Thursday, 9 October 2025

THURSDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2025

THURSDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

GREG O'CONNOR (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.

Member Sworn

Member Sworn

SPEAKER: Members, I understand that Oriini Kaipara is present and wishes to make the Affirmation of Allegiance. Would Oriini Kaipara please come forward.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ko ahau, ko Oriini Kaipara, e kī ana i runga i te pono, i te tika, i te ngākau tapatahi me te whakaū anō ka noho pirihonga, ka noho pūmau ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture.

[I, Oriini Kaipara, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to law.]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 14 October. That week the House will make progress on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill and the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. The hours of Tuesday will be extended into Wednesday morning for Government business, and on Thursday there will be a one-hour special debate on local issues.

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered 11 papers.

CLERK:

2024-25 annual reports of:

the Accident Compensation Corporation

the Crown Law Office

New Zealand Qualifications Authority

Kordia Group, and

Pamū Farms

Accident Compensation Corporation Climate Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2025, and Service Agreement for 2025-26

Ministry for the Environment and Stats New Zealand, New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Our Marine Environment 2025

Notice of declarations of inconsistency: Public Protection Orders under the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 and Extended Supervision Orders under the Parole Act 2002

Report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the science, innovation and technology portfolio within Vote Business, Science and Innovation for the Year Ending 30 June 2025.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:

report of the Ombudsman, OIA timeliness obligations: Compliance and practice in Kainga Ora Housing New Zealand

review briefing on the 2023/24 annual review of the Social Workers Registration Board.

SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Economic Growth

1. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What recent announcements has she made?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): This morning I announced new Government procurement rules that take effect on 1 December. These are the rules that Government agencies apply when assessing bids to supply them with goods and services, including everything from paper towels to roads. All told, Government contracts are worth more than $50 billion a year. That is a huge amount, but Kiwi businesses have been telling Government for years, over successive Governments, that they've been missing out because the rules are not fit for purpose. Today, the Government has fixed it.

Dan Bidois: What is the key change being made to the Government procurement rules?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The key change is an economic benefit test that levels the playing field for New Zealand businesses. When considering tender applications, Government agencies will now be required to give a weighting of at least 10 percent to benefits to New Zealand. This means New Zealand companies won't miss out on contracts to overseas competitors because of small differences in price. This provision does not breach international trade agreements, because overseas companies have the same opportunity to demonstrate wider value to New Zealand, and similar provisions exist in many of our trading partners’ procurement rules. This Government recognises that there is benefit to New Zealand in companies employing New Zealanders, training New Zealanders, and investing in New Zealand, and we are putting taxpayer dollars to that purpose.

Dan Bidois: What other changes are being made to the rules?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Businesses, particularly small and medium sized businesses, have been telling Government that the paperwork involved in bidding for contracts is too onerous, so we are getting rid of requirements that are redundant or unnecessary, that duplicate content, that repeat statutory and regulatory requirements, or that have never been applied in practice. As a result, the number of rules is being reduced from 71 to 47—far, far simpler.

Dan Bidois: What has been the reaction to the new rules?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the response to this morning's announcement at Business New Zealand is any guide, unadulterated delight. In the words of Business New Zealand chief executive Katherine Rich, the new rules are transformational, sensible, and fair and will be celebrated by businesses from one end of the country to the other. That is fantastic, and I'd like to pay tribute to Katherine and her team at Business New Zealand. Business New Zealand has been campaigning for this sensible change for 10 years, and I'm glad our Government got it done.

Question No. 2—Māori Development

2. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal's official position on the proposed name change: “We do not support changing the name from the Waitangi Tribunal to a Commission in case it leads to confusion concerning the bespoke jurisdiction we exercise”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): The Waitangi Tribunal carries over 50 years of jurisprudence, symbolism, and mana. I am not aware of any proposed name change as the Minister responsible for the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. But I am aware of last night’s excellent 50-year anniversary function at the Legislative Council Chamber, attended by the member in question and other members of this glorious House. Hari huritau 50 ki Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[Happy 50th anniversary to the Waitangi Tribunal.]

Tākuta Ferris: Can he confirm that the proposed name change would erode the independence of the tribunal, creating a system where Ministers decide what claims can be heard?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Tē mō’io au ki te ia o te pātai a tēnei mema.

[I don’t know what the thrust of the member’s question is.]

I am not aware of any proposed name change for the Waitangi Tribunal.

Tākuta Ferris: Is he concerned by Crown Law’s own assessment that altering the powers of the tribunal could breach the principle of separation powers and the principle of responsible Government?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Government continues to be responsible in this space and is progressing the review announced, in a very timely manner.

Tākuta Ferris: Will he rule out changing the name of the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That is a matter that I’ve only just become aware of as a result of the question posed to me by the member.

SPEAKER: Question No. 3, the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister looked at the tribunal’s statement about their concern regarding a “bespoke jurisdiction”; and having regard to the word “bespoke”, who’s the tailor here, who’s the customer here, who’s this being made for: Parliament or some other body?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: My responsibilities in this space are focusing on clarifying these matters, not confusing these matters any further.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Vinaka vakalevu, Mr Speaker. Is an annual growth rate of negative 1.1 percent, three percentage points lower than forecast before the election, the result of her economic plan; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I said yesterday, and the day before: no. Let me point something out for members. The IMF’s latest world economic outlook shows that in 2023, out of all the world’s advanced economies, New Zealand had the largest positive output gap. In other words, it had the most overheated economy in the world. Inflation was far above the target band, and the Reserve Bank had to the raise the official cash rate (OCR) to 5.5 percent—the highest rate since 2008. That’s why the economy went into a long, painful downturn. It is now recovering but, as often happens in a recovery, the road has been rocky. The member might think that spending more, taxing more, and borrowing more is an alternative plan, but I disagree with it and so do most New Zealanders.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So, therefore, is she borrowing more or less?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m pleased to report to the House that today’s Financial Statements of Government shows that debt, for the first time in five years, has not increased as a proportion of GDP.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to one business leader who said, “What has she done to create growth in New Zealand? I can’t think of a single thing other than the supermarkets/banking publicity, which so far has not achieved anything.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Let me count the ways: tax relief for more than a million working New Zealanders; Investment Boost to encourage investment in our businesses so that they can grow; delivering fast-track infrastructure projects; investing in structured literacy in our schools; overhauling the Overseas Investment Act to welcome capital into this country. To finish a theme for the week, here’s the quote I preferred from a chief executive in that publication: Labour, “Not as co-ordinated on communications as they need to be, especially between Chris and Barbara.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Christopher Luxon that, “Nicola Willis and myself understand economics. We understand Budgets. We understand numbers.”; if so, is that why, under, even her own measure of OBEGALx, the deficit is higher now than it was it in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Let’s keep it simple: I agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon David Seymour: How much of that deficit is interest repayments on debt that was built up by the previous Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s approximately $8 billion that we are paying to service the interest on our debt. I would also point out that those who are suddenly concerned about deficits might want to ask why they said that every time we made a spending reduction, whether it was pay equity, reducing the number of bureaucrats, reversing stupid programmes, that we shouldn’t be cutting spending—get consistent.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she understands numbers, then does she understand that the Government reduction in capital asset spending of $2.9 billion less has played a role in the decline of the construction sector and a loss of 20,000 construction sector jobs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, in each of our Budgets, we have invested more funding in public infrastructure, and I can’t wait till we sign those contracts for the Northern Gateway road and for the many roads of national significance around the country. I’m proud that, unlike the last Government, we’re actually funding Dunedin Hospital, that we’re rebuilding Nelson Hospital, that we’re building more classrooms every year than they ever managed, and that we built more social homes in the past 23 months than they did in three years.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is her idea of an economic plan to deliver more unemployment, a shrinking economy, an inflation that is on the rise, and to blame everyone else except Nicola Willis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, it is not, but I think that those who commit arson and then blame the firefighter should not repeat the same mistake. All I’ve heard from that member is: lets borrow more, lets spend more, lets drive up the debt and inflation; and that is no prescription.

Question No. 4—Tourism and Hospitality

4. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made about supporting major events and tourism in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): Last week, we served up a major win for sports fans and tourism alike. We announced a $5 million investment in a new centre court roof for Auckland’s Manuka Doctor Arena. This is the first infrastructure project from our $70 million major events and tourism package. This upgrade is a grand slam for New Zealand’s events sector; it means rain delays will be out, and world-class tennis will be in no matter the weather. Tourism and major events are a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. More world-class events mean more visitors, more jobs, and a growing economy.

Rima Nakhle: Why is this investment needed?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This investment will help New Zealand stay match fit on the international stage. If we want to continue to attract world-class events to New Zealand, we need to have world-class facilities to go along with it. This investment not only futureproofs centre court against the weather but also expands the types of events that can be held there, attracting more visitors and supporting our economy. The arena is also an important asset for the Auckland community, promoting the growth and development of tennis for players of all ages.

Rima Nakhle: How will this investment benefit tourism in Auckland and beyond?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This investment is a game-changer. The ASB Classic alone attracts thousands of visitors each year, and next year will be the 70th year of this event. In 2024, just this one event alone brought significant economic benefit to Auckland, resulting in 16,600 visitor nights to the region and injecting $3.4 million into the economy. With a covered centre court, we’ll be able to serve up more events year-round, and welcome even more fans, players, and international media. More visitors means more bookings, more meals, and more spending in local shops and hotels.

Rima Nakhle: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I promise this is the last one: we have had a volley of positive feedback. Tennis Auckland CEO Rohan West has said, “It’s absolutely massive. I can’t underplay the significance of it.”, saying it gives the organisation the confidence to move ahead with the project. The Auckland Business Chamber has said the announcement is “Really welcome news for Auckland. Ongoing matters like this make our biggest city a better place to live in, work in, and more competitive with our Aussie cousin cities.”. This announcement is already proving—oops, one more—to be a winning shot, which means New Zealand’s tennis future is game, set, and match.

Question No. 5—Economic Growth

SPEAKER: Question No. 5, the Hon Ginny Andersen.

Hon Member: Oh, here’s McEnroe.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Tēnā koe—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Just wait while one or two people up the back there calm themselves down.

5. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Is her economic plan responsible for higher unemployment and more business failures; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): No. Is it just me or have I answered this question half a dozen times already? Higher unemployment is a result of an economic downturn driven by high interest rates—high interest rates needed to bring down inflation, fuelled by reckless and undisciplined Government spending. That may be the member’s economic plan; it is not mine, thank goodness.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why then are there 36,000 people who are not in work and liquidations are up 26 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, these are the terrible human consequences of a down-turning economy which results when it is mismanaged as poorly as it was by the last Government. It is also the case, though—I would point out to members—that the number of unemployed New Zealanders at this point still remains lower than Grant Robertson was forecasting it would be at this point.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why does she continue to refer to the pre-election forecasts for unemployment but not the GDP forecasts, which are three percentage points higher than what she has delivered?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because as the Treasury has previously acknowledged extensively on the record, they vastly overestimated their growth assumptions in the pre-election fiscal update, which may have been convenient for the Minister at the time but was inaccurate none the less.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How can she justify her plan when it has led to rising power and rent costs and a failing construction industry that has forced Auckland-based business Pipe Vision to go under and to cut 100 jobs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if that member’s version of economics is that every Government should take responsibility for every firm that ever fails, then I invite her to have a chat with Barbara Edmonds. But I would also point out that the assertion that rents have gone up under our Government is not correct. In fact, what we have seen is downward pressure on rents since being elected after a period of extreme rent rises under the previous Government.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Has Ikaroa-Rāwhiti been left out of her plan when the Hawke’s Bay lost 837 jobs in just one quarter and Eastern Institute of Technology, Tairāwhiti lost 40 academic and support roles, who were there to help young people into work?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, no. How could they possibly be left out when they are represented by Dana Kirkpatrick and Katie Nimon, two of the extraordinary members of Parliament in the National Party caucus?

Rachel Boyack: Is her economic plan responsible for the more than 300 workers from Carter Holt Harvey, Sealord—

Hon Member: Shame!

Rachel Boyack: —and Proper Crisps in Nelson-Tasman—

Hon Member: Shame!

Rachel Boyack: —who are losing their jobs—

SPEAKER: Sorry; stop. Who is calling out during a question? You don’t do that. [Rawiri Waititi wags his finger] I never wag a finger like that; it’s something that is particular to you. Rachel Boyack—start again.

Rachel Boyack: Is her economic plan responsible for the more than 300 workers from Carter Holt Harvey, Sealord, and Proper Crisps in Nelson-Tasman, who are losing their jobs or should they not take it personally?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. what our economic plan is directly responsible for is more than half a billion dollars having been committed to rebuilding Nelson Hospital and the fast tracking of a major housing development that on her watch would have been tied up in red tape for years. [Interruption] We’ll take responsibility. [Interruption] And I think you will find that the people of Nelson would like it if you’d just welcome the investment in their hospital.

SPEAKER: No, I think if we’re going to have that sort of outburst, we’ll just move on to the next question. It’s largely in Opposition’s hands, but you cannot ask a question and then engage in a barrage like that and expect that you’re going to be given other opportunities to do the same.

Hon Jan Tinetti: In what way is two plants closing and 249 jobs being lost in Tokoroa a sign that her plan is working?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I pointed out to her colleague Ginny Andersen in the previous answer, a number of factors contribute to firms no longer being profitable. One of those factors is very high interest rates, which is why our Government has worked so hard to take pressure off inflation and ensure the Reserve Bank has had space to reduce those interest rates. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’ve repeatedly now, over a number of days, expressed the view that the sort of ongoing chips are not reasonable, nor are they witty, nor do they add anything to the debate and members should refrain from doing it. There’s one particular member who I know is now diligently looking at a piece of paper who would do well to take that on board.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has she considered asking for help with her numeracy, considering that she considers negative growth to be a sign of recovery?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. As my mother once said to me, if you can’t say anything nice, which I can’t right now, don’t say anything at all.

Question No. 6—Conservation

6. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent reports has the Minister seen on the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): On Tuesday, with the backing of all the parties that were present that day in this fine Parliament, the tautoko and support of iwi around Tīkapa Maona, and thousands of New Zealanders, we passed this bill that will triple marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf.

Various groups have welcomed and celebrated this step: the Environmental Defence Society, of course, calling it a landmark achievement for conservation; Forest & Bird saying it’s a significant victory for the Hauraki Gulf; and Seafood New Zealand welcoming the bill as a balanced approach for marine protection. I look forward to seeing the recovery of this iconic, majestic, and epic place, moving forward.

Grant McCallum: What benefits will the new protections have for marine conservation and ecosystems?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This bill introduces 19 new, expanded marine protection areas, and is the largest increase in marine protection in Aotearoa New Zealand in over a decade. The amount of area that is to be protected here is twice the size of Singapore. We hope to see snapper density increase; spiny rock lobster increase—I just want to acknowledge Minister Jones in his protection for that—the recovery of ecologically important species such as corals, cockles, anemones, and mussels; and, of course, the reduction of kina barrens. Also protected will be some of the smaller and less well-known species such as colourful and flamboyant nudibranches, which have helped inspire some of the outfits of the hard-working people in my office this week. Effective marine protection, we know, helps restore the health and mauri of seascapes.

