Tuesday, 14 October 2025

TUESDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2025

TUESDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Member Sworn

Member Sworn

SPEAKER: Members, I understand that Michael John Davidson is present and wishes to make the Affirmation of Allegiance. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green): Ko ahau, ko Michael John Davidson, 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, Michael John Davidson, 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.]

Speaker’s Rulings

Maiden Statements—Allocated Time Frame

SPEAKER: Members, last Thursday afternoon, I suspended the House for what I considered to be disruption coming from the galleries of Parliament. This disruption occurred after the maiden speech of Oriini Kaipara. That statement was delivered following question time because Te Pāti Māori had asked the Business Committee if they could move that speaking time to accommodate a slot that would mean that more people who were here to see the swearing in could see the maiden speech, as well.

Outside of the Address in Reply debate, maiden speeches are usually at some time between 5.40 and 6 p.m. on a sitting day, meaning that any overtime running into the dinner break would not be taking time from the legislative process of the House. Similarly, if the speech goes over time in the Address in Reply debate, it comes from a party’s allocation.

The Business Committee decision to facilitate the speech following question time was on the understanding that it would be a statement and a waiata, all within 15 minutes allowed under Standing Order 368. That did not occur. The speech went on for quite some time, well past the 15 minutes, followed by a waiata and then a haka from the gallery.

There is no issue with waiata. There is no issue with haka. But there is an issue with the disrespect for process that was shown last Thursday.

The Standing Orders of this House have been developed over 171 years to facilitate the legislative process and to ensure that, in its work, the views of those elected to this Parliament could be heard. Our Standing Orders suppose that all members are honourable members, and that they can be taken at their word. They are written and adopted in that light and, accordingly, are not particularly prescriptive about sanctions that the Speaker alone can instigate when agreements of the Business Committee are not observed, or other matters in the House sit outside the Standing Orders. In most cases, this is the prerogative of the Privileges Committee, who consider matters referred to it by the Speaker on complaint of another member.

The Speaker can name a member. If a member is named, as provided in Standing Order 91, with a consequential suspension from the House—Standing Order 94—a vote must be taken so the whole Parliament votes for or against the suspension. The Speaker can require members to leave the Chamber for disruptive behaviour or non-compliance with a direction or a ruling. That occurs periodically, and can be seen more as a cooling-down period than a particular admonishment. None of these measures were put in place at a time when members writing them would have contemplated the Parliament being used as a stage on which members’ speaking times associated with the legislative process were more of a performance nature and recorded and posted on social media.

It was disorderly for Oriini Kaipara to continue speaking beyond the allocated 15 minutes, and despite several bells politely indicating to the member that time was up, it was, in my view, contemptuous, after asking the Business Committee for the concession allowing the time of the speech to be straight after question time, to then ignore that agreed allocated time.

The Business Committee is essential for the fair operating of Parliament. It works by seeking unanimous or near-unanimous agreement and proceeds on that basis. As I’ve said, all members are honourable members, and should be taken at their word. To ignore a Business Committee decision, challenges that premise.

There will be future requests to accommodate various requests from Te Pāti Māori. Consideration of those requests will be clouded by the disruption of last Thursday.

After nearly two years in this role, it is now regrettably clear that some elected to this House see disruption and dissent as more important than legislative achievement. I respect that all members of this House are equally elected, but I think they equally have a responsibility to uphold the dignity of the House. That does not preclude vigorous debate and it does not imply consensus of views, but it does require respect for process and respect for one another.

To start representation in this House with a referral to the Privileges Committee for an incident that occurred just minutes after being sworn in could be seen as particularly pernicious. I have had no referral request, perhaps because wiser heads in this House know that new members rely heavily on the advice and guidance of more experienced colleagues and leaders.

Failure of the leadership to guide members is beyond the reach of the Standing Orders. Caucus discipline is important. Leaders have an obligation to instil that, and parties receive funding to give effect to the benefit of caucus discipline. It is also to the benefit of individual members who ascribe authority to a caucus.

Last Thursday’s engagement from the gallery could have been accommodated if Oriini Kaipara had stuck to the Business Committee decision. Choosing to ignore that turns celebration into disruption. More than that, it highlights a fractious and, at times, inequitable Parliament.

While I firmly believe that the atmosphere in Parliament is the business of its members and that the Standing Orders should accommodate good humour and reasonable banter, it is my intention that from this point I will more critically apply the limited measures available to a Speaker to ensure greater respect is shown from members, one to the other, and the dignity of the House and the processes of the House are upheld.

Later this afternoon, I intend engaging the Business Committee on changes to attendance records, to dress standards, and to leave provisions. Further, from today, question time in the House will revert to Standing Order 397/1, and supplementary questions will be entirely at the discretion of the Speaker.

Respect and dignity should be at the front of minds for all members of this House.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

CLERK: Petition of Raiha McDonald requesting that the House amend its rules so that comments that are discriminatory against immigrant New Zealanders are no longer considered acceptable in Parliament’s rules.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 11 papers.

CLERK:

The financial statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2025

the 2024/25 annual reports of:

Air New Zealand

the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

the Ministry of Education

the Natural Hazards Commission, and

Statistics New Zealand

report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the police portfolio in Vote Business, Science and Innovation for the year ending 30 June 2025

the NZQA statement of intent for 2025-26 to 2028-29 and statement of performance expectations for 2025-26, and

Government responses to the petition of Focus on Iran and the report of the Environment Committee on the petition of David Famularo.

SPEAKER: I’ve received the 2024-25 annual reports of the Parliament sector and the Controller of the Auditor-General. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Six select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Environment Committee on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Are we building harder, hotter cities? The vital importance of urban green spaces

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill

reports of the Health Committee on the Gene Technology Bill and the review briefing of the 2023-24 annual review of the Health Quality and Safety Commission

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Ngaire Hoko: Reform KiwiSaver Act 2006 to expand home purchase provisions, and

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Incorporated Societies Regulations 2023.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report, review briefings, and complaint are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.

CLERK: Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill and Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the actions of all his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Was the Prime Minister or Cabinet Office made aware of any potential conflict of interest with the Minister for the Environment attempting to influence a consent process from which a National MP’s company could benefit, and does he consider this an appropriate action for his Minister to take?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve been completely comfortable with the engagement between the Minister for the Environment and the MP involved.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think that paragraph 2.68 of the Cabinet Manual has been upheld, where “Public perception is a very important factor. If a conflict arises in relation to the interests of family, whānau, or close associates, Ministers should take appropriate action”; and if so, what appropriate action did the Minister take to avoid public perception of a conflict of interest?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, I'm completely comfortable that the Minister is compliant with the Cabinet Manual, and particularly 2.68.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's fair to the other farmers and water users in this catchment that his Minister is risking the ecological health of the catchment by pressuring councils to grant consents for particular individuals?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, it's entirely appropriate for the Minister to have—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I invite you to study carefully the content of that question.

SPEAKER: Yes, I was about to intervene on that. The member can word the question in a different way, but do not put an allegation in a question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's fair to the other farmers and water users in this catchment that his Minister may be risking the ecological health of the catchment by pressuring councils to grant consents for particular individuals?

SPEAKER: No, you can't assert that either. You can ask a question that doesn't have inferences in it, or allegations.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's fair to the other farmers and water users in this catchment the way that his Minister has been using her power to privilege—

SPEAKER: No, you can't say that, sorry; that’s the end of the supplementaries on that question, so I'll go to the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, I want a supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Oh, yeah. OK.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the Prime Minister, going from the questioner's original draft of the primary question, would he have confidence if any Minister couldn't spell “Ministers” properly?

SPEAKER: OK, point made.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “Economic growth is going to influence every decision I take this year.”; if so, why did he shrink the economy by almost 1 percent in the last quarter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because we had a very poor inheritance from the previous Government, which was Government spending that went up 84 percent, a lot of it very wasteful. That drove up inflation over 7 percent. That drove up interest rates—there were 12 interest rate rises under the member’s previous Government—and that put the country into recession and raised unemployment. That’s what this Government is working incredibly hard to do. We’ve got spending under control. We’ve got inflation down. We’ve got interest rates down. Growth is coming; jobs are coming.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which thing is he most proud of: a shrinking economy, rising unemployment, more kids living in poverty, more homelessness, or record numbers of New Zealanders giving up and leaving the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, on the last point, I’d just say to the member: it’s rather ironic that he talks about the number of New Zealanders leaving New Zealand, which is at a high, and it is a function of the economic conditions that he left with his previous Government. He’s also a leader that actually says, “We’re not going to do oil and gas”, and what do a lot of New Zealanders do when they go to Australia? They go work in the oil and gas sector. He’s the member that says, “We’re not going to do mining”, but, actually, what do they do when they go to Australia? They go work in mining. He’s the member that says he won’t support fast-track, because that’s about getting construction jobs out to New Zealanders, but he won’t support that either. I’d just say to the member: if you’re serious about it, rather than the crocodile tears why don’t you back it up with some proper action and get in behind backing oil and gas?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: On the topic of construction, does he agree with Christopher Luxon, “At the most basic level, the problem is not enough money being spent on new and existing infrastructure.”; if so, why did he slash nearly $3 billion in infrastructure investment in his first year as Prime Minister?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. In light of your earlier comments, I just wonder if the preamble to that question was acceptable and within the Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think it was. Carry on.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say to the member is that he has a problem with equity and debt—with understanding that—as we saw with the Chorus statement this week, but he also has a major problem understanding that, in construction, interest rates are the critical piece that enables developers to actually borrow money to go off and get things built. When you actually crash the car, and you crash the economy like he did last time he was in charge—and will do again with more spending, more borrowing, more taxes—you’ve got to fix interest rates—

SPEAKER: Now, I’m going to stop the Prime Minister there. When you’re giving an answer like that, you can speak about the actions of a Government that you inherit, not the individual who you’re speaking to.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why did he cut $3 billion of public investment in infrastructure in his first year as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m actually very proud that we’ve accelerated $7 billion worth of infrastructure investment that’s actually starting before Christmas. That’s helping. But what we’re doing is actually getting spending under control. We’ve brought inflation down from a record high and pathetic 7.5 percent, from his economic management last time, to 2.7 percent. That’s lowered interest rates. Interest rates are down eight times under this Government; they were up 12 times under his.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “We’re determined to get the building and construction sector firing on all cylinders.”; if so, is 20,000 job losses in the construction sector the type of firing he was referring to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Isn’t it funny, the great gaslighter forgets about something called interest rates, which he doesn’t take responsibility for creating. How on earth do you increase spending by 84 percent, drive up inflation over 7.5 percent, have 12 interest rate rises, and then ask some questions about how the construction industry works? Get back and understand some economics.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why does he think billions of dollars of public money is better spent on tax cuts for landlords and tobacco companies instead of the infrastructure that he has cut spending on?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’m proud of the fact that, actually, we lowered tax for low- and middle-income working New Zealanders—something the Labour-Greens opposed but that actually put more money into working New Zealanders. That’s a good thing.

Hon David Seymour: Is it possible to “Spend money on tax cuts”, or is a tax cut when people just keep more of the money that belongs to them in the first place? How does it work?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it works because you have an economic philosophy that you’re going to spend more, you’re going to borrow more, you’re going to tax more, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s Labour, the Greens, or Te Pāti Māori, that’s what that uni-party is going to do. They’re going to continue with the track and the mess that put us in this position.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Acting Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s financial position?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Last week Treasury released the Government financial statements for 2024-25. These are actual numbers, not forecasts or projections. They’re the first year-end statements to fully reflect decisions made by the current Government, and they show progress in getting the country’s books back in order. As a share of GDP, core Crown expenses fell from 33.1 percent in 2023-24 to 32.5 in 2024-25. Our intention is to bring spending down even more as a proportion of the economy, and that intention is reflected in the Budget forecasts.

David MacLeod: What do the financial statements say about the operating balance?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government’s headline operating balance, known as OBEGALx, remains steady at a deficit of 2.1 percent of GDP. In dollar terms, the deficit came in $900 million better than was forecast at the time of the Budget. That is progress, but there is still a lot of work to do. The operating balance has been in deficit for the last six years. The Government’s intention is to return to surplus, and the Budget forecasts show this happening at the end of the forecast period, in 2028-29.

David MacLeod: What do the financial statements say about Government debt?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Net core Crown debt remains steady at 41.8 percent of GDP. Over the previous five years, debt as a percentage of GDP rose every year. The Government’s intention over the forecast period is to bend the debt curve down. Instead of going up, we want it going down. More specifically, our intention is to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent, and that is what the Budget forecasts show.

David MacLeod: What is the next major release on the Government’s financial position?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Treasury will present its latest forecasts in the half-year update on 16 December. At the same time, I will present the Budget Policy Statement. This is a chance for the Government to respond to the forecast, including any changes to its fiscal strategy. The Budget Policy Statement lays out the goals and objectives that will guide the Government’s decisions in the Budget. I want to say now that members should not expect any surprises. The Government’s objectives have consistently been to deliver better public services, improve long-term productivity, and get the books back in order. That will continue.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Is the record 73,900 New Zealand citizens leaving the country a sign that her economic plan is a success; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): It’s a sign that New Zealand citizens have decided to live somewhere else for a while. This is not a phenomenon that is unknown to New Zealand Governments and, indeed, the New Zealand economy. Some people leave for a relatively short time, others leave for a longer time, and many come back home. Often their decision is based on opportunities available overseas. It is a reality that Australia is a wealthier country than New Zealand and can pay higher wages, including, I might say, in industries such as mining and oil and gas. Members will draw their own conclusions about parties’ attitudes towards those.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are a record number of New Zealanders leaving because the cost of utilities are up 19.3 percent from a year earlier, including rates, water charges, and energy bills? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Let’s just see if we can get the answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is undoubtedly true that the Government and the country have challenges around energy security and energy affordability. I would encourage that member and her party to reflect on the retrograde decision they have made to not support the repeal of the oil and gas ban. In the feedback coming through in her sojourn round the boardrooms of Auckland, she will know that some of the feedback coming from the business community and the energy sector has been to plead with the Opposition to support the Government’s move on energy security. She should start listening to the voices of reason in the business community that want bipartisanship on energy policy, because the best thing we could do for this country’s energy security is firm up the gas supply to make sure we keep the lights on.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So will energy prices—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on—hang on. OK.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she commit to bringing down energy prices as a result—and a direct result—of her energy strategy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As the member well knows, no. The Government’s intention—[Interruption] Well, if the Opposition wants to campaign on bringing down energy prices, good luck. The Government’s intention is to put downward pressure on energy prices, which will come from a combination of Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, planning reform, sorting out the dysfunctionality of the energy market through the Electricity Authority, and the hard work being led by the Minister of Energy, and it will come from long-term stability when it comes to gas supply, which is why I repeat, again, that the Opposition should get on board with rational economic policy and realise that New Zealand’s energy security is underpinned by thermal electricity powered by gas. Stability around that will be the single best thing that the Opposition could do to energy policy.

SPEAKER: That was an exceptionally long answer. I’m sure they’ll be more concise from this point on.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are a record number of New Zealanders leaving because the service sector has been contracting for every month since she took office?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member just makes a point that, I think, has been well canvassed already, which is that the Government inherited a perilous economic situation. We are putting in place the long-term structural reforms to sort out this economy: planning reform, infrastructure funding and financing, cutting red tape, sorting out the energy sector, boosting—as the Prime Minister said—our trade and services exports including by signing record free-trade deals. The member can just look at the numbers from the United Arab Emirates free-trade deal for an example of the outward-facing economy this Government is building.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are a record number of Kiwis leaving because, as Christopher Luxon has said, “If you want a job, go where the jobs are.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s very interesting. A number of New Zealanders started to leave in October 2020—I wonder what was going on then. Here is the graph. Here is the net departures, which started in 2020, and you can see this massive decline in the number of people leaving New Zealand during the months of 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Last time I looked, this Government wasn’t in charge then. Actually, the number of people leaving, on net, has flattened out. Do we have more work to do? Of course we do, but the facts are this: under that last Government’s epic mismanagement of the economy, people fled New Zealand. We are turning it around, and she should get on board with that.

Question No. 5—Education

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Education: What recent data has she seen on literacy achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): This year, our education reform got under way. We mandated structured literacy and introduced a phonics check after 20 and 40 weeks at school to test how well our youngest readers were learning to sound out words. The latest report shows an incredible improvement in the number of students who are reaching 20 weeks at school at expected levels of phonics, up from 36 percent in term 1 to 58 percent in term 3. Our students’ reading ability has declined over many decades, but with a focus on teaching the basics brilliantly, an hour a day of reading, and implementing an evidence-based structured literacy approach, we are building the strong foundations required to turn that around.

Catherine Wedd: What does the report show for children who need extra support?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Very simple: it shows that structured literacy reduces the number of students requiring extra support. In term 1, 52 percent of students required extra support, compared to 33 percent by term 3. This is a significant drop from over a half to a third of children needing support at their 20-week check. Our reforms are data driven and evidence informed, and these early results show what can be achieved when a Government focuses on raising achievement and backs teachers with the resources to implement change.

Catherine Wedd: What does the report say about Māori and low-decile achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Even more excellent news: in every decile for every ethnicity, results have significantly improved. For our tamariki Māori, I'm especially proud that 25 percent were at expectations in term 1 at their 20-week check, and this has risen to 43 percent in term 3 after two short terms. Sixty-eight percent needed extra support in term 1, falling to 47 percent needing support in term 3. This Government is focused on raising achievement and closing the equity gap, and these results for tamariki Māori are the first time we've seen such improvements to reading data in many, many years.

Catherine Wedd: Why have these results been so positive?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We mandated structured literacy; we introduced a new English curriculum backing structured literacy; we trained over 33,000 teachers in structured literacy; we provided cash to schools for more structured literacy resources; and we provided 349 structured literacy intervention teachers to over 1,240 schools to support students who need help. But while we set the policy and we resourced it, we didn’t teach a single child to read; our incredible teachers did that. These results are so positive because teachers across New Zealand worked hard to implement reform at pace, and these incredible results are a testament to their hard work, their dedication, and their passion for their students. This data represents thousands of children who are on track for success, and I’m proud to be part of a team that made this happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, are you saying that if one can phonetically pronounce “honesty” and “integrity”, then one would be better able to actually write those words properly, and, better still, possibly practice them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Phonemic awareness and phonics and structured literacy is about sounding out words. It’s about taking the letters in “honesty” and “integrity”, sounding them out letter by letter, so that our littlest learners can pronounce those words with confidence and ease.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Did the Prime Minister give agricultural polluters a free ride instead of requiring them to do their fair share of emissions reductions, given that this means that households and businesses—[Interruption]. Mr Speaker, do some people have to shush, or all of us, while we’re being asked questions?

SPEAKER: I was trying very carefully to listen to your question, but there was far too much talk going on in the House at that time. Please ask the question again.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you. Did the Prime Minister give agricultural polluters a free ride instead of requiring them to do their fair share of emissions reductions, given that this means that households and businesses will have to shoulder more of the emissions reduction, increasing the cost of living for everyday New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Our farmers are the world’s most productive, best, and most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. We’re proud of them.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister understand that weakening methane targets actually harms farmers’ livelihoods and increases their long-term cost of living as farmers are at the front line of climate-driven extreme weather events that threaten global food production and raise insurance premiums?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I tell you, this Government is not going to shut down Kiwi farms and send that production to less carbon-efficient places, less productive places, and make global greenhouse gas emissions worse.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he claim that his targets are based on anything other than corporate interests—

Mark Cameron: Rubbish!

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: —when world-leading—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. Stop. You might find that a useful comment for yourself, but not for the House. The member will start her question again and there will be silence while it’s asked.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he claim that his targets are based on anything other than corporate interests when world-leading climate scientists have described his weakening of methane targets as “a great way of shooting yourself in the foot” and “New Zealand is setting a dangerous precedent that other governments must not follow”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question, but I just say to the member, as part of a Labour-Greens Government who wanted to shut down New Zealand farms and send production overseas, why don’t you come on board and actually support that policy too? It’s going to be very interesting to see what the Labour Party says about that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is the Prime Minister governing New Zealand in the interests of corporate lobbyists or in the interests of everyday New Zealanders, and, if the latter, can he explain why corporate agriculture lobby groups had early access to information enabling—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that member’s been around here long enough to understand that you’re allowed to ask one question at a time, not two. She’s been around here far too long not to have learnt that, surely, and she should have been stopped.

SPEAKER: Well, look, the rules are that while the question might have several legs in it, the person answering that question only has to address one.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And in answer to the first leg, no.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is his Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations pushing a bill through this House today that the Waitangi Tribunal has described as a “gross breach” of Te Tiriti, which would, “significantly endanger the Māori-Crown relationship”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All we’re doing—we disagree with that. We’re actually just putting it back to what Parliament originally intended.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he comfortable with the fact that some are describing his Government’s changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act as “the biggest raupatu … that Te Ao Māori have faced” due to these changes making it significantly harder for iwi, hapu and whānau to have their customary rights to the takutai moana recognised?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think if a member is going to quote something, she’s got to quote a source. It’s not legitimate, surely, to just say, “some people have described it as”. I mean, it literally could be anyone. There needs to be some, at least, sourcing for the quote that she’s quoted from.

SPEAKER: I think that that’s for primary questions. The supplementary questions are not quite so rigorously enforced, but it certainly doesn’t do the question any credit by just expressing it in such general terms. If there is someone to be quoted, then quote them.

Mark Cameron: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, we’re still on over here.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I will repeat that question in light of the conversation, Mr Speaker. Is he comfortable with the fact that Māori leaders are describing his Government’s changes to the marine and coastal area Act as “the biggest raupatu … that Te Ao Māori have faced” due to these changes making it significantly harder for iwi, hapu, and whānau to have their customary rights to takutai moana recognised?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think we’ve traversed this many times before. The Court of Appeal lowered the threshold. We had a high threshold under the legislation. We’re just returning it to what Parliament intended.

Mark Cameron: Does the Prime Minister think that farmers are corporate lobbyists?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I think farmers should be deeply valued and not treated like villains as they were under a Labour-Greens Government.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister understand that Māori exercise kaitiakitanga and protection for the benefit of all of us here in Aotearoa—for example, when they veto applications for private companies to mine in our precious moana, and that by removing recognition of customary rights in the takutai moana, his Government has taken this away?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member may disagree, but I’m just saying to the member, our position’s very clear. As a Government, we’re just returning what was a lowered threshold under the courts—we’re returning it back to what Parliament intended.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Why has the number of people unable to afford a doctor’s visit increased under this Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): As the member will be aware, this follows a 30 percent increase in GP fees between 2017 and 2023. Our Government has delivered the biggest ever funding boost for GPs—$175 million this year alone—and capped fee increases at 3 percent, keeping costs stable and predictable. Today, 90 percent of adults without a community services card pay $70 or less to see their general practitioner. Access remains the number one barrier for patients; that is why we are focused on affordability and accessibility. We’re extending prescriptions to 12 months, we’re saving patients up to $105 a year in GP fees, strengthening the primary care workforce, we have launched a 24/7 online GP care service for times when patients can’t see their regular doctor, and we continue targeted support through subsidised GP visits for the community services card holders and the Very Low Cost Access scheme. All of this is about putting patients first and making sure that every Kiwi can see a doctor when they need to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What good is capping fees when under-funded practices start charging for double consultations, leading to the pensioner who wrote to me saying, “I pay $91 for a 15-minute visit, and you’re only allowed to talk about one thing. If you want to talk about two things, you need to pay for another $91. I cannot afford to pay this.”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said, 90 percent of adults without a community services card are paying $70 or less to see their general practitioner. As I also said, the increase in the number of people saying they’re unable to afford a doctor’s visit increased because, under the previous Government, GP fees increased by 30 percent between 2017 and 2023. We’re doing things to fix it, focusing on affordability and accessibility, including the extension of prescriptions to 12 months, and, as of yet, I have not heard what the Labour Party position is. Do they support it?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was a heart patient correct when they wrote to me, “On several occasions, I have avoided visiting the GP because I cannot afford the fees. Instead, I end up going to the emergency room and waiting for hours to be seen.”, or is this patient’s experience what the Minister meant when he said concern about fees was “misinformation put about by the Labour Party”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, the increase in GP fees of 30 percent occurred under the previous Government. We are focused on affordability and accessibility, including extending prescriptions to 12 months, where safe, which will save patients up to $105 per year in GP fees starting from early next year. I’m yet to hear whether or not the Labour Party supports that policy.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the family of six correct when they wrote, “First appointment at our new GP cost $660, $110 each.”, and will he write this off as “misinformation” or admit that first-visit fees are a genuine barrier to enrolment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, 90 percent of adults without a community services card pay $70 or less to see a general practitioner. Under her watch, general practitioner fees increased by 30 percent. We are focused on accessibility and affordability, and one of the ways that we can do that is by allowing GPs to extend prescriptions up to 12 months, which will save people with long-term conditions up to $105 on GP fees each year. Also, it’ll mean that our GPs are able to see more patients. I’m yet to hear whether or not the Labour Party supports that practical policy to reduce costs on patients.

SPEAKER: Good. That’s enough time.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Was the full-time worker who wrote to me, “I make good money, but with the cost of living, I cannot afford to see my doctor. A hundred dollars is so extreme for a 15-minute consultation.”, or are his circumstances “misinformation” too?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, 90 percent of adults without a community service card pay $70 or less to see their GP, and under her watch, the Labour Party let GP fees increase by 30 percent over their six years in office. As I say, you can’t trust Labour when it comes to GP fees.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I noticed the questioner quoted from two pieces of correspondence she received, though she never offered to table them. How do we know they exist in the first place? Perhaps she could be asked to table them now?

SPEAKER: Well, that is a request that you obviously have made by way of point of order. The point is that it goes to the heart of what I said before: all members should be considered honourable members and taken at their word. Now, if there is something to be tabled, then the member is entitled to table it.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his decision to exclude Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Regulatory Standards Bill, given that this bill defines the constitutional test for every future law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, not every bill needs a reference to the Treaty in it. As we’ve said, we want a narrow focus to make sure that, actually, any reference to the Treaty—its application is very clear for everybody involved. But I can reassure the member that Treaty settlements will not be impacted by this bill.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he support amendments to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori as foundational principles of a good regulation, to ensure Māori interests are upheld in lawmaking; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said before, we don’t want general, open-ended references to the Treaty that don’t give clarity to participants as to how to enact that legislation, so we’ll continue to work through that. But I just reassure the member, again: Treaty settlements are not impacted.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does he reconcile opposing the Treaty principles bill while supporting the Regulatory Standards Bill, which, effectively, achieves the same intent by other means?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As the tribunal accepts, there are no Treaty settlements going to be affected by this bill. But, again, I’d just say to the member, it’s interesting that I’ve never had a question from that member about what we are doing to improve literacy with young Māori students. I’ve never had a question about what we’re doing to make sure that—

SPEAKER: No—that’s all right. That’s all right.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —Māori are not victims of crime.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just a moment—I think Debbie Ngarewa-Packer had the floor.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That has absolutely no relevance to the question at hand.

SPEAKER: And I just made that point.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that the success of policies such as structured literacy and charter schools make the case that it is possible to uplift young Māori educational outcomes without making any reference to the Treaty whatsoever?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the Public Health Communication Centre that this bill risks obstructing future tobacco, alcohol, or sugar regulations, worsening existing health inequities for Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What assurances, if any, can he give that the Regulatory Standards Bill won’t undermine the Government’s ability to implement Treaty clauses and needs-based, Māori-specific provisions in health, education, and environmental legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is designed to improve the quality of regulation, which will actually lead to better benefits and outcomes for all New Zealanders, Māori or non-Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is he proceeding with the Regulatory Standards Bill without a public mandate, when 99 percent of the 159,000 submitters opposed it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to make sure we have better quality regulation and reduce the compliance burden.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: How many pregnant women have been refused access to emergency housing since December 2023, broken down by region, if any?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): I’m advised that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development does not record the pregnancy status of applicants for emergency housing. But in my humble opinion, respectfully, I think it is potentially reckless and insensitive that the member would consider it appropriate for officialdom to ask women seeking emergency housing support, often in difficult circumstances, if they are hapū or not.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The House will just calm itself, thank you.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is he aware of the recent case of a pregnant woman in Masterton who was denied emergency housing, as reported in the media; if so, why did he not mention that?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ve only recently, as of today, become aware of that. But if the member wishes to take some time to put together an authority to act and send it to me, maybe I could look at it further, with his support.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. In the primary question, which was on notice, I asked the Minister how many pregnant women had been refused access. In the supplementary, he conceded to the House that he was aware of one instance that was reported in the media. How can those two answers wash?

SPEAKER: Well, he also added the word “today”, so I took it that he learnt of it when you raised it in the question. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he now concede that front-line providers are correct when they say that the Minister’s claim that everyone in genuine need can access emergency housing is “not true”, when there are now reports of pregnant women being denied access to emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned several times in this House, in most major towns and cities in New Zealand, there continues to be emergency housing available as a last resort for those in genuine need of a short-term stay in temporary accommodation. There are a number of people who may be declined emergency housing, but many—in fact, over half of them—are actually given some form of support.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can he continue to deny the link between his tightening of the emergency housing entry criteria and the unprecedented increase in homelessness, when even pregnant women are now being denied access?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I think we’ve heard through question and answer in this session that there is a degree of conjecture that continues to creep in the member’s questions. We, on this side of the House, are genuinely concerned by those who may be rough sleeping, and that’s why Minister Bishop and myself have taken direct action over the last six weeks to announce an additional 300 funded places for Housing First and additional support for transitional housing, and have also given some direction around both redirections and also the exercise of discretion by Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora—the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is it the case, like when MSD issued grants for homeless people to buy tents, or when women and children fleeing domestic violence were denied emergency housing, that the Minister knew there was an issue, but only acted when this was made public?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In relation to the second example that the member has given, I have asked the member to provide an appropriate authority to act, and also to credentialise the allegation that he made. As at this point in time, I’ve yet to receive an authority to act or have credentialised information from that member. But we are genuinely concerned about those people who are sleeping rough in cars, in tents, or on the street, and that’s why we have taken action rather than talk about it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation in response to that allegation made by the Minister just now.

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

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The Minister asked me for a contact. I provided that contact, and that contact advises me that the Minister has not been in touch.

SPEAKER: Is there another supplementary?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: No.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Suze Redmayne.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare—

SPEAKER: Sorry, there is no response to that. Right—

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The ministry has been in touch.

SPEAKER: No response. Question No. 10—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As a response to that point of order, the Minister had claimed in response to a question that the contact he requested was not provided. He’s subsequently said that it was provided and the ministry followed it up. Now, this cannot be allowed to occur—where the Minister makes a claim against another member that something didn’t happen and when it was pointed out that he did, he responded that, actually, that is the case.

SPEAKER: I’ll look into that straight away after question time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: Why has the Government announced new science-based methane targets to support farmers’ contribution to meeting New Zealand’s obligations under the 2050 Paris Agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): It’s important that we provide certainty to our farmers, processors, and exporters that is fair, pragmatic, and backed by science. This is why the Government has set the methane target at a range of 14 to 24 percent below 2017 levels by 2050. We’ve accepted a range of advice to agree a practical target that protects food production while substantially reducing New Zealand’s farm emissions. We’ve delivered a practical, fair pathway that recognises New Zealand’s agricultural efficiency, protects jobs and production, upholds our climate commitments, and is consistent with our trade agreements.

Suze Redmayne: How has the Government landed on this range for the new methane targets?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Across Government we’ve worked to get the balance right. We have taken a range of advice, including an independent expert science-based review, as reported in December last year. The new targets have New Zealand on track to meet its climate obligations by 2050. I want to be clear, though: there are no winners here, but, for the first time, there are also no losers. This is a practical approach to meet our international obligations, and it ensures we continue to produce the highest-quality, safest food anywhere in the world. We do not have to close down farms and send production overseas, there will be no tax on agricultural methane emissions, and our access to imported markets around the world remains available to New Zealand’s farmers, growers, and exporters.

Suze Redmayne: How is the Government supporting the primary sector to meet the new methane targets?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New technologies will deliver emissions reductions to meet international and market expectations while enabling the sector to grow. To back the new target, the Government is already investing more than $400 million with industry to speed up the development and roll-out of methane-cutting tools. Three methane-cutting tools are available now, with up to 11 rolling out by 2030—one of which will be available as early as next year. It will be up to each farmer, processor, and company to decide how best to meet these commitments using the tools and innovations that they see fit for their business.

Suze Redmayne: What feedback has he received on the Government’s announcement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Whilst the targets are extremely challenging, farmers have welcomed them and confirmed that they will meet these challenges head-on. Our primary sector earns nearly $60 billion in export revenue each year for New Zealand. It provides more than one in 10 Kiwi jobs. You can’t solve climate change by shutting down the world’s best farmers and sending that production overseas. The Government is focused on domestic action to reduce emissions, all while growing the economy. This Government backs our farmers, and when our farmers do well, all of New Zealand does well because of their significant contribution to the economy.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “This Government has been backing teachers since the day that we took office”; if so, why are teachers, principals, and support staff all striking together?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question, yes—as I have repeatedly told the member in question time. This Government has been backing teachers since the day we took office: backing them with a knowledge-rich curriculum, professional learning and development, and resources so that more Kiwi kids succeed at school. The evidence shows this is working, with the phonics data announced yesterday. In answer to the second part of the question, not all teachers and principals are striking.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why won’t she front up to the strike action on 23 October?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I haven’t said that I wouldn’t, and I haven’t pre-released my diary up until that day. So the member can’t presuppose what may or may not happen on that day.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement “I am not aware of any of those conversations or any of the details that may or may not have been talked about” in relation to the strikes; if so, does she think it’s acceptable for the Minister of Education to not be across the detail?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not sure that there’s any detail for me to be across in terms of this question that was asked. Specifically, the previous Minister is asking a question about something I was asked in a media scrum on Monday. It was specifically in relation to other things we might be doing in terms of legislation. The answer to that question was that I am not involved in any of those conversations if they are being had.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she engaged with Sir Brian Roche, who is leading the negotiation, at any point since negotiations have started, in order to get across any details?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I meet with Sir Brian Roche all the time.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many teachers, principals, and support staff going on strike will it take before the Government finally takes them seriously?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, that member should know, because she has a very short memory. In 2023, there was a terrible strike action—tens of thousands of primary and area school and secondary principals and teachers participated in the historic walkout, followed by a further three days after that, and then rolling strikes for a whole term. So if she wants to know how long it takes, she should ask herself that.

SPEAKER: And we’ll now move to—[Interruption] that’s enough; thank you—Question No. 12, Jenny Marcroft, when the House is silent.

Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs

12. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What reports, if any, has he seen on recent developments in the Middle East?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): New Zealanders watch with cautious optimism the events of the last 24 hours in Gaza, with the ceasefire holding and the release of hostages and detainees. It has been a moment of immense relief and celebration for the 20 hostages who were released after so long in captivity, their families, and, indeed, the people of Israel. We must also remember all of those hundreds of hostages who died in the two years since Hamas brutally took them captive. Everyone who cares about peace should be welcoming this much delayed ceasefire, which has come after so much suffering. We note that while Hamas has released 20 hostages, Israel has released around 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. New Zealand commends the leadership of the United States, Donald Trump, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia, and other countries in bringing this deal together, and we view the events of the last 24 hours as providing momentum for peace and constituting a significant first step towards ending this devastating conflict—and not making stupid statements, like the people on my right.

