it through.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Kahurangi Carter’s Amendment Paper No 365, deleting Part 2, is out of order as being a direct negation of the question. The best course of action for any member supporting this amendment is to vote against Part 2 standing part.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

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

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3

Amendments to Oranga Tamariki Act 1989

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 31, “Amendments to Oranga Tamariki Act 1989”, and Schedules 2 and 3. The question is—I’ll just wait for the Minister to swap, because you may wish to speak first. I’ll just wait for the Minister for Children to get settled.

Hon Karen Chhour: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. This part of the omnibus bill in response to the abuse in care inquiry is around the Oranga Tamariki Act. The content of this part of the bill makes three changes to all residences. It repeals strip searches, requires a search plan to be created, applies to all children and young people in secure residence, and it’s around plans being adhered to unless not reasonably practical. It clarifies the duration in secure care, which will be three days before court authority is required, and it also makes two changes to youth justice residences. It will enable searches to entry. Everyone may be searched before they enter, with no requirement to have reasonable grounds, and it also enables the use of image technology that applies to all searches, both on entry and inside a residence.

I’ve also tabled Amendment Paper 354, which is looking at clause 17 of the bill, which defines terms related to the new search on entry provisions in secure youth residences. Under this clause I’m proposing to add a definition of the word “enter” in relation to these searches. The definition makes it clear that a search on entry can include entering from an administration or staff building or thereof into a secure area containing residential units. This means that a search can happen at the boundary of an administration or staff building at the secure residential units where young people live, or when entering the administration building from outside of the secure residence. This flexibility is needed to accommodate infrastructure differences between residences, which can affect where a scanner can be placed. It also gives Oranga Tamariki the option to avoid searching visitors who do not go beyond the administration building.

The Amendment Paper also proposes minor and technical amendments to the bill to clarify definitions and address drafting errors.

This has been a long time coming. It’s been spoken about for years, even before the abuse in care inquiry, around safety when it comes to our young people in care and particularly in residences, and making sure that we’re listening to them and making sure that they are safe when they are in a residence.

This bill is about making sure that we’re keeping our young people safe, keeping our staff safe, and bringing some professionalisation into these residences that hasn’t been there, to make sure that we have good oversight so that our young people can’t be hurt or harmed when they are in a residence. I feel that these changes are just a small part of what we are doing within Oranga Tamariki. There’s a lot of work going on in the background that doesn’t require legislation, but with the help of this legislation, our youth justice and care and protection will have better tools to be able to make sure that our young people are safe.

I look forward to answering any questions.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start looking at clause 16, “Section 370 amended”, which is the time limits on secure care, and talk about that. I just want to open on this part by saying this is probably the part of this bill that people have been most worried about, and for good reason. It’s very serious in its implications and the actual tension and the time period is part of that, but so is, obviously, the invasiveness of searching and the humiliation that is involved in the control over people in that situation—but probably the most contentious part will be the issue over force used in that situation.

I wanted just to start with this in a methodical way and focus on clause 16. What has happened in the amendment of the law, or will happen, is that we’ll move from a continuous period of 72 hours of detention, and we’ll be moving to a situation where there is clarity over the period that there hasn’t been before, including the actual period “commencing on the day on which the child or young person is first placed in secure care”. So I would like the Minister to explain, because we will have people watching who have had this happen to them and have had this situation abused in some way. I’d like a plain explanation of what this change is intended to do and what kinds of grey areas there have been in the past, and the concern over the previous way that this was written in the law and why we are now, in particular, moving to articulating that the commencement of the period is actually at the time when the person is first placed in secure care. Had that not happened before? What were the stories that we heard in terms of when that was triggered in the previous situation? I’m only just putting this one thing so that it could be addressed. I do have, obviously, lots of other questions about this particular part.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll follow in that lead around questions on clause 16 around time limits on detention in secure care. And I just want to note for the Chair that we’ve got a number of Amendment Papers that we’re keen to explore, and, again, in the kind of good-faith, good-natured approach of trying to make sure we cover all our bases while passing such an important piece of legislation.

So on the time limits on detention in secure care, we’ve got an Amendment Paper which reduces the 72 hours to three hours—mostly because we’re cognisant of the psychological and physical impacts that it can have on any human being who is detained in secure care for prolonged periods of time. Obviously, at the extreme end, we see that quite a lot in the adult prison system, where you have reports like the report into the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit (PERU) at Auckland Prison, where there were people in there who spent 900 consecutive days in, essentially, solitary confinement.

But back to the youth justice (YJ) residences. We we’re really interested to know how you landed on 72 hours as your amount of time that you’re comfortable, or want to legislate, for young people to spend in secure care. Having spoken to people who work in YJ residences, I can understand why secure care could be an option in some circumstances. It can be really overwhelming being in a residence full of other rangatahi, and maybe being in secure care gives them that time to just be alone with their thoughts and kind of regather and regulate their emotions and figure out what next, particularly in really hostile youth justice residence environments. But I think we have to be really careful that we’re not leaving people and leaving children in the secure care for too long of a period of time. Because when people exit that secure care eventually, if they haven’t had any human or social interactions or contact for too long, it can cause even more adverse problems. It can mean that their emotions or their actions can become more aggressive or more hostile because they haven’t been around other human beings, so they have to kind of ease back into that.

So our questions on the 72 hours in secure care are: how did you land on 72 hours? Why was that picked to be the period of time that young people would spend in secure care? Why would a young person need to be put into secure care in the first place? So I obviously just gave some examples of that, but I think that kind of illuminating why you need access to that tool in the first place could be constructive to the interrogation that we’re doing of this bill today. What do those 72 hours look like? So what is that child entitled to during their time in secure care? Does it mean that they will be constantly observed during that 72 hours? Will there be someone sitting outside that cell? Let’s just call it what it is: it’s a cell. Will there be someone sitting outside and observing during that 72 hours? Will that young person have privacy? How often will they have meals? Are they allowed to be visited by family members or by mental health professionals or workers that work in those youth justice residences? So what does that 72 hours look like for that young person in secure care, and what else happens during that time? So is that young person given an explanation as to why they are in there? Are they given a really fair understanding of how to get out of there, or how to raise concerns if they don’t feel that they should be in there?

To relate it to solitary confinement for adults in the correctional system, one thing that was brought to light through the PERU report that came out last year is that people who are in PERU for prolonged periods of solitary confinement had no idea either why they were in there or no idea how to get out of there or what the process was to get out of there. So if there is a young person in secure care who doesn’t want to be in there, are they made aware of their rights? Are they made aware of the process to get out of there? In terms of that 72 hours, when does that start again? So if a child spends 72 hours in there, and you’re like, “Oh well, the law says that you’ve got to get out of here because it’s been 72 hours.”, is there a period of time that they have to spend outside of secure care before they are able to go back into it again? Because we don’t want there to be a system where a young person spends 72 hours in there, and then they’re out for like, let’s say, 10 minutes and then they’re able to be put back into it, so that you end up with these kind of long lags of secure care and kind of skirting around the legislation that is supposed to prevent that. So when does it start again? And how are they eased back into social interactions? Because, again, anybody, any human being, who spends a long period of time in a cell by themselves—largely by themselves—it’s going to be hard for them to go back into an environment where there are lots of other people. So how are they eased back into the residence or back into the community, following that security care?

So just to summarise, my questions are: how did we land on 72 hours; is that aligned with other international standards, or is that aligned with some kind of recommendations from someone like the ombudsman or the independent Children’s Commissioner—who set that 72 hours? Why would somebody need to be in secure care, and is it made clear to them how they can exit secure care eventually? What does that 72 hours look like: are they being observed; what are their meals like; are they able to be visited by professionals? When does that 72 hours start again, in terms of is there a grace period before they can enter secure care again? And how are they eased back into—you know, when they exit secure care, how do they ease back into the residence without being overwhelmed or aggressive? You know, the natural feelings that you might feel after not having human contact for three days, in this case.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I’ll answer some questions around secure care and why a time frame is needed. I just want to clarify, because it’s been repeated a couple of times that we landed on a 72-hour time frame: actually, this legislation will be deleting the 72-hour time frame to make sure that we are very clear that it clarifies that three days in secure care before court authority is needed is what was landed upon; not 72 hours.

The problem is that when you have two separate definitions, if a child or young person was placed in secure care at 6 p.m. on the Tuesday, that is day one, so, when counting three days, they need to be out by midnight on the Thursday; in contrast to when counting 72 hours after 6 p.m. on a Tuesday, it is 6 p.m. on a Friday, 18 hours later than when counting three days. So we just want to make sure that they’re not staying in secure care longer than they need to. So the three days just really clarifies that. If we have the 72 hours, they’re staying longer. So this is just a clarification because there was a bit of a gap in that legislation when we had two different timings. So that’s how we came to the three days, not 72 hours. I just want to make that very, very clear: we haven’t landed on that 72 hours. It just removes doubt about when court oversight is required. So the question was asked “When does that start again?” Once you hit the three days, you need to be court authority – required if you want to continue that secure care. So that is up to the courts whether that continues.

What I would say, though, is that the member has painted a pretty bleak picture of what secure care looks like within a youth justice residence. I just want to clarify that the young people are not withdrawn from contact with other people. They don’t sit for three days with no contact with a person. They are in a secure care unit, which means that they have the ability to move around the unit. It is a separate unit from the unit where they may be cohorting with a group of people. They are removed from that unit with a group of other young people and moved into a secure care unit. Where they have the ability to move around a secure unit, they will have staff with them and they have access to their social workers if need be, and they are able to be in the day room during the day but just within a more secure area, to keep them safe, to keep the other young people safe if there’s been a bit of a conflict within their unit, and to allow them time to have a conversation, maybe, with a worker around how we can do better with the behaviour, and give them a chance to regulate themselves so that they can move back within a normal unit.

So this picture of sitting in a cell, with the door locked, dark and dank, and not being able to leave their room, and have no contact with people for three days, is absolutely untrue and overexaggerated. Young people do have the ability to have conversations with workers about why they are in there, what they could do to avoid ending up in a secure care unit again, and how we can work better, even as staff members, with them to help deescalate a situation. So I just want to make that clear.

Why do we need secure care at all? Secure care is only used as allowed in law and where necessary. There are times when a young person may seek to abscond from youth justice residences; this is one of the reasons, which is one of the statutory grounds for placing a young person in secure care. But there are also times when secure care is needed to ensure the safety of maybe not just that young person that’s been put in secure care but other young people that are within a unit, if that young person’s behaviour is showing that it may cause harm to others. So we need to be able to have that, unfortunately, as a temporary solution to deescalate dangerous situations.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for those initial responses. I suppose my initial response to that response is that three days is still a significant period of time. I think my Green Party colleague has raised some of the issues in terms of trying to understand the logic for the three-day period but also the very valuable question of to what extent that young person can then be made to go back into secure care and what the time period between those two instances must be, or if that's a case of judgment and whether it would be appropriate for there to be some statutory provisions around the gap between those potential periods.

The other issue is that secure care is also tied to very broad discretion in terms of when that can occur, and just looking at the scope of searches that can be done under these provisions as well, it is quite considerable. So under new section 384A(2) in clause 17(2), search can be any article. Under new section 384(2)(b)(i), it could be “anything that could, while in the possession of a youth justice resident, be harmful to the youth justice resident or any other person:” So I think the point we're trying to make is that the discretion here is extremely broad and the question is whether there's consideration of how that could be drawn down.

When I was working at YouthLaw Aotearoa, I visited Whakatakapokai, and we used to go in to deliver sessions with educators, and there were times, on multiple occasions, when simple objects would go missing and that would restrict the provision of those legal services to those young people. I remember at one stage it was a pen that had gone missing and not been identified. So while I completely understand the Minister's explanation of it not being an isolated sort of cell that this young person is in, there are certainly large restrictions that are made around young people in care and a huge amount of discretion, so just one general point.