Grant McCallum: How will this support jobs and greater economic growth in the region?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: A 2023 NZ Institute of Economic Research report stated that the economic value of the Hauraki Gulf is $100 billion and produces over $5 billion of value each and every year, to this country. There’s a lot more potential for economic activity in the Gulf because it can generate tourism opportunities, such as diving, snorkelling, and watching marine mammals and porpoises. We know that healthy marine environments can boost tourism by looking at the Goat Island Te Hāwere-a-Maki Marine Reserve, celebrating its 50th anniversary this week, which accommodates and hosts over 350,000 visitors per annum. The economy and the environment go together.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Why did he allow eleventh-hour lobbying to influence changes that now enable commercial fishing in high protection areas, when reports show that it will further damage the health of the Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As you will all know, as members of this House, my astute selection is sometimes a compromise, as is moving legislation through this House. But isn’t it ironic that the very member who asked that question today also, along with her party, voted for it yesterday.

Grant McCallum: Looking ahead, how can we leverage the partnerships that have been formed to capture more opportunities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Te Māngai o te Whare, this bill presents a fantastic opportunity for co-investment into the Hauraki Gulf, and getting to this point of having this bill passed is a result of over a decade of collaboration; can I mention Sir Robert Fenwick and Nikki Kaye in this light. It signals what is possible when we work together—kāwanatanga, iwi, industry, various groups like Live Ocean—to produce outcomes for all New Zealanders, especially Aucklanders. This is just the beginning; Nicola Rata-MacDonald, the co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf Forum and CEO of Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust said it has taken an army of united voices to protect this taonga, and I congratulate everyone on their involvement and look forward to our next steps.

Lan Pham: What is his message to the 32,000 Kiwis who signed the World Wide Fund for Nature’s petition urging his Government to remove the carve-out that allows commercial fishing in the Gulf’s high protection areas due to the risk that it sets a dangerous precedent where industry lobbyists could weaken future marine protections?

GRANT McCALLUM: My message is this: to the 32,000 people and the 5.5 million New Zealanders and Kiwis that voted in their elected officials to this glorious institution of Parliament, all parties present in Parliament on Tuesday voted in favour of the very comments and the very provisions that the member asked for.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to where are the customers for those limited commercial fishing operations—are they New Zealand customers or overseas customers?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am advised that the customers for those particular ring net fishing operators are New Zealand and particularly Auckland customers.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the Government's decision to apply tightened eligibility criteria to 18- and 19-year-olds accessing jobseeker support (health condition or disability); if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, jobseeker support (health condition or disability) is a temporary support for people who are limited in their ability to work for two years because of a health condition, injury, or disability. It's designed to support them while they recover and prepare to re-enter the workforce. Those with permanent or severe conditions are supported through the Supported Living Payment which recognises long-term incapacity. Our Government has high aspirations for young New Zealanders, and we make no apologies for encouraging them into education, further training, or employment instead of welfare. This approach helps young people to build independence rather than be reliant on welfare.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the Disabled Persons Assembly who told 1News last night that disabled people face barriers to access the Supported Living Payment due to a lack of access to diagnoses, and, if so, does she accept there are several people with long term conditions who are on jobseeker support (health and disabilities)?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I can say is that we have aspirations for all young New Zealanders and it was fantastic, just last week, to meet with an organisation employing young disabled people. I saw how important and how critical it is for them to be in employment and the massive difference it makes in terms of their lives.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it fair to subject 18- and 19-year-olds who are receiving jobseeker support (health condition or disability) to the new parental assistance test when they're suffering from severe ill mental health, recovering from a car accident, or undergoing cancer treatment as reported by 1News?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Let me be clear that the jobseeker (health condition and disability) is, as I said in my primary answer, for temporary conditions. We have other systems like ACC to support people who have had severe accidents and the Supported Living Payment for those with permanent incapacity. What I won't make any apology for in this House is our Government's ambition and expectation for 18- and 19-year-olds to have a great life and not be stuck on welfare for another 18 years of their life.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why restrict access to income support for people who cannot work, temporarily or otherwise?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because we want to see them engaged in education, engaged in training, and preparing for work, and if they can't, then to be supported by their parents. It's a very simple policy. We've got high expectations, and we want young people to do well and not be trapped for a lifetime on welfare.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that many of the people on that benefit that she's now restricting access to are also not able to go into education due to those very same health conditions or disabilities?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That's exactly why there are programmes to support them. We don't think that it is acceptable in a country like ours to leave a whole generation of New Zealanders to rot on welfare.

SPEAKER: Question No. 8, Glen Bennett—before you start, Mr Bennett, there is a huge amount of conversation going on that needs to stop.

Question No. 8—Tourism and Hospitality

8. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: Are recent hospitality industry closures the result of the Going For Growth strategy; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): Our Going for Growth strategy is about strengthening our economy and creating the conditions for businesses and Kiwis to succeed. Recent closures in the hospitality sector are primarily driven by economic pressures, including high inflation and high interest rates, which were the legacy of the previous Government. That’s why our Government’s relentless focus on economic growth is so important so that businesses have the confidence to invest, to hire, and to grow. Our investments into tourism and hospitality will mean more international visitors, more full tables in our restaurants, more jobs being created across the country, and a stronger economy overall.

Glen Bennett: Does she consider the more than 2,500 hospitality closures and almost 300 liquidations in the past 12 months evidence that her Government is driving economic growth for the hospitality industry?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve got great news for that member. In August 2025, there were 135 more businesses in accommodation and food services than the previous month and that is trending up. That’s great news.

Shanan Halbert: How can hospitality in Auckland’s CBD thrive when the Heart of the City survey showed that 77 percent of business owners say that the Government does not listen to their needs?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I disagree. If you look at another quote from Hospitality New Zealand, you can see that they are incredibly supportive of the Government’s major tourism and events boost and they know the enormous difference that that will make.

Greg O'Connor: What does it say about the state of the economy when popular Wellington venue Fortune Favours is forced to close, saying, the “cost of living crisis has proven too difficult”, after business dropped nearly 45 percent in two years?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That member should have listened to the answer I gave to my first question, which was to say exactly that economic challenges from high inflation and high interest rates, which have led to an economic recession, have made it difficult for businesses to operate. The good news, though, is that in the last month, we’ve seen more new businesses open than close.

Glen Bennett: How can she stand by her economic growth strategy for hospitality when thousands of hospitality businesses are closing and tens of thousands of people are still looking for work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would invite that member to actually look at the data around the tourism and hospitality sector. Hospitality job advertisements are up 3.8 percent in July compared to last July. That’s great news. It’s looking up. There are more jobs and we’re excited about it. I’m surprised that member isn’t.

Question No. 9—Courts

9. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister for Courts: What outcomes has she seen from this Government's focus on delivering faster justice for New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): This Government is committed to restoring law and order and improving the timeliness of our courts. That's why I was pleased to see reports from the District Court's civil jurisdiction showing active cases down 20 percent in the year to July 2025 and the average age of active cases dropping by a remarkable 36 percent over the same period. This means thousands of New Zealanders are getting their cases resolved months sooner. Justice delayed is justice denied, and that's why this Government is focused on fixing what matters to deliver fastest justice for New Zealanders.

Todd Stephenson: What timeliness improvements has she seen regarding the Disputes Tribunal?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Disputes Tribunal has had an outstanding year, completing more than 900 extra cases in the year to July 2025 compared to the year before. Even more pleasing is the tribunal's focus on targeting older cases, which has led to a 21 percent drop in aged files. That's 134 fewer aged cases than in July last year. This means more disputes being resolved quickly and fewer New Zealanders left waiting for decisions.

Todd Stephenson: What progress has been made in the Coroners Court?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I'm pleased to report that the Coroners Court has reduced its active caseload by 15 percent thanks to the introduction of associate coroners, clinical advisers, and relief coroners. The number of active cases now sits at levels not seen since 2020. As a result, families are getting closure sooner and cases are moving through the system faster.

Todd Stephenson: What additional work does the Government have under way to continue to improve court timeliness?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government has a strong pipeline of reforms to deliver faster justice. We're expanding community magistrates’ powers so that they can manage more District Court cases and raising the High Court judicial cap to increase capacity. We will ensure remote participation in our courts is fit for purpose. I could go on, but instead I'll finish by thanking the judiciary, courts, and the Ministry of Justice staff, who, like the Government, are working hard to fix what matters and improve the timeliness of our courts.

Greg O'Connor: What additional funding will she seek for the courts given the Chief Justice's view that our justice system is under considerable stress?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you for that patsy question from the member across. Budget 2025 contained funding of $18.3 million over four years to fund two additional High Court judges and associated staff, as well as expand the number of community magistrates by three and appointing the Chief Community Magistrate. This extra capacity will help relieve pressure across the justice system and improve timeliness, leading to a reduction in backlogs and the time that people do spend on remand. The Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill has been introduced, which will make changes across three Acts to improve court procedure and increase the number of High Court judges that can be appointed. We are committed to fixing what matters.

Question No. 10—Pacific Peoples

10. Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Ni sa bula vinaka. Happy Fijian Language Week. Does he believe that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples has a role to play in getting more Pasifika into work or training; if so, how will it address the current unemployment rate for Pasifika peoples, which is double what it was at the end of 2023 when the Government came into office?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Bula, Mr Speaker. I am aware of the recent rise in Pasifika unemployment, which is concerning. The Ministry for Pacific Peoples, alongside the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the education sector, have a role to play in placing more Pacific peoples into work or training. We are relentlessly focused on growing the economy, to support Pacific peoples, and all New Zealanders, with better job opportunities, higher wages, and a brighter future.

Hon Jenny Salesa: Does he regret repeatedly cutting funding to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, including cutting $22 million out of the Tupu Aotearoa work-ready programme at a time when Pacifica unemployment is 12.1 percent, more than double the national average?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I regret is the actions the previous Government took that put us in this position.

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

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The transfer of Tupu Aotearora to the MSD programme was to generate efficiencies by collaborating with two programmes that were, effectively, producing much of the same. The complete transfer did not occur to MSD.

Hon Jenny Salesa: How can he say that the MSD programmes was actually for efficiencies when he previously claimed that it, and I quote, “was particularly to look at those who are not in employment, education, and training, different to MSD in that it wasn’t limited or capped by the age bracket, like MSD”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I don’t have responsibility for MSD, but I do have responsibility for the programmes that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples brings to the question of Pasifika employment. That includes the Pacific Business Trust and Pacific Business Village, which placed hundreds of people in the last financial year; the partnership with Pacific Media Network, through the Moana Reo Media Fund, which, again, has placed hundreds of jobs; and Pacific Building Affordable Homes and Our Whare Our Fale, which are stimulating Pacific-led construction and employment, as just a few examples.

Hon Jenny Salesa: When will he accept responsibility and take action to help Pasifika into employment or training, when, in the last year alone, 6,100 more Pasifika people are now unemployed and 1,900 more Pasifika young people are not in education, employment, or training?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I acknowledge the challenge with employment for Pacific people. I’ve already identified three initiatives that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples has responsibility for, in collaboration with other ministries, including the Ministry for Social Development. I would highlight Alo Vaka, which, amongst other things, developed 14 micro-credentialing courses in the last financial year and more than 6,000 micro-credentials delivered to Pasifika, particularly Pasifika youth.

Question No. 11—Mental Health

11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made on the Government's mental health targets?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): One of my top priorities is faster access to mental health support for all New Zealanders. Last week, I released quarter four mental health target data, which shows that more Kiwis are getting faster access to mental health support. I’ve always said that I won’t be just happy with the national average; it’s the ability to measure performance in the 20 health districts that will make a real difference. No matter where you live, this Government is committed to ensuring, when someone is reaching out for support, that timely support is there.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What progress has been made in achieving the faster access to primary mental health and addiction target?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good news: this Government is focused on delivering faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. That’s why this Government set a target of 80 percent of people being seen in primary mental health services within one week. We are meeting that target, with 83.8 percent being seen within one week. In the South Island, access to primary mental health support has improved from 75 percent in quarter one to 84.7 percent in quarter four—well above the target. The Southern district went from being one of the worst-performing districts, at 66.4 percent, to one of the best, at 91 percent of Southern residents accessing services within one week.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What progress has been made in reducing wait times in emergency departments?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Improving our crisis response is a key part of our mental health plan. Across the country, all regions have improved the number of people waiting less than six hours in emergency departments to receive timely mental health support. This is a target where we have seen the biggest improvements. In the Northern region, there’s been an 11.3 percent improvement, which has been driven by an increase of 8.9 percent in Northland, and an impressive 20.8 percent improvement in Auckland. When Kiwis, their loved ones, friends, or family members make the brave step of reaching out for help, this Government is committed to ensuring we have the right support in place.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What progress has been made in achieving the faster access to specialist mental health and addiction target?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our mental health plan is working nationally. We’re achieving the specialist target of 80 percent of people receiving support within three weeks. It’s pleasing to see areas like Taranaki and South Canterbury seeing 90 percent of residents within three weeks—however, there is still work to do to lift performance in some districts. That’s why I meet regularly with Health New Zealand regional leaders to ensure plans are in place to lift areas of underperformance and ensure we’re constantly improving access to mental health services. The data shows that we’re turning the corner on reducing wait times. We’re also increasing the front-line mental health workforce, which has grown by 10 percent since coming into office, with the child and adolescent workforce growing by 19 percent and peer support lived experience by almost 100 percent.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Justice: Why are Māori disproportionately overrepresented in prison populations in Aotearoa?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): It is a sad reality that Māori are overrepresented in prison, and nobody is happy with that fact. The consistent focus of the justice system over many decades has been to reduce that overrepresentation, and it has proven very difficult. As to why, there will, naturally, be a variety of opinions. At one level, the make-up of the current prison population primarily reflects offending rates in New Zealand. As the recent Long-Term Insights Briefing on imprisonment in New Zealand outlined, “Most people serving sentences in prison in New Zealand have been convicted of serious sexual or violent offending. New Zealand prisons are not full of people in prison for minor charges.” It is also a fact that Māori are disproportionately overrepresented as victims of crime in New Zealand, which is why this Government is focused on restoring real consequences for crime and reducing the number of victims of crime. That is our primary focus in the justice sector, regardless of ethnicity.

Tamatha Paul: Does the Minister agree that it is important for Corrections to accurately record the ethnicity of incarcerated people; and, if so, why hasn’t the Government implemented action 5.1 of the Hōkai Rangi Strategy to “Accurately record ethnicity, descent, and iwi affiliation … (consistent and in conjunction with Stats New Zealand standards and iwi)”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That is probably a question best directed to the Minister of Corrections, but I’m sure every effort is made to accurately record data.

Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t able to get a good answer to my question because of the jurisdiction—[Interruption].

SPEAKER: Sorry. There’s a bit of a hum—

Tamatha Paul: Yeah, a lot of noise.

SPEAKER: —in the gallery so I can’t hear you. Speak clearly into your microphone.

Tamatha Paul: Yup. For context, Mr Speaker, my question is about the overrepresentation of Māori in prison populations. Originally, it was directed to the Minister of Corrections but was redirected to the Minister of Justice. My supplementary question just now, asking about the Hōkai Rangi Strategy, was not answered because it is within the delegation of—

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, ask your question again—

Tamatha Paul: Again? Yep.

SPEAKER: —because if the Government has decided that this is the Minister who can answer it, we should expect an answer.