Jenny Marcroft: How do these developments relate to the New Zealand Government’s approach to the Middle East?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It has been 2½ weeks exactly since we outlined New Zealand’s approach on the Middle East question to the United Nations General Assembly. Subsequent events have reinforced a number of arguments that we made at that time in New York, including the first: that those countries with influence over the situation should step up and exercise leadership, and second: that the international community’s focus should be on achieving a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the flow of humanitarian assistance in order to alleviate the calamitous situation impacting on Palestinians and Israelis alike. We are gratified that this is precisely what has happened. Yesterday’s historic achievement is a critical first step towards implementing the wider peace plan and securing a lasting peace. Already we have seen a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the surging into Gaza of humanitarian assistance. We urge both Israel and Hamas to abide by the ceasefire and to continue to engage in good faith to secure agreement on the outstanding issues.

Jenny Marcroft: How do these developments impact on New Zealand’s approach to recognition of a Palestinian State?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We continue to hold the position that recognition of a Palestinian State is a matter of when, not if. We will recognise a Palestinian State when the conditions are right. A ceasefire and hostage release were, indeed, two initial steps in the right direction to creating those conditions, but further steps remain. What we need now to focus on is the achievement of a durable and sustainable peace, the disarmament and dissolution of Hamas, and the rapid development of Palestinian institutions capable of forming a legitimate and credible Government in both the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians will not be able to develop these institutions alone, and New Zealand stands ready to play its part alongside other members of the international community.

Jenny Marcroft: How have recent developments in the Middle East been received here in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the silence over the past week from some of the so-called pro-Palestinian protesters around this country has been absolutely deafening. For two years, they have ranted and raved and fumed and fulminated about the situation in Gaza. They have demanded that we do more, give more, say more, and virtue signal more, and then, over the past week, as a peace deal has been struck—as a peace deal has been struck—

Ricardo Menéndez March: But you did nothing tangible.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Adios, amigos. As a ceasefire has taken hold—

Ricardo Menéndez March: You’re taking credit for others.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Adios to war and welcome to peace. Then, over the past week, as a peace deal has been struck, as a ceasefire has taken hold, and as hostages have been released, from them not a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable, not a sound. We have seen not a press release, not a tweet, not a parliamentary question, and the question is: why this deafening silence? Because you’re all about performative politics.

Simon Court: What message does he have for the Israeli and the Jewish communities in New Zealand now that the hostages have been released?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, that they recognise that it was the US President and others from Muslim countries who brought this about and that anti-Americanism or any other sentiment is of no value when you’re concerned about peace, and particularly if you’re some arrogant twit that arrived here five minutes ago and doesn’t give a concern about this country’s initiative and its peace over the years. My message is this: we can understand why the past 24 hours have provided a moment of great emotion, relief, and indeed celebration. Some 20 of the hostages held cruelly by Hamas for the past two years have finally been reunited with their loved ones, as have over 2,000 prisoners, in terms of Palestine. Anybody who saw the footage of these families being reunited should welcome and applaud that. At the same time as we have said that, we should also not forget all those hostages who lost their lives over the past two years in the custody of Hamas.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Members will leave the House for other business quietly and without conversation on the way. “Without conversation on the way” means “Don’t talk to anyone; just leave.”

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for consideration in committee of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill; and the consideration in committee of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 9 October.

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve 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 we are 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 Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 93

Noes 29

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah?

GLEN BENNETT: I just want to seek clarification. It is very clear in the Standing Orders that a vote is not allowed to be interrupted. We have experienced that in this House, this year, with four people being sent to the Privileges Committee. The vote was interrupted on this in the first instance, and I want your clarification on why that was.

SPEAKER: Good. I will give it to you tomorrow. I don’t have it with me at the moment to give to you anything that is lengthy and instructive on the way in which we have progressed today. All I know is that I asked the Clerks, who, of course, work on the basis of the history of the whole House, “How do we progress, given the circumstances of last Thursday in here?”

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill.

Bills

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

In Committee

Preamble

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We first come to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I just would be interested in the Minister’s comments—now, there’s actually two questions here, and it might be useful for the Chair to clarify, because we have a preamble to the amendment bill, and then we have an amended preamble for the main bill. Could the Chair clarify which of those preambles we’re discussing?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will as soon as I know. It’s just the bill—it’s the preamble to the bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: To this bill?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Ah, ok. That’s excellent to know. In that case, I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on this, and in particular, I would have thought it quite important that the preamble—which is, essentially, a recitation of the factual background that gave rise to the bill.

Firstly, it’s quite unusual for bills that are not themselves Treaty settlement bills to have preambles, and I’d be interested to know why he’s doing that. Also, in terms of the factual accuracy, I have read, or attempted to read, some of the decisions that relate to this bill, and I would have thought that an accurate reflection of the Supreme Court case in here would actually recognise that all of the concerns that the Court of Appeal case gave rise to had in fact been addressed. I think it’s recital (5), where it notes, “… the Supreme Court decided the remaining issues under the appeals before it, and applied its interpretation to those provisions:”. It really is inadequate because it then just says, “Amendments … are still needed”.

The fact of the matter is that this bill was halfway through the House—it was a pre-emptive strike, if you like. If the Government had, in fact, not brought this bill, I don’t think it would still feel committed, because what we now have is a Government that’s stuck its oar in, if you like—or its paddle, I suppose—and is still committed to it, whereas, in fact, the concerns in the Court of Appeal were entirely ameliorated by the Supreme Court case. Now what we have is a further tightening, which is entirely not necessary. To say, as I think it does, that the decision departed from the original intention of Parliament—it was probably untrue at the start, but it’s certainly untrue now.

Those are my two questions: firstly, why do we have a preamble in this bill, because it’s not a Treaty settlement bill; and, secondly, why does the preamble not accurately reflect the decision of the Supreme Court?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and that clarification is well-received. A number of us have sat here, and given that this is—as my colleague described—the first time I’ve seen a preamble used in a way such as it has been in this particular bill, my questions follow on from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb with respect to the difference that the Minister recognises in the court decision, and what he is, effectively, trying to change here. It’s easy to say that it wasn’t the intention, but words matter in this, and the preamble is the start of what we would consider, in the Māori world, the wairua to the rest of the bill. What that means is it sets the tone for what we will no doubt prosecute as the bill continues in the committee of the whole House stage.

We would really appreciate words from the Minister that can offer some clarity on those particular matters. The preamble, for its part here—like I say—sets the tone for the rest of it.

Now, I appreciate that in the Amendment Paper, which is the one that I’m looking at, here in Part 1, at clause 6, it tries to explain, if you will, why it’s doing this and why it’s making these changes. I’m wondering, and the first question to the Minister is if he can provide words on the preamble, and, secondly, if he can actually be quite clear whether or not this preamble will make changes that will continue to impact the rest of the bill that he has on the Table in the House. Then the next one is whether he can give an example of where, in previous cases, a marine and coastal area, or a customary title, has been recognised, and what makes this particular one different to others that have been recognised in the past.

That will be really helpful as we continue to go through this particular bill. I want to come back just to that point about how the preamble sets the tone of the rest of the bill, which is why we would really appreciate words from the Minister that set and clarify the matters that we have in the preamble here.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you, members. The bill has a preamble to explain the background. It’s not that common that Parliament brings in legislation to overturn Court of Appeal rulings, as was the case in the original bill, and also Supreme Court rulings, as is the case with this bill.

I’ll be bringing in Amendment Paper 380, which has an amended preamble, and it’s required because the Supreme Court and the High Court have issued relevant judgments since the original bill was introduced, and so they’ve been added into Part 1, clause 4 and the preamble, and different parts of the legislation, and also to give effect to Cabinet’s decision that the bill won’t apply to Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou. The Amendment Paper addresses an issue that emerged in the course of drafting around the second limb, which I will come to later.

So, in essence, just to remind people tuning into this debate, in relation to this—why are doing this? Well, our starting proposition is that all New Zealanders, of course, have an interest in what happens in the coastal and marine space around the maritime space and the coastal regions of this country—all New Zealanders have an interest in that, obviously. At the same time, the legislation that was introduced in 2011 did enable Māori claimants to seek recognition of customary marine title. When this was done, this was an arrangement between the National Party of the time and the Māori Party, and it was an agreement in response to changing the previous Labour Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act, which claimed title for the Crown, with the exception of areas where there was landholdings abutting that piece of the land.

So it was all part of an arrangement, and the 2011 Act set a very high threshold—and I quote Christopher Finlayson in regard to that “very high threshold.” Why was it a high threshold? Because customary marine title includes valuable rights, and specifically, effectively, veto rights over resource consents for a range of activities—not all activities; important infrastructure is excluded, but there are a bunch of activities that could go on in the marine space where holders of customary marine title would have the ability to grant or not grant resource consents. It also included mineral rights and a number of other things. So these are valuable rights.

Now, obviously enabling one group of New Zealanders who had received customary marine title to grant resource consents is a very significant deviation from normal expectations of New Zealanders living in this country in a democratic, modern democracy to have an equal say in decisions affecting their lives and their environment and what goes on around them. That is why Parliament set a high threshold, and that high threshold was as outlined in section 58 of the Act, which had two legs, which was according to tikanga, an understanding of that, and then “exclusively used and occupied [the area] … to the present day without substantial interruption;”.

What happened was, of course, that after many, many years after the bill was passed, it eventually made its way to court, and the Court of Appeal came up with a judgment that very much diluted the impact of the second leg, and that’s why this bill was introduced. The Supreme Court agreed with the Government that the Court of Appeal had got that wrong, and indicated their own expression of what section 58 meant.

It is still the view of the Government that it still deviates from Parliament’s intention, because we’ve seen a couple of decisions that have been made since the Supreme Court decision and the Supreme Court test which have seen very large proportions of coastlines in the Wairarapa and Kāpiti that have been given customary marine title.

So that is why this legislation is being carried on and why there is an amendment to recognise that we’re not dealing with a Court of Appeal decision but a Supreme Court decision.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. There was just one point there that the Minister raised—I think, seeing as we’re talking about the kind of genealogy of this bill, because the Minister talked about resource consents and he suggested that, and I may be putting words in his mouth, the ability of hapū and iwi to intervene and to say that resource consent shouldn’t be granted because it interfered with their customary rights was not something which New Zealanders would expect in an equal society.

The Minister could clarify in terms of where this bill comes from. Of course, the Foreshore and Seabed Act didn't go down well. It wasn't Labour's finest hour. This bill sought to address that. In doing so, it recognised that customary rights of Māori are rights in respect of coastal and marine areas that have existed since at least 1840; that is to say that they are property rights. I just want the Minister to clarify how he says that a resource consent for an activity which would interfere with those coastal rights is not something which is appropriate in a society which deals with all property rights and property owners equally.

Because if a hapū and iwi have a customary right to exercise control in respect of a particular activity over a coastal area, these are rights which are familiar to jurisdictions around the world. We have fishing rights to rivers for trout in the UK that have been recognised since medieval times, and you can't dam the river with the resource consent or their equivalent there.

Why is it that the Minister sees the property rights of hapū and iwi in respect of coastal and marine areas in some way as less than other property rights that people who are applying for a resource consent ought to have, such that they should actually be extinguished by this legislation and in his own words, “The threshold for establishing those rights”—not establishing them, because they already exist, but recognising them—“should be extremely high.” So could he just explain to me how it is that customary marine title rights are some kind of second-tier property rights compared with the rights of other New Zealanders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I explained, and it has been very well traversed in this House, that the bill was seeking to balance two things: on the one hand, the ability to assert customary marine rights and for those to be acknowledged through the legislation, with the accompanying abilities to, effectively, grant or not grant resource consents in that particular area; and to balance that with the natural expectations of all New Zealanders living in a modern democracy to have an equal say in what goes on in their community.

And so it was a balancing act that was established in the bill, and the way that the Parliament of the time sought to achieve that balance was to grant the ability or enable the appeal and granting—or the “recognition”, is the right word—of customary marine rights, but setting a high threshold for that to be established. That was the goal and that’s how it was always explained: that you had to achieve two legs, the first being to recognise it through tikanga, and the second requiring applicants to have held a specified area and “exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption”. The common-sense reading of that, for most New Zealanders when they look at that—“exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption” was the threshold that Parliament set.

Now, the member is quite within his rights to say that “That’s not the right threshold”, “It should be a different threshold”, “There should be no threshold”—that’s fine. That’s not what the Parliament passed in 2011, and so there have been different interpretations of what that threshold should be, and that’s what we’re seeking to establish clearly with this amendment bill.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Speaking to that very last point, as a starting point—but I would like to work back to other points the Minister has made recently—in the preamble, the entire premise of this legislation is to restore the intention of Parliament. That intention, the Minister contends, has been abrogated from in the interpretation of the Appeal Court finding. Now, to the question of what Parliament intended in the original legislation, in 2011, what is the actual basis of independent analysis, which shows that Parliament’s intent in 2011 is not fulfilled by the determinations of the Supreme Court, in its 2 December 2024 finding, and its more recent finding, this year? Because the Parliament of the day—of 2011, I'm talking about now—was very clear about what it was trying to achieve. The very thing that the Minister just described is achieving the customary rights of iwi Māori in concert with other rights, like fishing and recreational activities, public use, the rights of other users of the space, that could exist in concert with customary marine title (CMT).

To the specific point of his assertion that the intention of Parliament has been departed from, the Minister of the day, Christopher Finlayson, who the Minister also mentioned in his opening remarks, said, “These amendments”—meaning the amendments that the Minister has before us—“do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them. Let there be no doubt about that at all.” So I invite the Minister to actually express the basis for his primary proposition, which is that Parliament's intention has not been met.

Also, as to the extent to which we are dealing with a concert of rights, in the specific comment of the supplementary analysis: “It's always been clear, and has never been contested, that the purpose of the 2011 Act and the findings of both the Appeal Court and the subsequent findings of the Supreme Court never questioned that public access, fishing, and other recreational activities in a customary marine title area are not effective, except for a limited exception for the protection of wāhi tapu areas within a CMT. Significant third-party rights, including in relation to existing infrastructure, are also maintained, and the resource permission right has a number of other carve-outs. For example, for emergency activities and scientific research. New public interest infrastructure is able to be deemed exempt from the resource management permission right following a process set out in Schedule 2 of the to the Takutai Moana Act, which includes engagement with the CMT holder and culminates in a final decision being made by the Minister for Land Information”.

So the suggestion of the Minister that there is any question as to the purpose of the bill, being to ensure it achieves customary marine title for iwi but also maintains public access, is not evidenced anywhere. I would also like to point out the advice that the Minister received in this regard—again in the supplementary analysis paper—was that Te Arawhiti’s—what was then called Te Arawhiti—initial preference was in retaining the status quo and waiting for the Supreme Court judgment; page 14 of the supplementary report. Te Arawhiti’s view was that consideration of the appeals by the Supreme Court could have resolved the issue, and they advised the Minister against these amendments being made until such a time as the Supreme Court finding came in.

On page 15 of that analysis, point 44: “If the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Crown, it could mean the additional time and resource on progressing amendments would not be required”, and the Supreme Court did rule in favour of the Crown. Given that fact, further to my core question, how is it that, where the Court has clarified—in a magisterial decision of some substance and intelligence, in December 2024—very eloquently the intention of Parliament and found, in many interpretations, a middle-ground between the finding of the Appeal Court and the desire of the appellant, in a magisterial decision that clarifies the intention of Parliament 2011, the Minister still comes back to this House with these intense amendments to supposedly restore that intention?

I will make a final analogy before seeking a response from the Minister: it is as if the Supreme Court banged the nail into the wall upon which we can hang the picture of Māori customary rights as a principle—a core principle—that upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They clarified what the intention was from 2011, and through this amendment, the Minister is coming along with a sledgehammer and smashing that nail into the wall, destroying the actual intention of 2011, which was clarified by the Supreme Court finding.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on some of what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has been saying about the intention of Parliament. That goes to the heart of a number of amendments that are in my name, and I hope to seek the support of Parliament when we come to this voting, because it is unusual that the intention of a previous Parliament would be clarified in this way in law. It raises a number of unusual public law questions around how future parliaments might reinterpret the intent of previous parliaments.

Why that’s important is that it is one thing, and it’s perfectly fine and perfectly normal, for Governments of the day to have a policy intention, and it is also normal for Governments of the day to have a policy intention that is not in line with court proceedings that have happened or that are even on foot, but it is another thing for Governments of the day to look back and to say that a previous Parliament had a particular intention that has not been interpreted correctly in the law. And not only has a Minister of the Crown advanced that case in the media and in the public realm, but they are also asking this House to pass it in law—that there would be a preamble to this Act, which is an unusual use of a preamble. That preamble would say that, essentially, this House has a disagreement with the interpretation of the law by our court system, and not only are we going to change the way that they would reinterpret future cases but that there would be a retrospective element of rehearing cases which have already passed.

So I think it is for the Minister to establish clearly his case about why, in 2011, what was passed was his version of how this law should be interpreted, and not in fact what the Minister at the time, or the official documentation of the day, said it was. I’ll read to him this quote which I hope to elicit a response from him on. It’s from September 2010, when the Minister in charge of this legislation explained his policy intent—not his intent of how this would be interpreted in the courts, and that’s relevant too. So he said of claimants, “They will have to prove: that the area for which they are seeking title is held in accordance with tikanga,”—yes, we agree that—“and that the group seeking title has had exclusive use in occupation of the area, and that the exclusive use in occupation has been held from 1840 until the present without substantial interruption.”—there is no debate about that. But then he clarifies: “These tests are based on overseas common law from similar countries (Canada) but reflect New Zealand experience better than overseas case law by incorporating tikanga. Customary marine title is not an exclusionary right and includes the public rights of access, fishing, navigation and existing uses.”

What’s important there is if we are to pass as a Parliament a pronouncement about how this law was meant to be taking into account, then that Canadian case law is relevant. The Canadian case law that the Minister was talking about there were cases like Calder v Attorney-General of British Columbia that was decided in 1973, which sets out a framework that is used all around the world in common law jurisdictions to determine both the extinguishment of title by radical title of the Crown and customary rights and interests that exist in land after that has occurred, and also Guerin v the Queen in 1984. It’s that case law—that was Canadian case law—which was ultimately being considered at the time in 2010, and then was intended to be used in New Zealand case law to further develop that. There had been a case that might have been on the Minister’s mind, that was moving through the Canadian courts at the time. It was called the Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) case. It was about the procedural rights and interests of indigenous peoples, and was used as a framework to establish the procedural rights that occur here, particularly around how claimants might be funded, how claimants might have access to the courts, and how claimants might expect their evidence and their information to be treated as they went through.

Those are important cases because they inform what the Government of the day was thinking. It would be useful if the Minister could point to any case law around the world which he thinks was what the Minister at the time was using to inform the law that Parliament passed, that there was support for at the time, and that then our courts have interpreted and have made up part of our body of case law. Because if those weren’t the cases that were intended to be used, then what were they? What other country uses the kind of approach that he is advancing here, and why were our courts expected to know that? It’s fine for him to have a new policy direction, but why would we pass in legislation that the courts have made the wrong call, when, in 2011, that certainly seems to have been the intent.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Honourable Dr—Hon Ginny Andersen, sorry.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was expecting someone else to stand up who didn’t, and I just got a bit brain faulty for a minute, sorry.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Promotion. I’ll be a doctor. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am going to go to the preamble, but, before I do that, I would just like to highlight that back in 2010, on 6 September, there was a press release from the then Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and I think it’s important to understand the Minister’s view of the policy intent under a National Government at that point of time. He states, in his press release, “One of the key objectives of the legislation is to give Māori the opportunity to argue their case for customary marine title before the courts or in negotiation with the Government. For that reason, it is inappropriate to second-guess what a court or negotiations process might decide.” He also highlights, in that same press release, that “These tests are based”—as noted by other speakers—“on overseas common law from similar countries ([such as] Canada) but reflect New Zealand’s experience better than overseas case law by incorporating tikanga. Customary marine title is not an exclusionary right and includes the … right [also] of [other accesses],”, and I think that’s been one of the misunderstandings.

My question to the Minister, in relation to the preamble that is currently put out in the bill that we have on the Clerk’s Table before us, is: given the lack of consultation in this whole process, has he considered including, in the preamble, some of the findings from the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry? I think, if we’re accurate about reflecting on the historical record and reflecting on what has occurred, in the preamble that is currently laid out in the bill, I would like the Minister to consider whether he would like to include the Tribunal’s finding that the Crown has breached the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights and interests in takutai moana without providing any evidence for one of its key justifications, namely that the public’s rights and interests require further protection beyond what is already provided in the Act and that the Crown also failed to inform itself of Māori interests. I think that what is particularly important, and I’m sure this will be traversed again, is the lack of consultation with those people who are directly impacted by this legislative change. However, what smarts even more and rubs salt in the wound is the fact that there was consultation with commercial fishing interests, which have already got statutory protections.

Prior to finalising the proposed amendments, while failing to consult with Māori, the Tribunal notes that that is a further breach of the principle of good government. Now, as the Minister responsible, I think it’s only right and fair for those people impacted and also for future New Zealanders to understand what has actually gone on right here. It’s well and good that we have National Ministers turning up to celebrate 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal, but, surely, if their research and their findings are valued enough, they should be reflected in the preamble of this bill. I think it’s also important to note that they found that the Crown breached its principles of active protection, as well as good government, by proposing those amendments. As a result, applicants will be forced to have their cases reheard, burdening them further, financially and emotionally as well.

I would be interested to know if the Minister, who is a student of history himself and has a role in recording the history, will entertain the fact that we could record those findings from the Waitangi Tribunal in this preamble.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Of course, the difficulty that we'll find—and we can debate this all day bringing up different quotes from the Hon Chris Finlayson and we'll all be able to find one that suits our argument. I heard the member’s quote from Mr Finlayson, and I could give a quote from Q&A on 20 June 2010, when he said “in the round, based on the sort of information I have, based on my talking around the place, I'd say about 10 percent of the coastline would be under CMT. I wouldn't want to be specific about which bay is in which bay is out, we'll have to issue these things.” And further on, he says “We’re looking at the upper East Coast, eastern Bay of Plenty, way up north, that sort of place.”

Then, I could refer to Mr Finlayson in this House at question time answering a question from David Parker on the 16 June 2010, where Parker said “How much more of the foreshore and seabed does the Attorney-General expect will be subject to customary titles as a consequence of the change to the threshold test that currently applies to territorial customary rights—that change being to no longer require continuous ownership of contiguous land,”—which is what the old test was under Labour—"while still requiring continuous exclusive control of the foreshore and seabed concerned?” And the answer from Mr Finlayson was, “that is a very good question, and [it is] an important question. I believe, in answer to the member, that we are not talking about very much, at all.”

So we can all find appropriate quotes, but the very clear intention—and if we look at the speeches from both Ministers at the time of when this was introduced, they were talking about, emphasising that the Act was intended to recognise customary marine title (CMT) in specific parts of the coastline. What we've seen in recent cases, based on the Supreme Court test, is entire coastlines being granted CMT. So that is why we believe this legislation is required: to restore the parliamentary intent, which was a high threshold, and specific parts of the coastline, not entire coastline.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thanks, Madam Chair. I’ve been wanting to really unpack the perspectives of Minister Finlayson because, last week, he was at the Waitangi Tribunal conference speaking to these very issues, along with Geoffrey Palmer, and the importance of the Waitangi Tribunal providing safeguards for us as te iwi Māori and the way in which legislation impacts upon Te Tiriti and tangata whenua. So it would be good to know what is the current status of the whakaaro of Minister Finlayson instead of quoting kōrero from the past.

Considering the deep impact that the decisions of this legislation will ripple out to te iwi Māori, I’m keen to understand from the Minister, in developing this amendment, did the Minister speak to Whakatōhea? Did the Minister speak to the tribes of Wairarapa? Did the Minister speak to the tribes of Aotea Harbour? Who specifically did the Minister speak to when it came to proposing that these amendments were about bringing back balance and the original intent, because as tangata whenua—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just bring the member back to the preamble, because it’s not that these questions are not relevant, but we just need to focus on the preamble.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Whakatōhea is in the preamble, and it shows the intention. These are directly named.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It was just getting a bit broad, so I was just trying to bring it back.

HŪHANA LYNDON: These are directly named claimant groups within the preamble who are going to be specifically impacted. When we go back to the original intent of the legislation, it’s really clear that the takutai moana Act was to acknowledge Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that it was to provide a space for tangata whenua to exercise their customary interest in the common marine and coastal areas, that the mana tuku iho [inherited authority] of tangata whenua in the marine and coastal areas of hapū, iwi, and whānau as tangata whenua could be recognised, but that the takutai moana Act was to “establish a durable scheme to ensure the protection of legitimate interests of all New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area”.

So in considering that original intent, why can’t tangata whenua retain their property rights? Why is it that the balance always falls on the side of everyone else, but tangata whenua fails to get recognition in terms of the ōritetanga [equality] guaranteed through Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Article 3 provides for us the equality to be recognised in Crown law, so how come tangata whenua cannot hold customary rights, and who in the directly impacted, named tangata whenua in the preamble did the Minister speak to in considering these amendments?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is complex indeed. My question to the Minister is around Part 1, clause 4(10) and the amendments to those—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re still on the preamble.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yeah, which includes the preamble, or have I got that wrong?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we’re not into Part 1, we’re still—

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yeah, I’m in the Amendment Paper.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, sorry, yeah, there’s the Amendment Paper. Thank you for clarifying. Yes, carry on.

Hon PEENI HENARE: So, if I may, in Part 1, down into clause 4, which is the “Preamble amended”, subclause (10)—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Found it. Thank you.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yep, and it goes on and says, “Amendments to those provisions are still needed, however, to ensure that they have the effect, and maintain the balance, that Parliament intends:”. Then it goes, in subclause (11), “In particular, amendments to those provisions are still needed to (a) define more strictly the requirements for exclusive use and occupation:”. The word “occupation” is going to come up many, many times during this debate. It’s the level by which the Minister, in my view, has lifted the requirements for customary title to be proven in the court, so the word “occupation” will come up regularly.

Under 11(b), it does say, “require inferences by a decision maker (including the Court) to be based on evidence of physical use and occupation:”. My question to the Minister is: does that include all courts? Could that extend itself to other judiciary arms such as the Waitangi Tribunal, who are well-acknowledged in the House as storekeepers of a heck of a lot of evidence with respect to these matters that we’re debating here in the Chamber.

With respect to its application to other pieces of legislation, my question to the Minister on this part is: in recognising customary take of seafood and the issuing of permits as such, does that come under the customary title and occupation piece that the Minister is proposing here? Those particular rights have been given for some time now, and I just want to check—with respect to the way that the Minister has worded Part 1, clause 4(10) and (11)—whether or not that would impact on those decisions with respect to customary seafood take, with respect to the way the Minister views physical use and occupation, which is in the particular clause that I’m referring to there.

The other part is clause 11(c)(i), which says, “holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga;”, and I’m interested in the ongoing debate with respect to the courts and their view on tikanga, and whether or not it is the intention of this Minister to continue to go through and reference those particular cases that have been brought forward to the courts and, of course, the rulings that the courts have made with respect to tikanga and its place in law, and whether or not we’ll be here to change this—not just on this bill but on many other bills.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. To an earlier point the Minister made about the problem of customary marine title interfering with other users’ rights—and acknowledging the well-made point of my colleague Hūhana Lyndon that it seems that, frequently, it is the rights of non-Māori that are preferenced time and again over the rights of iwi Māori: for a Minister that purports to believe in property rights, I wonder that he can’t recognise the first property rights of this country, customary marine title, with a greater confidence and certainty.

But who is interfering with whose rights? Whose specific rights are there mischief being caused to by the current, most recent interpretation of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, i.e., that of the Supreme Court? Who is the Minister talking about when you refer to “interfering with rights”? It’s a very specific question, and a specific answer to whose specific rights are being interfered with would be appreciated.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much. My question to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is in relation to new recital (2) of the preamble, inserted by Amendment Paper 380, which reads: “The Court of Appeal’s interpretation of those provisions changed the effect that Parliament intends them to have, and materially reduced those requirements (for example, that an applicant group must prove exclusive use and occupation of a specified area from the start to the end of the applicable period without substantial interruption):”.

My question to the Minister is—when he is including, in the preamble, statements that when you are, basically, presuming to view the intent of a previous Parliament, I would like to know whether there were any other factors that may have influenced the Minister’s decision to legislate over the top of the findings of our courts. In particular, I would like to know whether the cost pressures of claimant funding proceeding through the court process, which, in the year prior to this legislation being brought to the House and enacted, there was a substantial blowout—according to the scrutiny week that I sat on, as part of that—in terms of the court costs that the Crown was required to pay for.

I would like to know from the Minister: are there other factors, such as he didn’t want to have to pay for the funding for legal representation through the courts for claimants, because that was causing the Crown’s books some concern, and he had quite a bit of pressure to bring things into line and there was no other foreseeable way to stop those costs? I put it to him as to whether one of the factors that this legislation introduced was to simply reduce the ongoing costs to his budget in relation to enabling representation within the courts for these claims to be heard out in a due process—I’d be interested to know: if that is not the case, then are there any other factors that have caused this legislation to come in the way that it did?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I’ll just reply to a few questions. One member asked which applicants we’ve met with in the development of this amendment and legislation. I have met with a number, including Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga, Te Whānau-a-Apanui, Ngāti Kauwhata, and Ngāti Porou. In terms of whose rights we are talking about who would be potentially interfered with by the resource consent right, we’re talking about somebody who wanted to start new aquaculture, for example, somebody wanting to put in a jetty on their property, or somebody wanting to renew a consent for a jetty that they’ve had for generations. They might be some examples.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga):

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

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

I’m interested in a couple of things in the preamble. One of the core tenets of the 2004 ruling and how it proceeded was the Government of the day was asked to demonstrate any Government of New Zealand passing a law that actively extinguished the Māori right to the takutai moana that was vested to Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, so they came up extremely short on that. There hadn’t been an Act of Parliament passed between 1854 and 2004 that actively extinguished the Māori right to the takutai moana, so it stands that it was still there in 2004.

We’re talking about the Māori customary right, and then as the Minister’s talking about balance, we’re talking about the public’s right. I do have a question for the Minister about the extinguishment of that Māori right to the takutai moana that was vested to them in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The question is, has he found one since then, given the new take on the takutai moana Act? Has there been a revelation that there actually was an Act of Parliament passed into legislation between 1854 and 2004 that actively extinguished that Maori right in Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

The balancing act—I’m interested in the balancing act—comes down to the constitutional framing of the argument. So the two sets of rights being argued are the Māori customary right—yep, I’ve just defined that, how it came about, whether it was extinguished or not; I’ve defined that well—and then the public’s right. The question is, are those two sets of constitutional rights, as set out in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, equally and adequately recognised on the basis of the bicultural constitutional framework of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? That’s pātai number two.

With regard to “held a coastal area exclusively” and “used and occupied it since 1840”, i.e., the threshold, I’ve got a few things here. So coastal land owners, nē? Coastal land owners—we all know them. Heaps of farms around the country run all the way down to the coast—heaps of them in the Ngāti Kere rohe. My understanding, in the Pākehā sense of the law, is that they don’t own the Queen’s Chain—nope. I’ve also established that no Government had passed any legislation between 1854 and 2004 that had actively extinguished the Māori right to that same area, so the Māori right was live. The coastal farm owner doesn’t own the Queen’s Chain.

If the rights vested to Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi are still there, the land owner doesn’t own the land right down to the water, and it is indeed just the Queen’s Chain we’re talking about, then there are a few things to be considered. Number one is the Queen’s Chain is there. Number two, the Māori right is there. Those two things went largely without contest under the radar right up until 2004. The Queen’s Government had not passed any legislation between 1854 and 2004 actively extinguishing that Māori right, so the Māori right was still there and the coastal land owners have not impeded the original Tiriti-based Māori right. So where and how is the constitutional right of Māori being recognised by the current actions of the Crown?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I wanted to speak again to the preamble in the Amendment Paper, whereby we have recitals (6) and (7), and recital (7)(b) in particular. I want to understand from the Minister, the Hon Paul Goldsmith: these amendments are being provided to ensure that they have the effect and maintain the balance that Parliament intends, and then in recital (7)(b) it requires inferences by a decision maker, which could be the court also, to be based on physical use and occupation.

Thinking about the implications for decision makers, including the courts, to be based on evidence of physical use and occupation now and into the future, who is going to be financing the implementation of this? Who is going to be resourcing—whether it be the court who is going to resource the claimants. Who’s going to resource the machinery of Government also, in the way in which claimants are going to have to provide evidence of physical use and occupation? Who is also going to provide the resource to then rebut the tangata whenua evidence?

I’m concerned in terms of the resources. We’ve already been told there’s cuts everywhere—cut, cut, cut—and yet we see this Government bringing legislation in, just in the preamble itself, changing the nature by which we have to prove our connection and provide evidence of physical use and occupation, which is inconsistent with the test based on tikanga. It would be great to hear from the Minister how we’re going to fund the system. How are we going to fund the claimants? How is the court, how is Te Arawhiti, or Te Tari Whakatau, going to fund this new machinery coming through in amendment legislation, when we were already told, as claimants, starved already of a dollar, to prove our connection to a place?

If we’re revisiting, can the retrospective nature of the decisions now impacting some seven cases, including Whakatōhea, which is mentioned in the preamble—who is going to pay for it? That’s going back to the taxpayer, and that’s already a burden that has been heavy enough. How much is it going to cost? Have the officials done the work in terms of implementing this amendment legislation, knowing that the decision maker now has to show and prove the physical use and occupation, the evidence must be put on the table?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Subclause (11)(b) in the preamble in the Minister’s proposed amendment is an important one, and I hope we can seek some clarity from the Minister over this new part that he proposes to insert around physical use. This is an unusual way to write the law, and it’s unclear. What the Minister is asking for is for this Parliament to say that it intends that “(11) In particular, amendments to those provisions are still needed to— … (b) require inferences by a decision maker … to be based on evidence of physical use”. This isn’t law that says that, for a decision to be compliant with the law, it will take into account physical use. This is a way of framing it that says that “My intention is for you, the court, when you make a decision, to consider evidence and take that evidence into account, and that evidence must only be, or be also inclusive of, or touch upon, physical use.”

The problem there is that there is no indication of what weight this gives; it’s not set out, as these clauses would usually be drafted, for decision makers who then need to prove that their decisions have been made reasonably and in compliance with the law. This is about intentions, inferences, and the type of evidence presented to a decision maker. This makes gobbledygook of an already confusing and complex law, which currently has the benefit of moving through the New Zealand court system with the benefit of Canadian case law prior to 2011, which will now go out the door. It leaves the courts in the position—or any decision maker, in fact, when they’re considering customary marine title—where, at some point, they need to hear evidence about physical use, but there’s no indication of whether that should be the only evidence, whether that should be the most heavily weighted evidence, or whether it must be one of a hundred things that they heard evidence on.

This goes to the problem here, which is that, essentially, this is populist law being drafted in a way that is incredibly unusual and that is meant for judges to interpret. This is about telling a voter base that there must be evidence of physical use. You can imagine the speeches come election time. They will say, “Oh, this isn’t about the taniwha out in your bay. This is about whether there was use of taunga waka”—of tying up the waka—“and isn’t that fair, and isn’t that reasonable?” The problem with that is that that’s not what they have drafted in the law; they have just said, “It is my intention in Parliament to direct judges to hear evidence on that taunga waka, on that tying up of the waka.”

How do we interpret this? In Te Whakatōhea’s case, that harbour is the food basket of the people of Te Whakatōhea, who were moved from their lands. Without access to those cockles and regular use three times a day, my father, who was given to his grandparents, who were the kaitiaki of Te Kooti’s place, where he was injured on the shores of the Ōhiwa harbour—they would not have been able to feed him. At that time, he was a six-month-old infant, and he could eat only the cockles from the bay, because he did not have his mother being able to breastfeed him. That would be physical use.

How is that physical use meant to apply to the regular use of the bay? It applies because these people were kaitiaki of the bay, because they looked after that customary fish take and, without it, their infant, given to his grandparents, would not have lived.