I've also just been looking at the Minister's Amendment Paper 354, which amends clause 17. In the explanatory note, it amends the current definition of a “pat down search” in section 384A to ensure that it covers not only the youth justice resident but those who enter a youth justice residence. I've just spoken to one of the roles I used to play entering a youth justice residence, and so I have just an observation that I think it would have been useful to consult with some of those entities that are regularly entering youth justice facilities to hear their views on the pat-down searches.

My second question—because I haven't had time to go back to the principal Act and check the cross reference—is: would it only be pat-down searches, or are there other provisions within the changes made in this bill that would also apply to visitors or professionals coming through to youth justice facilities?

I do also want to speak to some of the amendments that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has proposed. A first question here would be what advice did the Minister seek regarding how the use of force is consistent with the royal commission's findings and recommendations that found that laws and regulations surrounding the use of force were often ignored when they were in place, and, in reality, legitimised the use of force, leading to severe harm, abuse, and trauma in far too many cases.

Now, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has proposed an amendment to new section 384A in clause 17(4), by inserting, after paragraph (b) of the definition of “authorised person”, “a person who has received training in de-escalation methods appropriate for children and young people.” She has also proposed a similar but different amendment to new section 384H in clause 24, where she proposes inserting, after the heading, a new subclause (1A) that provides that no member of staff may use physical force in carrying out a search authorised by section 384C unless that person has first used de-escalation methods appropriate for children and young people which the person has been trained to use.

So the question here is really whether the Minister agrees that it would be preferable to avoid the use of force and whether, if she agrees with that, she would agree to those amendments, which would then give statutory—

Suze Redmayne: Of course she does.

VANUSHI WALTERS: Which is great and that’s wonderful, but whether she would then agree to statutory direction in terms of that being the preferred method—again, just recognising that there's a huge amount of discretion in this area. Having been into many of these facilities, I was struck by the good faith of the staff who are in those facilities and who run them. However, it is a broad amount of discretion and these are young people who don't often have access to easy avenues of complaint or raising issues, so it's a space where clear statutory direction could be quite valuable.

Again, I think there are several amendments here from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime that the Minister could consider. I guess the question is what advice the Minister has had on whether provisions like this would be useful in terms of directing that those staff are trained in this area and that de-escalation is the preferred method before search, as well. Thank you.

Tamatha Paul: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tamatha Paul.

Hon Karen Chhour: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, I had called Tamatha Paul. Sorry, Minister.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): I’ve got more on the use of force if you wanted me to do my questions—I don’t know how this works.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You’ve got the call; you can take it or not.

TAMATHA PAUL: OK, thank you. So I have some follow-on questions around the use of force, so maybe this will mean that the Minister could address both of our questions around the use of force and a consideration of our amendments that seek to put some more safeguards in place where force is used.

Just to kind of comment on the answer that the Minister gave me before, I think it should be appreciated that not everybody can go into youth justice residences and into these State care institutions. I don’t think we should be able to do that in the same way that we are able to visit any prison in New Zealand. But the Minister was talking about the true nature of what secure care looks like and kind of saying that the way that I was describing it may not reflect the reality. And that might be the case, but we don’t know because we’re not able to go into those—

Hon Karen Chhour: You’ve visited.

TAMATHA PAUL: We weren’t able to see the secure care residence when we were at Te Puna Wai, actually. And I’ve tried to visit Korowai Manaaki as well but have been denied three times. We don’t have the same access that the Minister has, so we are going to be asking questions because apart from herself and apart from the independent Children’s Commissioner, we don’t know what the reality—we know the laws that surround youth justice residents, residences, and State care, but we don’t know what the reality of that looks like. Hence why we’re asking questions to try and determine what that looks like so that we can put the right safeguards in place to protect children.

So my questions are around the use of force, and I’m going to be talking specifically to our Amendment Paper No. 366, and this is an amendment that looks to remove all provisions for the use of force against youth justice residents. Now, obviously, during this submission process, there were people who came and spoke about the use of force—when might it be necessary; what is it used for and what are the safeguards that can be put in place? It also made me think about the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) bill that came up and we had lots of organisations during that time come and talk to us about the use of force that is permitted for third party providers in the setup of the boot camps for young people who are absconding. And there were lots of questions and valid points raised about what is the use of “the use of force”. There are many people who believe there is no justification for the use of force against children, which is a viewpoint that we tend to agree with.

I guess the balance that we’re trying to strike with this amendment is how we can make sure that a youth justice residence worker, or anybody who’s working with these tamariki truly resort to the use of force as a last case tool. We want to know what processes will be in place to make sure that every option is exhausted before a staff member resorts to using force against that young person.

What are some of the modern de-escalation techniques that a worker might be able to employ before they resort to a use of force? But more importantly, what kind of training are these workers, who are going to get—I mean, that’s a lot of power, allowing someone to be able to use force when carrying out a search or preventing a young person from absconding. That’s a lot of power. So what training will go into these workers’ programmes and regimes and life to make sure that they know that the use of force is a last resort and so that they are really confident with nonviolent de-escalation techniques that they can employ confidently before they resort to force. So what is the training going to look like for those workers?

And then, more importantly, what is the evaluation process that follows after that use of force event? Will it be monitored? Will it be tracked? Will it be recorded somewhere? Is there a chance for all different people involved in that residence to come together and actually evaluate that use of force?

In prisons, when there is a use of force, the best practice is that there’ll be a bit of a multidisciplinary team that come together. They look at the body camera footage, they look at the CCTV footage and they ask themselves, did we have to use force? Did we have to escalate this? Or could we have tried something else differently? And they bring in mental health professionals, kind of psychological experts, the officers themselves, and they kind of look at the situation to reassess. And that means that there is better practice because people are more aware of the different tools that they can utilise before resorting to force. Because it truly should be the last thing that anybody thinks about. So appropriate training and then the after in terms of evaluation and what’s happening there. We’re really interested to know how they might keep a record of what de-escalation practices were tried out before they resorted to the use of force.

The other question we had was in terms of recording those incidences where force is used. So like I mentioned before with corrections officers, they have got body cameras and there’s CCTV everywhere. I acknowledge that there are bigger sensitivity and privacy concerns when it comes to children who are in these residences, but how are they going to be able to reflect on their use of force? Like how will that be captured so that they can reflect? Because otherwise it’s kind of a “he said, she said”; the young person says, “They held me down and put their knee on me.” And then the officer says, or the social worker, or youth worker says, “No, I didn’t do that.” So how do we keep a record, a physical record of what actually happened, and how is that recorded?

I guess the other point I’ll make in terms of the use of force is when weighing up whether to allow for the use of force and whether to expand that provision to other people as well, how did you strike a balance between professionalisation, which you talked about in your opening speech, Minister, versus institutionalisation? Because one of the core recommendations from the abuse in State care report Whanaketia was the institutionalisation of those residences or programmes and how that could lead to a lifetime of staying in institutions, whether those be in mental hospitals or in prison.

So how do you strike that balance of professionalising things so that there are appropriate safeguards, so that people do have appropriate training and expertise and evaluation processes. But how do you make sure that that’s not just institutionalising an entire generation of young people where it becomes normalised to them to have force used against them by people in authoritative positions in their lives?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): There are quite a few questions there. One was around section 384A of the Act, defining pat-down searches. So I just want to clarify that that amendment just amends the definition to ensure it covers non-residents to make sure it’s consistent with section 384KC. It replaces references to “child” or “young person” with the term “person”. It’s just to just to tidy that up so that they are consistent.

When it comes to pat-down searches, those will only happen if there’s a circumstance where they don’t want to go through the scanner. It’s a bit like an airport. If something pops up, just a quick pat-down search, just like you would at the airport, or if you don’t want to go through the scanner, it will be given as an alternative. It’s not a punishment. It’s used as an alternative option if needed. So that’s just really a tidy-up in the legislation rather than a change.

I would like to go through some of these amendments that have been put on the Table, some by Kahurangi Carter from the Green Party. I’ll speak to Amendment Paper 370. The amendment set out here requires reasonable modern de-escalation practices to be exhausted before any force is used in carrying out a search, and there’s a bit more to it but what I would say is I do not support this as legislating modern de-escalation practices in the context of searches would make the safeguards for searches different from safeguards for other contexts where force may be used, for example in self-defence or in defence of another person. Nothing in this bill allows for force to be used as a first resort in the context of search on entry.

Amendment Paper 369, in the name of Kahurangi Carter, is to reduce the ability to retain images generated from the use of technology. I would say that this bill is clear that the scanner search images must be disposed of within 24 hours, meaning that they can be disposed of sooner if necessary. In those cases where a harmful item was identified by the scanner, it could be useful to retain the image for a short period of time to allow staff and managers to make necessary decisions about the search. For example, if an image indicates a young person has swallowed a harmful item, decisions will need to be made about seeking medical attention or whether the image should be copied, photographed, or provided to medical professionals. The Privacy Commissioner in his submission on this bill found the restriction on the retention of images was generally appropriate, so we won’t be supporting that amendment.

Amendment Paper 367 amends clause 15. This amendment prevents children and young people from being kept in secure care for longer than three hours. The existing time limit applies to the period before approval must be sought from the court for an extension. Reducing the period to three hours is not a practical time frame in which a court decision can be sought. If the intent is just to cap secure care to a maximum of three hours without any possibility of court approving an extension, then further amendments would be needed. So we wouldn’t be supporting that amendment.

On Amendment Paper 366 is an amendment removing provisions authorising the use of force against youth justice residences, including existing authority in the Act to use force for searches generally, not just for proposed new authority to use force for searches on entry. I would say, without this provision to use force in the context of a search on entry, Oranga Tamariki would have no authority to touch the child or young person who is not cooperating—for example, even to just guide them to a scanner. Nothing in the bill allows force to be used as a first resort. I repeat that it is clear that an authorised person must not use force on carrying out a search on entry unless there are reasonable grounds to consider it necessary in the circumstances, so we will not be supporting that amendment.

On Amendment Paper 371 there is an amendment that specifies that contractors may not be authorised to use force against youth justice residences. The intent is to ensure that only staff can be authorised to use force. I can certainly understand the thought behind this amendment. Further work is required to consider whether it’s practical to authorise contractors to carry out a search on entry, but to prevent them from using force if necessary to the purpose of the search. The proposed amendment as it currently sits could mean that staff would be pulled away from their duties inside the residence only to use force for the search. So there has to be further consideration if we were to look at that, but the way that this amendment has written, we cannot support that.

We have amendments in the name of Willow-Jean Prime. The first amends section 384A, in clause 17. It amends the definition of “an authorised person”. We won’t be supporting this as the bill already allows for regulations to prescribe the qualifications for being an authorised person.

The next amendment from Willow-Jean Prime amends section 384H, in clause 24, which deals with use of force in carrying out a search. It’s pretty much the same answer I gave to a previous amendment—nothing in this bill allows force to be used as a first resort in the context of search on entry, so we will not be supporting that amendment.

Now, this has been brought up a little bit around recording inspections and searches. This is something that is allowed for within regulations and staff training and making sure that we are recording incidences, and this is in the bill. Clause 29 amends section 447, which deals with regulations. Section 447 contains the words “prescribing procedures by which a person may make a complaint in relation to search and how that complaint is dealt with.”, and then “prescribing record keeping requirements relating to searches conducted on entry to a youth justice residence.

So that has been taken into consideration around how we do record keeping and how we make sure that there is accountability in that space. So we won’t be supporting that amendment.

Willow-Jean Prime’s next amendment amends section 384KB, in clause 28. This amendment is around the use of force in carrying out searches in youth justice residences. Same answer that I’ve given in the past—nothing in this bill allows for force to be used as a first resort in the context of search on entry. Willow-Jean Prime’s also has an amendment that amends section 384KK, in clause 28. This has been covered in another amendment around record keeping so we will not be supporting that supporting that amendment.