Tamatha Paul: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll repeat my question: does the Minister agree that it is important for Corrections to accurately record the ethnicity of incarcerated people; and, if so, why hasn't the Government implemented action 5.1 of the Hōkai Rangi strategy to “Accurately record ethnicity, descent, and iwi affiliation data”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In answer to the first part of the question: yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think that defunding the police and letting offenders go without prosecution has any chance of helping innocent Māori victims?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I don't think that would be helpful to Māori victims of crime, and that certainly appears to be the Greens’ policy.

Tamatha Paul: Does the Minister know whether the methods currently used by the Department of Corrections for ethnicity data collection are giving an accurate view of who is in prison?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I don't have that detail to hand. I certainly can confirm that Corrections and the broader justice sector are very focused primarily on reducing the number of victims of crime, regardless of their ethnicity; unlike the previous Government, which had a focus on reducing the number of people in prison irrespective of what was going on in the community. Our focus is on reducing the number of victims of crime.

Tamatha Paul: What evidence does he have that a higher prison population makes Māori safer?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, if you're wanting to reduce the number of victims of crime, a very good place to start is with that very, very small section of New Zealand society that creates multiple victims over and over again. The primary focus is effective rehabilitation of people who have been involved in violent crime, but there are some people that need to be kept out of society for a while so that the rest of society can be kept safe. That is a pretty important part of our justice response.

Hon Nicole McKee: Is it this Government's position that if someone does the crime then they're going to do the time, regardless of their ethnicity?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, indeed, that is our position. It is not from a sole focus on the punitive side of justice—though that is important—it is part of a broader focus of our justice sector response, which is to reduce the number of victims of crime. The good news is that collectively in this country we're making great progress towards that target that the Government has to reduce the overall number of victims of crime. When we came in, there were 185,000 New Zealanders suffering violent offences; we've reduced that down to 156,000 in the latest stats. That is still 156,000 too many New Zealanders, and we're determined to make further progress.

Tamatha Paul: Was Moana Jackson wrong when he said, “the majority of those behind bars are Māori, and the system itself reflects a punishing and very real racism.”, or does he accept that the overrepresentation of Māori in prisons is a reflection of structural racism? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on! Hold on! Right-o.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In regards to structural racism, I would say that that’s a very easy phrase for an academic to use, but I would say to the thousands of New Zealanders—Māori, Pākehā, and from a wide variety of ethnicities—who get up early every morning to work at Corrections or the courts or in many parts of the justice sector, the suggestion that they are just mere cogs in the wheel of a structurally racist regime is an insult to those people who work hard every day to do the right thing for this country and to keep New Zealanders safe. I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to reflect on their efforts.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell us exactly how many Māori accused did Moana Jackson ever defend at court? [Interruption] What’s wrong with that question?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s something you could put in a written question. I doubt the Minister’s got that at hand.

Hon Nicole McKee: Can the Minister also confirm that Māori are disproportionately represented among the victims of crime, and would it help to go soft on the perpetrators for reasons of political correctness?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I can confirm that Māori are overrepresented amongst the victims of crime, and that is why this Government is absolutely focused in its justice policy on reducing the number of victims of crime. That’s what it’s all about. We have made good progress towards that goal but we are very conscious of the fact that there is a lot of progress yet to be made because New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their communities. They do feel safer than they did a couple of years ago, but we can do so much better as a country. That’s why we’re focused on strong, clear, consequences for crime.

SPEAKER: The time for oral questions has concluded. There is a maiden speech to follow, but we’ll give everyone who needs to go to other business 30 seconds to leave the House without discussion, without any slowness of movement.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on Oriini Kaipara to make her maiden address to Parliament.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau):

Kōrihi, kōrihi, kō

Iti rearea, teitei kahikatea ka taea

Kōrihi, kōrihi, kō

[Birdsong, birdcall, call

Though the bellbird is small, it can conquer a tall white pine

Birdsong, birdcall, call]

Tā Tumu, kei hea rā koe ka ngaro nei? Kua hauangiangi ngā pae o ngā iwi katoa. Ko ngā kāhu e rua nō runga mai o Takaparawhau ērā kua taka ki te pō.

E aku rangatira, Clay kōrua ko Pāpā Grant Hawke, haere aku rangatira, haere. Mokowhiti atu ki Taupiri-kūao, hine i pūāwai, e hine, haere, haere. Koutou e ngā mate o te wā, haere i te aukume, i te auroa, i te au tē hoki mai anō. Haere e ngā mate, haere. Kei ngā pou o tōku whare wairua, hoki wairua mai, hoki wairua mai.

Ki ngā pou o Te Aho Matua, Nanny Tuki, nāu te kōrero, “kia mau ki Te Aka Matua, te toihuarewa tipua”. Whaea Kāterina Te Heikōkō, nōu te ringa i whakairo i Te Aho Mātua me ōna wāhanga e ono, nāu i whakamahara i a mātou kia kimihia te mea ngaro.

Ki te pou o tōku reo Māori, Hōri Te Pou, grandad, nāu taku reo, nāu i Tūhoe ai taku arero, nāu i Tūhoe ai tōku ngākau, ā, i Tūhoe ai ahau.

Ki ōku pou o te ao haka, Koro Ngāpō kōrua ko Kui Pīmia, nā kōrua ngā rangi me ngā kupu i tito i mana anō ai te kōrero, “ki te wātea te hinengaro me te kaha rere o te wairua, ka taea ngā mea katoa”.

Kei ngā pou o tōku whare, o Ngā Tūmanako, Whaea Arapera, Whaea Hinerapa, Nanny June, Whaea Barbara, Ricky, koutou aku titi raukura me aku iti raukura kua riro ki te pō, e muramura tonu ana te ahi nā koutou i toutou i tō tātou pā. Anei, kua kaewa mai e mātou ki konei, ki tēnei Whare i tēnei rā.

Kāti, ki ngā pou tokomanawa o Te Pāti Māori, Whaea Tāriana kōrua tahi ko Takutaimoana: māreikura mārire, ngākau māhaki. E Kui Tari, nāu a Whānau Ora i ōhia ake i te kore ki te ao mārama. Takutai, e whāia e koe ngā mahi a Rarohenga kia whai pokohiwi pono ai ngā whānau o tō tāua rohe, o Tāmaki Makaurau. Ko kōrua ka noho hei iho pūmanawa ki a au, otirā ki a mātou o Te Pāti Māori e apakura tonu nei. Nei ka mihi, nei ka tangi.

Kia whakatepehia ake i konei, he rārangi maunga, tū tonu, tū tonu; he rārangi tangata, ngaro noa, ngaro noa. Tauāraitia te pō, tītoko ki te ao mārama. E ngā urupā o rātou mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Whakakau ake te kauae kahika o Kiwa, te arikinui Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po, tū mai rā. Tū mai koe i runga i te ahurea tapu o tō pāpā, o tō kuia, o ō tīpuna kua riro ki te pō. Tū mai rā koe hei tapairu mō te reo Māori. Ā tēnā, kia whakatino-rangatiratangatia e au tō tāua reo ki konei, ki Pāremata, ā, ki te ao tōrangapū.

Ko te kuīni Māori hei whakamarumaru, ko te Kīngitanga hei whakaruruhau mō te mana Māori motuhake. Rire rire hau, pai mārire.

E te ariki hou o Tūwharetoa, Te Rangimāheu, e tū. Kia whitikina iho koe e te ihi o tō pāpā. Te mauri o te iwi, te hana o ngā waiariki, nau mai rā koe e te whatu o te whare o Te Heuheu. Rarau.

Te Ātiawa, Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Toarangatira, e ngā reo whakahei nō runga mai i ngā maunga whakahī o Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, tatū atu ki Muaupoko ki Ōtaki, tae atu ki Rangitāne ki te Wairarapa, tēnā koutou e ngā matamatahuānga, e ngā mana whenua o ēnei whenua.

Whakatau mai i taku iti, i taku rahi. Whakatau mai i a mātou, ngā waewae tapu. Whakatau mai i taku whānau, i taku hapori, tēnei kua tau mai. Mihia ā mātou mokopuna. Mihia ngā tamariki o Te Kōhanga Reo me te Kura Kaupapa Māori. Mihia ō rātou mātua, ō rātou pākeke. Mihia ngā toa o te reo Māori. Tae atu ki ngā pā kai ahi me ngā mana tiketike o Tāmaki Makaurau. Ehara, mihia te uru kahika o Tāmaki Makaurau, tēnei kua pae mai nei.

Mihia ōku pāpā i konei i ngā tau o mua, hei aha? Hei kauwaka, hei māngai mō ngā iwi Māori i mua. Mihia te matakīrea o te rangapū tuatahi o Te Pāti Māori kua auraki mai. Anei a Tā Pāpā Pita Sharples me āna apataki e tū tonu nei te whare o Hoani Waititi marae e tau nei, e mihi atu nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ā kāti, whakatau mai i ahau, i te mema Pāremata hou o Tāmaki Makaurau.

Ko ahau ko Oriini Kaipara, ko te teina o Rāwinia rāua ko Te Raina, ko te tuahine o Hakaraia, ko te whakapākanga a Shirley Te Pou rāua ko Eruera Kaipara. Ko Gary Grey taku pāpā whakaangi. He mōkai ahau nā Hōri rāua ko Te Auta Te Pou. He mokopuna hoki ahau nā Wīkeepa rāua ko Kaira Te Maioha Kaipara. Ko au te māmā o Paetawhiti, o Te Aomihia, o Nikau, o Ngārongokahira. Ko au hoki te kuikui o Puaroa.

He uri ahau nō Hine-pūkohu-rangi, nō Te Kura-i-monoa, nō Wairaka, nō Hine-te-ariki, nō Hāhuru. Ko au te wawata o Te Ōkahurangi, te tūmanako o Rangitōwhare, te kauae o Parehuia. Ko au ko Ngāti Awa, ko au ko Tūwharetoa, ko Tūhoe, ko Ngāti Rangitihi, ko Ngā Pōtiki, ko Te Hapū Oneone.

E te Pīka, e te Whare, e aku mema hoahaere i tēnei Whare, ka puta i te motu whānui, koutou e ngā maunga whakahī o ngā tīpuna kei te pō, anei ahau e mihi atu nei ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou.

[Sir Tumu, where have you gone? The leadership panels of all iwi have thinned. The two hawks from upon Bastion Point are those who have fallen into darkness.

My noble leaders, lay and Pāpā Grant Hawke, pass on my noble leaders, rest in peace. Leap onto Taupiri-kūao, the lady who flourished, my lady, rest in peace. To you, the recently departed, go on the drawing current, the persistent current, the current that will never return again. Pass on, our dearly departed, go. To the pillars of my spiritual hall, return in spirit, return in spirit.

To the pillars of Te Aho Matua, Nanny Tuki, it was you who said, “Hold fast to Te Aho Matua, the miraculous pinnacle”. Whaea Kāterina Te Heikōkō, it was your hand that carved Te Aho Matua and its six component parts; it was you who reminded us to seek the unseen.

To the pillar of my Māori language, Hōri Te Pou, Grandad, my knowledge of the language is due to you. It was you who made my tongue Tūhoe, it was you who made my heart Tūhoe, who made me Tūhoe.

To my pillars of the haka world, Koro Ngāpō and Kui Pīmia, it was the two of you who composed the arrangements and lyrics that confirmed the statement, “If the mind is clear and the soul is soaring, everything is possible”.

To the pillars of my house, Ngā Tūmanako, Whaea Arapera, Whaea Hinerapa, Nanny June, Whaea Barbara, Ricky, all of you my treasured plumes and humble affiliates that have gone into the darkness, the fire that you tended in our fortress burns on. Here, we have travelled here to this House today.

Well, to the central columns of the Māori Party, Whaea Tāriana and Takutaimoana: peaceful majesty, humble hearts. Kui Tari, it was you who brought Whānau Ora from nothing into the world of light. Takutai, you pursued the endeavours of Rarohenga so that the families of our region, of Auckland would have a strong shoulder to lean on. You both will remain role models to me, indeed to us, the Māori Party that continue to grieve. I thank you, and grieve for you.

To conclude here, mountain ranges endure, while humanity passes on. Let the night stand apart, as we move into the world of light. To the living memorials of those who have passed on, greetings and thanks to you all.

As the noble jaw of Kiwa comes into view, it is the monarch Queen Nga wai hono i te po, arise. Arise upon the sacred throne of your father, of your grandmother, of your ancestors who have passed into the night. Arise as sovereign for the Māori language. Indeed, let me ensure the sovereignty of our language here in Parliament, and in the political sphere.

As the Māori queen is shelter, so is the Kīngitanga a sanctuary for Māori authority. Peace and goodwill to all.

To the new supreme leader of Tūwharetoa, Te Rangimāheu, arise. May you be illuminated by the power of your father. The life force of the people, the radiance of the geothermal features, welcome, the rock of the house of Te Heuheu. Welcome.

Te Ātiawa, Tarana Whānui, Ngāti Toarangatira, the voices of welcome from upon the proud mountains of Wellington, including Muaupoko in Ōtaki, and also Rangitāne in Wairarapa, greetings to you my relatives, the authorities over these lands.

Welcome my humble and proud ones. Welcome us, those new to this place. Welcome my family, my community, we who have arrived here. Greet our grandchildren. Greet the children of the Kōhanga Reo and the Kura Kaupapa Māori. Greet their parents and their elders. Greet the champions of the Māori language. Including the sentinels and the exalted authority of Auckland. Indeed, greet the leadership group of Auckland that has arrived here.

Greet my uncles that were here in prior years, as what? As media and representatives for the Māori people before. Greet the advance guard of the founding group of the Māori Party who have returned. Here is Sir Pita Sharples and his retinue who maintain the hall of Hoani Waititi marae, who have arrived and greet you. Greetings and thanks to you all.

Oh well, welcome me, the new member of Parliament of Auckland.

I am Oriini Kaipara, younger sister of Rāwinia and Te Raina, sister of Hakaraia, youngest child of Shirley Te Pou and Eruera Kaipara. Gary Grey is my stepfather. I am a favourite of Hōri and Te Auta Te Pou. I am also a grandchild of Wīkeepa and Kaira Te Maioha Kaipara. I am the mother of Paetawhiti, Te Aomihia, Nikau and Ngārongokahira. I am also the grandmother of Puaroa.

I am a descendant of Hine-pūkohu-rangi, Te Kura-i-minoa, Wairaka, Hine-te-ariki and Hāhuru. I am the aspiration of Te Ōkahurangi, the hope of Rangitōwhare, and the pride of Parehuia. I am Ngāti Awa, I am Tūwharetoa, Tūhoe, Ngāti Rangitihi, Ngā Pōtiki, and Te Hapū Oneone.

Mr Speaker, and the House, my fellow members of this House, and out to the nation, you, the proud mountains of the ancestors in the night, here I am offering thanks to you. Greetings and thanks to you, and all of us.]

I am Oriini Kaipara, member of Parliament for Tāmaki Makaurau. Greetings, everyone. I’m not going to stand here and tell you about the impacts of colonisation on whānau, hapū, iwi, and even on me. That story is well documented. One only has to turn to the Hansard to see in plain black and white how this Government and past Governments have perceived our people. Instead, I will speak of resilience; the resilience of Māori, the resilience that has carried us through generations of struggle and survival; the resilience that has shaped me into the woman, the mother, the grandmother, and now the member of Parliament who stands here before you today.