That is the established evidence; that is the relevant thing for this test. Having to prove physical use for somewhere like Ruapuke Island, where customary marine title has been granted to the whānau of Ruapuke, but where the sea between it and Rakiura or Invercargill might be used infrequently, is difficult and nonsensical, especially when you haven’t set out how that is intended to work for a court. How do you take into account physical use? What is physical use in this scenario?

It makes sense only if you either set it out in the legislation and say what you mean—which is, “I mean, as a Minister, that this will be hard for you and hapū will not be able to establish this evidence.”—or say that it is for judges to take into account this part of the evidence but that that evidence will not be a conclusionary part of their reasonable decision-making.

This is unfair. It is gobbledygook. It is getting around a problem the Government has with a populist commitment that doesn’t make sense in law.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to go to the proposed subclause (7) in the preamble. My colleague has just covered (7)(a) and (b). I’d like to take a look at paragraph (c). Under that, it reads: “(7) In particular, amendments to those provisions are still needed to— … (c) clarify that, in the case of an application for, or to vary or cancel, a recognition order, the applicant group must prove that the group both—(i) holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and (ii) had exclusive use and occupation of the specified area from the start to the end of the applicable period without substantial interruption:”

My question to the Minister is: does colonisation come into interruption? Does he consider that the change of the law and the removal of people from their land constitutes interruption as per subclause (7)(c)(ii) of the preamble. Further to that point, in terms of the process in which he arrived at the words that have ended up in this preamble, I would like to understand a little bit more about the process and the advice that he did get. When looking through the regulatory impact statement, which we now have the ability to do, we read things such as in paragraph 145, which is under the title “What option is likely to best address the problem, meet the policy objectives, and deliver the highest net benefits?” and which reads: “Given the Minister’s direction that the status quo is not a feasible option, Te Arawhiti advised that out of the remaining options, Option A applied prospectively would be a direct and effective way to address the problem and achieve the policy objective. It posed the least legal, Tiriti and relationship risk by confining the amendment to a targeted alteration of key errors in the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of section 58 of the Act and thereby delivers the highest net benefit.”

My question to the Minister is: were the words that are in this preamble now and that have some really serious concerns, including the word “physical” and how you are determining occupation, predetermined because the Minister simply directed officials to choose which option best suited the Government’s desire for an outcome and best suited the minimisation of costs to the Crown?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I just wanted to respond to the member Tākuta Ferris’s—I thought—quite interesting speech, where we’re really just sort of grappling with conflicting, or balancing, two separate rights. One is the customary marine rights, and the other is the expectations of all New Zealanders to have a say in what goes on in their neighbourhoods and in their coastal areas. That's why the legislation was passed with the support of the National Party and the Māori Party at the time, and was set to strike a balance there with what was described, at the time, as a high threshold. Now we're all debating about where that threshold should be, and three different courts have had three different interpretations of that threshold. That’s why this Parliament is considering this Amendment Paper, which sets for Parliament to assert what it believes the threshold should be.

Dan Bidois: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Are you looking for a closure motion? The member—

Hon Members: Dan Bidois.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dan Bidois.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to the preamble set out on Amendment Paper 380 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to replace the preamble is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the preamble as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Preamble as amended agreed to.

Part 1 Amendments to Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011: general

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 1. This is debate on clauses 3 to 11, “Amendments to Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011: general”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Having just talked about the preamble to this bill, we can now talk about the preamble to the main legislation. I see clause 4 amends the preamble.

Look, it’s a relatively simple point but I’m a bit perplexed as to why there’s a sense that we’ve got to have this massive, long preamble in respect of all of the Court of Appeal’s decisions on it. Whilst an historian might be interested in the fact that there was a Court of Appeal decision, it’s actually really verbose to have in the preamble to the main Act a recitation of the Court of Appeal’s decisions which were, in fact, overruled by the Supreme Court. In fact, I’m not sure that the preamble needs amendment at all—and, in fact, I’m pretty sure there’s an excellent tabled amendment on the Table, in respect of clause 4. If we’re going to give a genuine historical account of why we’ve got here, we should probably recognise that it’s really part of the Government’s approach to Māori and Māori interests, which is, basically, to roll back the progress that we’ve made over the past, I don’t know, 150 years or so. So, in terms of the references to the Court of Appeal case, it’s entirely unnecessary because they’re gone, they’ve been overruled, and the Supreme Court case itself is the one which prevails.

It may well be that to recite the Supreme Court case and to say we had concerns but the Supreme Court said those concerns around what “continuous use and occupation without substantial interruption” means, in fact, were vindicated and there’s actually not that much to worry about any more, but we’re going to continue with this piece of legislation which makes it harder again to establish a coastal and customary marine title—is probably what it should actually say.

So, in terms of the new preamble, I’m just perplexed. I see that there is a preamble in the original bill; why you’d want to confuse it is just a little bit beyond me. So if the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations could talk about the preamble and why he wants to change it, and, in particular, why he wants to put into the preamble—it just seems very poor drafting—a narrative about a court decision which doesn’t stand any more, I’d be interested to hear that. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Well, I would remind the Committee, of course, when the first reading of this bill occurred, when the legislation was designed to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, in particular, the impact of the Court of Appeal decision, which, in effect, took “exclusive” out of the second test. Because the second test is that “exclusive use and occupation of the [coastal] area … without substantial interruption”, and the effect of the Court of Appeal decision was, effectively, not to read out that word “exclusive”. When we were doing this, the opponents said that this was terrible and appalling; then, lo and behold, the Supreme Court agreed that it was a misreading. So what we're doing here is dealing with issues that relate to the Supreme Court decision, and, in particular—I just want to run through them—one is on the Supreme Court interpretation required extensive use of a space and an intention in some capacity to control the area since 1840 as far as the law permits. The bill is not too different, but subtly different to that, requiring the intention and ability to control the area to the exclusion of others since 1840.

Then, the question of to what extent can decision makers rely on inferences. The Supreme Court interpretation permitted inferences around continuity of use and occupation as part of determining substantiality of any interruptions but reinforces the need for evidence to establish practical expressions of the applicant’s mana or control over the seascape. That pointed in the direction of tikanga. But, of course, tikanga is covered in the first leg, and if it was to be a big part of the second leg, then that's not what we understood the intention was, so the legislation focuses on influences on the extent and continuity and exclusivity of use and occupation must be based on the evidence of physical use and not only spiritual or cultural association. So that's a second point of difference.

The third point of difference is around the burden of proof, and the Supreme Court test was that applicants only need to demonstrate use in occupations since 1840 and that they currently hold the area in accordance with tikanga. Exclusivity and absence of substantial interruption can be inferred unless contested by a third party—that is, a third party, somehow, has to prove that it wasn't held exclusively. The approach of the bill is to say that applicants must prove all the elements of the section 58 test now. So that is that's why we're carrying on with this legislation, and that's what we're setting out to do. Thank you very much.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. To the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations’s last point, one of the key questions around this is: on whom is the burden of proof that exclusivity is maintained or is not maintained or has been broken? Is it the Minister’s opinion that the original intent of the legislation was to place the burden of proof not on iwi Māori but on those who wished to disprove that iwi Māori had exclusive use and therefore a right of customary title?

I note in the Supreme Court’s finding from December a reference to the Ngāti Apa case—which was the beginning of this whole question in terms of how it engaged with the Government—that “After analysing the [case] on customary rights recognition in New Zealand law during the colonial period, Elias … in Ngāti Apa rejected the reasoning of Ninety Mile Beach as wrong, even in 1963. She concluded that the transfer of sovereignty gave the Crown radical title to the land but did not affect prior customary rights.”—which I believe is one of the points Tākuta Ferris was making earlier. “Instead, the common law preserved those rights until they were lawfully extinguished. Keith and Anderson JJ emphasised that the Crown bore the onus of proving extinguishment:”.

Is it the Minister’s view that that is correct—that the Crown bears the onus of proving extinguishment, rather than iwi bear the onus of proving customary use?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll take the Minister to page 3 of the amendment bill. I'm asking him about his clause 5 that amends section 9 of the Act. I want to ask him whether there should be a definition of “physical use” in this section, because that is a concept which he has been talking about as an important part of this bill, and yet I have some questions around how that meaning should be interpreted. There is already a definition of exclusive use and occupation, because that was the relevant part of the history of British law that this was hinged on. But now if we are hinging it on physical use, that's a concept of British law which comes from Norman feudal law and is centuries old. So the Minister needs to tell us what he means.

Hundreds of years of British law have developed this idea of who owns land, and land ownership can hinge on ideas like adverse possession, which I think he was alluding to earlier, where you might have an exclusive use to the exclusion of others, and that might be the important part of the law. But physical use goes back even further than that. That's a system where you're looking at how feudal Lords might occupy a particular piece of land, that’s how peasants or serfs might use and physically use part of law, part of the land which they might give them a bundle of rights that exist alongside the ownership recognised through different mechanisms.

So the Minister needs to help us to explain here what on earth we mean by “physical use” because we don't mean that in our landlord now. We don't expect Mr Andy Foster to get out every day and patrol the border of his house and dig something in the lawn out every six months to prove that he is physically using his lawn, do we? We don't expect Te Whakatōhea to patrol their borders, get out and swim in the moana and erect the jetty to show physical use. We don't expect those things. Their rights arise in different ways. They're actually hinged on concepts in British law. They are nothing to do with tikanga Māori, although this path for establishing rights was intended to do so. On top of that, many iwi have asked the Government through the last 150 years to recognise their customary marine title that are not given effect to by this law.

For instance, the rights of Ngāi Tahu and Rakiura Māori in the Tītī Islands was recognised through a pathway of negotiation with the ground to recognise those special rights and have nothing to do with these concepts around physical use or adverse position. That is an arrangement between the Crown which hinged on the use of that land, the physical use for the gathering of kai, for mahinga kai, and those are a different sort of rights that have been enshrined in that law.

I genuinely do not know which concept in British law we are looking for when the Minister is asking us to interpret the meaning of “physical use”. Because this idea, how far does it extend to? If I am physically using my lawn, do I have any physical use rights in the property that is 200 metres from my boundary? No. And so physical use is a very limited sort of a right. And that sort of does go to the way that it was established in our law hundreds of years ago, that it would be for people who were either farming or using that land for the gathering of food and other cultural practices. Is that what is intended here? If so, we should say that because that is a different sort of limitation than the one that most people thought was being applied here. We should be clear about the way that that is intended to be given effect to, so it should be a new definition with a new empowering section in this amendment. It's not. So I would suggest that the best way to deal with that problem is then to take out this reference to “physical use”, because physical use in our law is not a concept that is well understood or one that we are using here to interpret what sort of rights—and none of us disagree that there are rights that are given effect to by this legislation, it's just what the test is for. What sort of rights we mean when we have this debate is the right question to ask at this point.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I’ll actually be quite short, because I just want to pick up on a point that Steve Abel raised, and I want to just take it a step further. The point was around onus, and I’m loath to say that the member as elegant as Steve Abel didn’t quite capture, I think, what he perhaps intended, because there are two concepts: one is establishing marine title, and then another is to say that it’s been extinguished.

I think the onus for both of those questions may be different. If you’ve had marine title, you can show that it existed in 1840, and you can show all of the other things that go to establishing marine title, but then the other party—perhaps the Crown—says, “No, it’s been extinguished by some lawful Act.”, then the question I have is this. Yes, the onus might be on the hapū or iwi to establish all of those things that go to establish marine title generally, but if the other party is relying on an extinguishment, whether it be by legislation or by some other lawful Act—some administrative Act, for example, or some appropriation of adjoining land or building a bridge across it by the Transport Agency, or something like that—is the onus on the other party, and not on the hapū or iwi, to establish extinguishment?

I think that’s actually a really important question. I think it’s quite separate from the question of establishing the coastal and marine title kind of prima facie, because it’s essentially a defence to say that, yes, all that’s true but there’s been an extinguishment through these series of events, because if the onus lies the other way, and the hapū or iwi have to prove on the balance of probabilities—and I’m assuming that that didn’t occur—that would seem entirely unfair.

That’s really a short point. It’s all I really wanted to raise.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. So we're on Part 1 and on the preamble of Part 1. When I read through this second preamble—because we've got a preamble and then we've got a Part 1 preamble—it reads, essentially, like a timeline. It recounts each of the court decisions and basically paves the way for explaining why the Government took the action it did.

But I would like to ask the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that there appears to be one glaring error or a missing piece of information from that timeline in the preamble. That key date that is missing from those series of events is the Cabinet decision on 28 November 2023, and that is clearly before the decisions of Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Te Kāhui Takutai Moana o Ngā Whānau me Ngā Hāpū o Te Whakatōhea.

What occurs on 28 November 2023 is that Cabinet endorses the coalition agreement between the parties as the basis on which the coalition Government will operate. The Cabinet circular provided an instruction to chief executives and their respective officers that they were to have processes in place to implement that. In that Cabinet circular in the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, it includes a commitment to quote, “amend section 58 of the marine and coastal area Act to make clear Parliament's original intent in light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) & Ors v Te Kāhui and Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board & Ors.”

So I think it's right that if that is a key point that this coalition agreement agreed upon and that is a fundamental reason that predates, actually, the court rulings that we are now legislating over, I would like the Minister's views on why that key piece of information—which is an agreement between National and New Zealand First that is included in the coalition agreement and is fundamental, potentially, to the very legislation that we are debating now, why that glaring omission is not included in the preamble to Part 1.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I’m wanting to speak to my tabled amendment to clause 8(1), to be found on page 8 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 380. My proposed amendment is to seek to delete clause 8(1).

That clause, if we look at it, requires the claimant group to provide evidence based on physical activity or use of natural resources in the area of claim, and that spiritual or cultural association to that area is not relevant unless it is manifested in physical activity or use of natural resources. My colleagues in the Opposition have spoken to the fact that there are many ways to express your connection to the takutai moana in your tribal rohe. We have to remember also that for centuries, there has been disruption for tangata whenua of connection, physically, to occupy the land abutting the takutai moana where you have your whakapapa, where your mahinga mātaitai are, where you have harvested, where you have paddled waka, where you have had

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

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

So the proposal in this amendment is to delete this section, because it’s unfair. It is unfair on tangata whenua to have to show that somehow we’ve got a physical manifestation of connection to that space, when we may not own by Western law the whenua abutting that part of the takutai moana.

I raise that as an issue in my kāinga, Whangārei-terenga-parāoa, where the claimants stood in hearings and are waiting for a judgment right now, knowing that very few parcels of land around Whangārei-terenga-parāoa remain within Māori hands. In fact, the harbour board and councils have been great beneficiaries of the land abutting the takutai moana in Whangārei because of public works taking, and yet our people continue to go and our people continue to utilise those customary resources available within Whangārei-terenga-parāoa as good kaitiaki. They continue to exercise their spiritual and cultural connection to that part of the takutai moana, as we see when they’re a tohorā that might beach themselves at Ruakākā and other parts of Whangārei-terenga-parāoa. It is the hapū that mobilise to demonstrate those cultural practices of connection to that place. They may not own the land abutting where that tohorā washed up, but they continue to go there and they practise those cultural traditions of hauhake tohorā that have been handed down through the generations.

So the expectation that somehow we have to reach this new threshold of demonstrating the physical manifestation of activity or use of natural resources is challenging for many tangata whenua—not only those who have already been through the hearings process and who have already had the decisions of the court handed down and those that are waiting but also those claimants who still prepare themselves for hearings.

Further, in light of this proposed amendment and the fact that we are saying, “Hey, let’s acknowledge the many ways with which tangata whenua connect.”, by deleting this clause, it opens up a pathway for us to look at—as we’ve discussed previously—a structural framework whereby, as tangata whenua, we can participate in this process in a scheme to ensure that the protection and legitimate interests of all New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area of New Zealand is maintained but also a recognition that mana tuku iho for tangata whenua exists and continues to exist. I want to ask a question of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: can he tell us at what point did our customary connection and rights to the takutai moana become extinguished, and how did we lose our customary rights to the takutai moana?

Now there’s a whole new threshold. Now we’re expected to jump through a whole lot of new hoops. How were our rights as tangata whenua extinguished by the Crown and when did that occur? It would be great to hear from the Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): The only thing I'd say in relation to that member's speech, of course, is that nothing in this legislation impacts on the ability of Māori or non-Māori to go and collect shellfish and have a connection with a piece of coastline that continues, and there's all sorts of arrangements in place in relation to customary fishing rights and shellfish-gathering rights and tītī gathering rights. All these things are not affected by this legislation, and they carry on. All New Zealanders—and so has been the practice for 150 years now—all New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori, have used the coastal area and enjoyed it, collected fish and shellfish and had a great time, and nothing is being changed in relation to that.

Where the rubber meets the road in relation to this legislation, though, is the valuable rights that come with the recognition of customary marine title as outlined in this legislation, which, as we've heard, was an agreement between the Māori Party and the National Party back in 2011, which sought to balance the rights of New Zealanders alongside the desire to be able to assert customary marine title by particular groups, whānau or iwi. In relation to that, included in that bundle of rights, is, for example, the ability to effectively grant or not grant resource consent for a range of activities, which—and the previous member talked about a port—can have real consequences for the operations of things going on in our marine space, which are important to how we operate as a country.

So that is why. With those valuable rights, part of the balancing act that was achieved by this legislation was a high threshold, which is what we're trying to establish through this legislation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, my point is a relatively short one, I think, and it’s about new section 9B, in particular, subclause (3)(b), which says that “This section prevails over—(b) section 7”—of the principle Act—“(Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi));”. And section 7 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, essentially, sets out that “In order to take account of the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi), this Act recognises, and promotes the exercise of, customary interests of Māori in the common marine and coastal area by providing,—”, and it goes on to talk about the Act.

What it’s really doing, in section 7, is saying that this Act is part of the Crown’s discharge of its obligations under the Treaty. Obviously, the Treaty is relevant to any of these issues, but that is very much a parliamentary finger pointing to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, saying, “and the courts should recognise that this Act is to be interpreted in a way which is consistent with both the words and the principles of the Treaty”. So my question is—and I desperately hope it’s a no—does the overriding effect clause here mean that this Act overrides the Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Because if it does, it’s both a surprise and a deeply concerning matter, because section 7 is essentially saying that this legislation is seeking to ensure that we are recognising coastal and marine rights consistently with all of the principles and statements in the Treaty of Waitangi, including the statement that says—in English—that Māori will be able to keep their rights—their property rights, “their lands, forests, and fisheries”, which are the English words, if I remember them rightly—and yet, here, this seems to be saying “but not fisheries”, because—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: It has nothing to do with the fisheries.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you can scoff, Minister, but that’s what the words of the Treaty of Waitangi say. Yet you’re saying here that this piece of legislation will override the Treaty of Waitangi. That’s exactly what this says.

Now, my reo is not good enough to understand properly the reo version of the Treaty, but my understanding is that it goes further and talks not just about fisheries but about all of those taonga, which are precious, including wider rights of navigation, of kai collection, and the spiritual things which this explicitly overrides. So can the Minister assure us—and this is important when the courts come to apply this—that adherence with the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty is still expected? Because that’s, alarmingly, not what this appears to say. It says that—“overriding effect” is a strong phrase to use as a title—“this section prevails”, that is to say it overrides, is dominant over, section 7 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Is the Minister going to stand up and preside over legislation which explicitly breaches the Crown’s Treaty obligations, or can he assure me that I’ve, in some way, read that wrong and he can stand up and say, on the record, for judges to understand parliamentary intent, that it is his intention that the Crown uphold, adhere to, and honour the Treaty of Waitangi.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from an answer that the Minister gave, I want to ask him about what he meant about these rights that are in the coastal and marine area arising under the agreement reached by the National Party and the Māori Party in 2011. Because my colleague, the Hon Duncan Webb, has hit on another one of these issues, which is that the Crown's obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are not a creature of statute. So to purport to have an overriding effect over them gets us into some trouble. We need the Minister to clarify that, because obviously you cannot have—the effect of that is what is intended, that Te Tiriti o Waitangi would not apply to the customary marine title (CMT) amendments. That is part of the constitutional framework that we're operating within, not that we are amending today.

The question that I'm asking the Minister is the same sort of question, because the constitutional framework in which we are operating within, and the customary rights that exist before that, are different things. The customary rights that were to be tested in 2004/05, the purpose of that testing through the court was because they arose outside of any legislation. They were rights that had been in place before the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. So they were a bundle of rights that were associated with the legal system that was the law in New Zealand prior to that, which was tikanga Māori.

So purporting to say that these rights had arisen in the agreement reached by the National Party and the Māori Party in 2011 and were then enshrined in that legislation is wrong and is an interpretation of the law which doesn't recognise that those rights were something that existed, that there were a bundle of property rights held by people in accordance with the legal system which was operative. So those were rights that had arisen, and the question that we were being asked, as a Parliament at the time and as the New Zealand public engaged in this public debate, was how should those crystallise? How should the courts recognise those rights that exist? Because those rights do in fact exist, so how should we give effect to them? That is something that all New Zealanders have an interest in and that is why it's right for Parliament to have that out, have that debate.

That is why we are still debating what was intended, but we are certainly not having an argument about whether they did exist, because if those rights hadn't existed then we wouldn't be having this debate about whether they crystallised and what is associated with them; like, whether you can have any sort of say in the consultative process of a local council in relation to a resource consent, not whether those rights are just in the first place, because they did. So my question for him is about—it's on page 4 at the bottom, clause 9B(2), this phrase: “A decision maker (including the Court) must interpret the CMT amendments in a way that promotes their purposes and application (as stated in section 9A).” I want to ask him about how a decision maker is meant to interpret that when those rights already existed. But also, I want him to explain what that means. Because this is not the usual way that you would set out a sort of duty for a decision maker or a duty for the court.

Can we expect that it would be this Government's approach to insert preambles which are essentially a political narrative of the Government's policy and then clauses in other legislation which would require judges, require decision makers to comply with the interpretation of the policy of the Government in the way that is essentially being suggested here, they now have a duty to do. Inserting a preamble into a document is usually used in the context of Treaty settlements. This is not a Treaty settlement. These rights exist. These are not rights which arose in negotiation between two parties represented by counsel over many years where there is a process for that New Zealand. These are rights which existed before that, so to suggest that a decision maker then needs to interpret those rights—which are part of the common law of New Zealand—in a way which is, in effect, promoting their purposes and application, which are set out in what is a political narrative plonked on the top of something which purports to be legislation is a bizarre way to make law.

Can we expect a National Government to now insert a preamble into every other piece of legislation for which they don't like decisions from the courts, like setting out perhaps their political campaign documents in the Crimes Act and asking judges to comply with that, or else!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Well, the last part of that member’s comments were irrelevant to this discussion. I just wanted to clarify because the previous member was suggesting that through this legislation we were going to override the Treaty of Waitangi. As he well knows, what the section refers to is that it prevails over section 7 of the legislation, which has the title “Treaty of Waitangi”; it’s not the Treaty of Waitangi itself. It is simply overriding section 7. We’re replacing the specific comments in the legislation over the broad comments in section 7, but we are not seeking to override the Treaty of Waitangi, or Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are simply referring to section 7 of the legislation.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I would like to speak to Amendment Paper 380 and clause 8, “Section 58, amended (Customary marine title)”. My colleague has put up an amendment to delete that clause. I have an alternative, my tabled amendment No. 2. Now, for clarity, this amendment is the specific point at which the legislation articulates that “exclusivity of a group’s use and occupation of a specified area [must be] based on evidence of a physical activity, or of a use, related to natural and physical resources (within the meaning of section 2(1)”. That’s new section 58(1A)(a) in clause 8, but new section 58(1A)(b) is that it “is not based on a spiritual or cultural association”—it explicitly articulates that it must not be based on that.

Now, to the point that my colleague Arena Williams made so eloquently—speaking of eloquence, not as eloquently as Mr Duncan Webb clarified my question on where the onus falls. Generous of you to say I was eloquent on that, and it’s still an unanswered question. The onus of proving extinguishment—we still haven’t had an answer on that, but you out-eloquented me on that, Mr Webb, so I appreciate it.

But to the point that Arena Williams was making about the gathering of shellfish in her own family history, it is a problem for this complex history we have here for the courts to have clarity as to the character of customary use in customary marine title. Narrowing the things that the court can consider is particularly unhelpful for that court, because that very particular story that a member of this House was able to tell, that showed the relationship of her father’s iwi to the marine coastal environment would be exceedingly useful and informative for a court. But under this Amendment Paper from the Minister, that sort of articulation would not be able to be considered.

So, in my amendment, I propose that in determining whether an applicant group has exclusively used and occupied a specified area, the court may consider the following types of evidence—and the purpose of this is to recognise the value of physical evidence. The following types of evidence: (a) physical activities and uses related to natural and physical resources—let that be one of the considerations—but also spiritual and cultural associations that are manifested through ongoing kaitiakitanga practices. Oral histories, whakapapa and traditional knowledge, recognition by other iwi and hapū of the applicant group’s authority over the area—surely, a very useful test for a court—the exercise of mana and tikanga over the area, and any other evidence the court considers relevant and that gives due weight to Māori knowledge systems and customary practices.

Surely, Minister, giving our courts that breadth of consideration to take into account all of these useful sources of information and evidence in order to give absolute confidence of the proof of customary marine title would be beneficial in upholding the principle of customary marine title and, indeed, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Just in terms of the burden of proof question that’s been raised by a number of people, the 2011 Act says, in section 106, “Burden of proof”, in subsection (3), that “In the case of every application for a recognition order, it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that a customary interest has not been extinguished”, and the bill does not change that. So the question of extinguishment is not covered by what we're talking about when it's in relation to the burden of proof. That relates to the applicants proving elements of the section 58 test, which is in relation to—that they hold the area “in accordance with tikanga;” and with exclusivity in the absence of “substantial interruption”.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā tātou.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If you can just hold, the Minister needs to get a translation device.

TĀKUTA FERRIS:

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Ferris, I can appreciate the broad nature of your speech at the moment, but we need to come back to this part of the bill at some stage as well.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tēnā koe, Mr Chair.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Ferris, you are able to seek the call for another five minutes.

TĀKUTA FERRIS:

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The honourable Minister. Just before I call him, Mr Ferris, you have been indulged by the Chair. Please respect that in any further contributions to this committee.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I think the essence of the previous speech was to ask who I am to bring in such a bill. In answer to the member, I can say, well, I don’t want to distract the committee in a long sort of family history, but the first of my family, Charles Goldsmith, arrived in this country in 1840-odd—180 years ago. We’ve heard of his exploits—elements of it—in the history of the House. He did a whole lot of stuff and entangled himself with Te Kooti, very sadly in many respects. So that is the first of the many people.

Now, the member’s genealogy extends maybe four or five times longer than my 180 years in this country, but that makes me no less of a New Zealander than he or any other New Zealander is. So my history goes back 180 years, and there are plenty of other places, and they have been enjoying the coastal area of this country for a very, very long period of time.

Secondly, who am I? I am a Minister of the Crown, elected by the people of New Zealand in the modern democracy in which we live. We as a Government are setting out to try and do our best to find a way through the debates and discussions that we have as a country to recognise our history, recognise customary rights, recognise the role of the Treaty, and try and figure out how to do that in 2025 and in the context of a modern democracy where people have general expectations about what it is.

We are blessed to live in one of the few countries in the world where we have accountable Government, where the people of New Zealand regularly get the chance to throw out Governments that they don’t like. They’ve done that recently and they won’t be doing it for a long time to come, I imagine, but you never know, they might, and that is the system that we have, and we’re accountable for that.

What we’re trying to do, as elected members here, is to find a balance between a point of view that’s put out that the entire coastal area of this country—this land is girt by sea, as the Australians are as well—is still owned or held in customary title by the original inhabitants, and we’re also trying to recognise that other people have an interest in it. That is why this legislation that we’re debating today sought to balance those rights back in 2011 by finding a pathway through for people to recognise customary marine title while also setting a high threshold. We’re having a debate about where that threshold should be. So that is who I am, and I hope you’re interested.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Now, the Chair has handed out more indulgences than a 12th century Pope today. We have a balance. We’re going to maintain that balance. We’re now going to be back on the bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll bring the Minister to page 7 of the bill. It is new section 58(1A)(b) in clause 8 that I want to discuss with him, and it does relate to the contribution of the previous speaker Tākuta Ferris, because I think all of us can find what he was saying there around whose history and how do we establish what history is relevant to this paragraph (b). This is a prohibition on decision makers to not make an inference which is “based on a spiritual or cultural association with all or part of the area”. I raise this point again because it is important that we understand exactly what we are agreeing to here, and I don’t think it is something which many members in this House quite appreciate just how far-reaching that is.

In the situation where evidence is presented in this kind of case, that evidence is treated as expert evidence. You might have in this sort of proceeding a kaumātua, or a person who has a long and in-depth knowledge of not only the history of a particular area but the genealogy of those people who claim whakapapa to that area, present to a court, or even to the tribunal, their evidence of associations, and the reason that they will often begin with the spiritual and cultural associations to that place is because they see that as the most important evidence.

The reason I raise this and step the committee through it is that it is the most relevant and important evidence, because that is how associations are recorded in the way that they are engaging not only with what they are presenting in the law now but what the law is in accordance with tikanga Māori. They are, essentially, presenting evidence of, say, the stories that Ngāi Tahu have of the children of Hine-nui-te-pō—the ankle-biting sandflies in the fiords—and the stories of how they are kaitiaki of those places. It is important to appreciate their cultural lineage and their genealogy and the spiritual associations that people have with those sandflies, not because they are presented as spiritual evidence, but because they are presented as evidence of occupation, evidence of use, and evidence of association with land.

It’s important that we appreciate that in paragraph (b), what is being extinguished here is the ability of that evidence to make a difference to these decisions; in fact, it’s a prohibition on someone hearing the evidence on which they would draw inferences about that. So it’s not just saying that “We think you”—the courts—“should take into account different sorts of evidence, including spiritual evidence and physical use.” It’s also not saying that “There is a hierarchy of the type of evidence that we want you to take into account, and that spiritual evidence should come after actual-use evidence.” It’s actually saying that “Evidence that you hear, probably first, from the expert of genealogy and spiritual connection to a place, the evidence that they think is most important to their case—that is evidence that you must not make inferences about.”, and that changes the way that these proceedings will have effect. It changes the way, ultimately, that Māori will see the court system and their ability to participate in this process, and it ultimately devalues the way that this history has been preserved in our oral culture, because it is one thing to require someone to set out their physical use of an area while written records exist.

My father was a historian for the Waitangi Tribunal in the 1990s. He compiled much of the evidence in Tauranga Moana, for example, by interviewing orally and then writing down the evidence that was presented around physical use of those lands. That is useful, and now it is evidence that can be gone back to because it exists. That was not a service that existed in the decades leading up to the 1990s, because the Waitangi Tribunal did not operate. It is not evidence that is available.

The evidence that is available to establish use up to the year of 1840 is that waiata that Tākuta Ferris used. It is the karakia that establishes the use of the land and of the trees, and that use of the land where those sandflies that bite at the ankles of te uri o Ngāi Tahu, ngā uri o Te Wai Pounamu, are plagued by. Those are useful stories that tell us the existing history, and so to take out the ability of someone to make an inference about that use changes the system entirely.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Chair. As someone who has spent plenty of time in Fiordland, I’m not sure Arena Williams fully appreciates the fierceness of the sandflies. I would curse them rather than see them as a—

Arena Williams: I can tell you their whakapapa.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Ha, ha—yeah! Look, I actually wanted to go to the Schedule, which Part 1 incorporates. It’s, actually, a really important part of the bill because it’s got all the transitional provisions in it. I’ll talk about those at another point. The one I really want to talk about is new clause 6 in the Schedule, “No entitlement to compensation”. Now, there are two reasons why I want to talk about this. The first one is one of principle. That is, if the Minister accepts—because it seems to be his view that the law before the bill was passed at the moment is more generous in the recognition of customary rights than it will be afterwards—we have a good number of iwi who have embarked upon the recognition process and who are either through the ministerial process or the court process, a significant way through, that would strike me as, to take the words out of another piece of legislation before this House, “a significant impairment of their property rights”.

My question is really about whether the Minister is happy to stand up and do what he will be expected to do under the Regulatory Standards Bill when it’s passed and explain why he is not compensating, under this legislation, owners of property rights whose property rights are being significantly impaired by this. That’s the first point about compensation.

The second point itself has two legs, and that is about the work that has been put into these claims. It’s not cheap. Much of the work is done, as Arena Williams has sort of alluded to, by oral history and voluntary work.

Hūhana Lyndon: Volunteers.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That’s right—“volunteers” is absolutely right, but also there are a few people who get paid along the way, as well. That can really add up, so my question is: why is there no compensation for the significant lost value where people have spent years both in cash and time in pursuing these claims?

Hūhana Lyndon: Sacrificed.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It’s my call at the moment, so just—ha, ha! But the second leg of that is this: if the litigants in the court cases, in particular, go to the courts—because in these cases, at least in some instances, they’ll be like, “Well, what’s the point? You’ve changed the rules under us. We can now look at it, and we’ve got legal advice that says we’ll now be unsuccessful.”, but the costs issue is still extant. If a litigant goes to the court and says, “Well, the other side changed the rules of the game whilst we’re halfway through.”, but this court has a discretion to award costs on any basis it thinks fair and just and fit, does new clause 6 limit the right of the court to award costs against the Government?

It strikes me that if you go to court, it doesn’t matter. Even if you discontinue, the court has a discretion to say, “In all of the circumstances, the litigation was properly brought, and the behaviour of the other side led to it being discontinued.”, and in those cases, the court can award costs, in my example, against the Government. Does new clause 6 mean that courts cannot award costs against the Government in marine and coastal area claims?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I think the member knows the answer to that question, which is, no, it doesn’t. It’s in relation to claims about property rights and compensation, and our view, of course, is that this bill is reasserting what Parliament intended in the original bill.

In terms of costs, we do recognise the very big frustrations that many people associated with this process would be feeling about having to rehear seven cases, potentially—four that have been decided since 2024; not the original Whakatōhea case, which is being left to enjoy the fruits of their litigation, but the four customary marine title awards made since 25 July 2024, and three are pending. The Government has set aside $15 million towards the extra cost. So it is not a desirable situation, and it’s not something we’ve done with great pleasure or excitement. It is not something that we wanted to do at all, but we felt that it was required, given the significant change to the threshold that first came through the Court of Appeal decision, and it has continued, in elements, through the Supreme Court decisions. So we do recognise that it will be very trying for particularly those seven cases that have gone to hearing. We do note that there are many, many, many more cases still to come, and that’s why we believe, as a Government, that it’s important to get that threshold correct.

In terms of the cost, the cost has been huge. I don’t have the exact figure, but more than $65 million has been spent by the people of New Zealand in support of claims that have been taken so far over the—what is it?—nearly 14 years since the legislation has passed, in support of claimants. Much money has been spent and the predictions are that we have another 20 or 30 years of litigation, and so there are many elements of this legislation that need further work. That still has to be dealt with outside this legislation. But in terms of the court costs, we have set aside a sum of money for that purpose.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, I appreciate it. I'm speaking to clause 8 on Amendment Paper 380. I believe that the contribution of Tākuta Ferris was exceedingly eloquent and practical and demonstrative of—

Carl Bates: Watch out, New Zealand, you’re getting the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and Labour.

STEVE ABEL: —the challenge that we face here. It enhanced the mana of the House—Mr Bates—for us to hear firsthand a pātere, a chant, that shows exactly how a cultural form elucidates the physical interactions of an iwi with a particular area.