I think there are only a couple more amendments that are in here that haven’t been spoken to. If I’ve missed any, please let me know, but, hopefully, that gives an explanation as to as to why we won’t be making those changes.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask, before I take the next call, for members to please highlight which clause that you are speaking to. It just helps with the order that we’re trying to work through in the paperwork. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I get on to clause 17, I am really curious as to the Minister’s answer to the issue about repeated detention under the 72 hours. I thought that was an excellent point by people, and I’d be really very, very, interested in hearing what the response is in terms of the misuse of that by repeatedly detaining, with a few hours in between, perhaps, and what safeguards are in place with regard to that. I do know that’s an issue in many clauses about detention—that people game that system if they can—so I will be very keen to hear about that.

I want to ask about clause 17, which is the “harmful item” section. I can see in clause 17(2), which amends section 384A, that a harmful item includes one that “… has reasonable cause to believe is likely” to cause harm, but that seems, to me, to be an undercooked section in terms of setting out the principle of harm. If I go down to the list, under paragraph (b), of things that have already been identified as likely to cause harm, we get to an example here of an “electronic communication device”. I can see that there may be instances where that is—and there’s a further section on that further on, which I’ll come to—but I can see that it could be, or it could be not. It is something that most of us have all the time, and there will be arguments as to why it is actually not harmful for people to have those things.

I’m not a fan of tobacco or vaping—I do think there is a harm—but there is a proportionate nature to those things. We have lots of adults who self-medicate with tobacco and vaping, and they are not seen as particularly harmful with regard to their mental health. They are a method of self-medication and comfort. These things are clearly on the list as harmful, and I wondered what balance has gone into making sure that there is an availability of things that might be things that we would respect autonomous individuals to be able to make choices about? We allow adults to make those choices, but, in this situation, we’re kind of clamping down really hard—so you’ve got a child who’s coming in and they’re just stripped of all these things that have been used probably for comfort, etc., and they’re in an extremely challenging situation. Is there any discretion in that situation? I completely agree that I would not want my kids vaping or using tobacco. I’m not suggesting that it has not got some harm associated with it. I’m just asking, in this situation, why has this been prohibited in this way rather than some sort of proportional assessment at the time, or is that built in? Is it something where there can be a discretion involved? I can’t see any form of discretion here.

I want to ask about clause 17(2), inserting paragraph (b)(xi), which is an “article or thing declared to be a harmful item by regulations …”. I wanted to ask the Minister to explain the process around how that decision would be made given what I have suggested, which is that we’ve got a fairly spare, a minimal principle of harm in the first clause. Is the process simply applying the standard that the people making the decision to put something new in the regulations are simply making a case that they have reasonable cause to believe it is likely? Again, it involves the same kinds of issues of proportionality and that kind of invasion. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Just in regard to the questions that have just been asked around harmful items: the harmful items are the same as the list in the Corrections Act, for starters. So that’s part of how we came to the decisions to be making that.

What I want to make really clear as well is there are two areas to this. You were speaking around vapes being something that can be—some items can be an item that can relax a young person, that they’re used to having it, and that it may not be harmful. But what I would say is that staff and people who work in this area have seen these items being used in very harmful ways. They can be used as shanks that can cause major damage, and even death, with just that item alone. It’s not just really up to discretion; there has to be a link between an item and harm. If the item is not likely to cause harm to a child or young person, there is no reason to add it to the list and regulations. There are also existing processes in place to curb the power of adding inappropriate items to this list. For example, the role of the regulations review committee is to scrutinise the regulations to ensure they are made fairly and used consistently.

The bill was also amended at select committee stage to include guiding criteria for this legislation-making power. This will require the Minister for Children to consult with the Minister of Justice and be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the harm that could be caused by the items justifies it being added to the list or even removed from the list if requested. So that puts in that safeguard in the areas of harmful items.

This is not about taking away what young people enjoy. They are in an area where they are high risk; in a youth justice facility in particular, they are court-ordered to be there. There are some restrictions that come with being in a court-ordered youth justice residence where some of your freedoms are taken away. There is good reason for that. But what I would say is that we do not want to see a staff member in danger of being stabbed; we don’t want to see a young person in danger of being stabbed.

Part of the responding to the abuse in care legislation—it was very clear throughout that we needed to listen to the voices of young people. Young people within youth justice residences have consistently said, “This is my home and I want to feel safe.” So if you know you are going to be in a unit with young people that have weapons on them, that have the potential to stab you or kill you, you are not feeling safe. So what I would say is this is a valid response to making sure that young people in our care are safe.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Chair. Mōrena, Madam Chair. Mōrena, Minister. I’m still on clause 16 and I might move on to clause 17, and I guess I will start by saying this: if only the descriptions of “dark and dank”, and those types of descriptions were actually an exaggeration. The Whanaketia report shows very clearly that they were not exaggerations; they were the horror that people lived through. I think it’s important not to bring those things back into memory for drama, but more for centring ourselves in the conversation, and so I just wanted to remark on it in that way.

We get, as a party, and we acknowledge the efforts going forward to improve what we’ve failed on. You will recall, Minister, when I spoke in the House to the fact that was an apology and there were apologies provided, but by no means did that mean that all the survivors have to forgive us, and I think we have to do better.

I want to take us to the question about training, and I think that there’s something really important in that. I’ve heard words like “de-escalation” from my colleagues on the right as a being a smart and good idea, but that takes real, solid, enduring training and monitoring and assessment as to whether people are up for that. So I’m keen to know if you can tell us what the model of care is, because if we’re talking about moments of securing—putting young people into security, for whatever reasons—it’s the moments before and after they’re secured. So spending three days in secure is one thing, but the 22 previous days is really where I’d want to understand in a more thorough way, Minister, as to what that actually does look like and what is the model of care.

Can that be described, and are you confident and assured that it is rigorous enough and that it is deeply understood from the young people and their families as to what it takes to provide a model of care, particularly for mokopuna Māori? It’s not for only mokopuna Māori, obviously—I’m not that silly. But I don’t hear that in the descriptions. From what I’m hearing this morning, I can hear intention, but I don’t hear deep conviction in that way, and I’d like to understand that better.

The use of force: even when we use that word description of “force”, it conjures up all kinds of horror. I have this Ngā Rākau Rikiriki, which is the poetry, which is the document that was provided and put together by survivors. It’s worth a read and a reminder.

Minister, I genuinely want to feel whether any of the discussions or the questions this morning are appreciated in your responses so that it gives us the confidence that we can do this better, together. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I just want to go back to a question asked by the member Tamatha Paul: what training was there to ensure that youth workers know that use of force is a last resort and what is the evaluation process after a use-of-force event? I thought that that needed to be answered; I want to make sure I give you a good answer on that.

Standard operating procedure is that physical intervention can only be used when verbal de-escalation techniques have failed. I do agree that in the past that hasn’t really been followed very well because there wasn’t a very good training programme in place when people came to work within youth justice. This has been a real passion of mine, making sure that we’re not (a) setting staff up to fail when they go to work within these facilities, but (b) making sure that they have an understanding of what their obligations are to keep young people safe and that we need to treat these young people with dignity and respect. Yes, they are in there for reasons, but they’re also human beings that deserve to be treated with respect. I’m very passionate about that, and I want to make sure that we give the tools to these staff to be able to do their job and do their job well.

So that was part of the professionalisation of the workforce programme that we’ve been working on, making sure that every staff member that goes to work within a youth justice facility is well trained. So part of that training is around that and also retraining staff that have been working for us for a while that may need a reminder in that space of what their obligations are. So, now, staff are trained in verbal de-escalation with restorative practice in addition to proactive prevention of events like fights. After the use of force, it will be reviewed by a team leader. It will also have a process to escalate internally to the Oranga Tamariki escalation team where any concerns about the appropriateness of the use of force can be investigated.

I think that’s actually really, really important because you are right, it is a massive power to have and we have to make sure that there’s really good oversight on that. The use of force, any use of force, whether it be showing a young person to the scanner, if we have to physically move them in any way or touch them in any way, must be recorded in a daily log and also reviewed for appropriateness.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I don’t think we’re quite there yet. But I do have to note to members that there is a lot of repetition coming back in around the timing, the secure care, and the use of force. Look, there are quite a few clauses in this particular part that are still to be explored, so I do encourage you to move on.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions are on a few other parts of the bill. Can I, first, just thank the Minister for her extremely thorough responses and addressing the Amendment Papers individually. That was very helpful and actually addressed a number of questions I would have otherwise asked. So thank you for pre-empting that.

I’m looking at—so where are we?—clause 23, which is the amended section 384G, “Restrictions on searches”. So this clause replaces the wording “must be carried out by a member of staff who is of the same sex as the child or young person being searched” with “must not be carried out in view of another child or young person in the residence”. They’re quite different objectives, in my view. I’ve also noted that, obviously, we have the new section 384AC, inserted by clause 18, which is around the plan, and I really appreciate the language in that around the needs of the child and what’s reasonable, and that, potentially, the child could express a view there about who should be searching them. But I’m also very aware of the lack of explicit language, given that if we look further at new section 384KF, inserted by clause 28, (3A) says “A person (other than a youth justice resident) may request that a pat down search be carried out only by an authorised person of the sex or gender identity chosen by the person.” So it's very explicitly giving this right to others who aren’t youth justice residents. I must also commend the Minister on the inclusion of “gender identity chosen by the person.” within that section. My question is, really: why wasn’t that explicit wording included in 384AC, and what was the intent of the removal of some of that language in section 384G, as well?

My other question is back to new section 384KF(3), which lists the people who must be present when a youth justice resident is being searched. It includes (b), which says that a prescribed person can be someone who’s named in regulations made under section 447. Again, I haven’t done the cross-reference, but I’m wondering why we don’t have a closed list in legislation and who that provision might, then, include. It just feels to me like the appropriate people—like, (3)(a)(ii) is worded so broadly “another authorised person:”, I can’t imagine who might be included under regulation who sits outside being an authorised person. So just those two issues for me. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I just want to come back to questions from Helen White and Tamatha Paul around the period of time in secure care and repeated use of secure care, because that’s been raised a couple of times.

I just want to address the concerns where you are asking if, when a young person comes out, what’s to stop the abuse of reusing it. What I would also like to say is, I just want to bring a little bit of balance to this, because we have some pretty amazing staff that take care of our young people, and whilst, at times, there are people that do skirt those lines of being responsible caregivers for our young people, most of our workers go to work every day to make our young people’s lives better. I just want to make sure that people have an understanding that nobody goes to work to try and torture or break the rules and have a young person repeatedly in secure care—just to bring a bit of balance to it.

This bill’s not changing the existing time limits for secure care. Although a young person can be placed in secure care again, with each placement there's a strict criteria for admission, so they have to have to meet that criteria and additional safeguards for preventing continuous care. It can’t be for the same offence that they were put in there the first time around. They have to really justify why that young person is being re-placed there; it may be a new event that has happened. So there's a very strict criteria for admission.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your detailed answers to our particular points. As I said at the beginning of this session this morning, we’re supporting the bill, so it’s good to use the session to just clarify and make sure we’ve got some of those safeguards right. Your answers really assist us in feeling a little bit of confidence in what we’re all—or mostly all—agreeing to.

A few questions ago, there were some questions from Helen White about harmful items. I just wanted to touch on that a little bit, because I totally agree with the Minister; I have also heard from tamariki that prohibiting these items makes them feel safer, and I totally support that—whatever makes them feel safe in their residence or the place that they’re calling home for that period is 100 percent justified. It’s also justified in light of news stories—last year, I think—around Korowai Manaaki, where contraband was being brought in. Vapes were one of the items mentioned, so I’m glad that this kind of responds to that, and I hope the Minister is keeping those managers accountable for those findings from, I think, the Children’s Commissioner.