Te reo Māori, tikanga, kura kaupapa, kapa haka, the arts—heck, even Matariki. None of it survived by accident. E hē. It all survived because we fought for it, Māori and non-Māori alike. We’ve been fighting for a very long time for te reo to survive and thrive. In 1970, Ngā Tamatoa and Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo lobbied for the introduction of te reo Māori into all schools. Two years later, the Māori language petition, signed by over 30,000 New Zealanders, was carried to the very steps of this Parliament; ordinary people, extraordinary in their vision, stood up to say that the language of our tīpuna and of this whenua will not die.

In 1975, three historic events took place. Dame Whina Cooper and Te Rōpū Matakite led the biggest land march of its time, from the top of the North to those very same steps. The Waitangi Tribunal was established, and I acknowledge the taraipiunara, who are here commemorating their 50th anniversary. The third was Te Wiki o te reo Māori—it also began that year. Here we are, 50 years later, celebrating, but with eyes wide open to the realities both institutions face right now.

May I remind everyone in this House and out there that in 1975, just 5 percent of all Māori schoolchildren could speak and even understand their own mother tongue; 5 percent. Ruātoki stepped up first. They became the first bilingual school in the entire country in 1978. That was also the year of Takaparawhā Bastion Point. E kore rawa mātou e wareware.

[We will never ever forget.]

A year later, iwi and hapū gathered near here to plan strategies for the survival of te reo. Te Ataarangi was born. In 1980, Hoani Waititi Marae opened its doors for the very first time, becoming home to many West Aucklanders, including myself and my whānau. That same year, the kōhanga reo movement was born in Ngāruawāhia. In 1982, the first kōhanga reo, Pukeatua, was opened in Wainuiomata. Later, former politician and Māori broadcaster Derek Fox delivered the very first televised news bulletin entirely in te reo Māori. Te Karere was born—and so was I—in 1983. Still young! These acts of resilience, they were critical to our existence and our success, then and still now.

We created more than a movement; we built community. Community is what established the kura kaupapa Māori movement which is here in this House right now.

In 1985, Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Hoani Waititi opened. A dream once whispered became reality—a place where tamariki could grow as who they were born to be, unapologetically Māori. Anei ngā titi raukura o Hoani Waititi marae, anei ngā raukura o Te Aho Matua, ngā mokopuna a Rāwiri Wright, Te Rūnanga Nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori kua tae mai. Anei te āpōpō, anei te tira hou kua tau.

[These are the valued affiliates of Hoani Waititi marae, these are the graduates of Te Aho Matua, the grandchildren of Rāwiri Wright, Te Rūnanga Nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori who have arrived here. This is the future; this is the new crew that has landed.]

The fight for te reo didn’t end there. That same year, the Waitangi Tribunal heard the te reo Māori claim Wai 11. It confirmed what we always knew—that te reo Māori is a taonga guaranteed protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This led to the establishment of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori—the Māori Language Commission. What followed next was Te Māngai Pāho, Whakaata Māori, and many other Māori language revitalisation efforts that still stand today. Tēnei te reo Māori te toitū tonu nei.

[This is the Māori language that continues to endure.]

I honour our pakeke who did not speak Māori, all of you who know and who carry the ache of disconnection and ensured that my peers and I would never feel it. Just as they stood for me, so I now stand for our tamariki and our mokopuna. Thank you for the sacrifices you made. Thank you for the ridicule you faced and for the courage that you showed in your commitment to a better life for us.

When I stand in this House, I do so not as a survivor of colonisation who made it in the Pākehā system but as the product of Māori resilience. We are the culmination of dreams, of purpose, of hard work, and of intention. We are here by design. Every single one of us who walks our own reo journey is a beneficiary of the efforts of all those who held and still hold the line for all of us today. We embody everything they stood for, all that they dreamt of, and all that they hoped for.

I’ve broken barriers, but now I choose to break cycles. I’ve covered stories, and now I choose to change them. I’ve competed at the Olympics of haka and I’ve taken haka to the Olympics. I’ve introduced te reo Māori into every space I’ve walked in, and I have no intention of stopping now.

Some say te reo is another act of resistance. For many of us, it is our way of life—it just is. The Aotearoa hou I aspire to is free from racism, from discrimination, from trauma, and from unnecessary suffering. The Aotearoa hou I see is vibing and it’s thriving, growing and going forward, not backwards. “Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua”—“I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed firmly on our past”.

I entered this Whare holding in my hand Te Aho Matua, the values and principles coined by the people who mentored and who shaped who I am today. They’re in this House; many of them are not.

I also enter on behalf of Takutai Tarsh Kemp, my predecessor, my tuakana. I hold firmly, in her honour and that of her whānau, all that she carried and all that she meant, not only for Tāmaki Makaurau, but for all her people who continue today to grieve for her loss.

I stand here proudly for Tāmaki Makaurau. To my own whānau, aunties, my uncles, my cousins, my nephews, my nieces, everyone—[Bell rung] I hear you; kei te pai—

SPEAKER: I don’t think you do.

ORIINI KAIPARA: —thank you for being here with me. I know how unnatural this is for all of us, but trust. We’ve got this. I’ve got you, and you’ve got me.

I wonder what my mum would say if she were here right now. I know she’d be beaming and saying something like, “Go, my baby!” She’s here, I know, and I really do hope to do her proud, and all of our whakapapa proud.

To my hāpai ō, my pillars of support, kāore i ārikarika aku mihi ki a koutou [profuse thanks to you]. Jen, Faye, Rei, Mahanga, Ngira, Rukuwai, Donna, Rahera, Kelz, Maria, Parekura, Pāpā Rangi, our Te Kei o Te Waka whānau, tae atu ki a koutou, Kereama mā [our family from the Stern of the Canoe, and also including you, Kereama and others] in the U.S. of A. right now: thank you for having backs, guys, and for joining me on this journey. We made it. You did this. E kore te puna o mihi e mimiti.

[The fountain of thanks will never dry up.]

To the other members of this Whare—[Bell rung]—know this: we will debate, we will challenge each other—

SPEAKER: This is not on.

ORIINI KAIPARA: —and we will disagree—and I will wrap it up, everybody.

I started and, now, I end my kauhau with the pao of the bellbird to remind us—especially now, during spring—that even the smallest of us can achieve greatness. Just like the bellbird dared to ascend the tallest kahikatea, we can, and we will.

Kōrihi, kōrihi, kō

Iti rearea, teitei kahikatea ka taea

Kōrihi, kōrihi, kō

[Birdsong, birdcall, call

Though the bellbird is small, it can conquer a tall white pine

Birdsong, birdcall, call]

Waiata—“Whakarongo”

[Disturbance in the public gallery]

SPEAKER: No, not that—the guarantee was that that would not be taking place. The House is suspended.

Sitting suspended from 3.22 p.m. to 3.44 p.m.

Speaker’s Rulings

Suspension of the House—Disruption in the Gallery

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. This afternoon, following the maiden statement by Oriini Kaipara, I suspended the House because of disruption in the gallery outside of an agreed process that the Business Committee had authorised. The key point in this place is that no one member is more or less elected than anyone else and the time that the House allocates for anyone to speak in here is by agreement, and when we have people coming into the House who decide they’re not going to abide by their agreements, then they put themselves in a contemptuous position.

The behaviour in the gallery was contemptuous, and it’s my intention over the next couple of days to find out whether or not that was by agreement with any party inside this House, because people go on to marae all over the country and respect the protocols. We have a protocol here; it is our tikanga. That tikanga is based, as I said before, on agreement, and for people to decide they’re not going to participate in that process, then they put themselves very firmly in contempt of Parliament.

The House will now continue with its business.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the House adopt the following sessional order:

ELECTRONIC PETITIONS WITH HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY CONTENT

Electronic petitions with highly discriminatory content

The Clerk may refuse to host an electronic petition on the Parliament website if they are satisfied that the content of the petition is highly discriminatory.

Before refusing to host a petition under paragraph (1), the Clerk must—

take account of whether the content of the petition is threatening, abusive, or insulting to a group of people by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993, and

consult the Petitions Committee.

Standing Order 371 is read accordingly.

Functions of Petitions Committee

The functions of the Petitions Committee include responding to consultation by the Clerk under Rule 1, or by the Speaker under Standing Order 372(2).

Standing Order 378 is read accordingly.

Application to electronic petitions already hosted on Parliament website

Rule 1 applies to electronic petitions already hosted on the Parliament website when this sessional order is adopted.

Expiry

This sessional order expires 6 months after the date on which it is adopted.

This sessional order has come from a submission from the Petitions Committee that they made to the Standing Orders Committee regarding petitions with highly discriminatory content, which currently must be uploaded to the Parliament website, even without the requisite number of signatures needed to be presented to the House. There was unanimous agreement on the Standing Orders Committee that this was a matter which should be addressed. A sessional order was drafted so that we can get on with it, and then the proper changes will be made during the usual Standing Orders process.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did think it’s appropriate to make some comments on this. The difficulty or the problem which is being addressed here is the fact that a petition that is open for signatures is almost automatically placed on the Parliament website. And there have been instances where the petitions that have been put on the Parliament website—which gives it the appearance of being approved in some way by this House—have had racist overtones or misogynistic overtones or something of that nature.

This sessional order now gives the Clerk the ability to not post those petitions on the website. In fact, those petitions could still occur on a paper form by doing the rounds in the kind of old-fashioned way. But that doesn't give it the appearance of this Parliament approving, as in any way legitimate, petitions which are outright offensive.

There is a reference in there to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act as a guiding light, but not the sole basis for refusing a petition, and this will be in place for six months, I suspect, that it will be seen as a useful innovation, and I hope will become a permanent feature of our Standing Orders, but that's not for today. But a good addressing of an issue to make sure that the processes of this House, which are open to all New Zealanders, aren't inappropriately abused.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this sessional order. I think this has been a debate that has gone on for a few months in relation to the realities of having a much more accessible Parliament where petitions can be hosted electronically, and, personally, I really support the fact that we have an electronic platform where people can host their petitions. It’s super accessible, it makes incredibly clear to people the instructions they have to follow, and that is amazing. But it then puts the question back to us about the nature of the petitions we’re able to host on that electronic platform.

I think the solution that we’re going to trial for the next six months is, as others have said, innovative, and I think it should allow us to explore whether we can continue with it later down the line. When I think about the realities of some petitions that definitely have been highly discriminatory, and that are less about free speech and more about just causing genuine harm, I think this is an important step.

This will not prevent paper petitions of that nature from going out in the community; I don’t think, therefore, that anyone could argue that this is about restricting people’s ability to canvass petitions in their communities. This is simply about what gets hosted on the website and what gets platformed, and, I think that giving the Clerk the ability to refuse to host an electronic petition if they’re satisfied that the content is highly discriminatory, within some pretty tight guidelines, also takes it away from partisan politics. I think that’s also a really important consideration, because I want to make sure that the public is given the certainty that partisan politics will not be coming into play in the six-month trial that we’re about to, hopefully, undergo.

Once again, the Green Party supports this, and we encourage members of our communities who care deeply about issues happening in this country to use these tools that they have at their disposal—in this case, petitions—to canvass their communities and to bring forward important issues. In some cases, this has led to legislative policy changes in Government. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Parliament Bill

Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Parliament Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Parliament Bill be now read a second time.

I welcome the report of the Parliament Bill Committee, which was established with the singular purpose of examining this bill. In the six months of its existence, the committee gave this bill a really good going over. In doing so, the committee consciously pursued a consensus-based approach to what is a significant part of our constitutional framework. All the committee’s recommendations are unanimous, and I thank the committee’s members for their approach and diligent work on the bill under the guidance of the chairperson, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe.

The bill, essentially, brings together the statutory framework for the operation of Parliament, its privileges and powers, remuneration, and support for members, and the agencies that enable the institution of Parliament to function. It combines the four separate Acts that currently set out these arrangements.

Aside from this consolidation, the bill makes some policy changes to strengthen the independence of Parliament, setting out a funding model for the parliamentary agencies so their appropriations are commended by the House rather than determined by the executive, providing a statutory process for security arrangements in the parliamentary precincts, making the system for funding members’ work-related expenses clearer and more family friendly, and updating and aligning provisions relating to the functions and staffing of the parliamentary agencies.

The committee received 62 submissions, and several of them dealt with constitutional matters, as you would expect for a bill of this nature. Some went well beyond the content of the bill, to call for substantive amendments to the Official Information Act 1982, broader reform of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, the establishment of a parliamentary budget office, and an increase in the number of members of Parliament. The committee heard these points but reached the view that even if the committee had the power to recommend amendments along these lines, such major changes would require separate policy development processes, rather than being added to the bill at the select committee stage.

Aside from those broader issues, the main focus of the submissions was on the bill’s provisions for parliamentary security. As introduced, these provisions were based on the Court Security Act 1999. The bill gives parliamentary security officers statutory powers of consent, search, denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, and temporary detention subject to limitations. These statutory powers could be exercised in the parliamentary precinct, at select committee meetings outside the precinct, and in limited circumstances at the electorate and community offices of MPs. These provisions are intended to ensure Parliament’s safety and security are adequately protected, including a capacity to deal with serious threats to the safety of MPs, staff, and visitors.

At the same time, the aim is to uphold Parliament’s current level of openness and accessibility to the public as far as practicable in light of the threat assessment at any given time. A number of submitters were concerned about the introduction of coercive powers that could affect people engaging with Parliament and urged that such powers not be conferred, or that they be exercised with great caution. Some submitters suggested that a better policy approach would be to maintain a permanent police presence at Parliament.

I note the committee’s finding that the current lack of statutory powers to support actions taken by parliamentary security officers could place people in the precinct at risk. The bill provides a clear framework for parliamentary security officers to screen for security issues and respond in the first instance. The police will continue to liaise with the Parliamentary Service, assess the threat environment, and deploy as needed.

While recommending that the bill’s provisions relating to parliamentary security should proceed, the committee expressed its strong expectation that the current level of freedom to use and protest lawfully on the Parliament grounds will continue, and I share this view.

The committee recommended several amendments to the security provisions. A couple of areas that I would highlight are the strengthening of qualification and training requirements for parliamentary security officers, and new provisions relating to oversight and reporting on the use of security powers. In terms of the qualifications and training of people employed as parliamentary security officers, the committee recommended that they be required to complete an approved training course developed by the Parliamentary Service, in consultation with the Ministry of Justice and Police. Amendments also require an equivalent standard of qualification and training for any person appointed as a parliamentary security officer who is not an employee of the service.

The committee heard submissions calling for stronger reporting requirements on the exercise of statutory powers by parliamentary security officers and recommended that the bill be amended to set out reporting requirements to this end. Proposed new clause 190A requires officers to report to the chief executive within three working days when certain coercive powers are used, summarising the circumstances and reasons for their exercise. It applies to the use of powers to detain or handcuff persons and to the use of reasonable force. Under the bill, the chief executive will be responsible for reporting to the Speaker and the Parliamentary Service Commission on the exercise of parliamentary security powers, just as for other operations of the service.

In terms of public accountability, new clause 190B requires the annual report of the Parliamentary Service to include information about the exercise of specified powers by parliamentary security officers.

Another point to note is that under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, an ombudsman can receive complaints about and investigate actions of the Parliamentary Service. That’s already the case. When the bill is passed, it would then apply to the exercise of powers under the bill’s provision relating to parliamentary security.