My question for the Minister is this. Given that such an articulation of the relationship of an iwi to an area articulates physical boundaries and physical activities with the marine coastal environment, in new section 58(1A) in clause 8, where it is articulated that “a group’s use and occupation of a specified area in a period … is based on evidence of a physical activity, or of a use, related to natural and physical resources”, does the Minister regard the likes of a chant articulating that as evidence? Is that evidence, and—to the point—if it is evidence, then new section 58(1A)(b), which goes on to say, “is not based on a spiritual or cultural association”—does paragraph (b) rule not out the possibility of such a piece of evidence being accepted?

My final point, to clarify the question, is that you just gave us an oral testimony of your own family history here in Aotearoa New Zealand, and we accepted that testimony.

Arena Williams: Enjoyed it.

STEVE ABEL: We enjoyed it. We took your words in good faith, and you bought no physical evidence. This whole House relies on testimony—oral testimonies—that we may question or test, but why would you deny something as powerful as the likes of the articulation of the relationship in a physical sense that an iwi produces on a regular basis in interaction, in telling their history with the land and the water? Why would it, potentially, be denied?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): In response to that, all evidence has been and will continue to be relevant to the decision maker. The change is that cultural or spiritual evidence needs supporting evidence of physical use, but tikanga and oral evidence remain important.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for my call—which I'm very grateful for, and I hope that my colleagues are able to participate in the debate further. I want to ask the Minister this: why will he not exclude the case of Ruapuke Island from the further customary marine title amendments?

In his preamble, he seeks out an arrangement with Ngāti Porou, which is a legislative arrangement which recognises their postal and marine title and how this Act is intended to interact with the existing arrangement. That's good, that is fair for Ngāti Porou. Ngāi Tahu have suffered at the hands of colonisation and have been dispossessed of their lands in Te Waipounamu for many generations, and Ruapuke Island is no exception. It is incredibly important to the history of Ngāi Tahu and the uses of its people. The Ruapuke Island decision is probably at the top of the list of one where this is a use of taxpayer money which is not necessary.

I doubt that the Minister ever intended to extinguish the rights which have been crystallised and recognised at the High Court - level in the case of Ruapuke Island. I want to underscore this point to you: that decision found from the expert evidence that the applicant group had held this specified area in accordance with tikanga and that they had whakapapa connections to that area, but they also had exercise control in that area through mahinga kai, through kaitiakitanga, through rāhui that they exercised, and through protection of biodiversity—regular use, physical use, use in a customary sense, use of land rights, and the use of British land rights, and that is something which meets all of the tests which the Minister has talked about today. Everything in this committee stage points to that decision still standing, and it should stand.

It has been a long time coming that the whānau of Ruapuke Island have not had their rights and interests recognised in the marine and coastal area of the island, despite the Crown coming to arrangements with the owners of the Tītī Islands and their tradition in taking those islands in a different way. So it is time. Why, Minister, won't you carve out that action which recognised the coastal and marine area of those whānau who whakapapa to Te Waipounamu?

Why won't you preserve the rights that exist now when the High Court has recognised them under the old test but will clearly meet your new test? Why must they go back—using taxpayers’ money, the $15 million, or a portion of that—to be reheard? Why must they now comply with the new evidence requirements and the duties on decision makers as you have set them out in these amendments, when it is clear to almost everyone in this House that that is the case, which should still stand; that the rights that exist there are rights which most New Zealanders would want to recognise: that Ruapuki Island is important historically, it is important culturally—not only to those people who are landholders there and landowners, not only to Ngāi Tahu, but all New Zealanders. In a history that we can be proud of in the South, of a history of colonial intermarriage and a history of mahinga kai, which is unique in the world. In a history that should be celebrated and that whānau can now move on, because they have done the work since 2017 in lodging that application where they had to compile the evidence, where they had to take it through a forum where it was rigorous and it was tested and it was won.

Why isn’t now the time that we can finally say to the whānau of Ruapuke that “You have done what you needed to do, you have met the high bar, you can now move on to telling your story of occupation of Ruapuke—of the history there, of the colonial intermarriage, and something that all New Zealanders can be proud of.”

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. My friend and colleague Arena Williams just went through a particular claim that has been decided but will have to be relitigated, which raises the transitional provisions. I must say, I’ve seen some transitional provisions in my time—this is in new Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 11—but these ones take the cake. They probably take the cake because they’re trying to do something extremely complicated.

Look, I get the basic rule, which is that if, before the Government’s announcement, you had sorted out your claim and it had been finally decided, then that’s all well and good. That’s going to be a very small number of claims. But from there, it takes another kind of two pages to explain the complexities about how it’s all going to work from there.

There is the basic principle, which is—because this breaches the rule against retrospectivity, because there’s one band of cases—and I think this is the one Arena Williams was referring to, where the Government made a policy announcement but hasn’t passed the law; the judicial process ground on and decisions were made, and so those rights have crystallised, they’ve been recognised by law, and these transitional provisions, if I’ve got it made, this is for clause 4 in new Schedule 1AA, “Certain CMT decisions made in interim period, and related agreements and orders made, have no legal effect and never have had legal effect”—I love that one because it’s actually saying the Earth is flat, essentially; that the world is such that that decision never happened, when in fact it did. Now, that is very much against the principle of retrospectivity.

Given that there are a limited number of cases that fall in here, what is the massive policy objection to saying “Well, you got in under the law as it was”, which is how it works, we generally like to think that this is the concept of the rule of law; the Minister may not be familiar with it, but the idea is that you apply the law as it stands and you don’t pull the legal rug from under people and change legal history, but that seems to be exactly what’s going on here. So can he please explain, in a principled way, why he can’t adhere to the principle that we don’t legislative retrospectively?

The other thing I’d like him to explain is—because I just can’t quite get it—if you’ve got legislation in train and you’ve gone through various steps, you’ve had questions about procedure, you’ve had questions about evidence, you’ve had setting-down hearings, and so on, what happens to all of those steps? Do those people have to go all the way back to square one and, essentially, file a new claim under the new regime, or can they use all of the work that’s been done to date? That’s quite an important one. I see he’s taking some advice; it’s quite an important question.

Perhaps the other adviser can listen to this one, because then the third question is this: if you fall into the sad category of someone who’s got across the finish line and then got told “Go back to the start.”, what is the status of the proceedings in the interim? Because, other than the judge looking at the evidence and applying the law, it looks like all the work has been done, the hearing’s been had, and whilst the legal decision-making framework might be changed, you might need some legal decisions, surely you don’t have to adduce all the evidence all over again, because that work’s been done. That doesn’t fit neatly within a transitional provision, but neither does saying that—what was it?—the cases that have been decided never had any legal effect.

So there are a whole lot of questions. Why are we being retrospective? What are we doing about interim decisions and interlocutory decisions? And what happens to all the legal work that’s been done in the cases which have been finalised?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): There are a number of questions there, but in terms of where the date of taking effect came from—and this is in relation to the date that we had in June last year—I mean, in essence, the goal was to ensure that we had as much consistency with the rest of the vast majority of cases that haven't yet come forward, to have a consistent test, but to recognise that those that had been concluded and granted before the date, we didn't want to unscramble. So that was the logic there.

In terms of having to go back to the start, no, it's not our expectation that the cases that have been heard have to go right back to day one and start the whole process again, merely that they would presumably need to reconsider or hear any extra evidence that's required in relation to the amended test or the clarified test. So it's not going right back to the start.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Part 1 of the bill holds the real meatiness around what the meaning of “exclusive use and occupation” is, as well as the meaning of “substantial interruption”, and that’s included in new sections 57A and 57B, inserted by clause 7.

My question to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is that he directed that the amendment bill initially needed to be drafted at the end of 2024, which is before we had court decisions. I’m interested to understand the nature and the depth of the analysis that was undertaken for the substantive changes—the meaning of “exclusive use and occupation” and the meaning of “substantial interruption”. I would like to understand a little bit more around the timing and the depth of that analysis, given the fact that this bill was directed by him to be enacted by the end of 2024, which is before those decisions were taken by the court.

The development of policy, the drafting of legislation to give effect to that policy—it’s noted quite clearly in the regulatory statement that there were some pretty significant constraints put upon it, with tight time frames required to meet the Government’s objective of enacting the amending legislation before the end of 2024.

I’m interested to know why it is now, towards the end of 2025, if he has a view on that, and whether that extended time frame from what he initially intended actually enabled any further analysis or in-depth review of these provisions to occur. The indication in the regulatory impact statement is that the policy advice that Te Arawhiti was able to provide was consistently constrained. In fact, they note in the regulatory impact statement that they sometimes only had days. They specifically state they had days to turn around advice that has led to the parts of this bill, for the development of options, subsequent advice, even the Cabinet papers, and that there were very short consultation periods, sometimes only as short as a couple of weeks.

The concern that I have is that for substantial definitions such as the meaning of “exclusive use and occupation”, it appears, from looking through the regulatory impact statement, that the ability for substantive analysis was completely restrained. In fact, they note—and it may be that he has a reason for this, which I’d like to know—that the development of a regulatory impact analysis before Cabinet decisions on the broad policy intent was not able to be done.

Cabinet made policy decisions without a regulatory impact analysis actually being provided to them, and I would like to understand why that happened. The supplementary analysis came after Cabinet had actually taken the decision to proceed. The financial forecasting was not undertaken before Cabinet policy decisions on the cost of re-hearings for the six live High Court cases that my colleagues, both Duncan Webb and Arena Williams, have referred to. There was no forecasting of the financial implications, I understand, when that Cabinet decision was taken, or the costs associated with the anticipated litigation, so what’s that case?

Also the analysis of compliance with international obligations and the potential inconsistency with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—that was raised by claimants in the urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing inquiry. Finally, the point: the wide stakeholder or public consultation to understand the scale or the significance of the issue and the extent to which the Court of Appeal decision might cause problems in practice. So all of those things were not taken into account when Cabinet made the decision.

The point I’d like to make is that what this is all pointing towards—and I’d love to hear the Minister’s views—is that when significant decisions in Part 1 have been taken about the meaning of “exclusive use and occupation”, can he reassure New Zealanders that there was actually adequate analysis that took place? Because it’s looking like all arrows are pointing towards this being simply a provision within the coalition agreement that was enacted without proper due analysis. Even in the regulatory impact statement, it actually specifically states the Minister’s understanding of Parliament’s original intent—not the original intent, but the Minister’s understanding of original intent was that the decision—and, Mr Chair, I intend to have another minute to finish off. I seek a second call, if that’s possible.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You can ask.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Mr Chair, can I have a second call to complete my—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the meal break, and the member may want to finish the question when she comes back, so the Minister is not under time pressure to answer. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good evening, members. The committee is resumed.

Carl Bates: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just a minute! When we broke for the dinner break, we were debating Part 1 and that is the debate on clauses 3 to 11, “Amendments to Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011”. The question still is that Part 1 stand part, but before I give the call, can I please just ask, for my own preference, that you refer to the clause that you’re referring to as you do your presentation or ask your question. Thank you.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity and also the engagement from the Minister. I want to acknowledge that. Some of these questions can get a little bit tricky—we are talking lore and law. In this instance, my question to the Minister, because I haven’t heard it yet, is whether or not the Minister has made it clear to the House, at this point in time, whether or not he intends on supporting a number of the amendments that have been made? And I want to speak to this particular one, the Amendment Paper under the name of my colleague Arena Williams, which looks towards the deletion of the words “and occupation”, and it is in there, clause 10(2)(b), “had exclusive use and occupation of the specified area from the start to the end of the applicable period”.

The first question is whether or not the Minister will support the Amendment Paper tabled by my colleague, which I think is a reasonable one. I did mention earlier in our proceedings that the word “occupation” is going to come up quite a number of times, as it looks towards lifting the threshold that we've continued to debate this evening. That's the first question to the Minister.

The second one is slightly more tikanga nuanced, if you will. We know that in a number of those settings, in and around the Takutai Moana, a number of activities have happened and continue to happen there that are undertaken by iwi. I'm speaking to, in particular, the burial of bones, tupuna bones, sites of significance, many of which are already classified through either the Department of Conservation or through Treaty settlements with the Government, whether or not that actually meets the threshold of “occupation”, if you will, and in particular, undisturbed for those iwi or hapū or whānau during that time. There are many places I can think of, in particular, in Te Tai Tokerau.

Another point I want to ask the Minister is—he went to lengths earlier to clarify the Queen's Chain; he spoke to that earlier, and he also makes reference to the desire around aquaculture and resource consents, etc.—I wonder if the Minister understands or if he's got a view on the way that toheroa spat works? I'm not too sure if the Minister knows this—how toheroa spat works—but you might find the toheroa on the beach or closer to the waterline, but actually, the spat finds itself in the sand dunes. And I just wondered if, despite the Minister's reference to and explanation of the Queen's Chain, whether or not what we're talking about here, with reference to the Minister's words towards permits and resource consent but also aquaculture, whether or not that could include that particular harvesting and the aquaculture of the toheroa.

Those are just my questions for now for the Minister. Once again, that's Part 1, clause 10, around the Amendment Paper table by my colleague Arena Williams, around the “and occupation” and the deletion of that, and then the matters that I've raised with respect to the use of the land, as well as aquaculture.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you. Just in relation to the question, I'm not of a mind to support the Amendment Paper that the member refers to. I do thank the member for his advice on the matter of toheroa spat which was indeed new to me.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to talk about substantial interruption and the changed test.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Which clause is that, please?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Sorry, it’s in clause 7, new section 57B(c). So this is the question of the interruption of the exclusive use and occupation. I’m particularly interested in the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations’ explanation where the customary right is, perhaps, a seasonal or even an occasional customary right. So seasonal harvesting would be one, but others would be, for example, the use of the area for navigation by a waka for ceremonial purposes once a year or for tangi or for something like. The definition, particularly in new paragraph (c), talks about any activity, including fishing or navigation, “carried out,—(i) wholly or partly in that area; and (ii) by a person, or persons, who did not belong to the group; and (iii) with … authorisation by or under legislation or otherwise lawfully:”.

Now, I guess, my question is: does that activity have to be kind of inconsistent with the customary right? If we have navigation in this coastal area that is also used for, perhaps, you might call it “ceremonial navigation”, then it would seem to be a lawful use which is non-exclusive, right? So if you have, I don’t know, dragon boats going up and down for a dragon boat festival; entirely unrelated to tikanga but it is wholly or partly in the area, by a person or persons who don’t belong to the group, and it is a lawful activity.

My question, therefore, is: is that the kind of thing which is supposed to show there is a substantial interruption of this customary right? It’s quite conceivable that there are customary rights which occur only once every few months or only once a year or conceivably once a generation, or even longer than that, but that doesn’t make them any less customary rights. To say that they’re interrupted by what, in some ways, would be considered kind of noise, activities of other locals going about their business in a way which isn’t actually inconsistent with the customary right, but, at the same time, uses the same area, wholly or partly, that don’t belong to the group, and it’s entirely lawful—so I guess I’m trying to ask: what do we mean by a “substantial interruption” when we’ve got other activities which are consistent with but use the same resources as the customary right? Thank you.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much. I'm speaking to the exact same section, so that's timely, isn't it?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Or repetitive.

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Or repetitive.

STEVE ABEL: It won't be repetitive, I can assure you, because one of the key challenges of substantial interruption—and it has been acknowledged in Canada and Australia, as well as here—is that one of the causes of substantial interruption, or the most likely cause in recent years, is, of course, acts of colonisation; the effect that iwi Māori haven't been able to express their customary rights, because they haven't got access to the portion of the seabed that is theirs.

In regard to that problem, I have a proposed amendment, my tabled amendment No. 8, which proposes that, in clause 7 on page 7 that my colleague was just speaking to, we replace the new section 57B in a manner that takes into account that the Crown would not want to be disadvantaging a claim to customary marine title based on interruptions that were clearly a consequence of colonisation. So the wording I'm proposing is that in this Act, “substantial interruption” means “an interruption to the applicant group's use and occupation of an area that was of such a nature, extent, and duration that it effectively severed the group's connection with the area and that was caused by factors within the group's control or by the group's voluntary abandonment of the area”.

But it does not mean interruptions caused by confiscation of adjacent land by the Crown; it does not mean legislation, including the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004; it does not mean the Crown's policies that prevented or restricted Māori access; it does not mean interruptions caused by the establishment of ports, harbours, or other infrastructure without the group's consent; and it does not mean commercial activities licensed by the Crown. None of those things should be able to extinguish on the grounds of substantial interruption. That is the amendment I'm putting.

To an earlier point the Minister made about the mischief that he is trying to contend with, or the interference—the likes of a marine farm was the example he gave. A marine farm should not be a thing that interrupts customary title. It is a commercial activity that may be permitted and may be consistent with it so long as it is by the consent of the iwi, but it is not an interruption. I wonder if the Minister could respond to that proposed amendment, which simply has the effect of making very clear that those interruptions I listed would not be grounds for substantial interruption.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Speaking in support of the tabled amendment by my colleague Steve Abel, I tautoko the interruptions that he’s listed and refer back to my previous examples of Whangarei-te-rerenga-parāoa in the harbour and the lack of our Māori landowners that exist around the harbour, now, because of takings through the Public Works Act, Harbour Board takings—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you just refer to the clause you’re speaking to?

HŪHANA LYNDON: The clause is clause 7, and the proposed amendment by Steve Abel is new section 5(7)(b). He just read out the types of interruptions that Māori could actually suffer, which do happen and have happened, and we’ve experienced it. We can see the lack of Māori footprint around some of these places, but it does not mean that we don’t retain our ongoing connection—cultural, spiritual, and practical—to a place.

I used, previously, in my examples,

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

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

the ability to place rāhui in places of significance, particularly around the harbour, when things go bang in the night or something happens in the harbour.

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

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

Those are all demonstrations of both spiritual and also practical connections that we retain despite not having our lands within our hands as iwi Māori because of the impacts of colonisation and loss of the foreshore and seabed, the land abutting.

I do have an amendment that I would also like to speak to, which is—I was getting so excited; thank you, Steve, for that great amendment that you proposed—No. 4, and I want to invite everyone to join me on page 6. It’s in relation to clause 6. There was a new section in the amendment, which was 9B(3)(b), and 9B(3)(b) is a sentence around Te Tiriti o Waitangi. What we have in this provision, in my amendment, is specifically about deleting that new section. My tabled amendment paper, No. 4, proposes, in clause 6, to delete this new section specific to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because we already have it in the marine and coastal area (MACA) legislation of 2011, section 7, on page 10. That is a better representation of how you can honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi in legislation.

The proposal to insert this new section really is quite unprecedented in terms of the way with which there’s a relegation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within this amendment, this legislation, because previously, in other bills, you see are Te Tiriti o Waitangi section. We have that within the 2011 legislation on page 10, section 7, which clearly articulates how the MACA takutai moana legislation in 2011 honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and demonstrates how the Crown will uphold its legislative obligations to tangata whenua and Te Tiriti. It is my proposal that we should delete this new section 9B(3)(b), in clause 6, on page 6, because we should uphold and maintain the existing wording that we have in section 7, page 10, of the original legislation

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

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

Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Waitangi Tribunal, in their report back on this issue, clearly articulated that there are breaches of Te Tiriti within this amendment and with what is happening here. It is taking us too far back, and we’ve come too far along in this journey of honouring Te Tiriti that Parliament cannot just legislate away its obligations to Te Tiriti, as the matua relationship between te iwi Māori and the Kāwanatanga underpinned by He Whakaputanga 1835.

My amendment seeks to delete that new section and honour the original intention, which is in section 7 within the legislation, page 10. It’s a beautiful piece of work. It really shows how the Government can and could, at their will, honour Te Tiriti. Kia ora.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Just briefly, in relation to Mr Steve Abel’s amendment, which says that interruptions caused by the establishment of ports and other infrastructure without the group’s consent, however that would be gained, wouldn’t be into stopping customary marine title being granted. I’d just invite people to imagine that if you have customary marine title in a spot where a port is and the ability to pass resource consents or not, then I think most New Zealanders could understand the difficulties that could pose for actually operating ports in this country, and so I won’t be supporting that.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we are not quite there but I am alerting members, please, to come up with some original material. Thank you.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to take another call. The Amendment Paper—and I mentioned the use of occupation amendment, there's another Amendment Paper in my colleague Arena Williams’ name which refers directly to Part 1, clause 7, and it looks towards the removal of, under Part 1, clause 7 new 57B: replace every instance of “and occupation” with “stewardship”. I wondered if the Minister had given any thought to that word “stewardship”. We've spoken about occupation, but I'd like to hear from the Minister on whether or not stewardship isn't something that he could consider with respect to making sure that this bill does work.

The Minister spoke to the use and the ability to have ports, etc. I wonder if I can take the Minister to another place with respect to that, and that is around the substantial interruption. I want to take him to the Far North and there is a place up there called Waimahana, which is private land all the way down to the beach. It is a secluded bay and it is opened up by the locals because it is the safest place for people to put their boat into the water. They do that as a bit of a public good; they say, “Well, everybody can use that particular private land, come across the private land down onto the beach to cast their boat into the water, because every other bay around it faces directly out to the open ocean, which makes it unsafe to cast their boat.”

I wonder if in this particular part, clause 7, new section 57B(c), where it says: “can be caused (without limiting paragraph (a)) by use and occupation carried out, or an activity (including, without limitation, an activity that is or includes fishing or navigation) carried out,”. It's a question for the Minister; I know it's rather unique—well, it's not unique actually. There are lots of places around the country where you can do this, but this is specific because the land that leads up to that particular bay is private land, and I know that because my whānau are part-owners in that particular space. So I want to just make sure that, in the good, kind-hearted nature of the locals that opened the opportunity for people to cast their boats—Maōri, Pākehā, anyone actually, mostly people from outside—whether in doing so they now, under this legislation, have hindered their opportunity to show the meaning of a substantial interruption moving forward.

Like I say, I know it's a rather unique case in terms of this particular place, but I know it's not unique around the country. That's my question to the Minister.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Taking your guidance, I want to quickly bring the Minister to a number of questions that I have had in this part, which relate to his amendments in his proposed Amendment Paper 380. I'm on page 14, and they're about the new Schedule 1AA and the transitional provisions that apply to cases that were—I'm going to ask him about the cases that have been heard and will need to be reheard since consideration of these changes began.

The Minister knows, because we were discussing this before dinner, that I'm particularly interested in Ruapuke Island. That is, I think, the case that will be top of his list of cases where there is some clarity around that still meeting the test of a higher test. What we're considering there is, you know, what does the process look like for a case where it will probably meet the new test?

I want to ask him first in respect of his change to the interim period, which at new clause 4 in new Schedule 1AA says, “Certain CMT [customary marine title] decisions made in interim period,”—so say, Ruapuke—“and related agreements and orders made, have no legal effect and never have had legal effect”; what does that mean for the cases where other decisions have been made in reliance upon them, and has the Minister had advice about what decisions may have been made in reliance upon them? For example, customary marine area rights give rise to the ability for those people who are said to have those rights to participate in consultative processes that councils run around resource consent. That's one sort of set of rights that you're enabled to have. Those already exist in these cases, so I'm asking the Minister whether that phrase “as if they had no legal effect” in fact means that none of the decisions have legal effect and didn't happen. Can councils rely on the consultations that they have used, or do they have to act as if any records that were created, any evidence that was created, in fact do not exist? Is that what the Minister is trying to create there?

I also want to ask in respect of things like taonga tūturu which are discovered in these areas. For example, in Treaty settlements, it is well understood the process for how taonga that are discovered in an area will then be notified to, and then a process worked through with, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage—those people who have rights in those areas to determine, in fact, what iwi or hapū has a relationship to that taonga because of their occupation of the land. Under a customary marine title finding of rights, these also exist. We're talking here about the foreshore and seabed, and so for many of these areas, they are traditional burial sites. It is common for sand dunes and other coastal areas like caves to be used for the storage of not only taonga but also of koiwi.

And so, I'm asking the Minister here: if those rights that have been recognised through a CMT process that now purport to be extinguished by his amendment on page 16—are the arrangements that have been entered into by the Crown to give effect to those rights in the arrangements to do with taonga tūturu or koiwi? What is the effect of those? Do consultations, do evidence-gathering exercises, do exercises in good faith, negotiations between landowners or council, do they have to sort of be struck out? Is that the intention of the words “never have had legal effect”? What are we trying to get to?

I guess the question is: what is the mischief here? Is it the intention that once these have been retried, that those consultative processes and other arrangements that existed, if they are retried and we have, once again, the recognition that they are retried and we have once again the recognition of the rights of the whānau of Ruapuke in the coastal marine area at Ruapuke Island, is it then that those other legal arrangements that were entered into from the date of the court finding to now once again have effect? Because if those rights are reconfirmed as existing—is what he said to me before the dinner break: that they wouldn't go back to the beginning, but they would have to be reheard—does he mean, then, that those can be re-established quickly? Or is it that the rights that existed between the court's decision and now will never have existed? And how far does that go? Does that go to evidence? Does that go to consultative processes? Does it go to relationship agreements? Does it go to memorandums of understanding? How far is he intending to cast the net of “no legal effect”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Just in relation to that question, when this policy to overturn the Court of Appeal decision was announced originally in July 2024, the Government signalled, of course, right at that point that we would seek to have the legislation take effect from that point. So any arrangements that have been entered into would have been done in the knowledge that there was a risk that this legislation would pass and that the legislation would require those examples to be heard again under the new test, so I think everybody would have gone into it with eyes wide open.

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

Hon Members: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we’re very close. It doesn’t matter how loud you shout at me; I can still hear there are people wanting calls. But I am, even in the short time I’ve been here, hearing repetition.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I hear your advice against repetition, and I assure you that this is not a repetitive point. I’m on page 10 of the amendment document, clause 10, “Section 106 amended (Burden of proof)”. The Minister made a point in his earlier responses that section 106(3) states that unless there is evidence to the contrary, non-extinguishment of customary interests will be assumed. But when comparing the current section 106 with the amendment, it is evident that while legally non-extinguishment remains assumed, the practical effect of the amendment does, in fact, shift the burden of proof onto Māori applicants.

It stipulates that applicants must prove that they have had exclusive use and occupation over the land since the application period without substantial interruption, right, since “substantial interruption” can include an extinguishment of title. So the new section 106(2), in effect, mandates that the applicants prove that their customary interests have never been extinguished, as to amount to a substantial interruption; therefore, the practical effect of this amendment is that non-extinguishment is no longer presumed and is something applicants must now prove. If it is genuinely the intent of the Minister to ensure that unless there is evidence to the contrary, non-extinguishment of customary interests will be assumed, then this current wording doesn’t achieve that intention.

I have a proposed amendment. My tabled amendment paper No. 9, that in Clause 10 we replace the new section 106(2) with new wording, that “in meeting the burden of proof, applicant groups may rely on any of the following: oral histories; pūrākau and traditional narrative; whakapapa and genealogical evidence; evidence of tikanga and customary practices; expert evidence from kaumātua, cultural practitioners, and historians; archaeological, environmental, and anthropological evidence; historical records, including Crown records, even where incomplete or created without Māori input; evidence of the group’s continuous identity in connection with the area; any other evidence the court considers probative. The court cannot do any of the following: require a higher standard of proof than would apply to equivalent common law property claims, discount evidence solely because it is oral rather than written, or discount evidence because it does not conform to traditional common law concepts of property or occupation, nor require proof of continuous physical occupation where such occupation was impractical, inconsistent with tikanga, or prevented by the Crown’s actions, nor place the burden on applicants to disprove every possible interruption. The court must account for the following: the historical context of Crown colonisation and its impacts on Māori use of marine—”

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, can I just point out to the member that this amendment has been tabled? You do not need to read the entire script.

STEVE ABEL: Sure. No, that’s a fair point. I won’t read any further. But I simply want to put to the Minister that for the clarification of the burden of proof requirements, this amendment would, if it is genuinely the intent of the Government, ensure the default is non-extinguishment of customary interests, make that vastly clearer and put the burden of proof on the Crown to prove extinguishment rather than on iwi to prove customary title. Kia ora.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to clause 6, replacing new section 9B(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to clause 6, deleting new section 9B(3)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to clause 6, deleting new section 9B(3)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to clause 6, inserting new section 9BA is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to clause 7, replacing new section 57A, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to clause 7, inserting new section 57AA, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to delete clause 8(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to clause 8, replacing new subsection (1A) of section 58, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 inserting new clause 9A, new section 59A, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to clause 10, replacing new section 106(2), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 380 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just seeking clarification from the Chair. We've just voted on Amendment Paper 380 in the Minister's name, and in the closure motion was a closure motion to close the question on the debate on Part 1—is that right? Because in this Amendment Paper where there’s still a Part 2 that’s yet to be—I'm just wondering if it's all closed now and whether or not—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, no, no—only the parts that apply to Part 1—

Hon Peeni Henare: OK—perfect. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): —and can I just ask members that when you are casting your vote, can you just please say whether you are in favour or opposed. Thank you.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), recital (5), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2), after recital (5), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2), new subsection (5), deleting the words after “recognition of customary marine title” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2), new subsection (5), deleting the words “of those provisions changed the effect that Parliament intends them to have, and” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2), new subsection (5), replacing “Parliament” with “Hobson’s Pledge” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2), new subsection (5), replacing “Parliament” with “this National Government” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ two tabled amendments to clause 5, new definition of “CMT Amendment Act” are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, new definition of “CMT amendments” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting a definition of “tikanga Māori”, is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 9A(1)(a), inserting words after “substantial interruption” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing new section 9A(1) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 9A(2) replacing “specified” with “may be those noted” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 6, section 9A to insert new subsection (3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 6 deleting new section 9A(3), (4), and (5) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 9B(2) replacing the words after “promotes”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing new section 9B(3) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing new section 9B(3) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 9D be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 replacing new section 57A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 7, replacing new section 57A(3), is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 57B, replacing every instance of “and occupation” with “and stewardship” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 57B, deleting every instance of “and occupation” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 7, replacing new section 57B, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 replacing new section 57B is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to replace clause 8 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8 new subsection (1A) of section 58 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 8, new subsection (1A) of section 58 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8 to delete new subsection (5)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 106(2), to delete the words “and occupation”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 10, inserting new section 106(2A), is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendment to Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011: aspects of law altered by CMT Amendment Act

Amendment to Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011: aspects of law altered by CMT Amendment Act”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 11A and 12, “

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I would like to talk about this because this is a really strange legislative device; it’s entirely descriptive and it doesn’t appear to actually legislate at all. So first of all, we’ve got clause 11A which tells you something which you don’t need to know: “This Part amends the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.” Well, that’s what the whole thing does and that’s what Part 1 does. So why we need that, I don’t know. I mean, I’ve just—the Parliamentary Counsel Office must be tearing their hair out. Then, we come to a new section 59A, which basically says—we’ve done Part 1, and 59A says, “And here’s what Part 1 did.” Now, I know that there’s overview provisions which sometimes are useful navigational tools, but this is kind of a hopeful “This is what we’ve actually achieved.”

I guess my question for the Minister is: what does this section achieve that no other section in this piece of legislation hasn’t already achieved? And if we’re trying to draft easy to understand plain English, easy to navigate legislation, hasn’t this done exactly the opposite?

Then if we turn the page and we come to new section 59B, this is actually much more difficult because what it does is it says “Here are examples of judgments altered and overridden.” And it gives you a list, in fact names—which is quite unusual—names, actual cases which it overrules. There are cases where that does happen, I remember a sex offenders register case where it said “This legislation applies to all of the law except this one case” because of the anti-retrospectivity rule. But my question here is, where you see examples in legislation, it’s a kind of interpretive convention that examples are not the rules themselves. It says, “for example” but that’s not part of the legislation, not part of the kind of heavy lifting that changes the law. It’s just a description of how the drafter thinks the rule will work in practice, to assist the reader. And here we’ve got examples—and it’s really strange, because it doesn’t say “here is an exhaustive”; if it said, “and these cases are no longer of any effect” then that would be doing legislative work, but what it says is “here’s some examples”.

So not only does it use the kind of less than legislative term—it doesn’t say “these are overridden”—it says “here’s an example of what might be the case”, but also it’s a non-exhaustive list. So it’s the worst of all possible worlds, as you might not have read in Candide, but it just doesn’t seem to make any sense because it is a closed set, if you like. The list of cases which are no longer good law is not infinite, they are able to be listed. If that’s what the Minister wanted to do, then he should have listed them. To simply say, “Oh, for example, here’s a few we found” is actually either lazy or misleading. So I guess my primary question is Part 2: what’s the point?

Because if these cases are overruled, then they’re overruled and set aside by this legislation and you don’t have to name them. If you’re going to list them in a non-exhaustive way, it’s actually quite misleading. People will look at this and think, “Well, my case isn’t on there, so it must still be in force.”

Then as for a section which says, “Here’s what we’ve done”, I mean, again, what’s the point? So is this, you know, his own idea or is this his officials? Because I’m pretty sure that a good parliamentary counsel—and we have excellent parliamentary counsel in this Parliament—would not have advised this messy, duplicate, verbose, and largely redundant drafting. So if the Minister could explain what he’s trying to achieve by Part 2, that would be appreciated.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Supporting my colleague, I think he makes some very good points. My contribution to this particular part is quite clear. It asks a very specific question about the announcement that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made with respect to the moves that he’s making to amend this particular legislation through this bill, which is that at the end of the Schedule, inserting New Schedule 1AA, it does say in there at new clause 6, “No entitlement to compensation”, “A person is not entitled to compensation of any kind on account of the operation of the CMT amendments.”, which begs the question, once again: does that only apply to the ones that are listed here? Those are the questions that Dr Webb has made quite clear to the Minister. Who else does that or does that not apply to?

Also, to the announcement that the Minister said they are setting aside $15 million—to do exactly what? What we’ve seen here is that there are multiple cases listed here in Part 2 that do a couple of things. One is that it says “Here’s a list of those where it’s been overridden”, and the other one is “Here’s a list of those judgments that have been altered.” I thought the actual matter that we’re debating, as to Mr Webb’s point, is, well, Part 2 actually seems moot then.

I’ll leave those questions there, with respect to any compensation or entitlement to compensation, given they listed the cases there in Part 2, and then just a bit of clarity around the Minister’s announcement around the $15 million they’re setting aside.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to Part 2, new section 59A. Now, I have a tabled amendment, and I just want to check that I’ve got this correct with the Clerk, if I may. My tabled amendment paper No. 12, which is a proposed amendment to Amendment Paper No. 380. I believe I may have been advised to propose this for a different part. Sorry—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry—can you please speak into your microphone, Mr Abel. I’m not sure if you’re talking to me or yourself.

STEVE ABEL: Oh, pardon me, Madam Chair. No, no—well, I’m talking to you, with a recognition that I’m seeking clarification on advice that I received from the Clerk, that my tabled amendment—No. 12—a proposed amendment to Amendment Paper No. 380, which I had suggested that we insert a new section at new section 59A, “Recognition of tikanga evidence” that perhaps should have belonged in another part of legislation. I can’t ask a direct question to the Clerk, obviously, so I’ll speak to my amendment.

It’s to do with tikanga evidence, and it clarifies that tikanga-based evidence may take diverse forms and must be respected in its own terms, rather than being judged against or limited by a western legal framework. It ensures the unique worldview of te ao Māori and appropriately considered, particularly in relation to mana, kaitiakitanga, inter-group relationships, and spiritual, cultural connections to the Takutai Moana. It requires the court to recognise tikanga as evidence and sets out the nature and forms of the evidence that may take.

It would be inserted as a new section 59A—I won’t read the whole thing, as you had advised me earlier, Madam Chair, but just to touch on a couple of the key wordings, in recognition of tikanga evidence—“In determining where the customary marine title exists in a specified area of the common marine and coastal area, the court must do the following, where relevant: among other things, not require tikanga to conform to traditional common law legal concepts; and where evidence of tikanga, in relation to the following, is directly relevant to determining whether customary marine title exists, authority and mana over relevant areas, resource management, kaitiakitanga, relationships between groups, resolution of disputes, and spiritual and cultural connections. And must recognise that mighty relationships with the common marine and coastal area are holistic and encompass both physical and metaphysical dimensions.” I won’t read the rest of it, but the essence of it is that it takes into account tikanga as evidence and sets out the nature and forms that that evidence may take.