On the harmful items point, I guess what I’m keen to understand is: with more harmful items comes a greater level of searching when families come into visit their tamariki or their whānau who are in there—not just family, maybe friends, mentors, whatever. One thing I have heard from rangatahi who have been in youth justice residences is that the family visits can make a big different to the care they’re being provided, or maybe the counselling they’re getting in there or the programmes they’re doing. Those family visits really reinforce the positive things that they’re learning. Knowing the kinds of backgrounds that a lot of these things come from, some of these families might have experienced—I’m not saying it’s all of them, but some of them may have been in prison or may be a bit sensitive to that institutional nature. I wanted to ask a question to the Minister about how you strike that balance between keeping kids safe but not being too prohibitive to those families. We want them to visit, we want them to be an active part of tamariki’s healing and rehabilitation. How did you go about striking that balance in terms of the family visits?

The other points I just wanted to raise are in reference to our Amendment Paper 369, which addresses the image scanning, which we haven’t touched on yet; and also Amendment Paper 371, but I’ll start with the image scanning because we haven’t really touched on that yet this morning. Obviously, this bill, in clause—I’m not going to waste our time finding it, but it is definitely in Part 3. The clauses and sections around the scanner searches and the images: we’re really keen to understand how those images are stored. We’re kind of presuming that these images could be quite intimate images of those young people. It could be normal images as well, but there could be some really sensitive images, so we’re keen to understand how those images will be stored prior to them being deleted.

We know that this Act will mean that they’re deleted a lot faster, but how will they be stored? Is it secure storage software or whatever it ends up being? How will we know and monitor that those images have been deleted within that 24-hour window? Who has access to those images? Does that include third-party contractors? Is it just the people that work in the youth justice residence? Is it the police? Is it other youth justice residences around the country? We’re keen to understand how those are stored, who has access to those images, and whether there has there been any communication with the Privacy Commissioner or people in those kinds of roles who specialise in privacy and storing sensitive information and data?

Some of us might recall—a couple of years ago, I believe—there was this kind of big drama about police taking lots of images of young Māori on the street and not storing those images securely, and the Privacy Commissioner found that there were tens of thousands of unauthorised, unsecure photos of young Māori children just floating around and being stored on these devices. The privacy of those children is of the utmost importance to us, and we’re also keen to understand how that deleting happens. Where do those images go once they’ve been deleted? We’re keen to understand the dynamics of the image-scanning aspect of this bill.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Sorry, I'm still a little bit behind. I will answer that question soon, but I just want to go back to the harmful items and also address what Tamatha Paul has just also said around staff as well.

We have to be careful that we're not just laying the blame on whānau members and saying this is all them bringing in contraband to these young people. There are multiple layers of indirect harm with some of these items. I'll give an example around vapes: they can be made to use as shanks, as we've talked about, but they can also be used as contraband trade or a commodity within a youth justice residence. And that's not just by young people; there is the temptation for staff to use them in ways to get young people to do things, so we want to make sure that we're holding staff to account when we're doing searches of coming into residences.

Aside from legislation change today, there is a lot of practice change going on in that space too. If you look at that search on entry, which we're looking at, when you go through, say, a corrections facility, there are some practices there that staff have had to do for a while. One of those is the clear plastic bags so that we can see what staff are bringing into residences, and holding the staff to the same level of accountability as any other visitor that comes into residence. We want to stop this contraband being used as commodity, which can often lead to fights and lead to cliques that become quite dangerous within a youth justice residence.

Around the image technology, I think it sounds really scary, that we're bringing in this image technology, that we're scanning people. But what I would like to say is it's not as uncommon as we think. You walk through an airport; you get scanned at an airport, if you want to catch a flight. You often can come to these restrictions when going to court. There are multiple places where you walk through a scanner and nothing to see here and not a problem. But what I would say is, yes, we are aware of the unintended consequences of whānau not wanting to visit, that it could be quite a traumatic experience for some whānau, if they have been incarcerated in the past. So we want to make this process as friendly as possible, but also, quite frankly, we need to put the safety of the young people in our care at the very front of our decision making.

We're very clear that there will be training in this space around how we deal with whānau visitation. We will make sure that it is made very clear, before they come into the residence, what is expected of them. Currently, there is a sign on the entrance saying, “Please do not bring these items in”. That has not worked, obviously.

With the scanners, that's also why we changed the entry: because it had the possibility of, actually, searching people who were just coming to the reception to ask questions. By changing that entry, we have an area where we can first speak to the visitors, set that expectation before going through the process so that it's not just, wham, “I'm stuck in this process where I can't even speak to somebody, and I'm already being searched”. So we'll set the expectations very clearly in the beginning.

If something is found, through either the scanning process or the pat-down process, if it is not an illegal item, then they will be given the option to take that back to their vehicle and then come back again. We want to make it as least restrictive as possible, but make sure that we're keeping our young people safe.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. First of all, I just wanted to thank the Minister for the thorough answers on the issue that I’ve raised about repeated detention and on the harmful objects. My only remaining concern in that area is my concern about self-soothing and addiction to things like nicotine. I’d seek the Minister’s assurance that people would be given appropriate interventions in terms of things like nicotine patches, etc., because they’re undergoing huge amounts of stress and they’re being asked to, basically, detox at the same time, quite often. I would like an assurance that there are processes in place with regard to alcohol and nicotine.

I actually want to move on to the area of vehicles and dogs because they’re both important issues. With regard to vehicles, I guess what most New Zealanders would wonder is, if we’ve got this very comprehensive system of search and things aren’t coming in, why is it necessary for us to search vehicles? I did a lot of work on these kinds of searches when I was a lawyer in relation to workplaces where cars were parked in the car park. There were always balancing acts that needed to be done, like giving people the appropriate warning that their vehicle could be searched but also explaining, in those situations, whether the invasion of privacy over a car was necessary.

When it comes to cars, one of the issues is that you’re not in control of them all the time. People would find things in the cars that were, perhaps, illegal. I remember I had a case where there was equipment for the use of marijuana and there was equipment for the use of P. In fact, it’s very hard to link that to the person who’s driving the car because so many people are in the car. I would like to know what the logic is here and what procedures we are copying and following with regard to why we are we looking at the vehicles with a search in that way?

Then the other issue I’d really like to know about is the use of dogs. Now, I can see this has been considered in this piece of legislation. The worry about dogs is that they’re actually very frightening, and I can see the legislation has said that they will be kept at a distance from the people, etc. I would like for people who are listening today to hear a little bit from the Minister about what kind of dogs are involved and whether there have been any instances where those dogs have got out of control, because it’s very hard to control a dog, actually. One the challenges that many of us who’ve had dogs face is they’re not, actually, entirely in our control. Given the fact that these are trained dogs, I’d like the Minister to talk about why we use the dogs, what they can do that is not able to be done by human beings, and what safeguards are put in place, in really ordinary language. What kind of dogs are we talking about here and is there any risk that the dogs would be aggressive or would frighten people involved in this process, given that we’re often dealing with really traumatised people? Thank you. I’d be grateful for your answers to both those questions.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you. I’m just responding to Vanushi Walters’ question around clause 23, “Section 384G amended”. So section 384G relates to searches inside residences. So the bill removes the current requirement that pat-down searches only be carried out by a person of the same sex as the child or young person. This is done because it would completely contradict the new section that it’s being replaced by, which would require search plans under new section 384AA, inserted by, clause 1, where a child or young person can express the gender or sex of the staff member they prefer to be searched by. So it’s just to clarify that, otherwise we’ll have two contradicting pieces of legislation that don’t match. So it’s just to tidy that up to make sure that we aren’t contradicting what we have said we will do, and it's making sure that young people feel safe in their home and feel safe in the processes that happen within their home, because this is their home, and whilst there are quite a few more rules within their home, we want them to feel comfortable with the processes, to understand the processes, so that it’s less traumatic than is needed to be and less traumatic than it has been in the past, and also to set the expectation upon staff members of what is expected from them in respecting a young person’s wishes around how they are searched and who they are searched by.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thanks, Mr Chair. Thanks, Minister, as well for all those answers. My questions follow on around the search provisions in clause 28.

The one I’m keen to ask a few questions about is the vehicle searches. This bill allows for vehicles that enter the perimeter of a youth justice residence to be searched. We’ve, this morning, been having a bit of a conversation about striking that balance between safety for ngā tamariki but also making sure that families feel safe and comfortable to visit, recognising that they’re a really important part of the healing rehabilitation journey for young people.

Obviously, this bill puts lots of measures in place within the kind of administrative office or when you enter a justice residence where there’s a lot of screening, as Helen White was just talking about. There may be dogs, there are the body image scanners, and there are the various layers of security that are now presently in place. This bill talks about those vehicles, and I guess I’m just a little bit worried about those powers around searching a vehicle, because of the possibility that it might deter people from coming in.

Like, let’s be real. I don’t have a car, but if I did, like, I might have friends in that car, a vape might fall out of their pocket, and there might be, I don’t know, a vape on the ground or something like that—I guess I’m a bit nervous that that family might get searched and “Oh, you’ve got an unauthorised item in your vehicle.”—and then they’re not able to visit their kids or their niece or nephew or whatever it is. So I’m just keen to understand why the extra precaution on the vehicles. Is that based on an event that’s happened or is it that we’re not feeling completely confident in the protections that are in place at that office—I was going to call it a receiving office, but that’s not what it is. So that’s that question around the searching of vehicles.

I just also wanted to raise our Amendment Paper 371, which talks about, within Part 3, the amendments that specify that an authorised person is able to use force. We wanted to just question this a little bit and make sure we understand what the implications of this amendment are. Because we’re wondering if this means that contractors who may be running a programme or something within a youth justice residence—does this mean that they too are able to use force? So we’re quite keen to just interrogate this a little bit more. Our preference in light of the answers the Minister’s given us around de-escalation training and the evaluation post use of force—we’re keen to understand if those measures would be extended to any other people that might be granted greater powers within this bill, particularly those who might be third-party contractors, acknowledging that in that pool of third-party contractors there could also be iwi social services and things like that.

So I’m keen to understand the vehicle search, the rationale behind the searching of the vehicles, and the weighting of how this might deter some families from visiting their family or friends or mentees or whatever just out of the fear that they might have some harmful items in their cars, which, as Helen noted, some of those are legal objects that adults use for various different reasons. Has that been considered? Also, on the use of force for third parties or contractors, what steps will be in place to make sure, again, that it’s a last case resort, and what kind of training and evaluation might be provided to those people using that power?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you. In regards to new section 384KG, “Search of vehicles entering youth justice residence”, I just want to make it very clear that it’s vehicles that are brought within the secure perimeter of a youth justice residence. The vehicle may be searched by an authorised person for the purposes of detecting any unauthorised item. It’s the secure perimeter, so it wouldn’t be the car park that a visitor comes in to visit. It’s where contractors may come in through a back gate into the secure area. They might be bringing items in for kitchen, they might be bringing anything in, and it just gives us the ability to be able to make sure that contractors aren’t bringing in unauthorised items, because they will be skipping the process of going through the scanner in the initial entrance to residence. It is all about the secure perimeter of a youth justice residence.

Just to clarify, we won’t be putting dogs in searches on family that are coming to visit and are parking in the car park. The use of dogs will be extremely limited. It would have to be quite a significant issue to use dogs. Maybe, if we found somebody coming into the secure area in a vehicle with cannabis—quite a fair bit of cannabis—we might call in to get that checked by dogs. It’s only to be used in shared spaces, and the dogs will be controlled by Police or Corrections handlers, not youth justice staff.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for her response in relation to the new section 384AC; I think it’s reassuring to know that that would be part of the plan. My concern on that one was more about whether we ought to make it explicit, given that in other sections we make it explicit that non-residents of the facilities can elect either someone of the same sex or the same gender. So it was just trying to work out why the language was different in that section versus new section 384AC, but I am assured that that remains a choice for the young people.

My next question is in relation to new section 384KD, “Consequences of refusing search under section 384KC”. We had an earlier conversation about people being able to elect whether they went through a scanner or had a pat-down search, and one of those being sufficient. My read of that section is that that’s correct. The question would just be that my read is also if someone were to go through a scanner and then the security were alerted for a need for a pat-down, the person could refuse a pat-down but still not fall within the section—so they’ve complied with one or the other and, therefore, this section wouldn’t prevent their entry. That’s my read of the section, but if I could get some clarification from the Minister on that.