The bill incorporates the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, primarily in Part 4 and Schedule 3. That Act provides for remuneration, funding, and services for MPs, and sets out travel services for their family members. The bill largely reproduces the legislative effect of the Act, with some policy changes—for example, the bill sets out guiding principles for the use by members and eligible candidates of authorised funding and services. It also gives greater flexibility for members’ travel services so that a caregiver can accompany a member’s dependent family members to Wellington. Another change is to include a new definition of “adult dependant”, to cover a family member of a member, who is over 18 but who by reason of a disability is dependent on the member.

Several submitters called for greater disclosure of members’ spending. The committee adopted a proposal from the New Zealand Law Society for the Speaker to have authority to set the disclosure requirements relating to categories of expenses and services that are determined by the Speaker. This would be in addition to the reporting that is already required for specific types of travel and accommodation expenses that members incur.

Part 8 of the bill amends the Public Finance Act 1989 to establish a model so that the House can determine the funding of the parliamentary agencies similar to that used for deciding the appropriation of the Offices of Parliament. These provisions are intended to enable parliamentary funding to be determined in a way that upholds the House’s right to control its own affairs while also being fiscally responsible. The committee agreed it is constitutionally appropriate for the legislator to determine its funding levels and allocations for itself rather than leaving it to the executive, and did not recommend any amendments to Part 8. In its commentary, the committee recommended that the Standing Orders Committee consider how to reflect this new process in the House's rules.

Finally, an important feature of the bill is Part 2, which incorporates the Parliamentary Privileges Act 2014. The bill as introduced did not alter policy settings in this area, but included parliamentary privilege in the bill so that legislation relevant to the operation of Parliament is in one place. The committee received submissions that sought some quite profound alterations to how the law provides for parliamentary privilege. However, in supporting the incorporation of the 2014 Act into the bill, the committee reiterated that no changes were proposed to the substance of parliamentary privilege.

Again I thank all members of the committee for their thoughtful consideration of the bill, and I commend the Parliament Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just a procedural issue: that legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s not a lot of detail I can add after that comprehensive speech by the Minister, which quite accurately went over the main changes and initiatives of this bill, so I will keep my comments relatively general.

The first comment I would make is actually about procedure, and what an excellent procedure this was for a bill that is clearly part of our constitutional framework. It was a special select committee, ably chaired by Adrian Rurawhe, and also it was not done at pace. It was not a hurried piece of legislation, but it was very well prepared over a number of years, and it was well formed when it came to the Parliament Bill Committee. Some of it has been improved in that process. That is how constitutional law should be done. Everyone knew that it was coming and what it was going to look like. I would suggest that whenever we look at matters which strike to the constitution of our country, that is the approach that we should take, and, sadly, it hasn’t necessarily been the approach of this Government to date.

The access of the public to Parliament and parliamentarians is one of the defining features of our democracy, and we should absolutely hold it dear and treasure it. But we have seen over the few years that risks to MPs have increased, and it is necessary to give powers to security staff, employees of Parliamentary Service and, in some cases, others to address those risks.

I think it was a very useful process in select committee to go through in some detail the nature of the powers and just a real caution as to what degree and how often they are exercised. Those powers, for example, of a security guard to detain someone or take them out of the gallery if they’re being disruptive or to exclude them from the premises if they’re causing undue harm are entirely appropriate, but we absolutely want to know how and why those powers are exercised. That reporting was an important part of the improvements, along with, I must say, a number of other what could be called tweaks.

A further major part of this is the way in which Parliament is funded. Parliament’s finances, as we would all know, are under strain. This place is absolutely fundamental to trust in our democracy. Some of us in the House will know that the number of submissions being made on bills has increased and the work associated with it has increased as well and the amount of work that Governments are pushing through has increased. What we don’t want is an under-resourced Parliament where the quality of the lawmaking and the quality of the interactions of the public with this place are at risk. If that trust is eroded, then our democracy is waning. We remain a high-trust democracy, and we need to protect that.

The change in the funding model, which essentially gives this House control over its own funding—in the same way as the Ombudsman is funded, and the like—is absolutely a step in the right direction. We do have a constitutional conundrum in that this House is also dominated by the executive, but I’m hopeful that this change will bring an improvement and that the executive will adhere to the spirit of this change and not seek to use its parliamentary majority to exert an inappropriate influence.

The only other thing I really wanted to say before I close, and I won’t speak much longer, is that we did have a discussion—perhaps it’s a interesting day to have to mention this discussion—on the role of the Treaty of Waitangi. There was a member who suggested that perhaps we should somewhere in the Parliament Act recognise the Treaty of Waitangi and perhaps tikanga. Now, that didn’t happen, and I can see why. The reason why was actually well articulated by advisers—that is that it is the executive who is bound by the Treaty, not Parliament. The relationship is between the Crown—that is to say, the Ministers of the Crown—and Māori, rather than between Parliament, the legislature, and Māori.

It wasn’t constitutionally appropriate, but at the same time the select committee report noted that “There is work being done to develop a te Ao Māori strategy.”, and I think that that is appropriate. Obviously, fitting tikanga within this House in a way which we all agree about would be a great thing, and so let’s hope we can get there in the not too distant future.

With that, can I thank my colleagues from around the House for the work on the Parliament Bill in select committee. It’s a significant improvement and it makes what we do here a lot more accessible and understandable, and that’s a good thing. Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Democracy comes at a price, and it is a price worth paying. That price also includes resourcing our Parliamentary institution, which in and of itself supports us to do our mahi to be effective voices for the communities that we represent. This Parliament Bill, I think, is a step in the right direction when it comes to the changes that we are making, in a cross-party spirit, to mechanisms in which parliamentary services in the Office of the Clerk are funded, for example, and how their budget works. I want to mihi to the work that Parliamentary Service does, that the Office of the Clerk does, to actually uphold our democracy and to enable us to be effective representatives. Without them, we wouldn't be able to do our mahi.

In my personal opinion, what I have observed is that with a growing population, with growing complex issues in our communities, the current mechanisms that are in place to ensure that parliamentary services and the Office of the Clerk are adequately resourced to, for example, ensure that we meet the needs of our communities at the select committee, are just insufficient. I'm really, really stoked that we've got to the second reading and that we're able to progress new processes that will ensure that those funding mechanisms are less in the hands of the executive and more in the hands of the rest of Parliament.

I want to thank submitters, who canvassed quite a range of issues, including access to information and issues around security and constitutional questions. I want to also thank the Parliament Bill Committee for adequately addressing concerns that the Green Party initially had in relation to the issues around oversight and reporting of the use of the new search, seizure, and detention powers. Those additional mechanisms include the requirement to report the uses of detention, force, and handcuffs to the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service within three days; the requirement for Parliamentary Service to report on the number of uses of detention, force, handcuffs, seizures, and removal of persons in Parliamentary Service’s annual report; the requirement for an approved training course for security officers, to be consulted on with Police and the Ministry of Justice; the requirement for identity cards held and presented by parliamentary security officers to include name, role, photograph, and unique ID number; and other measures.

Those are important not just to give the public certainty that these new powers will be used adequately but also, I think, in my view, to protect the security officers who are there to keep us and the public safe. There will be a greater level of trust from the public when we increase that level of accountability. That in and of itself, I hope, would make those interactions that security has with the public a lot smoother, which is what I would hope we move towards and continue aspiring towards.

The bill also continue advances other changes, and, in my view, some of the changes that I think are really important are also around the support that we provide for parliamentarians with adult dependents. That's really important. I think Parliament should be a place where all types of families should be accommodated, and that no parliamentarians should feel like they have to leave their family behind when they enter into this space. I think that's also important.

The bill continues to work to address issues around what we do to support families of deceased members. I think that's also a really important situation. It's important that we canvassed this at the select committee stage because, at the end of the day, these incidents may be rare, but when they do happen they can have a huge impact on the family of parliamentarians.

Ultimately—and I won’t to take too long in this speech because, as others have noted, we have reached a really constructive cross-party consensus on how to move forward—I hope that that very same spirit of cross-party consensus gets taken into the new processes that this bill will enable, to ensure that we have a well-functioning, well-resourced democracy, because, at the end of the day, that's what our constituents deserve. They deserve select committee processes that can accommodate hundreds of thousands of submissions. When that does happen, it's because we're pushing through bills that have reached the members of the public, that have garnered interest from the public, and the systems that are in place to ensure that we MPs canvass the views of the public are well-resourced. Then we don't have to make as many compromises as we have done due to the lack of resourcing in recent times.

The Green Party commends this bill to the House and thanks to the committee for addressing some of the concerns we had at the first reading. We look forward to the bill progressing to the next stages.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, too, was on the committee that heard this bill, and I would like to just pass my acknowledgments on to the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, who did a very impressive job chairing, assisted by the Hon Scott Simpson in the deputy chair. It was a masterclass in the way to run a committee.

This bill had many people submitting on deep constitutional issues, and that was an enjoyable experience for a new MP, such as myself, to be a part of. It was an incredibly important piece of work for this Parliament. The security, you guys are doing a great job, and I think we really did get some good wins in there for democracy. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you. Ka mihi ahau ki te Whare Pāremata. We are all privileged to sit here in this House of Parliament. It's a place of mana, it's a place with its own tikanga, and it's a place that needs to be treated with respect. We are put here to represent the people of New Zealand, and I think that is part of what this place owes respect to, because we are here to represent the people of New Zealand.

It's also a place of mana. If I look around the walls and look at the names on those walls, where we know that New Zealanders in times past fought, suffered, shed blood, and sometimes died—many times died—for their country and for democracy, it is this place, more than any other place in our country, which represents that democracy.

It was a privilege to represent New Zealand First in the Parliament Bill Committee, and it's a real privilege to finally—because it's been quite a while that we've been waiting to get to the second reading—stand and speak in the second reading. It's an important bill. It's a bill about the operation of this House of Parliament. I just want to thank all the parties around this Parliament for what was a very collaborative process. There was a lot of to and fro; we built consensus through that, and I think what that represents is that we all recognise that this is about how the Parliament runs, regardless of who sits where—which parties are here, which parties aren't here. It's about how Parliament runs, and we do that as best we possibly can.

I think the select committee, under the able chairmanship of the former Speaker, of course, Adrian Rurawhe—thank you—recognise that this is something which is supposed to last for a long time. It's been worked on under this Government and two previous Governments. It's not a constitutional bill—people have asked that, a little bit; although there is one constitutional aspect I will touch on—but it is about the practical operation of Parliament.

We've heard a fair bit about the consolidation of four Acts and putting them all in one place—the modernisation of those Acts. What the bill does is it makes the legislation about Parliament more accessible than it is if you've got to go to four different Acts. What it does is it addresses issues, particularly around parliamentary security. Look, I think we should take great pride in this—and we've already heard a little bit about it: we’re one of the most open, accessible Parliaments in the world, and also one of the most accessible groups of parliamentarians. That's something which we should be treasuring and that is not something which we should take for granted. We've only got to look at the incidents over the last week or so, particularly around our party leader’s home, and say that that is not something which we can take for granted and is something which we need to treasure and to look after.

I want to pick up one thing from the commentary on page three. It says, “the bill aims to maintain Parliament’s current level of accessibility as far as is practicable We are proud of the openness of Parliament’s grounds, and the ability of New Zealanders to protest peacefully on the lawn.” That's an important part of our democracy: the freedom to be able to speak one’s views. I just want to say one thing I was proud of the last Parliament for. After the parliamentary protest, you'll remember that the then Speaker, Trevor Mallard, said, “Look, I want to go and look at potentially putting a lot greater security around the parliamentary grounds, and potentially make it harder to get in.” As the Mayor of Wellington at the time, I was going, “Oh, no, don't do that.” But the Parliament—his parliamentary colleagues—also said, “Don't do that.” It is really, really important that people are able to access these grounds and this building. That's very important.

But back to the security issue: not everybody who comes to this place comes in a way which is orderly and helpful. Our security staff are part of the wonderful, welcoming face of this Parliament, along with the education team, the Chamber officers, and the Clerks. They do a fantastic job in being the friendly face of our Parliament, but, sometimes, they need powers when somebody is not behaving the way that they need to do, when they are not showing respect not only to this this Parliament but also to the people that visit this Parliament.

I can remember, in the Legislative Council Chamber, one elderly lady standing there with a protest sign. Winston Peters was speaking in his roles as both, at that time, the Deputy Prime Minister and also as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All the dignitaries were there, all the ambassadors were there, and one person, because security couldn't just say, “Hey, we're going to take you aside, move you away,” actually disrupted that whole operation for quite some period of time. That's something that our security staff need the ability to be able to say, respectfully: “We need you to move away so that Parliament and the people who are in this place can get on with doing their jobs.” And, of course, we had the situation just now—I'm not sure whether the parliamentary security’s powers actually help there or don't help there.

But, anyway, this bill gives some powers for our security team to at times prevent access, to remove objects, to remove people, or, occasionally, to detain people. But, as I think we have already heard—and it gives some necessary immunities. The committee made some amendments because we want to be very, very clear that there is additional training for those staff—because that was something that came through the submissions—and also, if there's an exercise of any of those powers, particularly issues where force is used or detention is used, the officer involved reports those within three days, and also—second tier—that the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service reports those in their annual report. Those are really, really important. Those are new clauses 190A and 190B, which were added by the select committee.

There was also a lot of focus on MPs’ expenses, and we had a number of submitters who of course wanted to get stuck into the details of MPs’ expenses. I don't think they actually realised that they are published every quarter anyway, and, by crikey, I think we all know that the finance team are assiduous in pursuing every single receipt that we've got or haven't got. I think the people who pay our wages should take some comfort that those expenses are well reported, well scrutinised, and well looked after.

Tom Rutherford: Where was this yesterday? We needed this yesterday.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, look, I'm sorry, Tom. Well, I'm going to come to yesterday, very shortly.

Tom Rutherford: Oh, make him stop!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want me to change the clock?

ANDY FOSTER: Well, Tom Rutherford clearly does. It also was very, very good to be able to provide for greater support of families of parliamentarians, especially where an MP is a carer for an adult dependent rather than just a child dependent. That's really, really important.

We had quite a bit of discussion about the Official Information Act (OIA), and, actually, what was reassuring is that while there was a lot of focus on MPs’ expenses, there was also some interest in the agencies of Parliament. The report covers that, saying while they don't operate under the OIA, they operate under a “Protocol for the release of information from the parliamentary information, communication and security systems”. We considered that, but said that is outside of scope.

There's one constitutional matter which is in there, in my view, and that is that Parliament is supposed to scrutinise the executive. However, at the moment, the budget for the agencies of Parliament—the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Services—is set by the executive, not by Parliament. This legislation changes that and sets up a process so that the Parliament itself says, “This is the resource we need.”, and recommends that to the Governor-General. What it doesn't do is say, “Parliament, you can sort out the buildings.”, because there's a lot of expense in those.

We considered the idea of setting up a parliamentary budget office, and there was communication to the Minister of Finance, who is giving that consideration. I think that's potentially a really exciting proposition, because it means that we, as political parties, can't just charge off and say, “Hey, we're going to promise the world.” Our voters should know what the world is going to cost. I think that's really, really important.

Now, I do want to touch on something else, one final point. We had some interesting submissions, notably, I remember, from the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and he said we're all far too busy. He said we should have more MPs, and I actually challenged him on that and said, “Well, don't you think we could actually get more out of our MPs if we operated more efficiently and our processes were potentially more efficient?” It strikes me, having considered the way in which we operate, particularly in the committee of the whole House at times, that we could be a hell of a lot more efficient in that particular situation.

Suze Redmayne: Ha!