If we are to have a seriously plural legal system, one that takes account of the fact that we have, over the course of time and jurisprudence, got a blending of tikanga and common law as the foundation of our legal system in this country, then we need to enshrine and recognise that tikanga has, at least, the same standing as common law, and that it must not meet the test of common law. It has its own standing, as affirmed and confirmed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is a concept that is not peculiar to other jurisdictions grappling with how to recognise Aboriginal or Native title, such as Canada and Australia—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. It’s taken me a while to find the reference that you’re referring to, so you’re talking to Amendment Paper No. 380 to clause 10—

STEVE ABEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): —which was voted on in Part 1.

STEVE ABEL: Oh, OK. That was where it got shifted to, is it?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes.

STEVE ABEL: I originally proposed it as being in Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We have already voted on your amendment.

STEVE ABEL: OK—pardon me. Thank you very much.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 380 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 12, deleting new section 59B, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment inserting new Part 2A to establish a Māori Takutai Authority is out of order as outside the scope of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to questions on the Schedule.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 380 to the Schedule, replacing new clause 2, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 380 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to the Schedule, inserting new clause 7, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2: “Title” and “Commencement.”

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a few thoughts about what this bill should be called, because I know it does amend the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. It doesn’t really tell you what it does, because one of the most pernicious parts of this bill is the fact that there are litigants who have had their day in court, who have presented their evidence, made their legal submissions, paid their bills, and had a decision made in their favour. In fact, they are now to be stripped of the benefits of that litigation retrospectively. The law has been changed not just to make it harder for future litigants, but to strip people who have had their day in court and won their case.

If you think about that, I don’t know what kind of Government would do that. I’m surprised in particular that New Zealand First is part of that because they’ve got a pretty good reputation for sticking up for people who have had their day in court and I hope that they’ll look closely at this—maybe they’re going to change their mind on this at third reading.

I’ve got a little amendment in there and it suggests that this bill should be called the “Retrospective Changing of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Act”. Because I think it’s only fair that you call it what it is. It is a perfectly accurate description. It’s not what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations might like to call it. It’s a shameful day for the rule of law when we let people go to court and win, and then when we don’t like what they’ve won, we take it off them. That is the kind of behaviour you’d expect from somewhere with a weak democracy that doesn’t respect the rule of law. That’s what we’ve got, so let’s call it what it is. I don’t think this amendment can be ruled out of order for being critical because it’s simply descriptive.

Perhaps if you don’t like that—and you could always merge these two together—I’d be happy to quickly slap down another amendment. The other thing that this does, and it’s allied to it, is it takes away rights which have been conferred. These are property rights. These people, these hapū and iwi that have won their cases, have had rights recognised, and when this bill according to the commencement clause comes into force, those rights will be no longer extant. That is to say they will be taken away; or to put it another way: they’ll be confiscated.

They are being deprived, stripped of their rights and we should say that. It should really be called, just like in the old days, just like in the 1860s and 70s and 80s, at least the legislation there was called what it was: the Tohunga Suppression Act or the land confiscation Act. Let’s call it: this Act is the “Confiscation of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Act”, because that’s what it does. It confiscates. These are property rights—property rights that the ACT Party says it stands for and then takes them away. No compensation; no worries about that at all. Let’s be a little bit more honest about what we call these bills.

We could, of course, call it the “Hobson’s Pledge Memorial Bill” because that’s really where these politics come from: the politics of attacking Māori simply for looking for the recognition of the rights that they have historically exercised. Rights which may have been interfered with over the years by Governments and local bodies and other people, but rights which have persisted and can be shown to have been extant.

The court—the Court of Appeal but the Supreme Court—has recognised that the way in which those rights are proved is nuanced; it’s not straightforward, but there’s a legal process and it’s robust. That was the deal struck some years ago in 2011, and it’s a deal that this Government is breaking. Maybe we should call it the “Broken Promises (Takutai Moana) Act” as well.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I’d like to thank the member for his suggestions for titles, but I think we’ll stick with the current one which is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. That is because that is what it does. It does not break any deals; it is set out in its goal to find that balance between enabling Māori to establish customary marine rights and title, while also recognising the wide interests that all New Zealanders have in the marine and coastal space. It seeks not to take away rights—nobody will wake up tomorrow with less ability to enjoy the coastal area or have a connection with it. It is in relation to those cases.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I have two amendments that I’d like to propose in this part of naming and commencement. I think we do, as my colleague’s already outlined, need to address the truth of what this legislation is, which is pure raupatu. My proposal for an amendment to the name is to name it what it is: “Te Pire Raupatu Takutai Moana”. The name is reflective of what it’s going to do, because the thresholds being set and the hoops that our people will need to jump through, effectively, sees the raupatu of our customary Māori rights to the takutai moana.

Further to that, I have an additional name and suggestion, which I think is, actually, something that is practical. It reflects, actually, what’s going to happen on the ground. While some in New Zealand will be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the takutai moana and protection of their private property rights, Māori don’t get the same. I propose a name amendment of the “No Entitlement to Compensation for Māori Act”, because, ultimately, our people will not be eligible for compensation for the lost time, for the opportunity cost, for the years of preparation and going through the hearings.

May I bring to the committee the names of the seven groups that are going to be impacted so that you might get an awareness of the work that they have put into the process thus far. Now, this tāhae legislation is ripping out the opportunity for them to confirm, in concrete, their customary rights to the takutai moana. Let’s go to Wairarapa. Wairarapa have customary marine title (CMT) granted in interim judgment in December 2024. That’s a wonderful win. The carpet is wiped out for them.

Aotea Harbour was largely uncontested for Ngāti Te Wehi and Ngāti Whakamarurangi and Waikato-Tainui, and they shared a CMT granted—there was a shared CMT because, as Māori, we can share, and we are so patient and gracious in the way in which we share our spaces with all New Zealand and ourselves. Then if we go to the Kāpiti Coast where we have Muaūpoko, we have Ngāti Tamarangi, we have Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, Te Whānau Tima, Ngāti Apa, and Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga. Again, they went through a hearings process in good faith, jumping through the hoops of the Crown in 2024, and the CMT was granted in June 2025. These are groups that have gone through the hoops of the Government that have been set, and my own people in Whangareitererengaparāoa have completed their hearings. They have been waiting for the outcome and the judgment, and yet they will be impacted by the “No Entitlement to Compensation” legislation that we are seeing coming through the House right now.

The tribes of Whangarei-tererenga-parāoa, Patuharakeke, Ngāti Kahu o Torongare, Te Parawhau, Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Tū, Te Waiariki. All of these groups, as well as other whānau, who have very important rights will have their judgments null and void, so they will not be entitled to any compensation for the loss of time, for the loss of opportunity, and for the sweat and tears that they have put into their hearings.

Let’s go to Ngā Pōtiki. Ngā Pōtiki Ngā Hapū o Te Moutere o Motiti; Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whakahemo; Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga; Ngāti He, te uri, te hapū [the kin, the subtribes]. There’s heaps of whānau. Ruapuke Island—we’ve heard about in this Chamber tonight. These are whānau who have gone through the system. They have stood up all of their evidence, they’ve completed their hearings, they’ve combined their efforts. And they also have a recognised, shared CMT. See, with this raupatu legislation that’s coming through the House, they will not be able to get entitlement, when any type of CMT that they had is now going to be ripped away from them.

So I think that my two names offered, the “Pire Raupatu Takutai Moana” and the “No Entitlement to Compensation to te Iwi Māori,” are fair and reasonable considering the impact that this legislation will have on our people now and moving forward. And may I recommend that commencement is in October 2026. Kia ora.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do support the amendments being proposed by my colleagues about a name that better reflects what this bill does, but I want to speak to the commencement date and, in particular, draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the land march led by Dame Whina Cooper arrived here at Parliament on this day 50 years ago. I also want to mention to the committee and bring to the committee's attention that this month, on 28 October, 190 years ago, He Whakaputanga was signed by our ancestors across this country, in particular in Te Tai Tokerau, which continues to reassert our sovereignty. It is commonly known as the declaration of independence 1835.

Those are significant dates, and why I bring those dates to the attention of this committee is on what would normally be a time for us to commemorate, reflect, and also strategise for the moves forward, we are now passing a piece of legislation which grants, after Royal assent, a bill that is going to continue to strip the rights of Māori.

Just another reminder to the members in this committee that today marks the 50-year anniversary since our tupuna Dame Whina Cooper led the march from the Far North here to Wellington. This month also recognises the 190-year commemoration of the signing of the declaration of independence on 28 October. I want those dates to sink in as this bill continues to pass in the committee. When I look towards the commencement of this particular bill, let it be another stain on the record of this committee and the treatment of the Māori people.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Well, I’d like to thank the member for his history lesson, and I’ll give him another date, which is it is now coming up to 21 years since the Labour Government, in 2004, passed the Foreshore and Seabed legislation that took the coastal area for the Crown. This Act that we’re amending at the moment—the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act—was an agreement between the National Party and the Māori Party in 2011, to come up with a process by which Māori could establish their customary rights to the foreshore and seabed area—a significant advance. It was based on a recognition that we were balancing two things: customary rights and, also, the expectation of all New Zealanders living in a modern democracy to have a say and an interest in what goes on in the coastal area that surrounds the entire nation. The entire nation is girt by sea, and all New Zealanders have an interest in what goes on in that coastal area. The Parliament set a high threshold, and that is what this amendment bill is seeking to re-establish, following a couple of court cases that went through. So history is interesting, and we’ve all got our observations to make on it.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister mentioning the anniversary of the Foreshore and Seabed Act because it was one of my very suggestions for what this bill could rightly be called. It has the effect, as colleagues have alluded to, of being a repeat of the tawdry tradition of confiscation in this country that the Foreshore and Seabed Act was in 2004, and so it could rightly be called the “Foreshore and Seabed Act Resurrection Bill”, the “Foreshore and Seabed Act Redux” or “Regurgitation”. The “Zombie Foreshore and Seabed Act” could be an appropriate name for it because it has the effect of being a confiscation.

T speak to two other very solid suggestions, one from Duncan Webb that mentioned confiscation, it could be called the “Marine Confiscation Bill”, and my colleague Hūhana Lyndon used the term raupatu, but there’s one other edition that could be rightly added to that: given the particularly egregious nature of the retrospective cancellation of those hard-fought battles by specific iwi, it should be called the “Retrospective Raupatu Amendment Bill”. That is a particularly nasty part of this Bill. I mean, the whole thing’s awful.

One of the things the Minister has set out as the argument for this bill is that it is resuming the intent or clarifying the intent of Parliament, but we have heard over and again from people who were directly involved in the actual creation of that Act in 2011 that this does not correct the intent. In fact, it moves away from the intent of the bill. It certainly moves away from it in so far as it puts the burden of proof on iwi Māori and the onus on iwi Māori, rather than the onus being on the Crown to prove extinguishment, which was clearly articulated by the Minister at the time, Chris Finlayson, in that the onus had to be borne by the Crown to prove extinguishment; not that iwi Māori had to prove customary title.

I suggest another name for the bill could be the “Invention of Imaginary Intent Bill” because the Minister has created an intent from a previous Parliament for which there is no evidence. Speaking of physical evidence, Minister, where is your physical evidence or your Hansard evidence anywhere of the intent of the original bill to be what the Minister has done here? There is no evidence that has been brought to this House in this committee stage or at any stage of the select committee that confirms what the Minister keeps saying: that he’s restoring the intent. It is the invention of an imaginary intent.

This bill is a terrible passage in the history of Crown-Māori relations. It undoes the consensus that was achieved in 2011 across the parties in the House by a much more imaginative and enlightened National-led Government at the time, in coalition with Te Pāti Māori. This Minister’s Government is taking us backwards as a country, taking us back to the worst attitudes towards respectful relations with iwi Māori on the part of the Crown. It is kāwanatanga kūpapa. It is a betrayal of that most vital relationship between iwi Māori, and the Crown. I hope, Minister, that you actually accept some of these titles as being more fitting titles for your nasty piece of legislation.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Chair.

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

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

Just continuing my line of kōrero, and with regard to the naming and commencement, I just want to reflect for the House and everyone at home that, you know, the Crown has apologised for many of the historic breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi but seems incapable of applying it in the same manner today. This is the conundrum for te iwi Māori out there. How can we ever have any faith in a House and a system who apologises one day—gives redress one day—and then the next day does the same thing? What's your explanation for that, Minister? What have we got to tell the people, the Māori people out there who live all along that coast you mentioned as being girded by the moana? They live there; our people live there. They've never seen a Government person there. You know who looks after that place while no one else is there? Us. Yet, we get treated like this time and time and time again. Just a “here-we-go-again” story.

Treaty settlements, you guys over there, if you don't know, they're only about 1.5 percent of the agreed value of the loss—1.5 percent—and then this House—

Todd Stephenson: Sorry, Mr Chair. We are on title and commencement—

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, I’m talking about that.

Todd Stephenson: Well, I’m not sure you are.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, OK—point taken. I mean, in the beginning he did speak in Māori and mention title and commencement. This part of the debate is used as a way to summarise a party’s perspective, e hāngai ana ki te—

TĀKUTA FERRIS:

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono):

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

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

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, tēnā.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ka pai.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tēnā koe, tāku rangatira. So te iwi Māori are a magnanimous partner, generous to a fault. We should call this the “Here We Go Again Foreshore and Seabed Act”—hey, our people will really get that. You know, it's been 21 years: 21 years of pushing in courts, 21 years of doing the hard yards. Maybe we should call it the “21 More Years Foreshore and Seabed Act”.

As I think of people who have led the charge—people who have led the charge; they’re our uncles, aunties, kuia, koroua, who pushed and pushed and pushed and, as I said earlier, went and stood in front of a High Court judge, presented all of our evidence and

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

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

My other name for the bill, Minister, would be the “Raupatu Mutunga Kore Act”.

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

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

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

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora. I’d like to speak to the commencement date. The reason why I bring up the issue of the commencement date is that there is a lack of trust on this side of the House. There is a lack of trust that the machinery of Government is even ready to implement this amendment legislation. There is a lack of trust that this Government will resource the ability for claimants to be able to engage in the new system as it rolls out. And is the court ready for what is coming? The court has already demonstrated the struggle to hear the seven cases that have already gotten this far. So I propose, as I did in my earlier kauwhau, October 2026 as a commencement date, to allow the system to catch up—allow the system to catch up—unless I’m missing something.

If the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations can put it on the table—can he put it on the table and tell us that the system is ready, that there’s a budget allocated, that the courts are going to be ready to stand up and hear these seven-plus, plus, plus, because there are grave concerns in terms of the ripples of impact that this legislation will have on Māori but also on an already stretched system as it is. The High Court is not an easy space to go into. The High Court has not been able to host enough of the hearings in a fast enough schedule. Hence some of the claimants complain that they’re not going to be heard till 2050. So if you think about the seven that have already gone through the process over a number of years and all of their nawes and all of their takes [concerns], they’re going to be full of issues, let alone all the rest of us as claimants who stand in line, waiting for a chance to get to the front of the line to the High Court. There is grave concern that this system is even ready for it.

So it would be awesome to see what this Government actually has to tell us that this is going to roll out quickly, because I think the Government needs to allow the officials time. We need to allow the officials time and the court system to catch up, because they’re already significantly behind, it’s already a stretched workforce, and we already know there are budget cuts everywhere. Unless there’s going to be some magical budget that will come out somewhere in the near future, I ain’t seeing it and we ain’t hearing about it. So that’s one question.

My proposal is October 2026 to allow the system to prepare itself. One year, I think, is feasible—one year to allow the courts to tell us what is their plan, so they can hear not only the seven areas that have already gone through the process but what’s their catch-up system.

I also want to remind those in the Chamber that there’s a direct negotiations pathway also with the Crown—and that’s been a huge success! No, it hasn’t. Nobody’s bloody been successful in direct negotiations. Put it on the table and tell me who has been successful in direct negotiations with the Crown, because it don’t happen. We have to go through the court. We have to litigate, we have to do our mapping, we’ve got to find our oral traditional history, we’ve got to get the technical researchers, and then we’ve got to prepare our elders to stand and argue their cases before a High Court—a High Court that is not made to hear our evidence. That's always been an issue. The Waitangi Tribunal is that place that hears our evidence. They've got taringa whakarongo. High Court is a completely different beast. So that's why we need to give time. We need to allow for the officials to ready themselves. What does implementation look like?

I want to call back to what the officials told us in the supplementary analysis report, where Te Arawhiti said in their overall analysis—Te Arawhiti considered this reform was unlikely to address the primary concerns Māori have with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, as identified through the Waitangi Tribunal 266O inquiry, and any amendments proposed to address the coalition commitments only make it harder under the current law to prove customary marine title. So the erosion of the ability of Māori to be able to bring their case to court is going to be a significant burden.

But then the resourcing of the machinery—how much is it: $20 million, $30 million? What's the budget for this? What's the burden for the taxpayer of New Zealand? Mr Chair, I want to carry on my kauwhau, thank you very much—kia ora tātou. Because, ultimately, Māori who have to come back into this process are going to be challenging the specific—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Sorry, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, so he can respond to some of the questions.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you. The member did refer to a lot of numbers, and I can assure the member that the Government has received advice and allocated up to $15 million to the rehearing of cases.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to include “Retrospective Changing of Marine and Coastal Area” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to include “Confiscation of Marine and Coastal Area” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to include “(Entrenching Theft of Foreshore and Seabed)” is out of order as being an attempt to criticise the bill

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to include “Seabed and Foreshore Theft” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Main amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we come to the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 39—“Main amendments”—and Schedules 1 to 5. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m looking for guidance on when we can ask specific questions about specific polytechs in this section of this debate. This is a really big, meaty bill. It’s about 106 pages long, and I know that members here in the Chamber will have specific questions on how the passage of this bill might affect their specific polytechs. I’ve got, to the left of me, my colleague Hūhana Lyndon, who will probably be asking specific questions about NorthTec. I see Labour colleagues to my right—I see Arena Williams, who will probably be asking questions about the Manukau Institute of Technology, and so on and so forth. So what is the appropriate stage of this debate where they will be able to ask specific questions about their specific polytechnics and the impacts of this legislation on their polytechnics?

A second part of that question, which is related, is that there is a quite big regulatory impact statement around this bill; it’s 67 pages long. There’s also another one, so there’s several regulatory impact statements on this bill. There’s also the departmental disclosure statement. So when is the appropriate time, at this stage of the debate, to be asking questions around it, because my colleagues and I do intend to go clause by clause on this bill after we’ve asked those, I would say, procedural questions and specific questions about local polytechs? I’m just seeking guidance from you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you for that point of order. My understanding is that Part 1 is the substantial part, so it is in this debate. Part 2 is consequential amendments. So when those amendments flow through, that is when those discussions can be brought up. So my understanding is it will be Part 1, and just to note that we are debating clauses 4 to 39, the main amendments, and Schedules 1 to 5. So I hope that clarifies it. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on this Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. While the Opposition does intend to take things clause by clause, and we do intend to start asking questions about specific polytechnics at this stage, I do want to take the opportunity now to highlight, in good faith, what I believe to be a drafting error in this legislation.

Of course, all Opposition amendments to this bill have been, and are, made in good faith, but I just wanted to highlight my Amendment Paper now, at the start of the debate, to give the Minister time to seek advice from her advisers and consider adopting my amendment or incorporating the principles behind it into the legislation.

It’s no secret that the Greens have been opposed to the bill. Our opposition to it has been vigorous and has played out not only in the halls of Parliament and in the parliamentary written questions but also in the broadsheets of New Zealand’s most trusted paper, the Otago Daily Times, the New Zealand Herald, Stuff and TradeMe’s various methods, The Post, The Press, The Northern Advocate, of course, and also on the airwaves of radio and television. So I understand why the Minister might be sceptical of my amendment and the good faith behind that amendment. While we do not support this bill, we do support legislation functioning as intended, and, at the moment, I do believe that there is a glaring omission at the heart of the Minister’s bill—the omission is, as drafted, that there is currently no way for an institution that has been established as an anchor polytechnic to be removed out of its designation; nor is there, arguably, a way for anchor polytechnics to be designated as an anchor polytechnic outside of being established as one from its inception.

Let me elaborate: new section 315, inserted by clause 22, which replaces Subpart 4 of Part 4, stipulates the conditions for establishing a polytech and establishes in new section 315, under clause 22, that a polytech that gets established may be established as an anchor polytechnic, If you scroll back earlier in the legislation it does define that as being an Order in Council. There’s a section in clause 22, new section 337, which defines the role of anchor polytechnics, and another section, new section 338, that gives polytechs powers to charge fees. However, there is currently no clause that enables anchor polytechnics to be removed from the designation as an anchor polytechnic in this amendment legislation.

Now, one could argue that new section 315, inserted by clause 22, which replaces Subpart 4 of Part 4, gives the powers to designate the polytechnic by Orders in Council. But that is under the heading of “Establishment of polytechnics”. I would argue that the section is clearly for newly established polytechnics—so if you’re starting a polytech at the start, not intending to designate polytechs that already exist and are currently in existence and have been established.

So even if you could argue that, you couldn’t argue that there is a remotely similar clause that exists for anchor polytechnics. So there is a section under clause 22, new section 337, that refers to “the anchor polytechnic ceases to be an anchor polytechnic;”. But if you contrast this to the wording around “federation polytechnics”, which does have a specific section around how they might be designated and how a federation polytechnic may cease to be designated under section 339.

Now, I know that this cannot be the Minister’s intention. The Minister has publicly stated and pledged to my local polytechnic, the Otago Polytechnic, and also to the Otago Daily Times, that if they meet the road to viability, which they’re on track to do, they will be able to exit the federation and exit their anchor polytechnic status.

So what I have done is I have drafted an Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 388, explicitly modelled after new section 339—the same section around federation polytechnics—that will enable anchor polytechnics to be designated and removed from the designation of anchor polytechnics, using the exact same language and the exact same processes that the Minister has outlined for federations. I understand there are several ways to slice a pizza; I’m not wedded to my specific way of doing it. I know that the anchor federations are established by an Order in Council, so I would be happy if there was similar language around that section of the Minister being able to remove anchor polytechnic status via Order in Council as well. I just want it explicitly stated in the legislation, and I would like the Minister to have a look at the legislation and instruct her officials to provide a clear way to designate and remove the designation of anchor polytechnics. So that’s my contribution; I will be taking many more.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I wanted to ask a question of the Minister for Vocational Education, on something that we looked as part of the select committee process, specifically around the appointment of the institute of technology and polytechnic (ITP) councils. I’m interested, Minister, in understanding how Māori will be represented on the ITP councils. I’ll give the Minister an opportunity to answer that question, Mr Chair, and I’ve got another one should I get the opportunity afterwards.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you for those two questions. I thank the Green Party member for the Amendment Paper that has been put forward. I have had a look at that and I have discussed it with the officials. There’s no need for us to have that explicit in the legislation; it would be via an Order in Council.

I think, perhaps, looking at the anchor polytechnic and the federation polytechnics would be quite different in that the expectation is that federation polytechnics may well move in and out as their ability to provide academic programmes and to be financially sustainable—that they would then be considered for moving out or moving into a federation. However, the anchor polytechnic is exactly that: the anchor polytechnic; the one that is going to generally provide the services and programmes for the other federation polytechnic. So the anticipation is that there would be a lot more movement of federation polytechnics than there would be of anchor polytechnics. But I thank the member for considering that. I thank him for his Amendment Paper, which I have looked at, but consider that there’s no need to have that, given that an Order in Council would be the way in which that would occur. As the member has noted, the ability is there for federation polytechnics to move out; it’s quite explicit.

In terms of Māori representation on councils of Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITP), this is a matter that I think is incredibly important for the ITPs in that they must reflect the make-up of their community—making that as broad as possible. To ensure that a polytechnic is successful, it must be very engaged with their community, must be very integrated with their community, and must understand their community. Therefore, if a polytechnic was operating in a community which was predominantly Māori, you would expect that polytechnic’s council to be predominantly Māori.

What I don’t want to see happening, and which I feel has happened, is tick box exercises where there’s been a “must have a Māori representative on council” and “Tick, we’ve done that.” That is not what should occur for polytechnics. They should be well integrated, well engaged with their community, and should reflect the make-up of their community.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my intention to make some opening remarks, but just to signal that across this debate, we will be working through polytech by polytech, and then, given the industry concerns outlined in submissions, I will be encouraging my colleagues to be speaking to particular submissions and pieces of feedback in relation to this bill from industry partners. So buckle in, everyone, because I think we’re in for a long ride on this one—106 pages.

This bill really sets out to achieve three things, and it’s outlined in the legislative statement. It aims to restore regional decision-making in vocational education and training; to increase industry leadership in vocational education and training, particularly in the areas of standards setting and work based training; and, thirdly, to support vocational education and training to reflect local and regional education, training and workforce needs.

I’m a pretty fair guy that will give the Minister a pretty fair go. But when we reflect on those three goals or targets—whatever this Government wants to call them—this piece of legislation falls well short of achieving any of those three particular items that the Minister has pushed through this piece of legislation for. I go back to the point that that is because at a particular time the politics was hot around Te Pūkenga, we went through an election, the background of the Minister—she knew the subject matter area well—and there was an attraction politically to the merger of the polytechs across the country coming together.

But the one part that I did expect the Minister to address in this legislation is the problem that any Government or the sector have been trying to solve for decades is the financial viability piece. And throughout this process—and this is my first concern right up front—throughout the select committee process and in every reading, I have shared my concerns both with the Minister, with Government members that sit around the select committee table, saying there is inadequate financial information that can give us the confidence that even if this was a good piece of legislation, a good structure and set up, there’s no evidence or information to support us, to give confidence to us that this stacks up. So I’ve come to the conclusion that this doesn’t stack up.

It’s not financially viable. I haven’t seen any information, nor has anyone ever told me that this puts the sector in a more financially viable position than it was prior to Te Pūkenga, and I still encourage the Minister to share that information with the House. Show us the money, Minister, that tells us that you are able to achieve these three things that you’ve outlined and we will scrutinise them clause by clause tonight. I’ll be asking the money question all along the way, because I don’t think it’s there. But if it’s there, then I’m also happy to eat my words.

I think the challenges across this, and coming back to the financial viability piece, is that stability is not achieved by cutting hundreds of jobs, stability is not achieved by closing down campuses, and it’s certainly not achieved by shutting and cancelling courses from across the country that meet the needs of learners, particularly those more vulnerable than others, but particularly those that sit in our regional communities. In fact, the sector is worse off, but if we’re having a real education conversation, learners are worse off under this piece of legislation.

With the remaining time tonight, since our chair of the Education and Workforce Committee opened up speaking to the Māori issues that we have with the bill, I’d like to traverse those first, if I may.

Hon Member: Is that the most important one?

SHANAN HALBERT: Well, it’s been a day of it, really. We’ve had the takutai moana bill that shafted Māoris, and so here we are doing it again. I look at Government members from across the House that at the eighth hour submitted amendments to the select committee report, obviously to accommodate the Government’s wishes and this Minister.

So if I turn to clause 4(2), in “Section 9 amended (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”, which replaces section 9(2)(e) with section 314(d), the question for the Minister is: in her view, why has this wording been changed? What advice did she receive from her officials on that? What are the other characteristics of polytechnics that she’s referring to in that particular section? Does this reduce the priority for polytechnics to improve Māori outcomes—yes or no? And, if they don’t, how will they be achieved and what advice has the Minister received on the outcomes for Māori at polytechnics? I’ll pause there.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I thank the member Shanan Halbert for his many questions. I’m delighted that we’re going to spend hours and hours talking about vocational education. I couldn’t be more pleased, and if we’re going to talk about each individual polytechnic I will be absolutely delighted to shine a light on each of our polytechnics. So thank you for that opportunity. Thank you also for the opportunity to shine a light on our workplace training, our valuable apprentices and trainees and industries. So I couldn’t be more pleased that we’re going to spend hours in this Chamber talking about vocational education.

In terms of the financial information, I’m very, very pleased to tell the member that for the last 18 months the Tertiary Education Commission has assigned financial advisers to each individual polytechnic to go through a pathway to financial sustainability—work that should have happened the day Te Pūkenga came into being. I reflect back on 2018 when $20 million had to be injected into Whitireia and WelTec to keep the lights on so that they could continue to pay their staff and their bills. The fact that no work was done in five years to address their financial situation was absolutely appalling. So I’m very pleased—

Shanan Halbert: Point of order. I just want to clarify the comment from the Minister—because we’ll tidy this up now—who commented that no work was done on the financial viability of the polytechnics across five years. I don’t understand that to be correct. She may like to correct her statement.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): With points of order, please direct us to the Standing Order, which would help the committee. There will be opportunities for you to put an alternative view or a different perspective on what the Minister is saying. So that opportunity will be made available to the committee.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to correct my statement and say that insufficient work was done to ensure the financial sustainability of the polytechnics. It was incredibly heartbreaking to see that that sort of work was not done. I can also assure the member that we won’t face what the previous Government faced when setting up Te Pūkenga, which was a report, then a Budget bid, that went to the then Government saying, “Oh, we’ve set Te Pūkenga up but we haven’t got enough money to be able to make it operational. We have to do whole reset of our digital systems and that is going to take hundreds of millions of dollars.” I understand from the first Budget bid that was leaked in October 2022 that that was to be $940 million – odd over 10 years. It was scaled back and scaled back and eventually got to a $200 million loan.

So I’m happy with the work we have done over the last 18 months to ensure that individual polytechnics have got a pathway to sustainability, and I’m happy with the work that has been done in securing additional funding off $20 million a year over the next two years to ensure that strategically important areas, regions—geographic areas—are not put in jeopardy, and that strategically important disciplines such as agriculture or forestry are not going to be put in jeopardy while we work through what sort of funding changes might be needed in a long-term perspective of that.

I am confident that the work that has been done on individual polytechnics over the last 18 months has put them in a much better place. I acknowledge that had that work been done earlier, had the polytechnics been able to get back to their pre-COVID international student numbers, they may have not required so many redundancies. That is a factor of being part of Te Pūkenga. I’m hoping that they will be able to grow that again, and I consider that we are not going to be faced with the sort of question of additional $930 million – odd being needed over the following nine years.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): If I may bring the voice of Tai Tokerau into the Whare in terms of Tai Tokerau Wānanga. Tai Tokerau Wānanga—46 years of delivery as the pou whirinaki of vocational education for the people of Northland; a place where there has been significant commitment over generations from iwi Māori and community to a beautiful place we call home. As a graduate, as a former tutor and director, it has been wonderful to come together as community, as leaders, and as iwi Māori to reflect on student voice and concerns, who have continued to say NorthTec is important. NorthTec Tai Tokerau Wānanga requires investment; Tai Tokerau requires resourcing. It’s not always about financial viability; it can actually be for public good, because what’s good for Northland is good for all of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Grant McCallum: Oh, yes, yes—great speech.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Of course Grant agrees; of course our Northland MP agrees. It would be great to see him come to our meetings; they’re well advertised. We only get hundreds of people come to talk about NorthTec because we’re all worried about it, and we’re committed to a pathway forward.

We stood in the Banquet Hall and we heard a great pitch. We heard a great pitch from the Northland Corporate Group, these big employers, who said, “As Northland, we can contribute some $60 billion into the New Zealand economy. Join us, New Zealand, and invest in Northland.” Well, I tell you, we cannot optimise that $60 billion worth of contributions to the New Zealand economy without the people workforce. If we ignore the people workforce, there ain’t no kaimahi. You’re going to be importing them from overseas or outside of the rohe, because, in Tai Tokerau, let’s get that clear, we are young, we are brown, and we are fertile. Our education rates continue to grow, and our population does too. It is Māori who are there, and it is Māori who need to be uplifted.

Can I refer to the institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITP) league chart—the table that compares NorthTec to other ITPs, the 16 across the country, for Māori achievement. NorthTec’s qualification completion rate for Māori was fourth out of 16 ITPs. For Māori, it was fourth out of 16. Now, in terms of the overarching retention of Māori learners at NorthTec, it was second out of 16 ITPs. I look at our overall—this is overall students—in terms of our progression rates across NorthTec. We continue to grow, and we were first; in the first year of studies, we were first out of all ITPs in New Zealand for retention. This is NorthTec, little old NorthTec—Raumanga, Rawene, Kaitāia, Kerikeri, and the closed Dargaville campus—punching above our weight nationally. This polytech has already been identified as being not financially viable—no pathway to financial viability.

I acknowledge the Minister’s invested, I think, a little bit in NorthTec, for a little bit of leeway—awesome. That’s a little bit of a breather for our region, but the question is, really, to the Minister, reflecting on these achievement rates; the way that we can retain our learners; the way that we can see progression happening both for Māori and non-Māori. We need to think of a plan whereby people are put at the centre of decision making instead of a balance sheet, because not all regions are the same, e tātou mā. I don’t know whether you know that Hokianga is different to Kerikeri; Kerikeri is different to Manurewa; Manurewa is different, of course, to Whakatāne; and Tai Tokerau is a little bit like Toi Ohomai. Tai Tokerau is a little bit like Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki. These are regional campuses that require urgent assistance and that pathway for us to be able to see a clear way forward.

My questions to the Minister, in relation particularly to NorthTec, are about assets, about these wonderful campuses around the hearts of communities like Kaitāia—Redan Road—like Kerikeri, and it’s called Te Pou o Kororipo. Rawene campus is something that is, right now, with community—but, actually, they want to do more. There’s a particular connection that I think maybe institutions such as NorthTec might be missing—and I’m asking the Chair to allow me to finish my kauwhau before the Minister answers—[Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Chair, may I complete my kauwhau? Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, if you do it quickly, because there are answers that I’ve been waiting for.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Yes—and I have more pātai—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, if you just finish off there.

HŪHANA LYNDON: It just keeps giving, so give me a chance. My pātai is: we have that short runway of a little bit of investment to help us for the next year or two; we have these wonderful assets in our communities that have been hubs for educational excellence, as you’ve heard. NorthTec has great achievement rates and retention. But, further to that, are we going to see the investment in those places to stay open? May the doors stay open and allow and encourage our employers to get alongside NorthTec and start boosting student numbers with our equivalent full-time students?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you so much, Mr Chair, I’m very pleased. And thank you to the member Hūhana Lyndon for bringing up NorthTec because it is a wonderful example of the work that has been done. I think they were the first polytechnic that I started engaging with the community—I think probably 18 months ago, maybe a little longer than that. There is a fabulous community group of leaders up there made up of business leaders, iwi leaders, local government leaders, chamber of commerce, the local economic development agency, who have been working away diligently because of exactly the comments that you have made: that it is an incredibly important part of the Far North—Northland and the Far North.

Yes, you will see in a number of the papers that are released that I was constantly getting advice that there was no pathway to viability. That was something I would not accept for that polytechnic because I consider it is too important for that region. So that is why I have continued to work with them. I have ensured that they had financial assistance all the way through. You will be very pleased to know that out of the strategic investment fund, NorthTec have got the most of any polytechnic for the next two years. So I am very keen to ensure that we keep provision in that area.

But can I make one point very clear to the member. You do not want a Minister of any stripe making decisions about where polytechnics have campuses. That is a decision that should be made by the council of that polytechnic because they should be engaged with their community, they should know what is needed in their community. Please do not let a Minister ever think they should be making that decision.