The next one is consequences of refusing a search because you failed to remove an outer item of clothing. Now, this includes head coverings, as well, and I just wonder whether the Minister had received advice on religious head coverings and the interaction with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and how that would be treated in terms of this instance?

My next question is in relation to—let me find the number—new section 384KC, “Search of other persons entering youth justice residence”, the new subsection (7), “To avoid doubt, the search of an authorised person under this section must be conducted by another authorised person”. My question is just around whether it would be useful to include additional language about it not being the individual subordinate, or not being from the same team, or finding other protective ways of ensuring that a diligent and objective or independent search is conducted.

I have another question in relation to new section 384KF, “Restrictions on entry to youth justice residence”. These are the provisions under subsection (5), which state, “An image produced as a result of an imaging technology search must,— (a) so far as practicable, avoid showing a clear image of the body beneath clothing; and (b) obscure the genitals or make them not easily distinguishable if they are included in the image.” I wondered whether it would be useful to prioritise obscuring the genitals as opposed to making it an alternative, and that way, saying that the preference by far is for that to be used as an option instead of making them not easily distinguishable, which feels to me quite invasive.

And again, just aware of the discretion in this space and the times at which we can and should, perhaps, legitimately be very clear about our preferences. I take the Minister’s point that she’s made earlier about, you know, the need for that discretion and the respectful way in which the people employed in in these facilities conduct themselves. I do think that when it comes to searches where body parts are involved and these images are captured, it potentially warrants a more closely drafted section. So just interested in the Minister’s comment on those questions.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to address the question around section 384KD, around the consequences of refusing a search under section 384KC. So what I would say is, yes, you have some alternatives. You can go through the scanner, or you can get a pat down, or it may be both. If the scanner detects something you might be asked for a pat down. But, yes, absolutely if you do not comply with the with the obligations of entry, then yes, you can be denied entry to the youth justice residence.

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

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the consequences of using too much force. There’s a section here that talks about the need to be minimal—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you repeat the section again?

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, I did have it. I’m just flicking through now for the actual section number, but it’s the one that talks about minimisation of how much force is used.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you know the number?

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, I just had it and I’ve just lost it. Apologies. Look, I could just go to a different question and come back to it, if you prefer. I will find the section number, but the question is simply one about what happens if somebody does actually go too far in their use of force when this legislation is very clear that they must use minimal force. I will give you the section number as soon as I find it.

The other questions that I wanted to ask were about the regulation-making criteria over harmful objects. I can see that there has to be satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds that the nature or extent of the harm that may be caused by the article or thing justifying the article or thing being declared as a harmful item for the purposes of the Act—that is in the criteria—and that the Minister of Justice has to be consulted about adding to that list. Because I talked so much about it earlier, in terms of that, I wanted to ask about that regulation-making power and what was envisaged in terms of time frames on making new objects, and what happens in a situation where a new object is presented which isn’t in the scope so far but would come into this regulating-making power—what will happen to that object at that time? Because I can see a gap there. The world is an inventive place and new things turn up. So it’s the other side of my question about making sure that we’re limited and we’re proportional.

There is one final issue here, which is the way that that’s framed is all about the risk but not about the benefit. What if you have an object that has benefit as well as risk? I could only use one that I know already exists rather than one that is anticipated to be covered here. You’ve got a situation where you’ve got a communication device. Some of the features of that are actually probably very good for people, and I can see that the legislation has included references to telephones that are clearly limited in their ability. I presume that’s because they’re permitted because there is a benefit to people being able to continue having that kind of communication available. So what happens in this wording? It looks to me as if it’s balanced towards risk rather than benefit, and in most areas of the law we’ve moved to balancing those two things in our words as well, saying we need to actually look at the benefit as well as the risk when we decide whether to prohibit such an object. So I would love to know about that.

Apologies for not coming to you with the section number, with regard to the other thing. I will actually just sit down and find it. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): If I have understood your questions around harmful objects, I actually think I’ve been very thorough in my explanations, a couple of times now, and have gone through the process of “It must go through a process to be added to the list or taken off the list”. So, I will just leave that one because I think I’ve explained that one a couple of times.

What I would go into is what would happen to a staff member if it is shown that the use of force was unnecessary or inappropriate. After a use of force, it’s reviewed by a team leader and would also be able to be escalated internally to Oranga Tamariki around any concerns of appropriateness of the use of force. If it is found that that use of force is questionable, I would assume and expect that that would be a disciplinary and that would actually be a matter when it comes to their contract.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. The section that I wanted to refer to when I was talking was new section 384KB, inserted by clause 28, which is “Use of force in carrying out search of youth justice resident”. I think that you’ve answered my question in terms of disciplinary process.

I also wanted to just reflect on what the Minister for Children and I had talked about earlier in terms of repeated searches. While I agree that there would be a disciplinary issue involved, there is also probably a role here for the Ombudsman in both situations where they would be looking at patterns of behaviour. If things like this were occurring and there was more force being used than necessary, I would like the confirmation of the Minister that one of the checks and balances in place is our Ombudsman, who would be able to have access to this information.

I would still like the answer to the question about what happens with an object that hasn’t been identified as harmful but may have those results, and the issue about the—I don’t believe that the Minister has ever answered the question about that proportionality of some benefit in a new situation. I am not talking about the same section; I am talking about a later section in this Act, which we have not discussed before and it has a different nuance, which is those new objects that have yet to be classified. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): When it comes to the oversight of a youth justice facility, the Ombudsman does have access to that information. Mana Mokopuna does regular reviews of our youth justice facilities. We also have a panel that is there to take on concerns of young people and make sure that those concerns are addressed. There are plenty of oversights available in that space.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, if members could talk specifically about the clauses that they’re talking about, that would assist the committee. We are tracking which clauses have been discussed and which points have been addressed.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to seek clarity from the Minister, who did comment on clause 17(4), which is amending section 384A. It was about the amendment of the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, which was around the definition of “authorised person” and the request in our amendment around adding the words “a person who has received training in de-escalation methods appropriate for children and young people”. The Minister, when she responded, just said that it’s described in the Act who an authorised person is. The reason I just wanted to clarify that—and can you point me to where that is?—is because, obviously, the protection of our young people is of supreme importance.

The reason we are debating this in the committee today is because of abuse in State care, but it’s also about protecting the State by making sure that we have the right people with the right skills. So I just need clarification that there is a description of what an authorised person is in order to make sure that they have the skills, because we know that we’re dealing with young people who have trauma and young people who are in escalated situations. We need to make sure that we protect the people working with them who are working for the State and working in these institutions, and, obviously, the most important thing is the protection of the young person.

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

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am looking at new section 384KN. This is the “Power to seize articles … found on search”. In particular, it’s in connection to new section 384KC, which is not about residents but visitors and authorised persons who may be coming on to the property. My question is really about what is appropriately placed in primary legislation versus secondary legislation, because those sections taken together and the broadness of the section as it’s currently drafted mean that regulations would set out how long an item that was seized from a visitor to a facility could be potentially held for and under what circumstances they could be released.

I can see why you may need to withhold possessions when they’re seized from residents of those facilities, but, certainly for visitors, they should have that property returned to them as swiftly as possible. In my view, given it is a search, it’s more appropriate for that to be set out in primary legislation as opposed for it to be delegated. It’s an issue that I raised before in terms of who the prescribed person is who must be present during a pat-down search. I questioned why we needed secondary powers to create other persons when we already had the wording of “an authorised person”. I couldn’t imagine circumstances where anyone but an authorised person would be the person who was there for a pat-down search. I’m also just seeking a response to that. There is, as my colleague has just said, a question around who is an authorised person, and that’s also prescribed by secondary legislation, so I wonder whether consideration was given to those definitions being held within the primary Act. Thank you.

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 367 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 73

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s Part 3 amendments to Amendment Paper 354 set out on Amendment Paper 366 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Karen Chhour’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 354 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 17(4), amending the definition of “authorised person” in section 384A, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 369 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12, Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 370 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12, Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 24, inserting subsection (1A) into section 384H, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 25, inserting subsection (1A) into section 384I, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 28, inserting subsection (1AAA) into section 384KB, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 46

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 371 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clause 28, amending new section 384KK, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to Public Records Act 2005

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Now we come to the debate on Part 4. This is a debate on clauses 32 to 35, “Amendments to Public Records Act 2005”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Chair. So it’s a privilege to be able to stand here on behalf of the Minister responsible for this part of the legislation around improving public records and the record keeping in response to the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. So Part 4 deals with amendments to the Public Records Act 2005. Whilst this may seem like a small change, the change is to allow the chief archivist to audit an agency more frequently where required and allow the chief archivist to work with agencies to put in place action plans and to issue performance notices to improve practice. This will make a big difference to the lives of people who are care experienced.

This is something that’s close to my heart, knowing that children—especially focusing on children that have gone through the system from a very young age and have been part of the system most of their life. Each page of documentation, each entry around what has happened in their lives is a page in their story. They have a right and deserve to be able to see their story, understand their story, and digest their story in a way that they want to. Having to beg, chase, and often fight for those pages that make up a life and make up the story and the journey that they’ve been through going through a care system is highly inappropriate and quite disgusting in some circumstances.

We need to make sure that we give back the power to people who have been through the system and people who are care experienced to own their life and own their story on their terms. So anything that we can do to improve this, bring some more accountability into this space, speed up the process, and actually make sure that we’re doing the right thing to help people reflect on their history, heal in their present, and empower their future is a good thing.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. As we head toward the end of our engagement with this bill, our thanks, again, from this side of the Chamber to the Minister for her really robust responses to questions, which we’ve found very helpful. I would say that we continue to believe that transformation is needed in this space. It’s certainly what we are hearing from those who’ve been through the system this far and from those who represent them, that more needs to be done. So, we look forward to ongoing discussions with the Government. I do believe this an area that will require all sides of the Chamber to work together in harmony as continue on this journey.

I have a question in relation to a change proposed to the Public Records Act. I am looking at clause 34; there are two issues I have here. The current section 33 of the Act, which is the “Independent audits of public offices”, requires that audits of the data kept “must be conducted at an interval of not less than five years and not more than 10 years”. The amendment removes that time period and changes the language so that it’s just “as directed by the Chief Archivist”. I am wondering what the rationale was for removing that time period?

The second issue is around independence. The current section 33 under the Public Records Act, requires an independent commissioning of that review. The changes allow the audit to be “carried out by an employee of the department or another person engaged by the Chief Archivist”. I wonder if there are budget issues here. Section 33 in the current Act specifies that the archivist must carry the budget for those audits, and I wonder, if by making this change, we’re solving a budget problem but potentially not the independence issue, which the legislation, as it is currently drafted, protects.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that the keeping of data is critical in terms of really giving justice to the people concerned. On the issue of timing and the issue of independence, I’d really appreciate the Minister’s response.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Again, I want to reiterate my colleague’s thanks to the Minister for her free and frank engagement this morning. It’s much appreciated, and I know that people whose lives are impacted by this appreciate it also. My second brief thanks is around Part 4, and you made it very clear, Minister, and for me and my own family, one of my parents came from a different time when the records of their early life were long-since destroyed and burnt. So it’s paramount that we protect and guard, as you said, Minister, people’s stories. I look from many decades ago to only the last two decades at young people in my care and the ability to access parts of their story.