ANDY FOSTER: Suze Redmayne is saying to sit down in this particular case. But if it had been yesterday, it wouldn't have been “Sit down”, it would have been “Spend as much time as you possibly can on your feet to try and take as long as possible.” That is not good use of our time. That's something which we should reflect on. I thought Sir Geoffrey Palmer raised a good point, and we should consider that. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s really interesting to hear the ways where the often unsung heroes of making democracy work are recognised in this bill, whether it’s people with legislative experience, the wonderful people who when you’ve forgotten your papers come trotting in with them, when you’ve left your phone under the desk, or all of those—and they seem like minor matters, but without that support it would be really difficult for the 100-plus MPs to work.

I do think that the role of elected members is a complex one and we are reasonably remunerated, and we have reasonable expenses. I think it would be useful if people realised how transparent those are, and I agree with my colleague Andy Foster on that. We were concerned that there might have been some over-the-top security provisions in this Parliament bill, so originally, we were, as a party, prepared to support it to select committee. There have been a number of amendments that have soothed some of those issues, but I also reflect that the good outcomes and the improvements have come from being able to take the time. I think there’s a number of pieces of legislation that would hugely benefit from a more considered approach. I’m not saying that everything would come out with cross-partisan support, but at least we wouldn’t be almost pretending there’s no disagreement because things go through so fast in a number of instances.

Then perfectly reasonable member’s bills—I was so looking forward to supporting Mr Brewer’s life jackets bill. I’ve been looking forward to it for weeks, but we haven’t done it. So I do think there are some changes to processes, particularly—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Brewer couldn’t possibly disagree with that.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: —particularly to do with raising the role of member’s bills. And we are a Parliament as well as having an executive Government, and sometimes we forget the opportunity for people to bring up things that are important but maybe haven’t hit the priorities of their party that day.

Our committee services at the moment are under huge pressure, and again, this is one of the issues of ramming through legislation too fast. We end up having to select just a few submissions in some cases, or we have to break into subcommittees where actually all of us on a committee would like to hear more of the submissions. And we curtail our ability to deliberate, especially when select committees are always squeezed into that 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and that hour at lunchtime, and you can barely get a doughnut at Coppers in your breaks. So that’s pretty tough.

I just want to say, though, there are improvements, but one of the things that submitters to select committees have wanted is for the committee staff to be able to get back to them and tell them what happened next. They don’t always expect us to have taken on their issue, or they realise that they are putting in a contrary view, but then they never know when the legislation is coming up, what’s been agreed, has there been an amendment, and so on. Now, at the moment we cannot expect our committee staff to have the time to be able to do that.

So I will support this bill on behalf of the Green Party, but unless there is some budget allocated for improvements to parliamentary services and the support of the staff, we will not, as a country, be as well served as we should be.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to speak in this second reading debate on the Parliament Bill. I had the privilege of being the deputy chair of the special select committee that was formed to consider this bill, the Parliament Bill Committee, under the very capable chairmanship of the former Speaker, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe.

No matter what we as members of Parliament or as citizens or members of the public might think about our Parliament, we are privileged as New Zealanders to live in a functioning, stable, participatory democracy. Over the years, of the 150 or so years of unbroken, stable political democracy, participatory democracy, in New Zealand, society has changed, attitudes have changed, and so too must this institution of Parliament evolve, change, modify, and reform itself.

The special select committee received 62 submissions from some notable New Zealanders who had given some of the constitutional, weighty matters great thought and great consideration. It was actually a real privilege to sit and listen to those contributions. Ultimately, the recommendations that the committee has made were unanimously agreed by members of Parliament representing every party in this current Parliament. I think that’s a good thing, because this is a Parliament that does need to change, evolve, modernise, and ensure that it stays relevant in functioning—how it’s administered, how it operates, and how it looks after itself.

I want to thank everyone who participated in the process, whether it was at the special select committee or as a member of that committee, and also for the collegial, thoughtful, and considered contributions of all members. I, with great pride, commend this bill to the House.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā rā tātou katoa. It was a privilege to chair the Parliament Bill Committee, and I want to acknowledge a few people first of all. To our officials, in particular from the Office of the Clerk and from Parliamentary Service—they provided excellent assistance to the committee. I'll give you an example. We would have a meeting and discuss certain things. We would, at the end of it, ask the officials for further information about all manner of things within the scope of the bill, and then before the following meeting they would have distributed quite comprehensive further information for us, to go into the next meeting. I identified the value of them being able to do that for us. It was often the case that we would go back to the select committee and there would be only a few or no questions at all, because all of the information about what we had asked the previous time had been answered in those documents.

Also, I want to acknowledge all of those officials that provided that information for us. It certainly made the work of the committee a lot easier, I believe.

I also want to acknowledge all of the submitters. As the Hon Scott Simpson has said, it was a privilege and pleasure to listen to the well-thought-out contributions of all of those who had made submissions on a bill like the Parliament Bill. It's not the kind of bill that many people would take an interest in and write down their thoughts about, this particular bill, and so I believe the quality of submissions that we got was excellent and was helpful for the committee.

I won't go into the full detail of everything that we changed; many of the things have been spoken about already. I just wanted to highlight a couple. Around the funding of Parliament, the couple of things that I wanted to mention about that are, firstly, recognising the importance of the independence of this Parliament and that it should be able to set its own budget for its own functioning; secondly, the infrastructure that needs to happen will need to see some changes to the Standing Orders to establish such a committee and how it will operate.

We had some comments around that it wouldn't be as transparent as the current system. I reject that, and we've reported in our report exactly why. It is a very transparent process, what is being proposed—very similar to how Officers of Parliament operate as well—and so it would mean that all parties would be represented on a select committee to decide and to consider budget applications from the Office of the Clerk and from the Parliamentary Service, and would be scrutinised by, basically, all parties in Parliament.

There was some discussion around whether the Government's veto would be appropriate still or not. I’m not sure that that's fully been resolved and whether a change to the Standing Orders may or may not happen around that.

In terms of security, I encourage MPs to actually go and speak to some of our security officers around Parliament, and especially some of the ones that have been around for a little while, and they'll happily tell you why these changes are necessary. I'll summarise the changes that we made in increasing reporting and increasing monitoring, because there were concerns that were raised around whether there was enough reporting and monitoring of what those officers will be doing: if they use their new powers, that must be reported to the CEO within three days, and the CEO must report those at least annually.

I think as we pass this, hopefully, into law, ready for the next Parliament, and to give time for the training of Parliament security officers to be able to properly implement the new powers that they will have after it's passed—it's really important, I think, that we continue our scrutiny and examination through the parliamentary process. I commend this bill. Kia ora.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Just a really short call from me this afternoon, to say this is a really collaborative and proactive approach to the legislation around how this place actually operates and how it works, bringing together four different Acts to enable a modern framework for Parliament to work as best as it possibly can, and the agencies that support this incredible place. Full credit to everybody who has been involved in this process. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to also add my contribution to the Parliament Bill. Like many others have also noted prior, this bill is important. It’s important that a bill like this has support across the House, because it is constitutional in nature.

My colleague Andy Foster is correct to say that it’s not entirely constitutional—there are practical considerations and practical operational enablements within the bill, which is important to note as well—but it’s part of what governs Parliament, so it is important that, across the House, people are on the same wavelength, so to speak, about what we value and about the modernisation that needs to take place to make the operations of this place work for everybody. It’s very easy for us to think of this sometimes as our place of work, or as “our place”, but it’s the people’s House, and it does need to be accessible and it does need to reflect what people’s expectations are of this institution. It is, therefore, important that it remain accessible and not just accessible in a physical sense, in terms of access, but accessible in understanding and accessible in so far as the appropriate separation of those powers.

As has been said, the bill does three main things. It takes the parliamentary services out of that contestable process that’s applied to other public sector agencies, and, on the same basis rather, applies to Offices of Parliament, which I think is absolutely the right thing to do. As well as the budgetary concerns that have been raised—because any institution or any agency is only as good as it’s afforded the opportunity to be with appropriate budgets—it’s a symbolic change to make sure that that separation of power between the legislature and the executive is seen to be done, which is important.

Other people have also made mention today of the utility and the esteem that we hold our parliamentary security staff, as well as all other staff. It is important, given that the nature of the job has changed as time has gone on, that they should have those enhanced powers, which reflect the reality of what it’s like to be the host, the face, and in charge of the security of this important place. Simple things like consented search and denial of entry and temporary seizure of specified items, or even temporary detention, are all within the scope of what we would expect, and they’re certainly the same standards that are applied to the Courts Security Act.

The bill also makes some changes to MPs’ work-related expenses, with the aim of trying to create a more transparent and family friendly regime. Is it now perfect? Absolutely not. Are there more things that we could do to enhance that? We should probably hope so over the course of time, but the ones that are being made within this bill are worthy and, therefore, worthy of support.

With that said, I do note that Labour has an Amendment Paper lodged for consideration, because, whilst we’ve all acknowledged the collegiality of the special committee that was very ably chaired by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, I don’t suppose everybody was always unanimously excited about every suggestion that was made. Certainly, Labour has an Amendment Paper lodged for consideration at the committee stage to clarify that parliamentary security does not, amongst all those other powers that we’ve mentioned, have the power, and shouldn’t have the power, to imprison, as was quite shamefully suggested by one member in light of the recent breach of privilege. With that said, we’re happy to commend the bill to the House.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): A decade in the making, this is a constitutionally important bill. I want to highlight the fact that this bill empowers Parliament’s security team, and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge the security officers in Parliament, especially Manoj Thattipron, who’s here this afternoon, and also Geno Wharakura, who, I think, has just left. You do an outstanding job. You’re on the job 24/7, taking care of us as MPs, of staff, of visitors, and the parliamentary precinct. This bill recognises your vital role, and it gives you the tools to be able to do your job efficiently and effectively. I commend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the things that I noticed was quite novel about the New Zealand Parliament when I came in last term was that, in the months of summer, the parliamentary grounds become almost this lunch destination for people, which I think is absolutely wonderful, along with being able to see our kids and other kids play on the playground, being able to sit so close to select committee submitters. My absolute favourite is seeing our school kids line up and come into the gallery and their local MP give them a little wave. We are an intimate but a loud democracy. We’re small but of special character, in my view, and that’s something very uniquely New Zealand to protect.

I do remember being here in the last term when conversations started happening about potentially doing things like putting a plastic barrier up so that there would be something between the public and members of Parliament, and considering what the future grounds would look like. I think it’s a real credit to this place that, within what was a difficult period in New Zealand’s history, we’ve recognised that we’re anchored in this idea of accessibility and being close to people and people feeling like this is their Parliament. It isn’t an easy decision to make to get that balance right, and we’re certainly a standout when you see countries like Ireland, who have got those barriers in place. There have in the past been discussions in other Parliaments, including the UK Parliament, about what potential barriers might be put in place as well. I think this is absolutely the right balance, and I’ll speak more about that in a moment.

I just also wanted to add my thanks to our security team here in Parliament. As others have mentioned, they aren’t just security; they’re also our greeters. They’re the face of Parliament in so many ways, and they’re problem solvers in so many ways. For years and years, they have operated so graciously, in extremely difficult circumstances at times, and so I just wanted to add my thanks to them.

In terms of the changes that are being made, Part 7 of the bill is modelled on the Courts Security Act. Interestingly, this isn’t the first time that those provisions have been stretched into new spaces. In April 2019, there was a decision taken to stretch those rules into a whole host of new tribunals, including the lawyers disciplinary tribunal and other tribunals as well. I think what we’re seeing is a tried and true set of rules. I did look to see if there had been complaints made or anything that was very obvious in the media space in this area, and I really couldn’t find anything, which says to me that the rules are set in a reasonable way. As you read through them, you’ll see that the powers of search, for example, are quite restrained in themselves, in terms of how they’re drafted.

We are different from other Parliaments. If you look at Australia, the UK, and Canada, there aren’t specific statutory powers or immunities as we’re writing them in. However, what they have instead is a much higher police presence on their parliamentary grounds, and certainly, if you take the example of the Palace of Westminster, the Metropolitan Police Service there are contracted to play a much larger armed role within the parliamentary grounds. I do think that we’ve taken the right approach in going the way we have. I understand that the police have said that they wouldn’t have capacity to be able to perform that role in Parliament, but I actually think, regardless of the capacity question, we’ve made the right decision in terms of the culture of New Zealand.

Something people haven’t yet mentioned is that the coverage of these new powers will extend to parliamentary meetings outside of the grounds and will also extend to electorate offices and community offices too. Here I just wanted to recognise the work that a lot of our staff do out in the regions, out in electorate and community offices, and the risks that they will sometimes put themselves in to respond to community need. My team in Upper Harbour last term, at one stage, had what we thought was a bullet go through our electorate office window. It ended up being a projectile—a metal projectile that shattered part of the window—but certainly for the weeks and months after that, I was very concerned about the sense of safety that the staff had. I think, to continue to be able to fulfil that function well and be accessible, I’m delighted that those powers have been extended as well.

I won’t go through the powers in detail, but I did just want to stop a little while on the powers of search. As I mentioned before, I think they’ve been drafted really carefully so as to be cautious to only allow what is necessary. There’s language, for example, in the drafting that says, “involves no physical contact” when they’re using electronic screening devices, or only the “external examination of the person’s clothes”. There’s language that says, “no more than incidental physical contact with the property being searched”. In the language itself, it’s quite restrained, but then we also have to remember that the common law continues to apply in these circumstances. The courts have also been very clear about limiting and making sure that any powers exercised in search have been reasonable.

I now want to talk a little bit about complaint, which I don’t think anyone else has touched on yet as well. When I first heard about the changes to these powers being introduced, my first thought was, “Well, where’s the avenue of complaint? Where would people go if they had an issue with us?” Certainly to the Speaker directly, but there’s a useful case in Police v Beggs, which was a 1999 case where the courts were very clear that the Speaker must also have regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In effect, the delegations that come to security here are also subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and if there was a complaint that proceeded down that pathway, certainly those rights would be assessed against the powers exercised and we’d have to determine whether in the circumstances reasonable powers had been exercised.

Speaking to a few legal colleagues about this, some raised issues about the institution that is the Independent Police Conduct Authority and whether it would be useful to expand the powers of an institution like that so that it also covered not only security staff on precinct here but all the other security officers who are using similar powers in the courts and in the tribunals. Perhaps that’s something for us to think about going forward.

My final point is on going forward, because I think this has been a really useful exercise. I think it should take as long as it has done. I think we should constantly be in the mode of reviewing how Parliament should evolve, much the same way as we do in terms of the Standing Orders. I would put a challenge to our Parliament in regards to an issue that I think we should consider next time around. It is ensuring that our Parliament is accessible for people with disabilities. I had a fantastic youth MP in the last term, Ayolabi Martins, who raised this issue as he navigated Parliament himself. He raised several issues of sometimes not being able to access certain things, sometimes finding it difficult. I think, with 25 percent of our population identifying as having some sort of disability, there’s certainly a need for Parliament to consider whether it’s time for us to have that kind of review in place.

Finally, I commend the committee for its excellent work and commend this bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the bill. I wanted to touch on the fact that the bill makes the Parliamentary Library a standard business unit in the Parliamentary Service, and just acknowledge the role that the parliamentary librarians play in supporting us as MPs, particularly with our constituency work—the ability to engage and contact and get feedback that helps us answer constituents’ queries on a daily basis, for those of us who are hard-working constituent MPs like my colleagues on this side of the House. I really just want to acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Library and the change that this bill brings about for them. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Helen White—this is a split call.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): It is. Thank you. It's an honour to speak on this particular piece of legislation. I just want to focus on a couple of things.