The other thing, though, I would say to you is that there were some unintended consequences of some legislation that the Green Party brought in a few years ago. And one of them—I think that it would be really useful if you could look at an address. You have a very—sorry, not you. NorthTec has a very strong nursing degree. It’s an incredibly important degree and has a lot of mature Māori wāhine that take that programme, who up until a few years ago were able to stay on the marae when they came down to undertake a few days. They weren’t able to do that once the pastoral care code came in, which the Green Party brought in. Because they couldn’t do it—these were mature woman who had brought up families, but they weren’t able to stay on the marae themselves without having some kind of residential assistance there for them. So I would like the Green Party to have a wee look at the unintended consequences that have made it very difficult for a number of mature women in the Far North who want to undertake their nursing degree. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Tuesday, 14 OCTOBER 2025

(continued on Wednesday, 15 October 2025)

Bills

Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Main amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, when we suspended last evening we were considering the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill and we were debating Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 39—“Main amendments”—and Schedules 1 to 5. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank the Minister for her engagement last night on this bill, particularly her willingness to engage in hours and hours of discussion about how great the polytechs around this country would be if necessary. The Opposition is also looking forward to that. I also wanted to acknowledge something she said last night around the pastoral code issue; around how that might have prevented some people in NorthTec from being able to stay the night, am I right? I mean, obviously, that pastoral code was a response to some very sad tragedies around halls of residence. There’s a lot of stuff that was going on that shouldn’t be. I’ve had mixed feedback from talking to stakeholders around it. Some of the groups I’ve been talking to don’t think it’s strong enough—and acknowledging the submission made by the University of Otago on the university advisory group where they called for a review of it. A cross-party basis of reviewing it could potentially be on the cards depending on the terms of reference, and we’re willing to engage constructively with the Minister on that bill.

Turning, though, to this bill, want to start going clause by clause a little bit, acknowledging that some colleagues might still have some specific questions to ask around specific polytechnics. I want to turn to Part 1, clause 5(5), around the definition of relevant services. Now, the relevant services here include the design and development of micro-credentials, the development and ongoing operation of a quality management system, and the provision of shared administration information services for two or more federation polytechnics, I do believe that there are other relevant services that could, potentially, be added to that clause. For example, I’m thinking, in particular, as we’ve just been talking about earlier in this debate, that pastoral care issues could perhaps come into shared services. Something that could be shared across different federation polytechnics, or one or more polytechs, is, particularly, disability services and disability support services.

I want to acknowledge the joint submission that was made by the Disabled Persons Assembly in the National Disabled Students’ Association on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. They talked in their submission about how 38 percent of disabled people aged 15 years and over who were not currently in post-secondary education or training would like to do so in the future but face numerous barriers in accessing it. I think including disability services in the relevant services that could be shared across the different services could be a way that we get a cohesive approach on this, because I do think that it is something we need to make sure is not lost with Te Pūkenga. It had a very good focus on reducing inequity between mainstream learners and learners with disabilities and reducing the education gaps with Pacific and Māori cohorts. That was talked about in the annual review with Te Pūkenga. We would like to see the disability services potentially included in the list of relevant services as well as pastoral care services.

Another thing that could, potentially, go into it is marketing services. We know that there has been an increased focus—particularly international student support as well—on getting the international students back. It started recovering in 2023 and there’s been a continuation and acceleration of that trend during this Government. We do feel that having a provision for international support services and the marketing component of that could be something that’s beneficial to the vocational and educational training system going forward—if the different Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand could share services and support between them, in either the federation or the anchor polytechnic context.

I have many more calls to take during this debate, but I’ll leave my contribution at that.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member, Francisco Hernandez. I appreciate that very constructive start to his question, where he offered to review the unintended consequences that have come from the pastoral code that the Green Party brought in. I think that’s very sensible, and I’m keen to talk further on that.

In terms of the federation, the shared services, it isn’t an exhaustive list. Obviously, in the legislation, I would expect that the list will change over time. I absolutely accept what the member is saying about shared services for disability support, pastoral care, marketing, international marketing—all those things, I think, are open to be able to be included in the sort of shared services. I think the member has completely grasped the essence of the federation: that it’s going to be about what the services are that are needed by the federation partners and what they can do to work together to be more effective, to save costs, and to be able to provide better service to students. Thank you for bringing those matters up, and they are exactly the sorts of thing I would expect might be shared. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. First call on this, what’s promising to be a lengthy and detailed examination of this bill. Just want to make some opening comments. I’m sure I share it with all members in the committee, a commitment to the importance of building a first-rate vocational education training system for this country. We know how important it is for the social and economic outcomes that we all strive for.

I’m particularly interested, through the course of the debate this morning, to touch on what I think is the increased complexity in the system that is reflected in this bill, and I’ll be keen to ask some questions, particularly around the federation model that is contained here. Like my colleague Shanan Halbert, also keen to explore the costs that are not directly contained in the wording of this bill but are nevertheless the elephant in the room in terms of a successful transition. We’ll be doing that particularly around the sections of the bill that are around the establishment of the new industry skills boards, the new polytechs.

One of the areas that we want to talk about is the weakening of the requirement to engage with Māori. I want to direct the Minister for Vocational Education’s attention to new section 318, added by clause 22 in the bill. This is just one of a number of issues that we’ll be discussing over the next few hours. New section 318 basically amends the text by deleting a requirement that “The council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable,—(a) reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves,” and then it specifies “(i) industries and commercial activities; and (ii) ethnic, gender, and socio-economic diversity; and (iii) diversity of abilities; and (b) include Māori.” in that governance of the polytechs. It’s replaced by a new subsection which says “The council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable, reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves.”

I have two questions for the Minister. Given the centrality of the Treaty in our country’s public life and matters of public policy, the importance of Māori being at the table and fully engaged in decision making and so on, including in the governance of our country’s institutions, why would the Government deliberately exclude the reference to including Māori in the governance of polytechs? That’s the first question.

The second is: why replace the specificity that was in the original text with a phrase that simply says “reflect the communities”? What does “reflect the communities” mean? I mean, our communities are made up of a myriad of different identities and qualities. Does it mean the people on the board should live in the same place? Does it mean they should have brown hair or blue eyes? It could literally mean anything to say “reflect the communities”. I think we owe it to the communities we serve that if you want to give a direction about what groups should be included in the governance of a board that is serving a particular community, why not say it? Why not be more precise?

I put it to the Minister that this—I mean, and I’d like to know whether this is kind of a deliberate vagueness here and what kind of outcomes she’s suggesting. Who does she think should be? And if she does have in mind specific groups that should be included in the governance of a given polytech, why not say it? Because otherwise, how are people going to know?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did address this yesterday, but I am very happy to go over it again. I think it’s an important part. Can I also just thank the member, Phil Twyford, for talking about how important this sector is. It’s particularly important for our Government, given the Going For Growth agenda, and I am very happy to talk about costs as we go through the day. We’ve got some very good stories around costs.

In terms of this particular section, I think it’s very important to ensure that a piece of legislation like this can be enduring, and to put exhaustive lists in really constrains things to the moment now. By having a much less exhaustive list, to be leaving it open ended, to be leaving it inclusive, and to be giving the intent, that allows the local region to look at their region. I’ve said this on multiple occasions: a successful polytechnic is one that is engaged with their community, that is integrated with their community, that takes notice of their community, and that works with their community. This is very much about insisting that it is not a tick-box exercise—“Oh good, we’ve done what we should do in the legislation.” This is about ensuring polytechnics are taking notice of their community, reflecting their community, and communities will evolve over time—being able to be open enough, inclusive enough, to take note and reflect their community at any given time.

I would expect that there would be virtually no community in this country that would not have a significant proportion of Māori in it, and therefore I would expect that that would be reflected in the council. In some, it may well be a majority of council members, but let’s leave it as open and as inclusive as possible for the local regions, local people, to make that call on the basis of the make-up of their community.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to ask the Minister another question this morning. It’s a pity that we’re revisiting issues that were addressed last night already. But I just want to acknowledge, the Minister’s focus on enduring legislation. It’s a pity that the previous Government spent a billion dollars trying to solve a problem that was only about a few million at the time and didn’t create an enduring solution. So I just want to acknowledge the Minister’s focus on creating an enduring solution in the polytechnic sector.

A part of that is the establishment of industry skills boards to ensure that industry are able to have a role in the polytechnic system in New Zealand. My question for the Minister is regarding the representation on those industry skills boards and how they’ll be created to ensure that the polytechnic sector is supported by industry. Specifically, given the conversation we’ve just had, how will Māori be represented on those industry skills boards? Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. The industry skills boards are such an integral part of the whole vocational education and training system. Industry should be driving our vocational education and training system, and that is why the industry skills boards have been put in place, to be driven by industry. Six of the governing positions will be by industry and will be put there by industry; two will be put by the Minister, but the Minister can only appoint people that industry have nominated. The Minister is constrained again by ensuring that they are industry people to be there.

The whole notion of our industry qualifications being driven by industry is integral to this. The industry skills boards will set the standards, will develop the qualifications, will undertake the moderation, will give endorsement to those entities that can run the programmes, and will give advice to the Tertiary Education Commission about where funding should go, so it’s in the right place at the right time. This is about industry being put in the driver’s seat again, ensuring that industry qualifications are fit for what industry wants out in the workforce. It’s really absolutely being driven by industry.

In terms of the membership—and I just want to get to the right clause, and I’m hoping someone on the back bench—

Carl Bates: Section 356.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Section 356, is it? Let me get to that quickly—

Carl Bates: Section 362, sorry.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Section 362. Thank you. Yes, I didn’t think it was that. Section 362, inserted by clause 23—the membership. We expect that the membership will give effect to the tertiary education strategy. The roles of the board will be giving effect to the tertiary education strategy and the particular populations that are referenced in the tertiary education strategy. Sorry, I’m quickly trying to find it, and hoping someone will tell me which section it is—section 370(e), inserted by clause 23. Thank you very much. Here we are, yes: “[will have] regard to the needs of Māori and other population groups as identified in the tertiary education strategy issued under section 7.” It is incredibly import. The tertiary education strategy is absolutely wanting to ensure that there is equity of access and there is an absolute emphasis on ensuring Māori are achieving. Thank you.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

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

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

Not to relitigate anything but actually just trying to get some specific answers and clarity for communities throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Aotearoa, particularly small communities like the one I live in and several of whom I represent.T

I want to preface my comments by thanking the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) for their service throughout Tairāwhiti over the years, servicing people as far north as Pōtaka,

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

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

I just want to pick up on the Minister’s statements about giving regard to Māori. It’s very hard for me to stomach that when in fact “include Māori” is being struck out. So I just want to ask the Minister, for clarity: can she accept that the reason that this clause was put in there is because Māori were not adequately represented? And I would like an explanation of how “giving regard to Māori representation” will look. For example, in an area like Tairāwhiti, where 56 percent of the population are Māori, does that mean 56 percent of the council will be Māori?

I’m just really interested in how that will be addressed and delivered upon—

Stuart Smith: Love quotas, don’t you, Labour.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: —because those clauses were put—oh, hang on. We’ve got an expert across here. What was that?

Stuart Smith: Labour loves quotas.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: What was that, expert on Māori representation? Nothing, kia ora. Now, can she appreciate—

Hon Member: And you’re an expert!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Calm down. [Interruption] Calm down. I invite the questioner to continue her questions to the Minister.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Get those “experts” to settle down. So does she appreciate that clauses like that were included because of a lack of representation of Māori? And how exactly is she going to ensure the balance of representation? Actually, by leaving it, I think she’s making it more complex. Heoi anō.

It was really awesome also to hear the Minister talking about primary industries and how they will be represented. Definitely interested in that in areas throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti where industries like forestry, etc., are major drivers of employment and economy. So what’s that balance going to look like for smaller regions?

Now, I refer back to section 314(d), in clause 4(2), “which provides that one of the characteristics of polytechnics is that they improve outcomes for Māori students and trainees and Māori communities in collaboration with Māori and iwi and interested persons”—in particular, the part where it says “improved outcomes for Māori students.” How can this be ensured when areas like Tairāwhiti and EIT Tairāwhiti, who have a Māori population of 56 percent and a rangatahi population of 70.4 percent, have lost 40 academic and support roles? How is that improving outcomes for Māori students?

Now, we’re talking about centralisation as well. What assurances does that give for communities who cannot necessarily get the amount of students or “bums on seats” that may be required by the institution but still deserve access to education? What assurances can the Minister provide for people across rural communities from Wharekahika to Tolaga Bay, even actually in Gisborne, now that massive amounts of staff have been lost, that they will have access to education?

Recently, we’ve had a really good tranche of nursing students come out of EIT. Our hospital is only at 63 percent staffing capacity. What assurances can the Minister give to ensure access to education and flow on to employment in our smaller regions? I also think about the wonderful beauty course being delivered out of Maraenui. What assurances can the Minister give to them that they will continue to have access to education and employment? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am so pleased that the member asked me to discuss the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT). What a wonderful polytechnic, a wonderful institution—I’m absolutely delighted to talk about it—and what a great example she has given: a community that has a population of 56 percent who are Māori. This clause enables the local community, not the Minister sitting in Wellington but the local community, to decide what the make-up of that board, of that council, should be for EIT. What a wonderful opportunity to ensure that that 56 percent proportion of Māori in that population is well represented on that council. And if it’s not, then they should be looking very closely at their local board that was put in place.

I’m delighted to talk about EIT. The member’s quite right: there have been some losses there, not as many as in some places but there have been some losses there. One of the things that I’ve been incredibly disappointed about for EIT is they had a very difficult time under Cyclone Gabrielle; their campus was ruined and they had to rebuild it again. There was a bit of gap in the insurance, and no help was given to them in terms of the previous Government.

But even worse than this, and I hope the member listens very carefully to this—this is one of the reasons why redundancies have had to be made there—under the previous Government, $6.5 million was clawed back by the Tertiary Education Commission because under the closure of their campus from the cyclone, they didn’t meet their targeted numbers. So instead of doing what happened when there was an earthquake in Christchurch and they were able to keep their numbers for a number of years, $6.5 million was clawed back and they had to drop down their base number that they started from, and I’m having to rebuild that again for them. The member will be delighted to know—absolutely delighted to know, I am sure—that EIT will be getting $1.559 million under the strategic fund in the next two years. I’m also looking under the recapitalisation at what we can do to help them there to address that dreadful situation where $6.5 million was clawed back from them during the previous Government. Thank you.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe, Minister. I’m sure we all know the importance of education. I spent the last 15 years before coming here in institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) and universities. I was at the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) for seven years while Penny was down south at the Southern Institute of Technology.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister—not the first name.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, the Minister. These things have been hashed out time and time again. We hear consideration of a new federation model when the one that’s being thrown out was the federation model. We hear talk about Māori representation on councils. There’s never been good Māori representation on councils, and these—[Interruption]

TĀKUTA FERRIS: You’ve got no clue.

Carl Bates: Have you sat on a polytechnic council?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Penny knows—the Minister knows—these adjustments won’t achieve it. Mana whenua managed to produce good Māori input into councils but it’s not as a result of any Government law. It’s as a result of iwi determination and presence in those rohe. Don’t you just love listening to the guys who know nothing about something?

Sam Uffindell: You’ve got a monopoly on knowledge over there, eh?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m only noting the speaker’s comments. I just ask the others to tone theirs down a bit. Thank you.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: The key role for education and training, probably more so training in this country’s current situation—training, getting people from one job to the next one, or out of work and into a job—is vital for the future economy. And here we are two years into solving the problem and we’re not quite there yet. Does the sector have to wait another three years to get the next revamp of the same ideas? We need the training done effectively and we need it done quick. That’s what the economy needs.

In 2010 Arthur Graves came down—sorry; he came down probably in about 2012. He came down to NMIT and sold us the story of why Māori and Pacific trade training was so desperately needed. His story was that we’ve got 30 percent of the workforce retiring—they’re the baby boomers, exiting over the next decade or more, and that 30 percent of retirees exiting the workforce were being replaced by a 30 percent cohort of young Māori and Polynesians. Now, the conundrum for the Government at the time was that the legislative settings and indeed all the settings in education continued to produce poor to despicable results for those young Māori and Polynesians. So that was their problem, OK? So what’s the fix? It’s Māori and Pacific trade training. The first cab off the rank was Ngāi Tahu. They showed up with the money,

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

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

And they were a raging success for more than a decade. Then slowly but surely all the other regions come on, they’re supported by their iwi, and that’s the story of Māori and Pacific trade training. The problem it was trying to address was the skill gap in the labour workforce of the economy. Now, if you can’t get that right, your future economy is just buggered.

And so here we are, continuing to talk about the same challenges and trying to fix them whilst the need goes unaddressed. It needs some speed, Minister—I know you appreciate that. So that 30 percent young Māori and Pacific Island cohort who are going to drive the future economy deserve action fast. The iwi people will support them. The community people will support them, like they already have. They need the legislative settings and the right policies to enable good action.

Unfortunately, the Government’s pulled the funding on Māori and Pacific trade training, and in Otago the managers who look after all of that apprentice work that those Māori and Pacific trade training graduates went into have experienced a 67 percent downturn in the take-up of apprenticeships by young Māori and Polynesians. These are the problems on the table for any solutions that you have there.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to be talking about Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) in particular, where the member had 15 years’ experience—of course, I had 30 years’ experience, but it’s great that there are others who have got experience in this sector.

I particularly want to acknowledge that the polytech sector is known for training Māori and Pasifika. I will stand corrected if someone will give me a different figure, but I believe that the polytech sector trains more Māori than any other part of the tertiary education sector—something that I am incredibly proud of. In terms of that wonderful institution NMIT in Nelson-Marlborough, what a great institution that is, and I am so delighted that we have found a young star there—young Ngāi Tahu Olivia Hall, who is the director there, has done wonderful work there. She is also a member, of course, of the iwi leaders forum for education and has, again, done wonderful work feeding into these challenges.

Look, I absolutely agree with what the member said: it needs to happen fast—the changes need to happen fast. I will correct the member that Māori and Pasifika trades training still exists—is still going—and I am absolutely looking forward to that growing as the economy takes off again, because construction is doing so well in the South. I thank the member for bringing to the committee’s attention how well the polytechnic serves our Māori communities.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair, my first contribution for the morning. You know, I acknowledge the Minister for Vocational Education’s been in this game for a long time, and I acknowledge that the Government members, both last night and this morning, have launched out our chair for the Education Committee, Carl Bates. He has asked specifically around the impact of Māori and some of the specific changes in the legislation that were made by the Government members on the select committee, and has given the Minister the opportunity to respond to those.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And that’s fine. It’s good to see Government members taking calls rather than closure motions, right?

SHANAN HALBERT: I applaud them for that. Long may it continue over the next few hours.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Only if they’re relevant, right?

SHANAN HALBERT: Speaking of relevancy, I do want to come back specifically on the Māori piece, Te Tiriti piece, that I don’t believe that the Minister has answered. Last night, I did ask a series of questions relevant to replacement section 314(d), inserted by clause 22, in particular that the Minister didn’t respond to. The main theme there is the amendments to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I guess, given the sheer experience in the tertiary sector —is it 25 years, Minister?

Hon Penny Simmonds: 30.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thirty years in the tertiary sector—she would have a very good understanding around the inequities that sit in the system, particularly for Māori. I’m interested to understand, from her, why she reached out in this legislation. So what we’ve seen through submissions is very few amendments overall, but she did go out of her way, with the Government members in select committee process, to make changes to the Māori piece and the Te Tiriti piece.

So my first question for the Minister is I’m just really interested to understand out of 106 pages of legislation—you know, you’ve really gone out of your way to make changes there. It does dilute Māori representation and therefore will directly impact on achieving Māori outcomes. My colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel—

Stuart Smith: What about French?

SHANAN HALBERT: —spoke specifically about the Eastern Institute of Technology. I appreciate Stuart Smith really has an interest around better French representation around council—you know, all over to you. We can speak to the French section a little bit later on. But I just reserve the right—I just want to speak about the Māori parts. I’m keen to cover that off first before we get to the French, Mr Smith.

So I’m keen to understand from the Minister the whakapapa, in her view, of why these changes were important, given all the changes that we might require in this particular amendment.

I come back to—I’ve got two minutes in this piece, but you’ll see in the select committee report—

Stuart Smith: You don’t have to take it all.

SHANAN HALBERT: No, I’ll take that one, and I’ll take some more, too, until we have specific answers to why the Government has made changes specifically to create worse outcomes for Māori and to dilute reference to Te Tiriti.

So, if I may, I’m very keen to get a good understanding because this sits at the baseline of the success of our tertiary sector. If we don’t get on top of this particular piece, there won’t be better outcomes, we’ll continue to have an inequitable system, and some will do better than others across tertiary education and vocational training in this country.

If I come back to the departmental report, clearly, submissions related to the Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations were common amongst many submissions. They were mostly themed around the removal of explicit Te Tiriti obligations for the vocational education sector, such as the obligations under section 9(1)(g) of the principal Act, the absence of effective engagement with Māori throughout the drafting process, and the potential lack of ongoing accountability to Māori and Māori representation through governance settings.

Now, that wasn’t just a handful, Madam Chair. So my two questions there for the Minister are: what’s the whakapapa here? Why has she gone out of her way to make these changes? Is there influence from the ACT Party and New Zealand First on her in this sense? But what advice has she received around the impact of these changes?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to speak about this for the fourth time. Let’s just go to the exact clauses. Let me now talk about section 314(d), inserted by clause 22: the characteristics of a polytechnic are “improve outcomes for Māori students and trainees and Māori communities in collaboration with Māori and iwi and other interested persons or bodies.” It’s very clear; a characteristic of the new polytechnics. It’s wonderful to see that there in writing, isn’t it?

Let go to section 318(1), inserted by clause 22: “The council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable, reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves.” We had the wonderful example that Eastern Institute of Technology is in a community with 56 percent of the population Māori, and that is exactly what we expect to see reflected in the council of that entity.

Now let’s go to section 321(c), inserted by clause 22, the additional duties of the council of a polytechnic: “ensure that the polytechnic operates in a way that allows the polytechnic to develop meaningful relationships”—meaningful relationships, not tick-boxes—“and to engage with communities at a local level, including industries, Māori employers, hapū and iwi, and Pacific communities.”

You’ll be delighted to see how well that is baked into the legislation, and of course, within the wider legislation, polytechnics still have a general duty to acknowledge the Treaty in the main Act. Isn’t it wonderful that we’re seeing this right across the legislation? I’m happy that we can celebrate that and showcase that today.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Ingrid Leary, but on the topic of what’s in the bill around giving regard to Māori in local polytechs, etc., I think the Minister has covered that quite well, unless there are specific clauses or questions that people want to refer to. No more general questions on that front; I want specific ones.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister about an elephant in the room in the lower South, in terms of why she is tearing apart our region when it comes to tertiary education.

It is easy for members of her party to say to people, “Don’t take things personally.”, but I would like her to consider how personal it is to the people in Dunedin when our whole economy is predicated on health and education through the tertiary sector. We have had this Government stymie the ability of the new Dunedin hospital to be a gold-star hospital that will provide world-leading tertiary-level excellence in medical education. We have had now the polytech kneecapped because it has been set side by side, pitted against the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT). My question is: how is that not personal? How can she assure people in Dunedin that there is no conflict of interest when she was indeed the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology since 1997, when she went into politics with a clear mandate—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not sure that the Minister actually sits with the responsibility for all polytechs. I don’t believe that that is a fair—it’s not an accusation, but it’s not a fair question in the context of what we’re trying to do in this piece of legislation.

INGRID LEARY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just point to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), page 3, which talks about the lack of consultation and the lack of being able to assess the risks, so one of my questions is: who bears those risks, particularly when there is active competition between polytechs in the way this has been set up? These are questions that have been asked in the media and that are being asked by locals, and this is an opportunity, in fact, for the Minister to show that this is not personal. There is no clear rationale that has been explained to the people of the South as to why SIT gets treatment on one hand—including Cabinet investment under her Government—versus no funding and a requirement for the Otago Polytechnic to have a pathway to recovery, which the unions have described as a cost-cutting programme.

These are very legitimate questions, and the people in Dunedin legitimately feel like they have been kneecapped. If that is not the case, then this is the Minister’s opportunity to explain that and to explain away the culture of anxiety that has been described by staff and reported by the Otago Daily Times. This is an opportunity for her to explain to the between 30 and 60 percent of people—of the whole workforce in Dunedin, between 30 and 60 percent, 30 percent at minimum—who work in health and education.

These are very live questions in my part of the world. I’d like to commend the polytech for coming out and being really open and robust at the beginning of the process to say that they were appalled by the lack of consultation by this Minister; that they did not know they were going to be part of the federation until the announcement was made; that they sought and did not get a meeting with the Minister for some time because she was too busy to consult with them. If that is not something to be taken personally, then I would like to understand from the Minister what led to those actions, because it felt like kneecapping—not only to the tertiary sector in Dunedin but to the greater Dunedin community, because education is our lifeblood.

Time and time again, we have seen from this Government a kneecapping of our lifeblood in Dunedin, and a disregard. I would also say, for context, it does seem personal when this is the same Minister who, at the eleventh hour, in a different capacity, overturned a local government decision where local ratepayers had paid $18 million to get a decision made locally, in local democracy, around freshwater—it was this Minister who led the charge against that. Now, this is all relevant—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s not relevant to this piece of legislation. The last piece is not relevant to this piece of legislation.

INGRID LEARY: Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions then, really, are around batting away the very strong perception of conflict of interest that exists for us locally; understanding from the Minister who she thinks bears the risk of her decisions, given that the RIS, on page 3, makes it very clear that there was not time to adequately assess Option 2. What can she say to claims locally that there is a privatisation agenda in tertiary education, because we have seen a mental health programme cut from Otago Polytechnic that is now suddenly appearing via a private provider in Dunedin. These are very vexed questions for our community, and I welcome a long explanation from the Minister to assure us that we should not take this personally.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Oh Madam Chair, am I pleased to be able to straighten out some of that misinformation that has just been put by that member. What a pity—what a pity. A wonderful polytechnic, Otago Polytechnic, that has been so damaged by Te Pūkenga and all she wants to do is put out misinformation.

I’m going to spell this out very clearly because I know that financial matters can be quite challenging for some members of the Labour Party, but let me make it very clear to you: there was no conflict of interest there. Otago Polytechnic sadly have a debt of $16 million. To ensure that they are sustainable, I want to wrap support around them because I know how important that polytechnic is to Dunedin. That is why we have wrapped strong governance support around them; that is why I have enabled them to be in the federation to get the additional support.

When the member tries to pit Otago Polytechnic against the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), what an unfortunate thing to do. Because here I am trying to recapitalise, trying to support Otago Polytechnic and just the difference here is when you have no money in the bank and you have debt that I am trying to solve for them. If they run a deficit, what does she think will happen to that polytechnic? I do not want to see them in that position.

Now, let me give her the opposite situation in SIT, who went into Te Pūkenga with $40 million in reserves. Only $15 million of that will be ring-fenced, so they will not come out with the full amount that they went in with. Because in the recapitalisation exercise, we’re having to ensure that we take away that debt from those that have got debt so that they have every chance of being successful in the future. And do you know what—sorry, not you, Madam Chair, I’m sure you know—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I won’t be taking it personally.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —but that member should be very aware that to take away that debt, a number of polytechnics that went in with significant reserves will not come out with the same level of reserves. Any time you want to thank me for that, member of Parliament for Taieri, you come and see me because we are going to ensure that all the polytechnics come out in a way that they will be able to sustain their operations going forward.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to discuss that misinformation that has been spread by that member in Otago. Otago is a wonderful polytechnic and I want to do the very best for them to ensure that they can continue to be a wonderful polytechnic going forward.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be the last contribution from our side on the question of Treaty clauses and Māori representation, but the reason I want to take this call is that the Minister hasn’t yet provided an understandable explanation for the removal of Treaty clauses. We’ve talked about the issue generally and so on, but I’m really keen to hear from her why she is determined to strip references to Te Tiriti out of this bill.

I point directly to section 370(c), in clause 23, about the industry skills boards. Now, if I think about the Māori community, in the communities that I represent in West Auckland, probably one in five of our people in the communities I serve are Māori. We have Te Kawerau ā Maki, our mana whenua in West Auckland, and large Māori organisations like Te Whānau o Waipareira. We have thriving marae and a network of Māori community organisations. There is significant leadership in our community where Unitec provides the essential service of vocational education and training. And in West Auckland, like so many parts of the country, young Māori are the ones who have been so disadvantaged over time and desperately need responsive services and institutions in vocational education and training.

Why would you take out from the charter a vital piece of the machinery, like the industry skills boards, the obligation that a Treaty clause conveys to engage fully with Māori leadership and with mana whenua to ensure that the right services are being delivered? I’m baffled by that. In this debate, so far, we’ve had a number of calls on this question, but I haven’t yet heard from the Minister a clear explanation why she’s determined to strip the Treaty clause out, and I invite her to give us that.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this bill, but also to respond to some of the kōrero that the Minister for Vocational Education has placed in the committee in relation to NorthTec and particularly marae-based stays. Having been the director of the time, it was an effort for us to provide a place for students—yes, nursing students and others—to stay at the

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

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

for them to study at NorthTec.

In Northland it’s hard to get around. We don’t have public transport like urban settings. You’ll be lucky to get a bus on time in Whangārei. Despite the best advocacy of students to Northland Regional Council to change the bus timetable, they wouldn’t, and so students would have to start way earlier, get their kids off to school way earlier, in order to catch a bus.

I want to go to the pastoral support code that the Minister did speak to and that the Green Party did support, because that code is the anchor and maybe we need to review it—maybe we need to review it—because I’ve heard from Student Voice in particular that they want to strengthen it. I’m going to talk to the bill and I will continue—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, that’s right. I was just going to say the Minister did agree to what you were asking just before too, when your colleague asked.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Kia ora. Thank you. It’s great because, from the Student Voice perspective, they certainly do feel ignored a lot of the time. Especially when you’re paying your voluntary student levy and it’s going into a black hole sometimes, you don’t know where the services are landing. In terms of this legislation, some of the opportunities that we have is to strengthen a focus on pastoral support that has come through very clearly as well as academic support.

In vocational education, we have a number of students who come out of work or may not have had the opportunities in secondary education to lock down some of the key areas of literacy and numeracy. Having been director learner support at NorthTec, I know that we were inundated by requests to support in literacy and numeracy and the testing to support them understand what are their learning needs. Disability support, in particular, has been an area whereby polytechs don’t necessarily have enough resource to support all of our learners to succeed. If we can be explicit within the legislation that it is a need for disability, for academic support and pastoral support to be provided across the board, regions like Northland could thrive.

That’s one of the first cabs off the rank when there are cuts in the polytech sector; that often it is pastoral support that gets the cut. We have a significant number of equivalent full-time students at risk right now in NorthTec through the internal operational review because of the requirement to be financially viable. I hosted a hui on Monday, 6 October. Unfortunately, my colleague Grant McCallum didn’t come despite 100 from our sector—business leaders, civic leaders, those who work with iwi and students and connected to education—

Carl Bates: He’s a hard-working MP. There’s a lot to do.

HŪHANA LYNDON: If my colleague could stop heckling me so I could talk about my rohe. You talk about Whanganui when you get a chance; when you get a chance, you talk about Whanganui and you tell us—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, we’re going to have less heckling both ways and we’re going to have questions to the Minister. Please.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Absolutely. Because what I want to ask the Minister: Te Matarau Education Trust, Māori Pacific trade training provider for over 10 years in Tai Tokerau. Hapū, iwi working together were told by NorthTec at short notice to evacuate the building in December 2024. The general manager spoke to this issue at the hui on 6 October and said, “You know, we had a longstanding relationship with NorthTec. We had been partners for such a long time” and yet the door was closed on Te Matarau abruptly and they had to leave the office because they’ve been based at Future Trades in Dyer Street for a decade. I was the former general manager of Te Matarau, so I know Māori Pacific trade training deeply.

What appears to be the issue is that Māori Pacific trade training may be being retained internally now so that it can boost the pastoral support and that contract can be retained internally instead of valuing the hapū and iwi relationship that Te Matarau had committed to. Te Matarau is a valued member of hapū and iwi providing pastoral support—

Sam Uffindell: Point of order. I appreciate the member’s coming to the close of her five minutes on this, but—I’m not trying to question your judgement at all, Madam Chair—from what we’re hearing there, it sounds like a general debate speech talking about topics that is not pointed into any clauses relevant to the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. Look, thank you for bringing that up. I was about to make a ruling after this speech, but I understand the Minister wants to take call first, so—

HŪHANA LYNDON: The Minister might want to reply. What is Māori Pacific trade training moving forward into the future when iwi and hapū groups like Te Matarau no longer have a place in the landscape? It’s a missed opportunity and very sad to hear.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Of course, this has nothing to do with the bill that we are currently looking at, but I can give the member assurance that total funding of approximately $18.5 million has been allocated to Māori and Pasifika trades training, and the funding was fully allocated in 2024-25. Matters of private training establishments and polytechnics are not a matter for the Minister to intervene in.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I just indicated that I was going to make a bit of a judgment call now. We have been here this morning for an hour, and I feel we have traversed a number of issues quite fully. We are getting quite repetitive, and we are starting to relitigate some issues. I would request, from hereon in, that I want members to refer to specific new clauses that have not yet been asked questions on. I will take a call now from Shanan Halbert, who is chomping at the bit.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you, and yes, you are right: we do have a lot to get through over the few more hours that we will be in this Chamber scrutinising the Minister. There are 106 pages in this legislation. I did outline for the Chair last night, and I know that this has been passed on, that we sought permission from the Chair to go through a process of being able to talk polytech by polytech, because there are implications in local contexts for continuing to do that. I acknowledged that we’ve started on NorthTec and we’ve started on the Eastern Institute of Technology, but there are a number of polytechs that we would like to discuss as a result of the implications of this legislation. We would also like to do that with specific industries that are implicated.

I also acknowledge that the responses to Te Tiriti o Waitangi questions are insufficient, Minister. There are two parts—I acknowledge that, in your view, you have responded to the Māori piece. That is quite different to the references to Te Tiriti, so if you would honour us by giving your view of the world of why you’ve made the decision, we would really appreciate that, as would the sector.

But, Madam Chair, taking your direction, I will move on to new section 315, which is around the establishment of the polytechs. I think there is a lot to traverse in this particular area. Submissions noted in the Ministry of Education departmental report that there were alternative options—these were not adequately considered because of the ideological agenda of this Government and the Minister. The submissions noted concerns around ensuring collaboration between polytechs remains under the new system and how important low-volume provision would be retained.

As one example, as the Government loads an attack on young people at the moment, if we look at level 1 and 2 foundation learning, there’s simply not enough places for young people to access those particular programmes in Auckland, which is one example, even if the Government wanted them to. There’s not enough provision funded at level 1 and 2, and so there’s one implication there. But, Minister, what submissions or advice were received about retaining Te Pūkenga, or alternative options, rather than a complete disestablishment and reestablishment, because we know—

Stuart Smith: Sounds like a written question.

SHANAN HALBERT: Well, you are correct. So Stuart Smith—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It sounded like an oral question to me. So continue to ask the question, please.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you. And I have continued to ask these questions through written question, through oral questions. Across this piece of legislation, it is the emperor without clothes, if anyone knows those stories, because the Minister has been building this plane as it flies, because there is a lack of information.

So that is my specific question in relation to this clause, and I’ve got a number of others. She has not explained why she chose to disestablish Te Pūkenga as opposed to tweaking some of the challenges that the structure and the sector still faced. And underlying that which I covered off in my opening statements is the real question: she hasn’t shown us the money—she hasn’t shown us how this is a more financially viable model than what was in place.

Francisco Hernandez: It’s not.

SHANAN HALBERT: We don’t think it is. And she keeps on talking about “I’ve invested this in the strategic fund.” She’s only got $20 million in that—she can’t afford it.