I just want to seek reassurance. I feel like you have answered it, but I want to be able to leave the House today and go back into my community and my home to make sure that everything will be available to a young person who has been in care. Secondly, I wonder if there’s any way within this—and I haven’t put an amendment on the Table, but it’s around plain language. I know that at one stage a young person received what was their Child, Youth and Family information back in the day, but a lot of it was hard to understand. Is there any ability to ensure that plain language can be included in this piece of legislation?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I just wanted to answer the question in regards to clause 34. The advice here is that this allows for faster re-audits to check up on agency record-keeping. The Chief Archivist is statutorily independent as to looking at those audits, and the budget available for the audits is not changing.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Part 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Kahurangi Carter’s Schedule 3 amendment to Amendment Paper 354 set out on Amendment Paper 366 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

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

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Just a final contribution from the Labour caucus this morning: there are some things that we would have liked to see amended, but, on the whole, we support the progress of this legislation and thank you for the engagement of Ministers. Really, that’s all I have to say, because I think it’s time for us to move forward and, I think, to be collegial in this. We support what the Ministers have presented and, as I say, we would have liked to see a few changes. We will continue to support it moving forward, so that we can continue to address the harm and ensure it never happens again.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I present a legislative statement on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act was established in 2011 as a regime for managing interests in the foreshore and seabed that carefully balanced the recognition of Māori groups’ customary rights with the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders. One way customary interests are recognised under the Act is through the award of a customary marine title (CMT). CMT comes with valuable rights. These include the ownership of non-Crown minerals, involvement in planning, and the ability to permit or decline certain resource consent applications. CMT also provides holders with the right to be engaged with when new significant infrastructure is proposed.

These rights were included in the 2011 legislation on the basis that the test for CMT was exacting and recognised CMT only where customary interests have been maintained with sufficient strength right through to the present day. However, in 2023, the Court of Appeal interpreted the CMT test in a way that significantly reduced the need for continuity and exclusivity in the scope of what can constitute a substantial interruption. I respect the role of the courts as one decisionmaker under this regime and the challenge in interpreting the CMT test in the context of the wider Act, but for this regime to work as Parliament intended, a rigorous test for CMT needs to be maintained. The Government believes that the Act was, and is, a strong affirmation of Parliament’s role to achieve fairness for all those that have interest in coastal areas.

The Justice Committee reported the bill back in December of last year, and I will discuss the committee’s work in a moment, but as members will be aware, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment, also in December last year, directly relevant to the test for customary marine title, in a case called Re Edwards. The sensible thing to do in these unusual circumstances was to take time to carefully consider the Supreme Court judgment and its implications for the bill, and that is what we have done. Let me say it is a helpful judgment. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Government was right to have concerns about how the 2023 Court of Appeal Re Edwards decision approached the customary marine title test.

As the Supreme Court noted, the Act aims to balance a wide range of interests in the common marine and coastal area. However, that does not mean that the Supreme Court judgment substantially fixed the difficulty with the previous court decisions or restored the balance of interests. Following the Supreme Court’s December judgment, the High Court issued a decision that has made extensive findings of CMT, illustrating that the Supreme Court’s test has not altered the approach of the courts in practice. Parliament, clearly, did not intend CMT would be available at that scale, so to resolve Parliament’s intent, legislative clarification is still required.

The bill provides the necessary clarification because it goes further than the Supreme Court in crucial ways, including more tightly defining what “exclusive use and occupation” means, requiring the courts to base any inferences on firm physical evidence, not on cultural association alone, and placing the burden of proof more squarely on applicants. As members will be aware, the Supreme Court has recently issued a second judgment in Re Edwards. That judgment has limited relevance for the bill although it does raise some broader issues about the beds of navigable rivers, which the Government is still considering.

I will now return back to the work of the Justice Committee. I wish to thank the chairperson, James Meager, and members of the committee for their efforts, including hearing a large number of submissions under demanding time frames. It was good to see that submissions came from a wide range of submitters, including current CMT applicants, other groups, and members of the public. I would like to extend my thanks to those who participated and made valuable contributions in that select committee process. The Justice Committee’s report proposes mainly clarifications around technical drafting amendments, and I am glad to see that the committee confirmed the substance of the bill. The most notable amendment proposed by the committee responds to a theme of submissions. It relates to how the bill’s amendments prevail over other law. The scope of this overriding-effect provision has been confirmed in the committee’s proposed amendments to refer to the purpose of the Treaty sections of the principal Act and relevant judgments. This is shown in the proposed new section 9B(3).

Part 2 of the bill outlines the specific aspects of the law that are to be altered by the bill and the parts of court judgments that are being expressly altered or overwritten. The committee has not proposed any changes to this part of the bill. However, as I’ve said, the courts have issued further decisions since the bill was introduced, so this part will need to be updated. To do so, I intend to table an Amendment Paper during the upcoming committee of the whole House phase. I acknowledge that some submitters raised concerns about the retrospective elements of the bill in new Schedule 1AA. The schedule provides that CMT decisions after the date of the announcement of this policy—that is, from 25 July 2024—will be on the basis of the amended test, and any CMT decisions made in the interim period between the policy announcements and enactment will be overturned by clause 4 of the new schedule and reheard under the amended test.

This will require rehearing seven cases, including four where customary marine title has already been recognised. In the Government’s view, retrospectively applying the amendment test is necessary to have as many applicants as possible decided under a test that appropriately captures Parliament’s original intent. Recognising the impact this will have for the affected applicants, the Government has approved $15 million to help meet their rehearing costs.

In conclusion, now the bill has been reported back and Ministers have considered the Supreme Court judgment, the Government intends to progress the bill to enactment without delay. A further adjustment will be required before third reading. To do so, I will introduce an amendment paper on the bill at the committee of the whole House stage. The Amendment Paper is required to address the court’s judgments issued since the bill was introduced, clarify that changes to the CMT tests do not apply to Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, as their bespoke legislation is based on prior agreements with the Crown, and address one outstanding issue about the kinds of activities that can cause substantial interruption of CMT. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to put on the record that we oppose this bill, and we do so in light of the Minister’s words just now.

We can’t look at this particular bill in isolation. The Minister has made it very clear, and this Government have made it very clear, about their willingness and their policy to exploit the minerals of Te Takutai Moana, and the Minister has just confirmed that. This is simply easing the way—even more so for this Government—to just ram through their policy and run ahead with what they see fit.

Yesterday in the House, the member Mr Ferris asked a very good question of the Minister, and that was: what does he say to the private land owners who own parcels of land all around this country that actually deny access to the beach? The Minister’s flippant comment—I’m hoping it was flippant, but it certainly wasn’t well received—he said, “Get on a boat. Jump on a boat and you can go around and access it by the ocean.” Now, Mr McCallum, who’s in the House, is the member for Northland and knows many of those parcels of land across Te Tai Tokerau where those land owners—the majority of them Pākehā, non-Māori—stop access to the beach.

Hon Member: Not everyone—not everyone.

Hon PEENI HENARE: They do, and I know where that is. If anyone knows where Waimahana is in the Far North, when you get to the ridge before you look down to the left on Waimahana, have a look to the right. There’s a place called Paradise Bay, where you can’t get to. The Minister says, “Jump on a boat.”, so I’m going to encourage all of my whanaunga. According to the Minister, get on your waka, go and visit those parcels of beaches and Takutai Moana, right across Te Tai Tokerau, and express your views to the land owners there and say, “It’s OK” because the Minister said, “Jump on your waka.”. That’s what we’re going to do.

I’m really upset that the way the Minister in his speech just now characterised that it wasn’t the intention of this House at the passing of this bill in 2011. Christopher Finlayson, a man who is well respected right across this House, and, indeed, across the country—the Minister already spoke to the bespoke legislation with Ngāti Porou—Minister Finlayson did that work. Minister Finlayson—former Minister Finlayson, sorry—was very clear to this Government that what they’re doing to this bill is abhorrent, and it actually isn’t what he did when he passed this bill in 2011. I want to remind the House that that bill was carefully negotiated between the Māori Party and the National Party of the day. Mr Finlayson is very clear that what this Government is doing is wrong.

Now, the Government’s just spoken to something that I know, in this House, we seldom use. One of those kaupapa is retrospective legislation. It is one of those avenues where we warned members of the House—long before my time here, and I’m sure into the future—that you use the reach of retrospective legislation very rarely. In only very few circumstances has that happened. I’ve been here in the House when that has been used before. Now we’re saying not only are we going to change the rules while everyone’s playing the game but we’re going to push you all back to the start line. Why does this sound familiar to our people in the House here? That’s what they did on pay equity—it’s the same thing. We’re going to change the law, and we’re going to push everyone back to the start, just because of a case where a judge and the court actually found in favour of customary title.

For anybody who has been through the process of proving either customary title or any kaupapa through a settlement, the burden of proof rests with the iwi, rests with the hapū, rests with the whānau, rests with the claimants. I can say to this House that that burden of proof is extremely high, and it takes years and years for that evidence to be built and for that case to be brought in front of the court. Once it gets to the court, the court made a decision, and this Government is saying, “Oh, no, that’s not good enough; we’re going to change the law. We’re going to go back to what is actually intended.”. Well, the person who passed the bill was clear on what was intended when he passed that bill.

Now we have a change from this Government. Well, we’re not surprised—we’re not surprised. We’ve got a number of Treaty settlements coming up in this House, and we want to remind the whānau out there that this particular bill doesn’t sit in isolation from all of those that are currently pushing their bills through this House. We’re going to remind this Government of that, because often, on those bills, we stand in this House, and we talk about unity across the House. Well, right now, that’s clearly not happening.

Labour opposes this bill, for the matters of retrospectivity, for the matters that the Minister has raised about their push and their policy to exploit the minerals at the Government’s will. We also oppose it because, what we know about this particular bill is that, when the Minister introduced it last year—one year ago—he said it was going to be passed quickly. Then he learnt a solid lesson—that you actually have to talk to the people who it affects the most. It has taken a year, and we’re back here. Now the Minister is saying that it’s going to pass again, it will still pass before Christmas, a year after it was first introduced in this House.

Now, usually in this House we’re slating the Government for the fact that they truncate all of the process on important bills that matter to New Zealanders. What we have here is that the Minister learnt his lesson. He introduced the bill this time last year, and then went “Oh, heck, I might have bitten off more than I can chew.”. Now we’re back here a year later and, guess what! What I heard from the Minister in his second reading speech—nothing has changed. To all of those people that submitted—and it’s very clear, some very powerful people submitted; legal experts, those who are in the know, iwi, and others who have gone through this journey, who submitted on this bill—it’s very clear to them that the Government is still not prepared to listen, and it’s still not prepared to alter its view on this particular matter.

We are really disappointed that his particular bill continues to strip away rights, and what we’re asking for on this side of the House in the Labour Party is—actually, we have a right to prove that case in court, and, once we did, guess what! The rules have changed again. All of those whānau out there—all of those hapū, all of those iwi who have been through this process—will know just how hard this is going to be from here on out because of this bill. It is unjust and it is unfair—it is grossly unfair that the Government, at the will of their policies—at the will, dare I say it, of many of their backers—push a bill like this through the House simply because they are unhappy with a judgment from the court.

Now, I recognise that Parliament can make legislation. It is the job of the courts to interpret it. But what I don’t, and I can’t stand for is when this Government and this Parliament stands up and says, “Oh, we’re not happy with the court, so we’re going to change it.”. We’ve got to ask ourselves, are there other pieces of legislation that the Government might look at simply because they don’t agree with a judgment from the court?

Todd Stephenson: That’s the role of Parliament.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yeah, it is, and that’s why we’ve got to respect that. The member on the other side of the House said, “That’s the role of Parliament.” I just said that. This bill was passed in 2011 by a man well respected in this House, who actually negotiated a very good bill, and this Government is now changing it simply because they’re not happy with what the courts have said. Now, that member, I know for a fact, has never been to the court to prove a customary title. I know for a fact he hasn’t. Well, guess what! You’re looking at somebody who has—you’re looking at a tribe and a person who has been through that process. That member can chirp all he wants—and I look forward to hearing what he has to say when it comes to his party’s call on this bill, because I can tell that member that when the ACT Party get up in this House and talk about Treaty settlement bills, we’re all going to sit here and go: “Two-faced.”. Because that’s what that is—that’s what that is.