First, the very careful rules around parliamentary security. I think that we are living in a bit of a different world. I was very lucky to go on a Speaker’s tour, actually, with several other people in this House, many years ago. When we were looking at other Parliaments, most of them are not as accessible as ours. We don't have any screens here. We should be proud of how accessible our Parliament is, but we also have a world where people are starting to disconnect from the reality, the humanity, of the people here, and that can only be for the worse. I do remember at one point a banner being dropped down here. I was quite frightened and I think that probably quite a few of us would be. I don't think it occurred to the people who were dropping the banner that they would scare us. I'm not suggesting that, but I think we're living in a world where things now happen that mean that the people who are at the front line—those are our security guards—need to be given appropriate powers. But what I like about these powers is they haven't gone too far. They're very much in line with the powers that have been given in courts and they're carefully considered. So I'm fully in favour of those powers.

I'd also like to talk about the provisions that relate to MPs. One thing I recognised when I first arrived here was that we weren't treating—in a way, it was very old fashioned what we were doing. We didn't really treat MPs in the way we were in amending legislation and recognising whānau, and I've spoken to the Speaker about this myself. Whānau, for me, is something much broader. I'm no longer married. I have children who are adult. I have people who are connected with me. Actually, there are a lot of people in that situation, and one of the things we've done recently in our history is we've really recognised that families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. So one of the things that happens in this legislation is that we recognise that families with disabilities, where people have a child, an adult child, with disability, no longer are in a situation where it's appropriate to treat that child as if there is no dependency, when, in fact, that is the case.

Now, I would argue we could go further. I think that perhaps we should look at some other iterations of this later, things like perhaps a buddy system. In the time I've been in Parliament, I've never been able to bring somebody down to support me in any way, and I think we should look at some of those relaxations because it's not a conventional situation for many people. I think it reflects the work we do in other places, and we should have some sort of consistency over that concept of whānau.

I fully support what my friend Vanushi Walters just said about disability. I think that's a really key issue where we could show some leadership with a change in the rules. But I am very thrilled to see this legislation and step one on that process and really adopting some extremely good modernisations. So I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

Hon members: Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the contrary, No.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Party vote called.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ayes have—oh, sorry, did you vote no?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah, as a proxy—no. Party vote called.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Clerk, please conduct a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Parliament Bill be read a second time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Motion agreed to.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Point of order. Madam Speaker, it’s been a while, I could be incorrect, but I understood that if a party has six or more members, another party cannot do a proxy vote for them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that reminder. That is correct, so we’ll just take that vote again so that we’re very clear. We’ll disregard the last vote. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 October.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, when we were last having debate on this bill, we were up to call 11, which is a Labour Party call.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. As I was listening to the debate during an extended sitting this morning, I started thinking about, how did we get to this point? We had some very passionate contributions to this piece of legislation this morning. I remember in 2004, I was working for Tariana Turia at the time and she crossed the floor on the foreshore and seabed Act—well, bill then. So that's where this issue actually started. It started before that at the Privy Council, when Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō took a case to the Privy Council over its rights being breached. We jump forward because that bill, of course, passed into law. Then the formation of Te Pāti Māori came along under the leadership of Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples, and, in an agreement between the National Party and Te Pāti Māori, we come to having the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act—MACA; that's how we got there today. I say that because I listened carefully and I quite often heard in the debate about the intent of Parliament when this piece of legislation was processed.

I don't think we should confuse intent with outcome because they're two different things. I absolutely 100 percent believe that Te Pāti Māori then, particularly under the leadership of Tariana Turia, who left the Labour Party over this very piece of legislation, wanted less than what we've got now—I refuse to believe that. Reducing it again under this amendment is not what her intent would have been.

So I stand in this House today and say don't let the outcome of what's happened up to now—that that is not the intent of the Parliament when they passed it. It was a convenience back then for the National Party and it was a way forward for the then Māori Party. It was also divisive amongst Te Pāti Māori back then. This is the very reason why Hone Harawira actually left Te Pāti Māori. This bill certainly wasn't his intention, and I say to the House that what we're doing today adds another layer to what should never have happened in the first place.

When the Helen Clark Labour Government passed the foreshore and seabed, that shouldn't have happened. The reaction of the National Party in addressing that, that shouldn't have happened. And I can tell you that this amendment shouldn't happen either. I do not recommend this bill to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): This amendment bill restores clarity to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, ensuring Parliament’s original intention. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Media and Communications): I present a legislative statement on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I believe you are seeking leave to present that legislative statement.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, OK then: I seek leave to present that statement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Could you just read out what you’re seeking leave to—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I thought I was presenting the legislative statement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, you’re seeking leave to present a legislative statement. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is short and simple, but it’s an important change for the media sector and one they have been calling for for a very long time. I’m proud that today, hopefully, depending on the length of the speeches, we’ll be able to pass this bill and get it into law. The bill repeals section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which restricts broadcast television and radio advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings, and both television and radio advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.

The good people of New Zealand might say, “Well, that’s a reasonable thing to do.” The problem is that the world has moved on somewhat, and there are many, many people looking at YouTube, Spotify, Facebook, TikTok—a whole range of other things—where these restrictions don’t apply. Of course, online, all the various ways that people get their entertainment has changed dramatically, so the broadcasters, particularly the New Zealand - owned broadcasters, are at a competitive disadvantage in not having the ability to do something that their competitors can. The current rules deprive local broadcasters of, they think, around $6 million annually in advertising revenue, and, of course, as we all know the pressure that the broader media sector is under, every dollar helps and every dollar counts. That’s why this bill is an important, small but important, way that we can help level the playing field for New Zealand broadcasters to compete in a very difficult environment.

I want to thank all those who have been involved in the bill, and particularly in the spirit of bipartisanship, I do want to thank the Labour Party and spokesperson Reuben Davidson on this matter for their support for this bill. There’s been a lot of talk this week about polarisation in New Zealand politics and it’s good to see that, on this occasion, we’ve had support across the House for a piece of legislation that will help our broadcast media sector to be more sustainable in the time ahead. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to rise and to take a call on a bill for broadcasting. But it is also a speech about broken promises, because this is from a Government that came in saying they were going to get things back on track, and from a Minister a year ago—over a year ago—who said he was going to take immediate action for our broadcasting and media sector. And if this is immediate action, I think that was false advertising.

Now, we know what this bill does, but I think it’s good to just spell it out again. What this bill does is it says, to a very outdated broadcasted Act, “Linear broadcasters can have the same rights to advertise on Sunday mornings and public holidays as are currently enjoyed by digital platforms and advertisers on those platforms.” It’s a very, very, very simple bill.

Such a simple bill, after more than a year, from a Minister who promised immediate action. I’ve done this before but I’m going to do it again, because across the time when this 73-word bill has been the only immediate action the Minister has taken, this is what else has been happening. At the beginning of 2024, Warner Bros. proposes to close Newshub. On 7 March 2024, TVNZ announces 68 job cuts.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Cheer up!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: On 9 April 2024, Newshub confirms their closure plans, and that is 200 job losses. Now, there’s a chirp from that side of the House saying “Cheer up!” My message is: say that to the hundreds of people losing their jobs in the media sector while you progress a 73-word bill that allows advertisements on linear broadcasters on Sunday mornings.

On 24 April, Melissa Lee was sacked as Minister and Paul Goldsmith was appointed Minister of Media and Communications, and this is on 2 July 2024, not 2025—not this year—but 2 July 2024, with the now infamous media release from the Minister committing to taking immediate action to support the media sector. And this 73-word bill is all of the immediate action—that’s it; that’s all that’s been taken.

On 7 November 2024, TVNZ announced a further 50 jobs to be cut. On 13 November 2024, one of the tools in the tool box, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, was reported to be in limbo all of a sudden, and the next day, on 14 November, New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME) announces the closure of 14 regional community newspapers before Christmas, resulting in the loss of 30 more jobs in the broadcasting and media sector in New Zealand. I don’t know if you’re keeping count on the other side of the House; I don’t know if you care. But that is hundreds of people—hundreds of people—who have lost their jobs in the broadcasting and media sector, and this bill is the only immediate action the Minister has taken.

Now, the job losses continue. In January 2025—that’s the beginning of this year—NZME proposes a reduction of 40 further roles, and the job losses go on and on and on and the cuts from central government for funding to the sector come through in that Budget, and what else do we see but just this week: The Hui and Te Karere, two very, very important programmes here in New Zealand—vital programmes here in New Zealand—are now faced with the prospect of no longer existing because this Minister, who promised immediate action, has delivered only a 73-word bill.

The other thing I’ve got here—I like lists; this is a list of dates, and on this list there are 49 dates during which Cabinet met and the Minister, in response to a question about what he took to that Cabinet meeting to help, what he took to those Cabinet meetings for immediate action for our broadcasting and media sector, the answer, for all of these 49 dates, is nothing—nothing taken; nothing offered; no immediate action.

Here's an analogy for you. If you have a business with a limited number of customers and you’re not making enough money and you’re trading six days a week, the solution is not just to open on Sundays, because you just have the same number of customers, but you have to be open more and you have to work harder. That’s essentially the silver bullet solution this Minister has brought here in the repeal of advertising restrictions. It’s a little bit like saying to someone who’s receiving welfare or a benefit that they need budgeting advice. I can tell you that I have met so many constituents who have come into our electorate office because they cannot afford the basic necessities that they need—some of these people are working, some of these people are receiving support, some of these people are receiving a little bit of both, and they’re being told that they need to budget better. And I can tell you, they run some of the best, tightest budgets I’ve ever seen, and they could teach Nicola Willis a thing or two about how to manage a decent budget. That’s what this bill is a little bit like, because it offers so little to the industry.

Now, way back in 2024, when Melissa Lee was the Minister and it became evident that there were some real challenges in the industry, Melissa Lee said that she was not a magician. Then she was replaced by Minister Goldsmith. And I know there’s the obvious joke, and I’m not going to make it, about Minister Goldsmith being a clown, because I don’t think that would be fair, because, actually, Minister Goldsmith has been a mime: he’s moved around a whole lot and he’s waved his arms around, but he hasn’t said anything. He hasn’t delivered a single word of help for a broadcasting and media industry that really, really needs it. And this is at a time when other Ministers have had quite a lot to say. Minister Peters, on RNZ, when he didn’t like the tone of questions, said he’d simply turn the tap off, and Minister Seymour put out social media tiles celebrating the cuts to funding for Radio New Zealand, our State broadcaster, in this year’s Budget.

Simon Court: They’re losing their audience. Why would you fund losers?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: I think that member ought to check the growth in the digital audience of RNZ, because I think you’ll see astronomical growth in the digital audiences and platforms of RNZ.

Tom Rutherford: They are a radio station.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: The ignorance from the other side of the House is astounding, and that’s why I’m not going to poke the bear any further, because we’ve actually got the solutions that the Minister needs, and the good news is they’re available for you, Minister: two of them sitting in the biscuit tin, and one of them is on your desk. In the biscuit tin, there is a bill for a stream of levies which ensures that the international streamers that sell us their content and charge New Zealanders to watch it would contribute a percentage of their profit back which could be invested in local content. It’s not quite as simple as your bill, Minister, but I think it’s a great, great bill and an excellent mechanism to ensure a user-pays system, Mr Court—you’d love that; a user-pays system to fund local content.

Simon Court: No, it’s State-sanctioned theft.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: I’ve stopped listening.

The other is the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Now, that was written, it’s ready to go, and what that does is it makes sure that those international platforms that host our content pay for it. The money in can continue to fund more of it. So that is another bill sitting there ready to go. And I’ll give you a third because I’m feeling generous and I’ve got 45 seconds: the Online Safety Bill is also sitting in the biscuit tin, Minister. It will be simple for you and me to sit down over a cup of tea and get that one out of the tin and under way in this House, to make sure that these platforms and spaces are much safer for all New Zealanders. And that should be a priority for everyone in this House. But instead, we’ve got a 73-word bill. If you typed it out, you could fit it on a postage stamp, and it’s probably worth about the same to the industry, because no one believes it’s worth $6 million; it’s more broken promises from a Government that keeps making things worse. We’re supporting the bill, but, Minister, we are so disappointed for the industry.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this legislation and the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

As we gather today, we actually have to think about how often we live in such a crazy, noisy world and where the sanctity lies when we have Anzac Day, Easter, and Christmas. It is actually having some quiet time with whānau. Our viewing might have changed, acknowledging we don’t always watch TV these days, but for those of us with mokopuna or those of us who do care for our elders, we enjoy watching the Q+A. We might watch Marae. We might gather as whānau to have breakfast and talk with one another and not have the distraction of advertising from big industry or businesses coming across our TV screens.

To be fair, when we hear about the potential income that could be generated from allowing advertising on Sundays and public holidays, it’s just approximately $6 million. That’s not going to fundamentally fix the shortfalls that we have.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Come on.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No, the shortfalls that we have in funding, if we’re being real about fixing the system, have got to be more than a $6 million lifeline, because that $6 million that might be raised isn’t going to fix the shortfalls that we have in TVNZ, fix Whakaata Māori, or fix Radio New Zealand also. Yes, it is correct: we have heard that there are going to be changes in funding through Te Māngai Pāho for shows such as Te Karere and also Marae, maybe even The Hui, but this little $6 million that might be generated out of advertising on our Christmas Day, on Anzac Day, on Easter, and our regular Sunday viewing, is not going to fix the fundamentals.

That’s the issue here. We have a system that needs a good review. We need to review and provide a clear direction in terms of where we are heading, a better coordinated, collaborative—and also something that brings together innovation, the online as well as the linear. We’re not having the relevant wānanga to bring the stakeholders together. In fact, it’s actually dog eat dog right now. We’re competing. We’re in request for proposal mode. We’re going after funding to try to keep our kaimahi engaged. That’s no different across Māori radio. That’s no different to what’s happening in Te Māngai Pāho right now. Sustainable funding for public broadcasting is well overdue, and that’s what this bill does not address. This bill does not provide the relevant lifeline, beyond the $6 million, that will fix these fundamental issues.

I thank those in the community who have said, “Actually, why do we have to bring advertising in? Why do we have to do that?” For the $6 million? No. Actually, when we have time like Anzac Day—and I want to highlight Anzac Day as a day of sanctity, of remembering those that fell in the great wars and the beautiful coverage that we see coming out across our screens, both online as well as on TV. To know that we could have advertising on there selling us a burger, that we could have Briscoes popping up on our TV screens, The Warehouse—why would we do that? Why would we clutter our online as well as our TV viewing on a day when we should remember them? Look at this House, remembering all of those, all of these great battles, and then we have Anzac Day. I’m only using Anzac Day because that is a day when we pause as Aotearoa New Zealand. Nothing’s open—none of the shops are open—so why should we allow advertising on such an important day for us in Aotearoa New Zealand?