Stuart Smith: What clause?

SHANAN HALBERT: New section 315, Stuart Smith, “Establishment of polytechnics”. OK?

Stuart Smith: Perfect. Well, give some more detail.

SHANAN HALBERT: There’s a number—if you’ll listen up. But that question remains: why did you disestablish and go against advice that you received to reestablish something that you don’t have a cost-benefit analysis of.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Oh my goodness, what a wonderful question. Why did I choose to disestablish Te Pūkenga? Let me count the ways. Te Pūkenga: what a failed experiment, what a dreadful example of going with form before function, what a dreadful way to try to solve a few specific problems in the sector by creating far, far more.

Let me see, perhaps the issue that it was going to take nearly a billion dollars over the next 10 years to have the IT systems operational is a good place to start. Perhaps the fact that a number of the polytechnics were losing numbers during Te Pūkenga is another good place. Perhaps it’s the fact that the polytech sector, under Te Pūkenga, did not get back to pre-COVID numbers, with internationals sitting at only a third, when the universities and the schools and the private training establishments were getting back. Perhaps it’s the fact that it was overriding local decisions and stopping things like being able to offer free fees to students, which you would think a leftwing party would be pleased about for students. Perhaps taking away the innovation, all the successful things that local regions did, is a good a reason. There are a lot of reasons why Te Pūkenga was not the answer.

I have reflected on how this happened. I’ve really reflected on it. Look, I feel quite sorry for the members who are here today having to try to defend this. They have been thrown under the bus by their leader, because remember, this mess was set up by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins and followed on from the mess in the police and in health and in COVID. What did they do? They made him the leader! This is a mess that was created by the leader of the Labour Party, and these poor members—and look, they are genuine; Shanan Halbert is very genuine. He spent some time with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, a wonderful institution, and my good friends there. He spent some time there; he understands the issue in the sector. He has been thrown under the bus trying to defend the indefensible. I will not try to defend Te Pūkenga. It was form over function. It was uninformed, and two years after it had been formed, saying, “Oops, we’ve forgotten the due diligence to tell you another billion dollars is needed.” I don’t think I need to answer much more on that one.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Before I take the next call, I have been watching; I heard the previous Chair ask people to now get more specific. That was two general debate speeches I’ve just heard. We’re now going to be asking members to speak to relatively narrow parts of Part 1, please.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to get very specific around clauses 13, 14, 15, 16, elaborating more on clauses 13, 15, and 16, given the guidance that the previous Chair has already issued around the idea of Te Tiriti and Māori representation in the legislation. So I will focus most of my contribution on 13, 15, and 16, but I’ll touch lightly on 14 just for just for completion’s sake.

My wider questioning around this is informed by why there are differences in the legislation that will govern Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITP) versus the legislation that governs university councils. For example, I’ll turn to clause 13, which is around membership of councils. Now, if you look at the parent Act’s section 276, members of councils for the university sector, it has institutions which can be between eight to 12 council members. But for the polytech sector, which is governed by section 317, polytechs can have between six to eight members. So my question is: how did that number of six to eight get arrived at as opposed to the membership of university councils which can be eight to twelve? We know that some universities will be smaller than some polytechnics, so I don’t think it’s necessarily to do in size. Why has the specific number of six to eight for polytech councils been arrived at?

There are other provisions for membership of councils that are referred to in this legislation. So, for example, in the section around appointment of council members in section 278 of the parent legislation, it talks about wider sets of requirements including election processes—this is now clause 15—but if you look at the clause for the polytech sector, which is section 320, it doesn’t make references to potential elected members. So my thinking around that is: is the Minister thinking that this legislation precludes the appointment of members that are elected by appointment process? Because I don’t see this in the legislation versus the legislation that exists with the university councils. Is it expected that they’re all appointed or is there going to be provision for potential elected members who are then appointed to this council, to the ITP councils? Because, as I’ve said, it’s not currently in the legislation, but it is in the legislation that governs the university council.

Obviously, I do have some Amendment Papers that will directly put elected members from students and staff representatives on the student council. But my thinking is that, as currently drafted, this legislation doesn’t actually have any provision for an elected member who is then later appointed to the council, as is provided for in the parent legislation, which only governs university councils at the stage because the polytech sector is excluded from it.

Then my final one is on clause 16, which amends section 281 legislation, which is to do with the duties of councils. This is something that I do want to give the Minister some kudos over in that the section to do with polytechs, the additional duties of polytechs, makes reference to the need for polytechs to collaborate with other polytechs to use resources effectively to avoid duplicating efforts. So it is potentially moving the polytech sector to a more collaborative model. If that’s good enough for the polytech sector, why not require it also for the university sector to work in a collaborative manner? Because I do think it’s important that the wider tertiary education sector works in a more collaborative fashion. So why are there differences in the legislation from clauses 13, 14, 15, and 16 between university councils and polytechnic councils? And I’m particularly interested in the answer around clause 15, around the ITPs making provisions to potentially have elected members on there.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for those sensible questions. I’m happy to traverse those. The numbers have changed over time. Twenty-odd years ago there were 20 on a council. They were pretty unruly, and it was hard to get things done. Polytechnics, I think, are known for being collaborative, nimble, and agile. I don’t think university councils have ever been accused of being that but it’s important for the polytechnics that they are. They’re smaller. They need to be able to react quickly to industry, and so we’re giving some choice, again, to the local communities to decide, rather than a Minister, what size they should be. Anywhere between six and eight is generally accepted as a good working board or council that will be able to represent the community but also be agile and nimble.

In terms of the members other than those appointed by the Minister—of course, if it’s seven or eight, four will be appointed by the Minister; if it’s six, three will be, and the other members are to come from the community—the council will make a decision as to how that will occur. In the past they have formed statutes and they have been different for each institution, and I would expect that, again, they will be different, so they won’t exclude any of the representation from staff or from students or from iwi. Their statute can determine that. So, again, it’s giving choice to the local polytechnic to do what is right for their local community. So it’s not spelt out but it certainly doesn’t exclude that from happening.

In terms of collaboration, absolutely. Look, the polytech sector has been collaborative for many years. It’s something of a myth that they haven’t been. The first nursing degrees were brought about through collaboration. The Te Pāti Māori member previously talked about the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology and the Southern Institute of Technology. They worked really closely together on a number of things in the post-graduate area. The member Shanan Halbert was from Te Wananga o Aotearoa (TWoA). He knows that for 20 years TWoA worked with a number of polytechnics. The polytech sector is collaborative by necessity. There is no point in trying to reinvent the wheel on a number of things, but you’re quite right: we want to encourage it further. Hence the reference to it here. Hence the federation, which allows that collaboration in order to have better service, better academic delivery, and better financial outcomes for those that are struggling. So absolutely I agree that collaboration is necessary in the sector. This legislation facilitates that. I thank the member for that very sensible question.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, a pleasure to take the opportunity to take a call in this committee stage—my first opportunity. I just want to ask—and I won't take a full call—a very specific question around clause 7 amending section 267, which looks at amending the main Education and Training Act 2020 in relation to the clause on academic freedom. My question is this. First of all, I think—and it’ll be good to hear the Minister’s response to this—academic freedom at polytechnics, as well as other tertiary institutions, is of utmost importance and it’s one of the founding principles within the education system.

In the Education and Training Act as it is currently, with the provisions in relation to Te Pūkenga which this bill removes, there is a change from including a specific clause relating to polytechnics—which in the current Act is, I understand, section 318—to, in this, with the Minister’s bill, in Part 1 on page 9, amended section 267—it essentially puts academic freedom back into the primary academic freedom clause that applies to wānanga and universities as well.

So my understanding is—this is a genuine question—the current situation is we have an academic freedom clause in the existing Act which applies to wānanga and universities, and we have an academic freedom clause which is specifically spelling out the academic freedom requirements in relation to Te Pūkenga, which currently includes polytechnics. The Minister for Vocational Education has decided, or is proposing under this bill, to take away that specific clause and put it back into the main clause. My question is: why is that? Is that simply simplicity of the legislation? That would be a sufficient answer if that was the reason. And just to get some guarantees from her that there is nothing lost in relation to the relatively extensive academic freedom provisions in section 318 which are currently in the Act, because, as I’m sure the Minister will say in her response, this is of utmost importance.

I also note that we are only on clause 7 of 39 of Part 1, about 41 pages, so there’s a number of very specific provisions which have not been discussed at all in this committee stage, that cover the substantive part of this bill. So I would just note that. My contribution and my question is on one of those clauses, but there are a number of clauses that have not been traversed at all in relation to that bill. So I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, I’ll answer very briefly. It absolutely ensures that polytechnics are included. It includes universities, polytechnics, and wānanga, with regards to academic freedom. So no issue at all.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk about sections 314 and 315, the characteristics and establishment and of polytechnics, inserted by clause 22. I have a couple of specific questions about those provisions, but I just want to note that the establishment of the polytechs is really the heart of the entire enterprise.

I just want to quote Civil Contractors New Zealand, the peak body of one of the most important industries in New Zealand—an industry that is heavily reliant on a pipeline of trained workers to make that industry hum. They said to the Education and Workforce Committee in their submission that at no point was anyone able to articulate the problem that the reforms solved. They said they were very worried about the future funding of vocational education. I quote: “Throughout the process, no one has been able to articulate the problem that they are trying to solve. We have consistently heard that the structures arising from … [Labour’s] reforms were not delivering for industry, and that the cost of the structure was unreasonable and prohibitive. In our view, neither statement is correct.” They further went on to say, “We are deeply concerned the further reduction in funding proposed places our ability to train our future workforce at risk.”

Now, in relation to sections 314 and 315 and the creation of the new architecture, it does rely on—I would really like to hear the Minister’s response to that very important peak body and what they said to the select committee about the creation of the new polytechs. I’m keen to know, in relation to section 314, why there is nothing in there, in the description of the characteristics, about the role that polytechs play in alleviating skills and workforce shortages. I would have thought that was absolutely core to these institutions. In addition—and other colleagues have mentioned this already this morning in relation to other provisions—the very important role that polytechs play in providing pastoral care for the students enrolled in their institutions—is that not a core characteristic of these institutions? I’m keen to hear from the Minister.

PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure what part of the legislation the member is reading, because I would have thought that clause 22, inserting section 314, “Characteristics of polytechnics” … (b) they are predominantly involved in providing continuing education that responds to the education and training needs of local communities and industries in their regions”, was doing exactly that: addressing any school shortages that are in the regions; addressing the needs of the industries in their community. I’m very confident that we’ve got that covered.

In regard to the comments from Civil Contractors New Zealand, the CE of Civil Contractors New Zealand Alan Pollard—Alan has his own inimitable way of expressing himself and I enjoy conversations with him. I enjoy conversations with the wider civil contractor industry, which I keep in contact with regularly, and I’m delighted that Alan is one of the establishment advisory group members of one of our information skills boards. It’s wonderful to have him there supporting this whole new development as it goes forward.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. In line with your direction, I am going to speak to clause 22, inserting new section 315, particularly new subsection (3)(a), in regards to the regions served by the polytechs. As we know, this legislation establishes a structure that still aims to serve learners across Aotearoa New Zealand. When I think about the impact of this legislation on regional communities, I am highly concerned. One of my colleagues said to me, when she received the Library pack, that it’s quite easy to do a speech on this in opposition because there are so many negative stories that have come out as a result. Beneath the politics of this, it is about learners. I acknowledge that one of the three goals of this is around access to learning for people that live in regional communities. I just don’t see how this legislation achieves that.

I start at NorthTec. NorthTec is going to become half of what it was—half of what it was. It will see courses cancelled in the further-out parts of Northland: Kaikohe, Kaitāia, marae-based programmes. Those will have to be peeled back. It’s going to see the closure of its main campus in Whangārei, as an example, to be relocated somewhere else. Is that not correct, Minister? You’re looking perplexed. I hope that you’ll be able to clarify that in your response, too.

I looked at Eastern Institute of Technology. While it’s an OK setup for people living in Hawke’s Bay, I’m really concerned about Tairāwhiti and Gisborne, about programmes offered in Wairoa. What happens to those regional communities? We’ve seen Tokoroa and Taupō impacted by this legislation. While in Tokoroa, the Minister thinks she may have saved the campus, there’s still significant job losses and, as a result, over consecutive years we will see less learning opportunities in smaller communities like Tokoroa that have already been heavily impacted. Taupō is the same. We’re seeing a campus closure there. We see WelTec, Whitireia, UCOL, where we’re seeing a downsizing of courses and programmes available to learners in our most regional and remote communities.

That is inequitable, Minister. You’ve made a commitment to achieving better outcomes than Te Pūkenga did for those learners. What better outcome is there than sharing access to learning opportunities? Online learning is not the only vehicle by which people engage in learning opportunities, and you haven’t offered the specificity that we need to assure us and give us confidence that this legislation is going to retain access for regional learners, actually going to have pūtea, money, available to invest in those learners, because you are committed to a 1:18 student ratio. Tell me how that is achievable in those remote communities, in the number of programmes that we need. That doesn’t stack up. We’re missing the financial information still.

Those are the answers that I’m looking for from you. How does this legislation better serve learners in our most regional communities?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, and great question, Shanan Halbert, because it is at the heart of what we are doing here. Centralisation, where all of the decisions had to be made by a central entity that was supposed to be in Hamilton but was actually in Auckland—allowing those sorts of decisions to be made locally is incredibly important.

I do want to address the specific question that you asked around NorthTec, because we have got that wonderful group of community leaders there that are working very hard to try to get a much better, newer, fit for purpose campus for NorthTec, and I am very happy to be working with them. If the community can get on board and get that to happen, what a wonderful thing it will be for NorthTec—so I’m happy to be working with them on that.

Again, it’s the community driving a solution for their local community. Look, I absolutely accept what the member says about the importance of those small rural regions. I was over in Wairoa after the floods there and met with the lovely young man who had trained through the Eastern Institute of Technology to be a builder, and the work that he was doing with his extended whānau there, and I really want to acknowledge how wonderful builders are in a situation like that and how important it is to have that kind of provision—which was exactly what drove me around the strategic funding—the strategically important funding to put that in place while I can work on adjusting the funding system which I have inherited. I have had to make some changes because the unified funding system that had been put in was so disastrous.

But trying to get recognition of exactly that—and the member is completely correct: that is why in a place like Telford, you can’t put 18 students who are trying to learn how to shear a sheep or drive a four-wheeler in front of one tutor. You must have flexibility around those ratios, and that’s exactly why I have sought that additional funding: to hold on to those strategically important geographic regions, particularly those remote rural regions but also those strategically important industry areas. Nowhere is more important than in the Far North, where we’ve got the highest number of NEETs anywhere in the country. That is exactly why NorthTec will be receiving the largest amount of any of the polytechnics—$3.648 million a year over the next two years, to ensure that they can keep that important provision going, because I know how much we must ensure access in those regions. That is the pathway to employment for those young people.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m aware that there is a lot in this bill, but we are still getting bogged down in relatively local parts of that so I’m looking for new material.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. You’ll get new material. My question is around a part of section 319, inserted by clause 22, which concerns the chairperson and appointment of deputy chairperson, which hasn’t been addressed yet.

Prior to that, I also have a question on the numbers that the Minister has been saying throughout this debate. She said that NorthTec has gotten around $3.68 million and, earlier, Eastern Institute of Technology got $1.55 million. If the Minister could provide a specific breakdown of how much each polytech is getting, that would help assure members, I think. I would like a breakdown of how much institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) are getting from the strategic fund. I’m only bringing this up because the Minister is engaging with questions around the funding issue.

I’ll return to section 319, around the appointment of the chairperson and deputy chairperson. At the moment, as written, the legislation says, “The Minister may, by written notice to the member concerned, dismiss the chairperson or deputy chairperson from office as chairperson or deputy chairperson.” They may also appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson from among the members of the polytechnic. My question is: in section 319(1), instead of using the word “must”, why does it use the word “may”? Is there any thinking that the Minister might potentially appoint a chairperson and deputy chairperson who is not currently among the membership of the ITP in concern? I’m just curious why it’s the word “may” that’s been used as opposed to “must”.

I also have what I think is a constructive Amendment Paper that will require the Minister to consult with the members of the ITP in question before appointing a chairperson and deputy chairperson. My theory is that, if the chairperson and deputy chairperson are the ones who are supposed to be leading the council, it makes perfect sense for the Minister to consult the members of the ITP concerned on who their chairperson and deputy chairperson might be, because the members might know something about the person that the Minister might want to appoint as chairperson and deputy chairperson that she doesn’t necessarily know.

Again, with the potential to dismiss the chairperson or deputy chairperson, I think it’s also important to consult and require the majority approval of the ITP in question before, essentially, removing a chairperson or deputy chairperson. I do think there have been concerns articulated by submitters during the submission process that the Minister has a lot of power within this legislation to appoint council members. You’ll see, in the earlier section, 317, that she will be appointing up to half of the current polytech council. In the current setup, the Minister has a lot of power to set the composition of the council, and I acknowledge that that is taken from the legislation that established university councils. I think a potential check and balance to that power would be—and that is in my Amendment Paper—to require the consultation and the consent of the majority of the council before appointing a chairperson and deputy chairperson and before removing them.

My question to the Minister is: will the Minister consider the Amendment Paper that I have proposed requiring consultation and the consent of the membership of the ITP board before appointing and removing chairpersons and deputy chairpersons? Why is it not currently in the legislation to require consultation with the ITP council that she will be appointing half of anyway? She will have quite strong influence on the council members appointed anyway. Why is it not currently in the legislation, and will she consider my proposed change to change that so that there can be more responsiveness to local communities and also some local input on the Minister’s decision? Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I thank the member, again, for his very specific and sensible question. Look, it is described as “may”, but it is, effectively, mandatory because the chair will be appointed. It’s not about bringing someone in from outside.

I have read the member’s Amendment Paper. I don’t think that it’s necessary. I believe that, in terms of removing a chair, there’s quite a lot of consultation and work that has to go on. It’s not something that a Minister would do without really significant engagement with that council.

At the very start, the member asked for the information that I’ve been quoting from. Absolutely, it’s publicly available. I’m happy for you to get a copy of it. Thank you for that.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have questions for the Minister around section 315, “Establishment of polytechnics”, in clause 22. I’m curious as to why the provisions in the bill don’t have more to say specifically about the imperative to take advice or consult on the needs of a particular region.

Currently, the Minister must—this is subsection 315(2)(a)— “seek advice from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority on quality assurance matters … (b) consult other persons or bodies that the Minister thinks fit;”—that’s pretty open-ended—“and, (c) take into account the characteristics of the polytechnic;” and, crucially, at paragraph (d) “be satisfied that the establishment of the polytechnic is in the interests of the tertiary education system and the nation as a whole.”

What about the region? If I think about West Auckland, it’s a part of the city with very particular demographic characteristics. We have a young, largely working-class population. We have real transport challenges that create barriers for our young people to get access to jobs and education and training opportunities. I’m sure that if you look at any particular region, there would be particular characteristics. So why doesn’t section 315 require that?

I’m interested in what advice the Minister had about whether or not the interests of the region where polytechs could be established are important for consideration in that provision. Why are the interests of those regions not actually something that the Minister is required to take into account when she issues one of these orders. Why is there not, for example in paragraph (b), the requirement to consult, for example, local institutions, regional industry groups, local community organisations, iwi and hapū?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll be very brief because I think that, as the member has pointed out, new section 315(2)(b), added by clause 22, covers that very open “consult other persons or bodies that the Minister thinks fit;”. It opens the door to consult with all of those entities that the member brought forward.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to follow up. I’ve got a new point that I want to ask the Minister for Vocational Education about and it’s about clause 20 in relation to Crown observers and also the operative clause, which is new section 341J, which will be the new section of the of the bill once it becomes an Act. That’s the section I want to focus on, but want to draw a parallel with the question I asked around academic freedom.

In that question, which the Minister did address but I feel that perhaps it would be good to get some advice on some other aspects of that question. In that particular situation, we had a removal of a specific clause in relation to polytechnics and polytechnics being put in together with wānanga and universities. I agree that the Minister’s response is correct; I’ve not contested that academic freedom applies to all of those. That meant that that specific provision in relation to polytechnics specifically was put into the general provision and so I wanted to know why that was. I think she said it applies, but I’d be grateful if there was a further elucidation on that.

The question I want to ask in this contribution, though, is in relation to Crown observers. We’ve had we had the opposite legislative drafting happening here as I can see it. Essentially in the main Education and Training Act, the main section 289(7) doesn’t apply but new section 341J does apply. So if we go to 341J—which is in Part 1, which is what we’re considering—this provides for the Minister to be able to appoint a Crown observer. This is specific to a polytechnic.

This is the opposite situation where we do have a specific polytechnic clause which has been put in, which may differ—and that’s a question for the Minister—in relation to how Crown observers may interact with other types of institutions. That’s the first question: why has a specific polytechnic clause been put into this new bill, and what is the purpose of that? And just noting that it’s different for that academic freedom section.

The other question I have is in relation specifically to new section 341J(3). Obviously this is not a situation that is desirable to appoint a Crown observer, but we have to acknowledge—I would say, especially with the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga, this is a real possibility in some instances, when we do have these independent institutions—that to be prudent in some situations where there are issues with how an institution is being managed, it may need a Crown observer to be put in place. The Minister has put forward a specific process and that does involve consulting the council of that polytechnic and essentially getting their feedback on that.

Now, I just wanted to know from the Minister in relation to this section, the word “consulted”, is that—I mean, essentially this part says that when the Crown observer is to be considered by the Minister, the Minister must tell the polytechnic that she—in this instance—is considering implementing a Crown observer and get their feedback on that; get their comment on that proposal.

I imagine—and it would be good to get your feedback on this, Minister—that it may be that the council says, “No, Minister. We don’t need a Crown observer, we’re totally fine.” Surely there will be instances where the Minister has a firm view and there is nothing that the council can say to dissuade you that there needs to be some outside intervention into this council. I just want to ask if “consult” is the correct word. I imagine this will be something that you would want to act quickly upon if it did occur, and I think we need to be future-looking with this because this will be in place for all of these polytechnics.

So just a few questions on the legislative drafting and then the operation of that specific clause.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s very good to be discussing this, because, of course, this mirrors the legislation for Te Pūkenga. I’m a great believer in nothing is all good or all bad, and so I’ve been prepared to look at what was put in place for Te Pūkenga by that member’s party when it was in Government. I’ve seen this and thought that it’s wonderful to have early intervention, to have different stages of intervention, because the worst thing possible is to allow a polytechnic to keep going and getting itself more and more in trouble and racking up huge amounts of debt.

So I looked at what had been put in place for Te Pūkenga by the member’s party when it was in Government, thought it looked sensible, and thought, “I’ll pick that up; it looks a good thing to put in here to ensure that there’s various stages of intervention to stop polytechnics getting themselves into major strife.” Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am continuing on replacement section 315, inserted by clause 22, and now want to move to subsection (4): “Before recommending that the polytech is specified as an anchor polytechnic, the Minister must be satisfied that the polytechnic is able to perform the role of an anchor polytechnic specified”.

I’ve spoken very clearly around my concerns of insufficient information when it comes to the finances of setting up the structure that the legislation proposes. I appreciate, Minister, that you are being very responsive to the questions, that’s really helpful in this committee stage so thank you. But you are talking about some of the costs of Te Pūkenga, you’re talking about costs, as an example of funding via the strategic fund, to particular polytechnics. What I would like to hear from you is what advice you have received around the sheer costs. I acknowledge that Treasury has advised you against this, they’ve highlighted the risks financially for this particular structure. That was some time ago, so I’d be really keen to hear the centre of that. What advice are you receiving around the actual costs and funding that you need to establish this particular model for the 10-plus other polytechnics? Just polytechnics alone in this instance. What advice have you received?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I thank the member Shanan Halbert again for some very sensible questions around this, particularly around the anchor polytechnics—the federation.

The federation model isn’t new; it’s used in a number of countries. It was actually suggested to the previous Government, when they set up Te Pūkenga, that the federation model would be a good model. A number of submissions were made on that, and I wonder if the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins sometimes reflects and wishes he’d gone down that track. However, I think that the questions that have been asked are very fair, in terms of what we are doing to ensure that each individual polytechnic is in the best financial position it can be to be set up. That was work that, of course, happened over those 18 months of getting that sustainable pathway for each individual polytechnic. That has been done by polytechnic—not by sector but by polytechnic—and that is why we’re doing it in tranches. The 10 that have got that pathway—and they know that; they have that. The senior management team has that, the Establishment Advisory Group appointments have that, and they are working through that. In terms of the four that are left, they are sitting in Te Pūkenga as we work through that process.

We’re also working through the recapitalisation process, because, as I mentioned when the member for Taieri, Ingrid Leary, talked about the Otago situation, there are some that have big debt, and I don’t want them set up with big debt. That is setting them up to fail, so we’re working through that recapitalisation process. The member will be aware that some have got some pretty significant issues there, and it’s important that we address those issues and get that debt out of the road so that they start from a strong, stable set of finances. The other matter was around the strategic funding. That has been put in there to recognise that we do need to do some work—and I’m sure the member himself will know, from the time he was in the sector—to be more nuanced around those areas where you can’t have the 1:18 ratio, which is kind of the golden metric of whether a course is financially viable or not. Treasury’s advice was interesting over the period of time. We got that advice at different periods of time, and over the last 18 months, things have changed as the institutions have got stronger and more viable.

I just want to really assure the member, because I know he’s genuine in asking these questions, that we have no intention of setting polytechnics up that are not in the best possible financial state they can be in to give them an absolute chance to be successful going forward.

Shanan Halbert: Mr Chair?

Francisco Hernandez: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Frash—Francisco Hernandez.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. We nearly got our two names merged together there. I’ll turn to some specific questions around some specific clauses. I have one around section 328, inserted by clause 22, the “Duties of Federation Committee”. I’d be interested in a definition around that language around clause 328(1)(b), “act in the interests of federation polytechnics provided that action is not detrimental to the interests of an anchor polytechnic;”. Who’ll judge whether an action is detrimental to the interests of an anchor polytechnic? And is there a specific definition around what “detrimental” might mean in this context? Because, you know, I think it’d be good to get a clarification of that because that is really essential to the idea of federation polytechs and anchor polytechs, and them not being able to harm each other.

Then I’ll turn to section 337, the “Role of anchor polytechnic”. Now here’s around 337(2) around the conditions around an anchor polytechnic declining to provide or ceasing to provide relevant services. Does the anchor polytechnic basically have free rein to activate these clauses if they want to? Is there no mechanism whereby their decision to cease providing these services, if they want to, can be challenged as long as the provisions under (a), (b), and (c) can be met? If there are provisions to challenge that, who will be the one judging that challenge? Is it the Minister, is it the Tertiary Education Commission, or is it the dispute resolution mechanism mentioned under clause 330, earlier in the Act?

I’ll turn now to clause 339, which is around the designation and removal of federation polytechnics. There is a requirement under here to consult the polytechnic before either adding or removing their designations for removal, and I do have an Amendment Paper tabled here. I was wondering whether the Minister might consider stronger language. So rather than just “consulting” the polytechnic which has been considered for designation or removal, to “require” its consent. Because I do think the Minister was rightfully, you know, upset about some polytechnics under the Te Pūkenga model being forcibly amalgamated into that entity against the will of the communities in the local regions and the students they served. So my Amendment Paper will prevent that from happening under this model.

Essentially, if the Minister doesn’t strengthen the language around consultation and upgrade it to requiring the consent of the poytechnic, I think she’s, essentially, leaving the door open for Te Pūkenga to be re-established, which she said that she doesn’t want to do. Like a future Government could just fold the polytechnics again into the federation and then rename the federation into Te Pūkenga if they wanted to. Will the Minister consider upgrading the requirement from consultation to requiring the consent of the communities? Because that way, you know, this Government does have some safeguards against Te Pūkenga being re-established again. Although I do note that Opposition members, including the Leader of the Opposition, has already committed to not re-establishing it again, but it does create a legislative safeguard to prevent that.

So those are my questions that I’ve asked so far. Again, it’s around clauses 328, 337, and around 339. Looking keenly forward to answers from the Minister.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member again for asking such sensible and specific questions; it’s a pleasure to answer them.

In terms of new section 328(1)(b), inserted by clause 22, “act in the interests of federation polytechnics provided that action is not detrimental to the interests of an anchor polytechnic;”—and, indeed, new section 337(2)—these came from the good work that the Education and Workforce Committee did in ensuring that the legislation was fit for purpose. When I looked at what examples there might be, I could think of, for example, that if there were polytechnics that wanted the anchor polytechnic to develop a particular course but it was going to cost the anchor polytechnic a lot of money and divert them from other development, this might come into play.

The essence, though, of the federation—and how I think the member can look at it—is that this is not a head office telling individual institutions what they can do; this is a collective. This is a federation—a committee—and representatives from each federation member. It is a collective, making decisions in the best interests, ensuring that the anchor polytechnic doesn’t suffer from the work they might have to do, and ensuring also that the federation polytechnics and the services that are provided to them are not cost-plus but are only cost-recovery. This is putting the fabric in place to ensure that that collaborative work can occur, whether it’s a very small polytechnic sitting out in a regional area or the large Open Polytechnic, and that there is equity of decision making. It’s to ensure that each federation polytech is well looked after, and, equally, that the anchor polytechnic is looked after.

In terms of the consent rather than just consulting, can I just say, it’s really, really difficult when a polytechnic gets into that downward spiral either academically or financially. Sometimes they don’t see the wood for the trees, and I think that the whole nature of the federation is not punitive—it’s not to punish polytechnics, it’s to support them. I think, probably, the member is underestimating the level of engagement that would go on, before you might get to that stage, to ensure that the polytechnic understands the areas that they have a deficit in—whether it’s academic or financial—and to ensure that they understand what can be done to help support them. I think there has been a little bit of this talk, and probably the member for Taieri kind of continued that talk. It’s not punitive. The federation is not punitive; it is there to support.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you, Mr Chair. Pursuant to that answer, I’m going to ask the Minister a sensible question about particularly the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) in Wairarapa. Speaking of regions served by the anchor polytech, how will the Minister ensure local autonomy in multi-region providers like UCOL Wairarapa? What protections will be in place to prevent populous areas or those perhaps better off economically from dominating, and what will the funding structures be, and how are they different from Te Pūkenga?

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was excited for a moment that we might be talking about tertiary education in the North Shore, but we’re still pretty short. Thank you, Minister. I want to continue on on new section 324, inserted by clause 22, “Purposes of federation”. This is, in fact, the part that I call the emperor without clothing, because there’s a lot of detail that we haven’t been able to explore throughout the select committee process, so bear with me on that.

But I particularly come back to new section 324(b), “enable federated polytechnics to (i) develop, design, and deliver cost-effective education and training programmes that are consistent with the polytechnics’ characteristics:”. So my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel has spoken of one example. The other live example that we’ve fluffed over today is Otago Polytechnic and the awkward arrangement that has been set up there.

I guess if we just break down that into form and function—form and function of who is doing what? So as described by you today, the Otago Polytechnic problem that we’re trying to solve is that they are significantly in debt. I’m not aware that there’s any academic or educational delivery issues, but if there are, I encourage you to discuss those.

So if that is the problem we’re trying to solve in that example, under the federation model, who in that set-up is assisting Otago Polytechnic to resolve the financial issue at hand? In the cluster that you’ve established is the anchor polytechnic of the Open Polytechnic, who are the educational delivery partner—that is their core business. They are not the financial partner, as I understand it. So who, therefore, in that live example, is offering the fiscal advice to assist Otago Polytechnic to get to a place of sustainability as required by this legislation?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I’ll very briefly answer. I thank the member for asking me about the Universal College of Learning and the dispersed provision they have there with Masterton, and particularly Whanganui. I’m delighted to tell the member that I’ve been having ongoing discussions—the very capable MP from that area has been advocating very strongly for, particularly, Whanganui and I met yesterday with local iwi and they are very excited about being engaged in that sort of hub concept in Whanganui. So I think we’ve got some really strong buy-in from the local communities there, and we’re looking at a bespoke situation for them to ensure that they have plenty of say in what happens there, that they can gather together. The Wānanga is also operating there, so I think that we may see an exciting new model there—again, driven by the enthusiasm of local leaders there. So it’s wonderful to see that, because I absolutely get what the member talks about if you have one big one dominating another and we’ve seen that when we’ve seen takeovers by other polytechnics.

In terms of the financial situation, for example, for Otago Polytechnic, their council of course will be responsible for their financial improvement plan. They have an improvement plan there and they are working towards that; we are looking at what we can do with their debt. So I’m very confident that we can assist them there. But the federation is there to enable those shared services where it might provide some financial relief. The greatest financial relief that the federation can provide, of course, is the fact that the Open Polytechnic has 160-odd programmes online that can be available to the other institutions and that they won’t have to do the development of. They can have a combined academic board if they want to, they can have that combined development that can be shared then across all the institutions. So I think it provides some real opportunities for the federation polytechnics to be able to save some of those costs.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that debate on this question now close. All those in favour, say Aye—

Francisco Hernandez: Point of order—point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): A point of order—please do not dispute my decision to close. I’ve been watching carefully. I have seen it through and I am aware that there are other questions. However, I’ve made a decision to close and—well, there will be a debate and there’ll be a decision. But if you challenge my decision to close, please don’t.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): That was going to be it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Right. Now, the question is that debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ amendment, deleting clause 4, set out on Amendment Paper 389 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Francisco Hernandez’ amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 388 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 386 agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 314, to replace paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 314, to replace paragraph (b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 314, to replace paragraph (d) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 315(2), to replace paragraph (b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ amendment to clause 22, replacing new section 315(2)(b), set out on Amendment Paper 390 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 315(2), to replace paragraph (d) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new sections 316 and 317, set out on Amendment Paper 391 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 317, set out on Amendment Paper 382 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 318, to replace subsection (1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 318(2), set out on Amendment Paper 383 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to clause 22, new section 319, set out on Amendment Paper 392 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 321, to replace paragraph (c) is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 322(1), to replace paragraph (b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 324, to replace paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 324(b), to replace subparagraph (i) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 326(1), set out on Amendment Paper 393 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 337(2), to replace paragraph (c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 22, new section 339, set out on Amendment Paper 385 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ amendment to clause 22, new section 339, set out on Amendment Paper 394 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 339(2), to replace paragraph (d) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 339(6), to replace paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 339(6)(c), to replace subparagraph (ii) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 340, to replace subsection (2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 341B, to replace subsection (4) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ amendment to clause 22, new section 341H, set out on Amendment Paper 396 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 341M(1), to replace paragraphs (a) and (b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I put the next question, a bit more enthusiasm in the Ayes and Noes so we can get some clarity on the voice votes. I can let the committee know we’re on to the last page, so we’re nearly there, folks.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ amendment to clause 22, new section 341P, set out on Amendment Paper 397 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 341P(3), to replace paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 23, new section 362, set out on Amendment Paper 384 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 23, new section 364(a)(ii), set out on Amendment Paper 398 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 23, new section 365, set out on Amendment Paper 399 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendment to clause 23, new section 370, set out on Amendment Paper 395 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to Part 2. This is the debate—point of order, the Hon Phil Tfwyford.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Point of order, Mr Chairman. I want to speak to Standing Order 137(3). We felt that the closing motion taken by your predecessor was not reasonable. We thought it was premature—very premature—for a bill of this substance and a lot of really meaty provisions in Part 1. Two hours is not excessive. In fact, it’s modest for a committee of the whole House. I don’t believe that there was excessive repetition, and in fact there weren’t warnings that we were going to be cut off. The Opposition members have been trying to work step by step through the substance of Part 1 and we got through probably barely half of it. There is a really significant section, Subpart 6, which covers the industry skills boards and apprenticeship training opportunities, we haven’t had a chance to speak to that. We were, I think, really part-way through the provisions around the federation of polytechnics, which is a big and significant and complex area. So to say we are unhappy about what we think was a premature closure is an understatement. I think that it has done a disservice to the quality of this committee stage.