That member knows that this House can make law, but this Government has proven, time and time again, they’ve blurred the lines between the courts and this House. They continue to do it, and they do it again on this bill. That member sits there and shakes his head, but he is incorrect when he thinks we are the ultimate lawmaker here. Yes, we are—however, the courts have the opportunity to define that. Why? Because people take their case to the court. That member doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Just in the final minute, we want to be very clear: we’ve heard the amendments that the Minister has offered for the committee of the whole House. We’re going to offer some amendments, and I can guarantee we’re going to prosecute those matters when it comes to the committee of the whole House. It is clear that this Government haven’t heard from those who have submitted—they’ve clearly just listened to them and done nothing about it. Maumau tāima—waste of time—and they wonder why the public out there have no confidence and no faith in what this Government is doing. Once again, we’ve got a Government who thinks they know best—they know best—they know better than the legal profession, they know better than the courts, and they know better than those who have had customary title, and we’ll, once again, show this Government where it’s at.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I visited a thing called the Anaweka waka in Golden Bay about a year ago. It is quite a profound thing to see, directly, in person. It is a 700-year-old sailing waka found on a beach at the top of the South Island. It’s a moving experience; to see what we all know is the history of these lands, that the tupuna of tangata whenua Māori sailed that vast ocean of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, to arrive here in these lands. And for most of the last thousand years, they have circumnavigated and sailed and gone through the harbours, and the inlets, and up and down the estuaries, and they have built their homes and their rohe, and they have interacted with the takutai moana—the marine coastal environment. It is a simple fact of history. I have seen the timber waka that is 700 years old, and yet, we seem to be here questioning whether Māori have customary use of the marine coastal environment. How ludicrous. What a preposterous thing to be contending. That is the starting point for how ridiculous it is to find ourselves in this situation. And yet, there was effective confiscation of that marine coastal environment.

If we as a Parliament, as a nation, believe in the intention of settlement, to recognise a wrong and make amends for it, then the highest principle should surely be justice. We know why justice is important, because of rapprochement, because of the establishment and the resumption of harmonious relations. Anyone who thinks there can be a cohesion, or a lasting contentment, in our nation, for any of us, without upholding and making good on the dignity and the intent of that founding agreement— Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is a fool, frankly.

This bill is the most anti-Treaty act of this Government. Far worse than the Treaty principles bill, only because it will pass; it will affect confiscation. Where Seymour failed to clumsily rewrite our founding agreement, this bill undoes a settled pathway for rapprochement, for settlement, and, therefore, it is fundamentally an anti-New Zealand bill.

The 2011 correction of the confiscation of the foreshore and seabed that was affected by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, was achieved by agreement across the House. There was an agreement that a wrong was done. Labour realised the error of their approach and a markedly more visionary National Government than this one before us—in coalition with Te Pāti Māori—brought a mechanism for recognition of Māori customary rights to the takutai moana. The restoration of the rights of Māori to go to court—a basic common-law right. Even the ACT Party at the time thought it was a travesty that that right had ever been removed. But this bill retrospectively cancels that right for all the claimants who’ve already been or are in the process of going to court. Basically, Māori went to court, won in court, and the Government went, “Oh, hang on a minute, we can’t have that. We’d better fix it and undo it.” That’s what this bill does. It sets the bar so high as to dissuade any other iwi from wasting their time and money on that court process. It rips up that cross-party agreement and, frankly, it stabs Māori in the back once again. It exists in that long and tawdry tradition of Crown betrayals of iwi, Māori, and it is as such a restoration of the raupatu of 2004.

It is anti-New Zealand because if our objective is rapprochement, harmonious relations, this commits a treachery against that founding relationship. It has a constitutionally treasonous character because it betrays the intent of the mutual agreement which formerly brought the nation of New Zealand into existence. An agreement between two sovereign entities, the rangatiratanga of te iwi Māori and the British Crown.

This bill is in the tradition of traitorous Crown betrayals of Māori and that founding agreement, the very tradition we are trying to correct through the settlement process. This is exactly the laws that we apologise for when we do the settlements. It renders those present day settlements as a true duplicity. The Government gives back a little of what was stolen with one hand and steals even more with the other. That is what this bill today does. It is kaupapa kāwanatanga. It is perfidious Albion. Duplicitous Britain. Perfidious Albion refers to acts of diplomatic sleights, duplicity, treachery, and infidelity with respect to promises made or alliances formed with other nation states. The promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to uphold tino rangatiratanga and the sovereignty of Māori, is broken by this bill. The alliance formed in the founding of our nation through that agreement is betrayed by this bill. It is perfidious Albion, the character of constitutional treason. The Minister resurrects the darkest tradition of Crown betrayal, evokes the tradition of colonial theft, and should we be surprised, because that particular Minister believes colonisation was a good thing for iwi Māori, so surely doing more colonisations would be good in his estimations? Well, this bill does that, and he is deeply wrong in that.

The view of this bill is from a Government that proportionally has a property rights ideology, in so much as it believes they can manage the commons, the rivers, the lakes, the aquifers, the oceans, the atmosphere through private property rights. Yet they don’t uphold the first property rights of this country—Māori customary rights—and they’re diminishing those rights across the vast acreage of the marine coastal environment today. They don’t really believe in property rights. They believe in the right to accumulation of capital of those who would exploit nature. In fact, as with the environment, they see protecting the commons and upholding Māori customary rights and Treaty rights as a barrier to the commercial exploitation of the environment. As the Minister has said as much in his recent statements on opposing tikanga components of law because they were a barrier to business, justifying opposing the logical plurality of our legal system, upholding both tikanga and common law is consistent with the Treaty.

Every legal system is bespoke, of course. Every country has its own sets of laws and established jurisprudence. The idea that Parliament intent is being restored by this is absolute garbage, and if you have any doubt, you could simply ask the author of the original Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. He’s still alive, he’s still around. He’s speaking at the Waitangi Tribunal commemorations right now. Is there any accident that this bill comes before the House on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal? I would love to say it was an accident. Mr Christopher Finlayson, who wrote this bill, the former Attorney-General, put it plainly, “these amendments do not restore the original intent of Parliament, they undermine them”. Let there be no doubt about that at all.

I marched across the Auckland Harbour Bridge in 2004 against the Foreshore and Seabed Act. My parliamentary forebears stood with an “Honour Te Tiriti” banner. On these steps, in 2004, as the throng of the hīkoi arrived and that banner said, “Honour the Treaty”. This Green caucus here stood on the steps again where that massive hīkoi met us at Parliament last year with the same message of honour the Treaty. We stand for the principle of rapprochement. We stand for upholding that founding agreement for the good of all New Zealanders. This wretched bill will be the first bill on the repeal list of things that we will do to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi when there is a change of Government in one year’s time.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. There’s been a lot of kind of rhetoric across the House this morning. I see things slightly differently, as you might imagine. In 2011, there was a test established for marine customary title. Basically, the Government’s position is that the Court of Appeal got that wrong. What we want to make sure is that, actually, the intention of this House is restored. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed that the Court of Appeal got that wrong. So what we are simply doing is making sure it’s very clear what the customary title test should be. That’s why I commend this bill to the House. [Interruption]

A disturbance took place in the gallery, and a member of the public was removed.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. The Justice Committee—and I acknowledge the chair, the Hon James Meager—received and considered submissions from 6,692 interested groups and individuals and heard oral evidence from 69 submitters. Customary marine title was established under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and it replaced that very controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

A customary marine title cannot be sold, and public access is maintained. The test for the customary marine title is primarily contained in clause 58(1) of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act and has two limbs. It provides that, “Customary marine title exist in a specified area of the common marine and coastal area if the applicant group— (a) holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and (b) has, … [either] (i) exclusively used and occupied … [the area] from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption; or (ii) has received it, at any time after 1840, through a customary transfer in accordance with subsection (3).”

In 2023, the Court of Appeal interpreted provisions of the Act about the requirements for recognising customary marine title which materially reduced the threshold of the continuous exclusive use. New Zealand First believes the court’s interpretation fails to give effect to the intended requirement that applicants for customary marine title must prove they have exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.

This bill aims to reduce the ambiguity of the test for customary marine title. It will amend the 2011 Act to provide much more clarity and certainty around how customary marine titles are determined, particularly in response to recent legal judgments re Edwards that have created some confusion, some ambiguity about Parliament’s original intent.

This bill fulfils a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National. We believe these changes address New Zealand First’s focus on the sovereignty of Parliament and on fairness and transparency in legal processes. It’ll balance the natural expectations of all New Zealanders to have an interest in what occurs in the coastal marine space, balancing that with Māori customary marine title which grants their own valuable rights.

My colleague the Hon Shane Jones has stated that recent court decisions have made the test for customary marine title too easy, and that rights creep—rights creep—could enable iwi to obstruct critical development projects such as ports. Rights creep that threatens the economy—seeking to restore that higher threshold for customary marine title being granted. This amendment bill aims to restore the original, higher test for customary marine title set in 2011. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Tākuta Ferris. [Interruption] No, Tākuta Ferris is—

Tākuta Ferris: Are you going to take the next one?

Hūhana Lyndon: Yeah, I’ll take the next one.

Tākuta Ferris: All right.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I’ve just been at the celebration of 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal. This is being talked about, but I’m going to take this time to just set the record straight for our whānau at home, because this is a take [subject] that has to land at home. E te whānau, you have to get up and make sure that this thing doesn’t go anywhere.

In 2004, there was an Act by a Parliament led by the Helen Clark - Labour - led Government. They enacted a piece of legislation that they were warned not to—the courts told them not to, the UN told them not to, their Treaty partner told them not to. They just arrogantly bowled ahead and did it and they confiscated, without authority, 336,000 square kilometres of Māori land. The test that had to be proven was: was there legislation that had actively extinguished that Māori right before 2004, and the answer was no, there was not. So the right in Te Tiriti o Waitangi was still there when they passed the legislation. That’s number one.

That led to the rise of Te Pāti Māori. Why? Tariana Turia left the Labour Party because the voice of the Māori seat that she held wasn’t recognised. Its independence was stifled; its voice was ignored. She left to assert the independence of those seats. Why? So that we could protect these things. That’s part two.

The biggest contemporary theft, confiscation, of land, Te Tiriti o Waitangi rights land, happened in 2004, whānau—not 1904, not 1804; 2004. The Māori Party came about and they had to fight that battle for seven more years until they got into Government with the Key-led National Government and agreed to a middle ground, which wasn’t a fix or an addressing of the 2004 debacle; it was a band-aid for it, all the while knowing it would continue on into the future as it has.

In 2017, things happen; there are cases that go through. We get to this Government, the Luxon-led National Government, and they don’t like the band-aid that was put on in 2011; they’re ripping it off—ripping it off and taking everything with it, e te whānau. This is for the public of New Zealand, OK, because if you listen here to what these guys are saying, they’re not even telling you half the story. They’re a waste of time; they’re not in the debate.

So here we go. The takutai moana Act was a band-aid, OK, and the removal—[Minister Goldsmith enters Chamber] Oh, kia ora. Kia ora, Minister—grab a seat, have a listen. So the band-aid is being pulled off. There are about six or seven other iwi and hapū that have got across the threshold that—although they say it wasn’t good enough, they set it, and Māori did the work, like we have for 21 years, to prove it. We’re proving a right that we didn’t have to prove, because it was there in 2004 and an arrogant Government took it away. That’s all this is, and here we are having to deal with it again. Well, good luck. Good luck with all of the tribunal. Good luck with all of the legal precedent that’s already there. Good luck with your courts, because they are pushing back on you. You will not succeed.

So, Ngāti Kere, my hapū, from the puku of Kahungunu, one of those hapū that achieved the customary title, and now he wants to take it away. My iwi, of Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga; one of those iwi that achieved that right—he wants to take it away. All right; they’re ready. Kei te pai. It’s all wasting your time, public. It’s all wasting your money, wasting your time, wasting everybody’s everything.