We continue, as the Green Party, to say, “Well, actually, this is a bigger issue beyond advertising on public holidays and Sundays. This is actually the need for us to wānanga a collective solution for proper sustainable funding for public broadcasting.” There could be solutions in the biscuit tin—absolutely. Quality public broadcasting and including our digital media is an important space, whereby we do need to move, we do need to nurture, we do need to increase the workforce development for kaimahi in the sector, and we’re losing too many. But $6 million in revenue ain’t going to fix it. Te Rōpū Kākāriki maintains our ongoing concern and opposition to this legislation. Kia ora tātou.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party supports this bill. It’s quite clear that businesses and organisations involved in producing a product and putting it out there on the market need to be able to find all kinds of ways to generate revenue, and selling advertising space to television viewers on linear television is a pretty simple way to do that.

It’s important that they do increase their revenue. This is one tool. Apparently, $6 million could be generated in this way. But I also point out that another really good way for linear television broadcasters to increase their revenue is to produce products that people actually want to watch, and so if people watch it and then the advertisers get revenue, maybe that’s another way to fill the gap. I highly recommend that they consider that as well, and I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, noting that we have asked for a conscience vote on this particular piece of legislation, the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

Our party has always encouraged policies that enhance respect for national identity and shield traditions from erosion in the quest of profit. It’s important for those members of the House who will be taking a personal vote on this not only to reflect the views, if they hold Christian beliefs and believe that those days when advertising will now be available if the bill is to pass—that they can actually also reflect their constituency, if they have a Christian conservative constituency, and are able to cast a vote on their behalf as well.

Media entities exist within an ecosystem that’s been disrupted by new media arrivals and they’re enjoying, no doubt, some critical advantages. For one, they don’t rely on paper and pen any more to get their messages across. They don’t even actually employ journalists, artists, photographers, or editors. The legislation that applies to old media does not and cannot apply to big tech situated offshore in Silicon Valley. This is a reality that so far has evaded, not just New Zealand but the entire world, in how to deal and re-engineer ways in which the media landscape can change up its business model. Digital media, the big tech companies, are just as regulated as the whalers and sealers of the 1880s.

Society has, in most parts, moved on from the analogue environment, the paper and pen environment, into our digital environment. This digital paradigm has completely flipped that business model on its head. The advertising has shifted from traditional media into large global platforms, and that has had massive implications for mainstream media. If we look at the last five years of advertising revenue that has been spent on our local media, in 2019 the total industry revenue spent was $2.76 billion of advertising across our media. In 2024, it had increased by 30 percent, to $3.59 billion. Advertisers are spending more. However, television advertising revenue has gone down by 15 percent; radio has gone down by just 3 percent. The digital advertising, and this is the rub, has gone from $1.08 billion, in 2019, to $2.17 billion. Radio has done a really good job of increasing their digital advertising revenue. They have increased it over the last five years by 325 percent, but television has done a really bad job of it.

This broadcasting amendment bill will only increase advertising revenue by $6 million. That’s an assumption that’s been made: $4 million will go to television; $2 million will go to radio. For radio, that’s a 0.73 percent increase. It’s very small amount. That’s an 0.81 percent increase—for the $4 million—to television. Now, we believe that this amount of money is not worth changing how we keep those special days sacred; carving out and protecting those days for special religious observance and for Anzac Day to commemorate all of those people who fought in the wars, as outlined by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon.

Just a couple of points I’d like to make: Radio Rhema is able to advertise currently as a radio station on a Sunday. They choose not to. If this bill passes, they will not be taking advantage of advertising and will not conduct any advertising or seek any advertising revenue with this repeal.

There’s no doubt the New Zealand media faces many difficulties that have been agonised over in great detail and at great length. Those issues are of a higher order than the discussion of whether or not to deregulate advertising in New Zealand on these few special days. If we relax advertising standards at this point, it will be seen as a further dumbing down of our media space that we still do have control over.

New Zealand First stands on a conservative platform of keeping the best and avoiding unintended consequences of deregulation. Those boundaries that we draw around our working lives and our very special celebration days are important to all of us, and we’d be the poorer without them. We oppose this bill. This bill overlooks the cultural value of New Zealand’s commercial-free days as roadblocks to revenue and not foundations of our country’s character. We don’t buy into the idea that every moment of broadcast has to be sold. We believe in New Zealand’s secure times of reflection, family and community, and will not be supporting a bill that takes that away. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Tamatha Paul—five minutes.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak to this bill. I don’t really watch TV. I don’t know anyone my age that watches TV. I’m going to be honest with you. We can’t escape—

Hon Member: We don’t watch it, either.

TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, I don’t know of anyone in this room who watches TV any more. Obviously we watch the shows. We can go on TVNZ+ and YouTube and stuff like that and watch them all again. I always catch up with the old Q+A interviews on YouTube these days, and because I’m subscribed to YouTube, I don’t get any ads. I didn’t realise the gravity of this issue, but I can see why it means a lot to people because of the significance of the holidays.

I might not have TV and I might be living free from ads, in the privileged lot living free from ads, but I can definitely respect that days like Anzac Day and Sundays, for some people, are sacrosanct and that they should be protected from, I guess, needless ads—although I would hope that, on days like Anzac Day and other special days, people wouldn’t be watching TV; that they would be having a good kai and having a laugh and a kōrero with their family rather than watching TV. I guess it’s out of that respect for some of those really important milestone days and days like Sunday, which carry a lot of significance for different people of different faiths. I can respect that, and I can respect the freedom, I guess, to watch TV on those days without having those ads in your face.

There isn’t a whole lot more to add than that. I guess I want to echo the points that people have made: that this change will bring in $6 million of revenue into these broadcasters. However, that is really a drop in the bucket compared to the type of funding that these organisations need. I wanted to reiterate some of the points made around Government cuts to broadcasting, some of which are a $10 million cut to Whakaata Māori, our national Māori broadcasting channel; a forecast $18 million worth of cuts to Radio New Zealand, which is quite depressing given that they are also our kind of emergency national radio station, who have to communicate those really important messages to everybody; and the fact that TVNZ’s call for an extra $30 million worth of revenue has been ignored. We all know where that money has been going instead of to our broadcasting channels.

In a time when people are quite suspicious of mainstream media and when people are getting a lot of their information from the internet, it’s probably quite important that we protect national broadcasting channels and platforms as a source of truth for people to get information and to learn things and to know what’s going on in the rest of the country and, indeed, the rest of the world. There are better alternatives, like Reuben Davidson talked about, to look after broadcasting and people’s access to information. Some of those ideas include long-term funding for public, Māori, Pasifika, and community media, strengthening NZ On Air and the Māori Television Service, supporting non-commercial spaces for children’s content, and protecting independent journalism and niche audiences. I don’t know what they mean by “niche audiences”, but it’s clear that better alternatives exist.

I’ll leave it at that because there isn’t an awful lot more to say, except that I totally respect the sacredness of particular days for particular people. Twenty percent of New Zealanders subscribe to some form of faith, and I’d assume that many of those include Sundays being protected and days of rest and days of worship as well. We’re keen to honour that and respect that, and that means we will be opposing this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise for National in support of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. I’m sure that, along with myself and Mr Costley, other veterans have far better things to be doing on Anzac Day than watching television. It’s probably one of the busiest days of the year for us. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I listen to the debate and reflect on my life growing up, on Sunday mornings, it was always TV1, and Praise Be was always playing in our house. I actually enjoy—I love—Praise Be. As we ran around, getting ourselves ready for church on a Sunday, Praise Be would always be blasting in the background.

But, Mr Speaker, I have some news for you as well. It gets better, on a Thursday afternoon! I was actually on Praise Be once as well. It's all coming back to me—

Tim Costley: Sing us a song.

GLEN BENNETT: As much as I would love to sing to you this evening, the Standing Orders do quote about offensiveness in this House, and I will be careful. But I actually played in a brass band with the Salvation Army; I actually played the tuba. I digress, but the reason I played the tuba was because it was the biggest instrument you could hide behind, so none of your friends from school would see you behind the tuba. That's another story. But we do reflect on—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): As long as your digressions are entertaining, the Speaker is fairly lax at this time.

GLEN BENNETT: We do reflect on the significance, as been said, of religious festivals, holidays. But the reality of this one is, as with most of the New Zealand calendar, which was imported from England, it is the Christian tradition that we always commemorate. I don't see any broadcasting advertising being taken away for Eid or taken away for Ramadan or those kinds of things. We are in a modern world, and as much as I respect my Sundays, though I don't particularly watch Praise Be much these days anymore, I think that it is the modern world; therefore, we need to reflect on that.

I did think long and hard about would I support this or wouldn't I, and I have come to a place where I do. Because I think it's actually about fairness. It's about fairness when YouTube, when Facebook can make millions and billions of dollars and then little old TVNZ is unable to advertise on a Sunday morning. It just seems a bit unfair. I hope that they don't flaunt this too much and just sort of go hell for leather with everything else, but we all need to consider the changing world.

We reflect on the world, as it changes so rapidly and things evolve, and I think that in broadcasting, it's changing even faster. We look at what was offensive once upon a time to what's offensive today. As I was listening, I was thinking, who remembers the “bugger” ad? Who remembers the Toyota “bugger” ad? The Broadcasting Standards Authority was involved, and there was huge outrage in 1999 about this little wee dog and others saying the word “bugger”. I hope my mum's not listening because she’d be outraged if she heard me saying that word! Anyway, I just think that the world has changed and moved on, and we need to be reflective of that.

Now, a comment was made by a previous contributor about the fact that if TVNZ just produced better material, then people might watch it. Well, that's not the point. It's not the point, because you look at what was just said by Tamatha Paul, and, obviously, we're very generationally the same because I have a YouTube account; in fact, the only paid subscription I have in my life is YouTube—it's amazing—so I get to watch Q+A and I get to watch all of those TVNZ shows without ads. It is great—another digression, sorry. But things have changed; things have moved on, so the reality is—

Hon Member: There you go. Without ads is great. Get rid of the ads.

GLEN BENNETT: Yeah—that's what I'm saying, that the reality is we need to actually have fairness within all this. That's what I made clear when I first started, and that's why I brought it up now: it's around fairness. But the reality is—to finish off—the out of touch-ness of this Government. My colleague Reuben Davidson made it very clear that, you know, “We're wanting to fix everything.”, this Government came in saying, and “We want to get everything back on track.” This is $6 million; this is small change. It's significant change, but it's small change.

We need to be sitting in this House, talking about bigger, more important things than a piece of legislation that just lets you put a bit of advertising on a Sunday morning or on Anzac morning, and I think we need to be reflective of that. We support this bill. I've been thoughtful and cautious, and I might go home afterwards and, on YouTube, watch a bit of Praise Be, just to cleanse myself.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Scott Simpson: Praise be.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You can follow me on TikTok, Scott Simpson, ad-free. I'm down with the kids. I've heard of TVNZ+. My friend Glen Bennett makes many good points, but we need to have a median, neutral approach to regulation. It is pretty much in the dark ages when we are having one set of rules for broadcast television, which I've heard referred to as linear television, and in exactly the same programmes provided by exactly the same entity, if you stream them, you're not subject to those rules. That's just irrational.

But I do think we need to recognise that broadcasting is in a parlous state. Look, yes, there's a place for purely commercial programmes that people just love to watch, but we've also got to recognise that the Government has a role to play to make sure that our stories are told, and those stories aren't always commercially successful stories. They can be dramas and comedies or documentaries or even shows like Country Calendar and what have you, but they're our stories, and what this bill does is give a small amount, not of funding but of an opportunity to get funding, but it's not enough to plug the gap.

We heard today that funding for some of our Māori broadcasts like Te Karere is at risk. That's another example of where there's a real obligation to give voice—a Treaty obligation to give voice, and funding through advertising goes only a very small part of the way.

As Reuben Davidson so clearly phrased it, there's lots of movement from the Minister for Media and Communications, but no real noise, no decisions, no statements, no effective actions. He's miming the position of Minister of broadcasting, and frankly he seems to be somewhat stuck. So we really do need some action in broadcasting from this Minister, because this small change allowing advertising on otherwise prohibited days might go some small way, but it's not really stopping the rot, the decline in broadcasting.

When I refer to broadcasting, I think we need to make it clear: broadcasting more generally across all of the platforms that Tamatha Paul watches. We need to be clear that people do need to be able to go and see our stories on YouTube and on TVNZ Ondemand and what have you, because it's part of our really important cultural heritage to have our stories being told.

So, look, yes, we're going to support this bill and quite right to observe that, particularly for religious days, it's a bit of an anachronism to have the Christian religious day as a preserve when we now live in a very multicultural society where other religious days come and go. While some of us might respect or adhere to them, they're not considered to be kind of State affairs. Anzac Day—I get it. I won't be watching telly on Anzac morning; I will be respecting the work and sacrifice of those who have fought for our freedom and for the freedom of others, but I think that is a personal choice, not one that the State should be imposing on. So for those reasons, we'll support the bill, but really much more needs to be done in the broadcasting space.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): As technology changes, so does culture, and so does legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, we are seeing broadcasting change across the world, globally and here in Aotearoa New Zealand. With that, we do need to shift and change some of the legislation and restrictions to enable the broadcasting industry to be at its best. Sadly, this Government just continues to let New Zealanders down. They set big expectations, and I heard more ideas and contributions in this House today from my relation Jenny Marcroft. I think she could do a better job as the Minister and come up with better ideas in the absence of a Labour-led Government. This bill really is about fairness. It’s about balance. It’s about bringing more revenue into broadcasting to make great content that New Zealanders love. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): The New Zealand media sector has long called for these changes and this Government is responding. I commend this bill to the House.

Carl Bates: Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, the votes—which call are you taking?

Hon Member: It’s already taken.

Carl Bates: Sorry.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote and I’m prepared to accept one. This is the process that we’re going to follow. I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Ayes will cast their vote in the lobby to the right, the Noes will cast their vote in the lobby to the left. Abstentions will be recorded at the Table. All votes and abstentions will be recorded by the Clerk. Proxy votes will be marked as such. Members present in the Chamber or lobbies must cast a vote or abstain, and must not leave before the vote is announced—Standing Order 151(1). Members, the Ayes are 49; the Noes are 22.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve just had occasion to look at the Standing Orders and I’m reading Standing Order 154. Now, Standing Order 154 states—it’s very short—“Where fewer than 20 members attend the House to vote or abstain on a personal vote, that vote is of no effect.” It appears we have 13 members who attended the House to vote, and it would appear, therefore, that that vote has no effect.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Labour Party is looking for opportunities to kind of undo some of the process that we’re following, but I just want to ask you, Mr Speaker—speaking to the point of order that the Labour member raised, my understanding is that we’re to take members at their word and if they’ve cast proxy votes for other members of their caucus who aren’t here, we take them at their word.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, for a start, I’d direct the member to Standing Order 152(2) and he may find that he’s actually wrong. It’s quite clear, for those who are present, that “(2) A proxy must include—(a) the name of the member who is giving the authority, (b) the date the authority is given, (c) the period or business for which the authority is valid, (d) the member who is given authority to exercise the proxy, and (e) the signature of the member who is giving the authority.” The chair is not only not satisfied that hasn’t happened, the chair is satisfied that it didn’t happen. So, now, I’ll speak to the Clerk and relate.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Speaking to the point of order, if the interpretation of Standing Order 154 is correct, then that would therefore mean that the voice vote is the one that is carried. So the motion is agreed because the Standing Order 154 applies to the personal vote which was called after the vote which was carried on the voices.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I’m advised that’s not correct. At this stage, the debate on the bill is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. There were less than 20 members present at the time the vote was taken, in contravention of Standing Order 154.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 October 2025, and we all leave much better informed than we were when this debate began.

The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.