So, Mr Chairman, I invite your advice about what we can do about that, what avenues there are to ensure that we get a chance, I think, to properly debate and scrutinise Subpart 6.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Speaking to the point of order, Suze Redmayne.

Suze Redmayne: We have spent at least 2½ hours on this part, and I’d just like to acknowledge that the previous Chair made it quite clear he’d considered carefully what had gone before and he didn’t want his decision challenged.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK. Probably the other point, the issue before us as well is we’ve just finished the vote, which closes off Part 1. But I will seek some advice from the Clerks because I do hear the concern here. [Consults with Clerk]

I just want to acknowledge the concern expressed by the Hon Phil Twyford, but just also to acknowledge that the Chairperson before me did make the call, the closure motion was taken, it was voted on, and then we’ve just gone through 40 minute’s worth of voting on the parts as well. So in terms of my ability to provide avenues at this particular point in time, they’re not there. We need to be able to move forward, in terms of the process that we’ve got in front of us right now.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Point of order. Thanks, Mr Chairman. I would like to seek the leave of the committee for Subpart 6 to be allocated a period of time for debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Leave has not been granted. OK, moving on to—

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. Just following on from that, if there would be any grace or ability to—I know we’re moving on to Part 2—have a little bit of leeway, if anything does pop in, from you in terms of that debate and discussion.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, I mean if it’s attached to Part 2, then that is entirely possible, but you have to draw the link between Part 1 and Part 2 in order for that to happen. Because my understanding is Part 2 is about consequential amendments, so if there are consequential amendments flowing in from Part 1 to Part 2, then make the point in your calls, and then we’ll see if that’s appropriate or not.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation and revocation

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 40 to 52, “Amendments to other legislation and revocation”, and Schedule 6. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is challenging not to have had the opportunity to discuss at length a significant part of the proposed legislation, which is industry skills boards (ISBs). I appreciate that, in depth, we did discuss polytechnics federations, but the other significant component is industry skills boards. So I’m going to do my best to include this in Part 2, in “Amendments to other legislation”, in new section CW 55BAA “Federation of Polytechnics Committee and industry skills boards”, inserted by clause 41.

I’ll start there because the Minister for Vocational Education will have—you know, this was a significant promise from the Minister to industry, that this legislation would enable them to have more leadership around the future development of workforce, around vocational training, in there, and it’s an area where many, many industry providers are dissatisfied with where this legislation has landed. Only 11 percent of submitters support this legislation—11 percent. So when it comes to looking at the particular parts of industry skills boards, in there is this the disestablishment of the workforce development councils. Openly, the Minister has been critical of Te Pūkenga overall. I don’t think she has been as critical of workforce development councils because she will know that that had a lot of improvement, including the development and design of qualifications both at a micro and macro level, that there was a lot of work that was done in that particular piece to ensure that training providers—polytechs—were able to deliver relevant qualifications. And there was a heap of work to be able to do in that particular space to change the way that Kiwis learnt within the vocational sector.

In that is the proposal to disestablish workforce development councils. I accept that, but we have disestablished again, versus tweak and just transition, and the Minister, here in this legislation, has chosen to establish industry skills boards. She’s offered up half the funding in that to industry skills boards, and she’s added on more work for them to be able to do with, essentially, less money to assist them in doing that. The industry skills boards, she’s increased by two additional boards in comparison to workforce development council. I’m really keen to understand from her the rationale for that because more boards also means more expenses, which she isn’t able to fund in that particular instance. How did she come up with that particular list of industry skills boards in there, and what is the allocation of funding to ensure that she is able to support those to be sustainable moving forward?

Her timelines have ISBs to be established on 1 January 2026. That is not on track to be set up. In addition to that, the Minister of Education—with a passing conversation, as I can see, with the Minister of Vocational Education—has committed her curriculum development to be connected with the ISBs. That’s new information to them, and there hasn’t been consultation with them, or there’s a lack of consultation, even with the Minister for Vocational Education. So I’ll start there because I would like an explanation about how she’s come up with these decisions for ISBs: the transition to include two additional ISBs, the funding allocated to that, which is only half of what it is. How does she expect an organisation to have the same function of the previous one, to be able to deliver the outcomes that she needs? [Member resumes seat] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Shanan Halbert.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you. I see that the Minister is not willing to answer that particular question. There has—

Suze Redmayne: Keep waiting—she’s pondering.

SHANAN HALBERT: Oh, she’s pondering; she wants some more. She pretty capable, so I know she has answers to those questions.

But the industry skills boards also includes the allocation of apprenticeships, and ISBs are responsible for the future of our apprenticeship scheme in this country. Under her watch, there have been thousands less apprentices enrolling in programmes, there’s thousands less graduating from the programmes. We’ve explored this previously, but she isn’t explaining how this piece of legislation is going to increase the number of apprentices that we are growing in this country. The Government talks big about their investment in infrastructure, but we do have thousands of people going overseas. That’s not my issue. The issue for the sector here, and this legislation, is: will it produce the number of apprentices that the Minister needs to meet the Government’s expectations around their economic commitments and growing the relevant workforce that they particularly need to?

In that as well, there’s the issue where work-based learning, as an example, she has shifted under ISBs, which is fine. MITO, as an example, came back and submitted and said she’s actually introduced a two-part process for them, which they don’t need. This is about enabling industry leaders, and so I’d be very keen for her to be able to explain that piece of work.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I was wondering if the member could help us by pointing us to which clauses and sections—that would help the committee.

SHANAN HALBERT: Sorry, in my first contribution I did acknowledge that, but in my second I didn’t. So I am referring to Part 2, new section CW 55BAA “Federation of Polytechnics Committee and industry skills boards”, inserted by clause 41, subsection (1): “An amount of income derived [from] the Federation”—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ah, yeah.

SHANAN HALBERT: —in that particular—ka pai? Thank you.

Because we know that—I go back to the problem that we’re trying to solve, which is the financial viability. Where providers feel let down, industry leaders feel let down, is that the Minister promised—she promised—more industry leadership, but that’s not what this legislation does. I would like her to explain that. Explain that in response to comments from Alan Pollard. Why did she not deliver on that promise, and is there a window of opportunity for her to fulfil that promise with a particular amendment in the legislation that is before us?

I’m still keen to hear from her around the funding aspect, and then that will set up a bunch of new questions that will come within that section.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. So I’m referring to Schedule 6, which I understand would fit within Part 2. Yeah. OK, I’m seeing notes. Great. Thank you.

So on Schedule 6, I’m looking at page 101 here. This is the line that reads “Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006” and replaces section 157 with “Minister may require output agreement to include matters relating to Board’s relationship with industry skills board or workforce development council”. I wanted to ask the Minister for Vocational Education if she would elucidate what her intentions are for that relationship and what that relationship looks like, whether she would have seen that there’s this need for student voice within it as part of that relationship.

Then I also wanted to understand, particularly since the Education and Workforce Committee briefings that we would have received in hearings with the Minister, how much engagement has the Minister had in relationship to this? I guess this would touch on broader parts of the bill with the Minister for social development in relationship to the goals within the industry skills boards and workforce development councils and whether the goals that she is pursuing within this bill, and particularly with the changes to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, also align with the intended goals of other policy outcomes that the Minister for social development is pursuing.

Once again, just in relationship to Schedule 6, Part 1—and I particularly wanted to pick up this area just because I understand there has been a bit of debate on the nature of the industry skills boards and workforce development councils, which is specifically noted in the replacing of section 157, and so this is specifically between lines 10 and 25.

So if the Minister would be able to, in relationship to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, elucidate what that relationship would look like. What communications, if any, has she had with the Minister for social development since the select committee stage and would she see the need for voices within the workforce rather than just industry as part of that board and those respective areas noted in Schedule 6? Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’m delighted to be talking about the industry skills boards (ISBs) and the incredible important work that our industry training does with our apprentices, our trainees, and our wonderful tradies across the country. It’s incredibly valuable and incredibly important, and it’s wonderful to have industry back in the driver’s seat with our industry skills boards.

In terms of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, the ISB for construction also has specialist trades in it. It’s named with that in it because I understand the importance of the specialist trades within that broader picture of construction trades. It’s really important to give them that visibility. I know that the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers have been really instrumental in driving that recognition of the specialist trades.

It’s really important that our ISBs set up the vehicle and the structure that enables the voices of those industries so that it isn’t a domination of the biggest industries within the ISBs but that they hear from all of those industries that are encompassed by an ISB. I thank the member for his question and, yes, certainly the ISBs are being asked to ensure that they have structures in place that enable them to hear the voices of all the trades and all the industries within their ISB.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m coming back to new section CW 55BAA, inserted by clause 41, and the discussion around workforce development councils (WDCs) and industry skills boards (ISBs).

My questions for the Minister: WDCs have been tapering operations for some time now—this is relative to the transition—so how is the Minister going to get from the current state, half of what it was, to the new state? That question is: WDCs have been tapering operations for some time now, but are now actively making staff redundant to accommodate consultation requirements and notice periods; where does the mandate come from to do this before the legislation is passed? To what extent did the Minister start this work before for this legislation was established? We have had concerns that the recent parts of the legislative process have moved really quickly. It was only two weeks ago that the Education and Workforce Committee reported back; lo and behold, last week we had the second reading, and we have the committee of the whole House today, but very few amendments, which tells me that, despite a large number of submissions, the Minister hasn’t really taken those on board too much. I really want to drill into getting from A to B—that transition that she’s put in place.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just checking that WDC is workforce development councils?

SHANAN HALBERT: Workforce development councils—so, for anyone in the Chamber and at home, the Minister has decided to disestablish workforce development councils, which were highly successful in the last Government’s reforms. There was lots of opportunity there, but this Minister, under this legislation, has chosen to disestablish that successful model and re-establish a model with half the funding and more entities to manage, which just doesn’t make sense in any respect.

My second question for the Minister is: how will ISBs be enabled to deliver on their statutory functions from day one when, in some instances, only two or three roles from the workforce development councils to their corresponding ISBs have been identified for transfer via an expression of interest process? This is about the runway—the Minister wants it in place by 1 January 2026. I’m keen to understand from her, in some of those WDCs to ISBs, how does she see that happening with the time frame available? Is she expecting a gap between that to ensure that the continuation of work is there and that nothing is lost?

Also, third question: does she acknowledge that, essentially, some of the ISBs are having to start again in terms of recruitment and that there will be significant impacts and time lapses in the provision of services to industry partners and to providers? Minister, I’d really appreciate if you are able to answer these particular three questions, because they really talk to the success of this structure—proposed structure, at this stage. You’ve been pretty firm on this structure from the start, which has given industry a promise, and they say you’ve let them down. What do you say?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I’m just struggling a little bit with the member’s questions. He quoted new section CW 55BAA, inserted by clause 41, which is about the Income Tax Act 2007 and amendments there. I’m just trying to see what his question was regarding the Income Tax Act?

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Just to check: the three questions that I asked, which were in relation to that particular point, new section CW 55BAA of the Income Tax Act 2007, inserted by clause 41 of the bill, industry skills boards (ISBs). Is she unwilling to answer the three questions about transition from workforce development councils to industry skills boards?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I think it was more around the relationship between the specific clauses.

SHANAN HALBERT: Well, the relationship, Mr Chair, is that we’re talking about a transition of a structure which has fiscal implications no matter which way that you look at it. So those questions are relevant because we’ve got a funding issue, we’ve got a staffing issue—

Suze Redmayne: No, we’re fixing your funding issue.

SHANAN HALBERT: —and we’ve got a transition issue. No, this isn’t my funding issue, Suzanne Redmayne from Rangitīkei.

Suze Redmayne: My name’s not Suzanne.

SHANAN HALBERT: Suze. This isn’t my funding issue. This is the funding issue that the Minister for Vocational Education has brought to the House under this new legislation. This legislation proposes full reform of a sector without any financial information available to us to give us confidence that this is even going to exist in two years. How do we make decisions in this committee without the right fiscal information to give us confidence that ISBs can set themselves up, that they can transition, and that learners that are at the centre of this piece of work are still going to have access to opportunity and learning provision that they were guaranteed under the last structure?

This Minister has no money. She’s put up a proposal that looks good politically but she hasn’t shown us the fiscals on how she is going to achieve that. That is not acceptable.

Suze Redmayne: The magic money tree wasn’t real money.

SHANAN HALBERT: Then show us what your sustainability plan is. I accept from Suze Redmayne, who says there is no magic money tree. I’m not proposing that there is a magic money tree, but what I am proposing is that any educational legislation that comes through this House should offer equity of access to learning opportunities no matter where you live. That includes regional communities who are cut off under this legislation.

Back to the Minister: are you willing to answer the questions relative to industry skills boards that you have proposed under this legislation? We can be tricky about which clause we’re talking about—ka pai. If we want to play that game, we will. But as educationalists, as people who know the sector, you’ve put up a model that says that it’s better than the last one—I’m still yet to see where. I’m still yet to see where your money is on this commitment without putting more cuts in place and less provision available to those in the regions.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, just to reflect on: yes, this as a place of robust debate, and a bit of back and forth is fine. But if members want to have a further discussion, please take it outside. Just to note that as well, because it does disrupt the order of the committee. And just also to make the point: it would be helpful for the committee if we focus on the relevant sections and provisions to focus this debate as well.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’m looking at the changes to the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act 2017 as laid out in Schedule 6—this is page 102 and lines between 10 and about 20. In relation to your guidance, Mr Chair, about making sure we refer to Part 2 but being able to tie it to Part 1, a lot of the changes in Schedule 6—which replaces the language of “workforce development council” with “industry skills board” or “workforce development council (as established or continued for the time being under”.—do relate to Part 1 because they’re singling out, basically, specific pieces of legislation that affect specific areas of our workforce, in this case, for instance, support workers.

One of the things that I asked in my last contribution, and that I didn’t engagement or elucidation on, was this bill’s intent and the funding that goes along with it—for example, if we look at the support workers, who are a critical part of our workforce and will now also be captured in this new industry skills board—and whether the Minister has sought engagement or assurances from the Minister for Social Development and Employment in relation to the intended goals around getting young people to go into education should they not be in employment. I wonder whether the mechanisms that she’s setting—for example, for support workers, under Schedule 6—will allow young people to enter into those professions, and also whether she’s confident that the new industry skills board, with the funding that it has and with the ability to also explore, for example, new qualifications, is fit for purpose to ensure that we have the range of qualifications that are necessary; whether it’s support workers or, for example, I note that above the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017 in Schedule 6 is the Real Estate Agents Act 2008?

How will the Minister adequately ensure that our vocational education institutions are supported via the industry skills boards to look at quality assurance or new qualifications that may be needed, to ensure that, for those 18- and 19-year-olds who may not be able to find employment, and who are being told by this Government that education is something they should pursue, the range of qualification that connects this genuinely meets the needs of our communities and the economy? I’m tying this, as I said, to Schedule 6 because the previous Chair, Madam Chair, indicated to us that, should we want to tie something in the debate to Part 1, we just needed to reference something that was in Part 2. I just wanted to make sure that that is clear. Something that I didn’t get engagement on—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not sure that that’s open slather.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No, but I just wanted to make sure that I can make the links between Part 2 and Part 1, as per the guidance from the previous Chair. One thing I didn’t get engagement on in my previous line of questioning on Part 2 was, since the select committee stage, what engagement, if any, has the Minister had with the Minister for Social Development and Employment in relation to the changes that will be made to specific pieces of legislation that are subsequently amended, which affect very specific industry bodies and workforce groups? I wonder whether the policy intent in this bill particularly, and the subsequent changes in Part 2, are in alignment with the perceived goals that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has. Thank you.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ve only been in the Chair a few minutes, so I just want to get a feel for the kinds of topics that are being covered.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe e te Minita. I’ve been listening intently, hoping that the wānanga sector might come up because they’ve got a lot of questions of their own and I know that they’re an interesting part of the education landscape.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask the member to refer to the clause or schedule that he’s speaking to.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, sure—sure. It’s CW 55BAA, inserted by clause 41, “Federation of Polytechnics Committee and the industry skills board”, and, more importantly, how the iwi, the hapū, or the wānanga voice gets there. So I’ll cut straight to the chase—you know, these come from the whare wānanga. So how will the changes to the principal Act, this part of it included, ensure that hapū and iwi be given support and time to establish a mechanism to capture what their labour market skills are? Given the tensions around the earlier parts of the bill and the robustness or otherwise of what that Māori representation might look like, it’s probably just that the wānangas have these views or have these questions. So it’s an opportunity for the Minister to respond to the wānanga sector.

Additionally, how will changes to the principal Act, this part included, reflect and respond equitably to the unique challenges faced by Māori across the regions? The regions is a key part because it’s a part of the wānanga catchment, I suppose—takes in more of the regions than the other main central ones. So it’s a fair enough question.

Additionally, in the bill, can the Minister provide examples of how changes to the primary Act, and again, representation at the confederation and the board levels, the skills board levels, is critical—how it reflects an understanding of the challenges of rural and remote learning delivered by wānaga Māori? These things, as we’ve shared earlier, Minister, you and I are well versed in these things. And what I neglected to tell you earlier is that the 11 years before I went to the institutes of technology and polytechnics and wānagas, I was at Te Wānanga o Raukawa.

The last pātai I have for you is: what feedback and advice has she received from her officials through engagements with the wānanga Māori sector on the bill? Were there any concerns raised by wānanga Māori in relation to representation of mana whenua, of Māori communities, of the wānanga sector—OK—in the workforce development councils, in the federation, or the industry skills board?

Before I hand over to you Minita, just a clarification that my whanaunga who’s running Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, she’s a proud descendant of the iwi she chairs, Ngāti Rārua and Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāti Rangitane. So kia ora, Olivia.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you for that, and I apologise for that. Look, the wānanga are not involved in this legislation and this legislative change, but I do want to take a quick moment to celebrate our three wonderful wānanga: Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (TWOA), Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, and Te Wānanga o Raukawa. It’s a good opportunity to give a shout-out to them, and for those of you who don’t know, the wonderful Rongo Wetere is back in the country, the founder of TWOA.

But I can assure the member that wānanga are exempt from needing any endorsement from the industry skills boards and capstone assessments or anything like that. So as much as I’m happy to talk about our three wonderful wānanga, it’s not within this legislation.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to the questions on Schedule 1.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 387 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come to the questions on Schedule 2.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s amendments to Schedule 2, new Schedule 11A, set out on Amendment Paper 392 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come to Schedule 3.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to Schedule 4.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to Schedule 5.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come to Schedule 6 now.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 6 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to clauses 1 to 3, this is the debate on “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Title and commencement. So one of the themes that’s been well traversed over the last few hours has been really kind of a defining feature of this bill, and that is a systematic stripping out of references to Te Tiriti and also a weakening, a removal, and a dilution of commitments for the various institutions in the vocational education sector to engage with, consult with Māori organisations and institutions in the communities they represent. We saw it in relation to new section 314(d); we saw it in relation to new section 318 removing the provision that a polytech council should, as reasonably practical, include Māori; new section 370(c) references to Te Tiriti removed; and in 314, around the characteristics of polytechs.

So it’s one of the pervasive features of this bill, and during the committee stage we have persistently really quizzed the Minister and invited her to really explain in the first instance why the removal of references to Te Tiriti, given that it’s our nation’s founding document. Those references convey a whole lot of things about the kind of quality, seriousness of the Crown’s and public sector’s engagement with manawhenua and Māori institutions and stakeholders. I don’t believe that we have had a clear explanation from the Minister about the removal of those Treaty clauses.

If it’s just politics, if it’s just a function of the ACT Party’s coalition agreement, then let’s hear that, let’s say it. That would be interesting to know. But if the Minister has a deeper philosophical commitment to weakening those things, then that would also be interesting to hear. There’s a higher-level obligation that I think we have as a country to ensure that we look after the Treaty partnership, that we grow it, take it seriously. It’s one of the things about New Zealand that makes this country great and distinctive. But there’s a very practical reason why high-quality engagement with iwi Māori should be at the heart of something like the vocational and education training system. That is because Māori figure so prominently in statistics that show they are getting the rough end of the employment market and the education system, and we have an obligation to take that seriously and to fix that.

In light of all that, I would want to invite the committee to support Shanan Halbert’s Amendment Paper that would replace “Vocational Education and Training System” with “Dilute Māori Representation”. I think that that would make the title of this bill, the “Education and Training (Dilute Māori Representation) Amendment Bill”, much more appropriate.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following that contribution—and we just tabled some amendments from my colleague Francisco Hernandez which I’d like to speak to—I did want to ask the Minister for Vocational Education whether she believes that the title accurately represents the scope and intent of the legislation.

I ask this because, you know, when we’re engaging with the public, if I go out into the community and I say, “Have you heard of the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill?”, people may not know that behind it there was a broader intent of undermining our vocational education institutions. My colleague Francisco Hernandez put forward some suggested amendments which in his view do tend to better, in my view, reflect—and from my conversations with him—the sentiments both at the select committee process but also in terms of the actual impact that this bill is intending to have.

So, for example, one of his amendments was to change it to the “Ensuring Course and Campus Closures Amendment Bill”; the other one is “Education and Training (Committed to Ignoring Official Advice) Amendment Bill” and “Education and Training (So Long as Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) Survives) Amendment Bill.”

The reason for the need to often unpack whether the titles actually represent the intent of the bill is that I do think—unless you are studying law or unless someone who you know peruses the Parliament website often to go through legislation and the sort of the minutiae of it—it can be genuinely difficult to get a sense of whether titles reflect potential harm in our communities.

So, with that, I’d like to know whether the Minister would consider any of the proposed amendments by either Shanan Halbert or Francisco Hernandez to better represent the intent of the bill. If not, can I ask the Minister whether she genuinely believes that the current title, as it stands, adequately reflects the intended outcomes, and, if not, why not? And, whether she sought any advice from industry bodies in whether the title actually communicates the intention of the bill, as well. So I would appreciate engagement on the issue of the title.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Very quickly, I’ll answer the two suggestions that have been put forward. Yes, I think it’s a very appropriate title. I acknowledge that “vocational education and training” perhaps isn’t explicitly known by everyone, but it is a good explanation of the bill.

I note from the member Phil Twyford his suggestion of the alternate naming, which I think is entirely inappropriate because, as I answered five or maybe six times, the references here around the expectations and engagement and representation of Māori in new sections 314(d), 318(1), 321(c), 370(e), inserted by clause 23, and the overarching general duty in the main Act to acknowledge the Treaty.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve had a few hours of good discussion on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. I have put forward a number of amendments that, I think, better reflect the nature of this legislation that the Minister has put forward. I acknowledge her experience in this particular area—more so than many of us in here today. With this scale of reform, in fact, it’s no small feat, and she will carry a great sense of obligation and responsibility with her in the decisions that are made as a part of this legislation. Minister, can I just acknowledge you, today, and also your ability to respond to not all, but many, of our questions and your enthusiasm in doing that.

The title and commencement, particularly the commencement date: 1 January—that’s ambitious as we all know, and we do want ambition in the sector. On the questions that I’ve asked around transition today—one example was the workforce development councils through to the industry skills boards—there hasn’t been a good explanation of the practicality of that transition between now and 1 January. I know that things take a while to set up, but what we’re concerned about here is the loss of work as we exit staff and make them redundant and the lapse of time between the disestablishment and reestablishment of a new entity. I’d be keen to hear from the Minister particularly around that commencement date and how she intends to do that.

I have thrown a couple of cheeky title changes in there, which I hope that the Minister finds humorous too. We’ve had a good relationship in to-ing and fro-ing in this debate, and I want that to continue. At the heart of it are the learners, and I’m still not convinced that this setup offers better access to learning, particularly for Māori, for Pasifika, and for ethnic communities but specifically for those out in the most remote parts of our country in regional communities. It takes us back to a setup that we simply couldn’t afford.

The problem that we’ve been trying to solve from the outset is the financial viability piece, and there is not a successful vocational sector without financial viability. I’m still yet to see any evidence of whether the Minister is able to demonstrate that what she has put up is better than what was there before. That amendment I’ve called “Back to the Future”, replacing “Vocational Education and Training System” with “Back to the Future”. That’s simply because we’re going back to a model that was so expensive. We ended up with millions of dollars of debt. Consecutive Governments had to continue to bail institutions out, and that, in fact, is one of the primary reasons why we established Te Pūkenga. I just can’t see how the Minister is able to afford that, moving forward, or that it offers a sustainable future.

When I meet with any institution at the moment, they say that they feel uncertain and that they are experiencing the instability. Any meaningful engagement with the sector will show the impact of consecutive years of change. Again, the reform that the Minister puts before the Chamber today doesn’t aid in offering any certainty or stability for the sector. It, in fact, offers more instability and more questions that remain unresolved. I worry about that, Minister.

We didn’t have the opportunity, today, to talk in detail about industry skills boards and apprenticeships and that significant chunk of work, but I want to flag that as a priority, and I encourage the Minister to really focus on that part moving forward. I’ll end my contribution on this round there. Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I thank the member Shanan Halbert for his thoughtful and considered comments at the finish, there. Look, I agree, there is a lot of work to be done in terms of enhancing the parity of esteem for our trades, our apprenticeships, our traineeships, and that is certainly an area that I am going to be focusing on in the coming year.

I also want to give an assurance to the member about my commitment to Māori, Pasifika, and regional communities. They are at the heart of what I am doing here, and I would extend an invitation to the member, once we are now through this, to come and meet with me and I will talk through some of the financial viability matters, particularly once we get the recapitalisation landed. That is going to make a huge difference to those polytechnics and industry skills boards.

I want to acknowledge the member’s own commitment to this sector, and I know that has driven his questions on it. I also acknowledge the impact on staff over the years of change, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all the staff for their professionalism. It’s been their professionalism that has ensured that the students haven’t suffered over this time. I can assure the member I read through all his suggested amendments. One or two were sorely tempting for me to accept, around the change of title—had a nice ring to it, some of them—but I’ll stick with the existing title. Thank you very much.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I note the Minister’s comments that a couple of Amendment Papers were sorely tempting. I suspect it’s not the one that I’m about to speak to, but I do want to speak to Shanan Halbert’s amendment to replace “vocational education and training system” with “undoing reform and taking vocational education backwards”. It is probably a little bit strong, but the point that I want to make is just to pick up on a point that Shanan Halbert made—I think the Minister’s responded partially to it, but there’s another part to it that I would like to traverse in my short contribution—and that’s around both the characteristics of polytechnics and also new section 318, inserted by clause 23, which is “Matters to be considered when appointing members of polytechnic’s council”.

While I don’t have the huge wealth of experience around vocational training specifically that other members in this House who’ve spoken today have, I have seen a similar context within the universities as well, and that is around the place that tertiary education has when it comes to pastoral care—when it comes to being able to reflect. I think this would probably be even more important for vocational education and training institutions to be able to reflect the communities that they serve, and therefore to be able to reflect both the needs and aspirations of the students who go to these training centres.

It does say in new section 314, in clause 23, when laying out the characteristics of the polytechnics, a whole bunch of things around the diversity of continuing education that these institutions provide and the fact that they are predominantly involved in providing continuing education that responds to the specific needs of their local communities. I think that focus on local communities is important and regional need. It then goes on to say: “(d) they improve outcomes for Māori students and trainees and Māori communities in collaboration with Māori and iwi” as well—those are fine. The issue that I have is with new section 318, which cuts out a whole number of groups, including in 318(1)(a)(ii), ethnic, gender, and socio-economic diversity.

New section 318(1)(a)(iii) is also of concern, because it takes out the need for appointing members of polytechnics councils to be reflective when it comes to diversity of ability. I would have thought that at a time when we’re seeing significant issues—I mean, if I were to just look at disability unemployment rates, it’s gone up from 8.2 percent in 2022 to 14 percent. Now, we know that employment and employability is directly related to training, and that’s largely what vocational training institutions in specific areas are trying to do to ensure that those who need to get employment in specific spaces and specific sectors have the training and education that they need to be able to do so. So removing them, working backwards, surely one would want the council or the decision-making bodies herein to be able to reflect the needs of those who are coming for training. I don’t understand removing these specific categories but then including a clause that says the council of a polytechnic should as far as is reasonably practicable reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves. That’s good, but it seems to me a step backwards, which is why I am arguing the change in title here. If one wants polytechnics to be reflective of the communities, then why take out the specifics of what that make-up should look like?

I do also want to take a quick moment to acknowledge, as Shanan Halbert has done, the care in which the Minister in the chair is responding to questions. That’s one we haven’t always seen, so I do want to acknowledge it. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): There is clearly an exhausted number of contributions here, but I will take another call from Glen Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. The generosity is wonderful and goes a long way, and I will reciprocate with a short call. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, has acknowledged staff, and I want to thank her for that. I come from New Plymouth, and obviously the Western Institute of Technology (WITT) in Taranaki has really struggled.

In terms of the title, I want to mention the Amendment Paper in my colleague Shanan Halbert’s name, and it really is around the instability. I was at WITT recently, and what I heard from staff and from students was just the constant instability of change, of change, of change.

Hon Penny Simmonds: Lovely new building—or lovely renovated building.

GLEN BENNETT: Yep, there’s been some good work done. The Government has had to bail them out several times over the years in terms of financial viability. What came to me was the instability of the—yes, Te Pūkenga, I acknowledge, was a huge amount of change and upheaval, and now with the Government doing what they’re doing and the Minister doing what they’re doing, it’s just been constant change, instability, review after review after review. I want to support my colleague’s amendment that is on the Table, replacing “Vocational Education and Training System” with “Creating Instability in Vocational Training”.

I ask the Minister: you have assured and thanked the staff around the country for what they do in vocational education and training, but how do we assure that, going forward, there is stability; that the sector can feel confident; that it’s not going to be just another set of people rolling in from Wellington or from Auckland to places like Taranaki or Southland or the West Coast and again creating instability and creating fear in terms of that job uncertainty? We’ve got mortgages to pay; we’ve got kids to feed; we’ve got our communities to look after. I just want assurance from the Minister. Please, consider the amendment of Shanan Halbert’s—I think it is a good one—or maybe you could think of changing it so that there’s actual vocational stability in education that you want to bring in with this bill.

It’s frustrating for the people who are at the coalface—for people who are at the flax-roots—but we need to know for them that there is stability. In terms of the title, I support Shanan Halbert’s amendment, because I believe the Minister has created more instability in the sector, and I ask and plead that we can do something to ensure the staff, the students, and the community can feel affirmed and stable in the future, going forward, of vocational education.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Shanan Halbert’s 11 tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s eight tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendment replacing clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 381 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Madam Chair, I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill No. 2 now be read a second time.

This Government is focused on lifting student achievement and closing the equity gap in schools. We say it all of the time. This bill requires school boards to treat educational attainment as their prime, paramount objective. It ensures initial teacher education and teacher discipline and competence processes are fit for purpose and provide clearer processes for managing industrial action within the school system.

Alongside this, this bill has a real focus on the Government’s priorities to improve student attendance. We know that attending school is strongly linked to achievement, and, to support this, the bill requires all schools to have attendance management plans in place that consistently responds to and addresses the diverse underlying causes of non-attendance and return students to school. It also requires universities to protect and promote academic freedom and freedom of expression within the university.

There are many important proposals in this bill, and I want to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their careful consideration of their bill and their suggestions to strengthen it. And also thanks to all of those submitters who took the time to make submissions on the bill and share their thoughts and suggestions. The committee received 714 submissions and heard 42 oral submissions, and the number and type of submissions showed that New Zealanders care deeply about our education system and the outcomes it delivers for learners, families, and communities.

The Education and Workforce Committee have recommended some excellent changes to the bill. My colleague Minister Seymour will speak to the changes on the attendance management plans, and my colleague Minister Reti will speak to the freedom-of-expression changes. It’s my pleasure to now speak to the other key proposals in the bill.

This bill simplifies school board requirements so that they have a more streamlined set of expectations. The key proposal is the repeal of section 5 of the Education and Training Act. This relates to my ability as a Minister of Education to issue a statement of national educational and learning priorities, which places unnecessary obligations on boards that are duplicated elsewhere. There are already stronger mechanisms in the Act, such as section 127 and curriculum statements, that set compulsory objectives and strategic direction for school boards.

One of the proposals in this bill which generated a lot of interest was on the amendment to the school board objectives. This proposal amends section 127 so that a board’s paramount objective in governing a school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard and educational achievement. Making educational achievement the paramount objective focuses boards on what matters the most. I want schools to focus on getting back to the basics and getting them right so that all learners have the knowledge, skills, and competencies they need to reach their full potential.

Some submitters supported this proposal and agreed that schools need a sharper focus on academic progress. Others were not supportive and were concerned that this was too simplistic and risks undermining a more holistic approach to education. I believe that New Zealand’s learners deserve to attend schools where their attainment and their educational achievement is the highest priority, and I acknowledge submitters’ concerns and understand that some may think that the focus on educational achievement may demote other objectives, but to meet their paramount objectives, schools must continue to meet the other essential and supporting objectives.

This bill also adds a new attendance objective into section 127. It requires boards to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the school’s students attend the school when it is open. Students cannot achieve when they are not at school and this new objective will strengthen the focus of school boards on their attendance obligations. Another new objective is that boards should ensure that their school uses good quality assessment and aromatawai information to monitor and evaluate student progress and achievement.

I understand that school boards will need to time to implement changes to give effect to these objectives effectively and I’m pleased that the committee has recommended amending the date to which school board’s next strategic plans take effect from: from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027. This additional time will enable boards to consult with their communities and properly reflect the new board objectives in their strategic plans.

Another important proposal in the bill involves changes to initial teacher education and improvements to the Teaching Council disciplinary and competence process. Students receive great education and achieve success when schools have a strong strategic vision and quality teaching workforce, and I’m committed to ensuring that we attract, train and retain great teachers. That’s why this bill proposes to strengthen initial teacher education through greater Government involvement and standards for teacher registration, and practising certificates and approvals of initial teacher education programmes. These changes strengthen the processes the Council is required to follow. This is critical, because teachers have a very strong influence on the educational success of learners. The quality of teaching is one of the most important factors influencing educational outcomes. That’s why the bill also makes changes to the Council’s disciplinary and competence processes to ensure that they are effective. It’s essential that the system supporting teachers are robust and fit for purpose, and I want to thank the Teaching Council for their support of these proposals, which will help support its functions and strengthen the education system.

Another key proposal in this bill is increasing the amount of days’ notice that unions must provide before they strike from three days to “no less than seven days”. Parents, caregivers, and whānau have expressed that they need time to make alternative care arrangements should their school decide to close because of a strike, and I agree. I think that schools need more time to determine how to manage the potential disruption of strikes to students and their families. Some submitters were concerned that this could limit workers’ right to strike, but let me clarify: this only applies to the notification that unions must provide before conducting a strike. It does not limit workers’ rights to engage in lawful industrial action. Rather, it just provides more time, and more reasonable time, for families and schools to arrange alternative care to ensure students safety and wellbeing.

Finally, the bill makes a number of necessary changes to provisions on issuing principal eligibility criteria, international student fees, and the use of national student numbers for researchers. These amendments simply help maintain the health of the education regulatory system and ensure that law and practice remain well aligned. Again, I want to express my thanks to the committee once again for their recommended changes and to the members of the public who made submissions.

The bill is just another step towards improving student achievement and attendance objectives, developing a workforce of the future, and establishing a knowledge-rich curriculum. New Zealand learners deserve an education system that helps them to achieve their very best potential. The bill supports a robust education system that this Government is focused on achieving. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m.