I’m going to finish by saying this—these are the words, actually, to the public: who would you rather have look after the interests of the coast, Māori or the liberal corporates over there? Think about that. This is what Justin Tipa, the chairman of Ngāi Tahu, had to say: “Let’s be clear: this is not about ‘recognising the legitimate rights of all New Zealanders’. This is about removing the legitimate rights of Māori.” We do not support the bill at all.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of te rōpū Kākāriki, and in support of my colleague Steve Abel, we absolutely oppose this legislation, because, like a thief in the night, this Government comes through with this legislation that will raupatu—the biggest raupatu that Maori will suffer—to our mana takutai moana. Because what was the issue? What was the problem that this Government is seeking to change and improve? There was no need. Māori have been here mai rā anō. We are intergenerational. We were here yesterday, we’re here today, and we’ll be here tomorrow. Our tūpuna, our people have paddled, have harvested, and have lived on these waters for generations. And yet we have a Kāwanatanga that is turning its back on the very Māori-Crown relationships that have been tenuous for the last two years—now tearing it up. You’re tearing up Māori-Crown relations.

We should be celebrating today 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal, Oriini Kaipara coming into the House. We should be celebrating, but instead we’re here fighting against the legislation that is the biggest raupatu against te iwi Māori in the history of Aotearoa, because this is an uncaring Government. This Government cares more about the property rights of Pākehā than the Māori. Why can’t Māori have property rights? Why can’t Māori have some customary rights to our takutai moana? When my rangatira from Ngātiwai yells at this House and affirms that we did not cede our sovereignty,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

We will not stop fighting this Government that continues to hamahama us, as te iwi Māori who have been here mai rā anō.

That is the crime. That is the shame. That is the mahi apo, the greed of this Government that turns its back on its customary partners here, who signed to te Tiriti o Waitangi in good faith. At no time did our tūpuna who signed te Tiriti think that we would be left pōhara, that we would be left destitute, that we would lose our mana takutai moana, because we signed it in good faith. We have a Government that is stripping Māori rights. Our communities are exhausted. It’s been two years of submissions. It’s been two years of waving a flag, of hīkoi, protests. Our kaimahi are going to strike again: on 23 October, we will stand to whakamana te Tiriti; on 28 October, its tuakana, He Whakaputanga.

This Government has no care for te iwi Māori. Our rights are intergenerational, and this Government seeks to raupatu, to confiscate those rights that are intergenerational for our people. I cried this morning at Te Herenga Waka as we stood and we looked at the 50 years of delivery, of listening and hearing our people in the Waitangi Tribunal—those judges, those kaiwhakawā, those legal counsel who have supported us—for their ability to bring truth, truth to Aotearoa, that a record would show, that there is research that affirms, the raupatu that has happened on the whenua.

Now we have a raupatu on the papa moana. How dare you? How dare you do this to our people at such a time when we are already at risk? We are trying to put food on the table. Our people don’t know that this legislation is back. We’re just trying to survive. We’re just trying to be claimants in a process that was not designed for us. The claimant burden of having to go back to the courts again. Do you even understand the 18 weeks of hearings that the tribes of Whangārei had to stand, prepare our elders, get our research, do all of the bling and mapping—all of these thresholds set by the Crown? We met the rule of law, we presented our evidence, and we’re waiting for a judgment. And now you’re saying, “Oh, no, Māori, no, sorry to the hapū of Whangārei—you’ve got to go back and do it again.”

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

No way—no way will te iwi Māori stand for this. And you have torn up any Māori-Crown relationship that we will have moving forward.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This amendment bill is important in order to provide clarity on Parliament’s original intent. It is the Parliament of New Zealand that sets the laws of this land, and this inserts a statutory declaration that overturns the court’s reasoning and ensures the intent of this House is clear. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I stand before this House after observing an interaction, just before, that makes me quite sad. I come from a school of thought where I believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not only the past of this country but, most of all, it is our future, that together, all peoples in this country can come together. More than that, I believe that, at this particular time, no matter who you are, where you are in this beautiful country of ours, you want to be a part of a country that is about kotahitanga, about inclusion, that is about a way forward, and it’s about coming together to address the challenges that are in front of us, whether they are short term, medium term, or long term.

But I come back to the point that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our future. but sadly, that is not what I see before us today. Can I acknowledge our rangatira from Ngātiwai, who stood up because this kaupapa is sensitive. It brings the grief of decades, of hundreds of years of trauma that people in this country have faced. It takes us backwards. It takes us backwards to a part of this history that we don’t want to go back to. In my own party, we have that black mark, we have that history. Motatau hē. We acknowledge that. But this is not the way forward.

In addition to that, last night, together, we all celebrated, in the Legislative Council Chamber, 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal—50 years, some would say 50 years of progress, some would say 50 years of protest. Maybe it’s all of those things. But even to have this reading on the Order Paper this year, as we celebrate 50 years, Minister, this is cynical. It is cynical, and under your Government, you continue to kick Māori down. This does not make us a stronger country. This does not progress our people—our New Zealand people—and it does not progress Māori alike. This is a cynical move, absolutely cynical.

My second point is to the Government member that put an allegation forward against a member of this House that she incited protest from the gallery, from one of rangatira from Ngātiwai. That is unfair, and that is not true, and that is an example of this Government being out of touch, not understanding the kaupapa in front of us. But again, the backbench is reflective of their leadership, and that leadership is cynical. It is cynical, it is mean-spirited, and it continues the punch-down of our indigenous people in this country. Every opportunity that I have in this House, I will remind Government members of the bad choices that they have made for our country and for Māori alike: repealing Te Aka Whai Ora, taking us backwards on Māori wards, removing Te Tiriti from legislation. I also challenge the members of the Education and Workforce Committee, who are doing that under our vocational training legislation and under the tertiary education strategy.

Time and time again, I think that this Government might take a step back and think, “Oh, times are challenging for us.” New Zealand has question marks about the direction that they’re taking our country. The actions that they take are more divisive than ever. But then, they do something else, then they do another thing, and so the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill is just another example. Radio New Zealand, under this headline, when reported, “characterised by a blind adherence to pre-existing political commitments at the expense”—at the expense—“of whānau, hapū, and iwi.” Not at the expense of every other New Zealander that lives in our wonderful country, at the expense of whānau, hapū, and iwi.

And that’s because this, clearly, is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s a dismissal of official advice from the Waitangi Tribunal and the important steps not taken in the development process. That’s resulted in the Crown breaching the principle of good government. I truly believe we all come to this place to represent people, to represent everyone, and when we do get to become Government, that we lead this country in a way forward, and this is simply taking us backwards.

Not to consult adequately with tangata whenua, with mana whenua, with iwi, hapū, and whānau, to push that through, that is not modern-day practice, and that’s exactly what the Government has done. And this Minister in the House today, he has not consulted adequately with Māori. That, in itself, is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The breach there is the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights and interests in the takutai moana without providing any evidence—any evidence—for one of its key justifications. Namely that the public rights and interests require further protection beyond what is already provided by the Act. The Crown also failed to inform itself of Māori interests. The Crown failed to inform itself of what the Māori interests are.

Now, I hope that Governments moving forward think about what’s best for our country, how they will close the gap of the division that we experienced. And this cynical move is not the direction that people in Aotearoa are looking for. They want unity, they want kotahitanga, they want access, they want fairness, and they want equality.

This is a terrible, terrible sleight on this Parliament, that we are moving this piece of legislation before the House as we celebrate 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal. I do not commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to stand in support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. As has been traversed by the Minister in charge and some of my colleagues already, the bill is amending the test for recognising customary marine titles, noting the decision of the Court of Appeal last year. We’re setting it in a place where we can seek some clarity around the intention of the legislation so that we can make it crystal clear. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I listened to the ACT Party contribution on this bill, such as it was—the minute or so that it took—and I was aghast because the ACT Party’s promoting a bill that says that we shouldn’t take or impair property rights without proper compensation. I want to recognise that customary and marine title is, essentially, a property right. Yet, the ACT Party, for all of its pro-property rhetoric, doesn’t believe in protecting the property rights for Māori that are enshrined in customary title.

I want to say one other thing before I get into any detail: this bill does not create property rights. The Minister, Paul Goldsmith, in one of his speeches said this legislation creates and confers property rights, and that’s not true. What it does is it recognises existing rights. These rights by definition have existed since time immemorial. This is not a concept that is at all foreign to New Zealand or English law. The idea of having customary rights which have been created by the behaviours of people across generations is something that crosses many cultures. It’s not unique to Māori.

As Steve Abel said so articulately, the fact of the matter is that Māori have for generations been people of the sea. They have navigated our coastline, they have harvested kai from the estuaries and coasts around us, and they have done that across generations. Yet, what we are seeing now is a confiscation. It is a limiting of that. Once again, this Government is by inches encroaching and taking away rights.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Have you forgotten Helen Clark?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Minister protests, but he doth protest too much, because he knows as much as anyone that the bill as it stood, the original piece of legislation, was carefully crafted, and it makes it very clear that, to establish customary title, the burden is high—that, in fact, you have to show that, across generations since 1840, you have exercised those rights, because customary rights can be lost through a failure to use them. They must have been held in a substantially uninterrupted way, and that is the test that was presented to the courts. The Court of Appeal took one view, but the Attorney-General appealed and the Supreme Court actually took it back—took it back. Yet, the Government presses on with this bill, stripping property rights from Māori.

What is worse is that there was an agreement that this House reached with Māori to recognise coastal and marine rights, and Māori in good faith embarked on the process to do that. As Peeni Henare said, the process is arduous. Finding the history, the maps, the oral records, and presenting that in a form which can prove—because the onus is on Māori to prove—is onerous. But they did it, and yet this Government is going to strip away conferred rights, rights that the court has actually already recognised. They are going to strip away that retrospectively, and that is a constitutionally abhorrent thing to do. There is no reason for it, no reason other than keeping their crony mates happy so that they can get the consent they want to exploit coastal areas, whether it be for sandmining, for fishing, for wind farming—for whatever it might be.

No, they don’t want to go through a proper consents process. They don’t want to have to engage with Māori. They don’t want to have to act in a way which is consistent with property rights. They want to trammel them, and that is why we won’t support this bill. It’s a terrible bill, and I can’t believe Jenny Marcroft, who usually is so sensible on things affecting Māori, spoke in support of it, either. It’s a shameful bill, and it’s a dark day when we don’t protect property rights.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I’m grateful for the opportunity to be able to express my thoughts in this second reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. I think I need to just—as I’ve done before when we have members of this House going beyond, to a great extent, what we’re trying to achieve here. Let’s just bring it back to what the main—if we sift through—objective of this bill is.

If we can just go back to 2004 when a destructive, damning bill was passed, by the Labour Government back then, called the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, here we go!

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes, I do know, Mr Duncan Webb. I do know, because, yes, I wasn’t here back then, but I actually do my research because I love this country. I wasn’t born here, but I love it, and I love the people that are in this country as well. So, yes, I do know. And I do know because I’ve had members, elders, of Māoridom talk to me about what happened back then in 2004 and how it broke their hearts. So, yes, I know from that extent, Mr Duncan Webb.

So what happened was this damning, destructive bill was passed. Along comes a guy named John Key with the National Party—and the Māori Party; we worked together in 2011 to pass the Marine and Coastal Area Act. What’s happened since then is a court judgment has decided to go way above and beyond what the intention of this House was when we were restoring things in 2011; they went above and beyond what the intention was.

What we’re doing here is we’re going back—we’re going back—we’re not rewinding; we’re going back to what this House intended before this court decision was made. It is wrong. It is, actually, cynical. When we’re talking about cynical—someone from the other side of the House spoke about cynicism—it’s cynicism to work people up into a frenzy when they’re not saying what the actual truth is. We’re restoring what Parliament’s intent was when we were fixing up the brokenness of Māori, thanks to the 2004 bill that was passed under that Labour Government back then. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Thursday)