Tuesday, 11 November 2025

TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2025

TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers/Karakia

Prayers/Karakia

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.

Parliamentary membership

Te Pāti Māori—Mariameno Kapa-Kingi

Te Pāti Māori—Tākuta Ferris

SPEAKER: Members, under Standing Order 36(1)(c), I have been advised by Te Pāti Māori that their parliamentary membership has changed and that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris are no longer members of Te Pāti Māori for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly, under Standing Order 35(5), those members, from 10 November 2025, are regarded as independent members for parliamentary purposes.

Obituaries

Hon Roger Neville McClay, QSO

SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death on 7 November 2025 of the Hon Roger Neville McClay, QSO, who represented Taupō electorate from 1981 to 1984 and Waikaremoana from 1984 to 1996. During his membership of this House, he served as Minister of Youth Affairs and Associate Minister of Education, Pacific Island Affairs, and Social Welfare.

I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of loss and sympathy to the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

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 Bevan O’Connor requesting that the House urge the Government to withdraw the Regulatory Standards Bill from the legislative programme.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 12 papers for presentation.

CLERK:

2024-25 annual reports for the:

Electoral Commission

Financial Markets Authority

Crown Infrastructure Delivery Ltd

National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Ltd

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

Water Services Authority

Government response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Laura Ancell

2023-24 report of the Crown’s implementation of the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations

2025-29 statement of intent for the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

2025-26 statements of performance expectations for:

Crown Infrastructure Delivery Ltd

National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Ltd

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the

review briefing on the 2023/24 annual review of AgResearch Ltd

review briefing on the 2023/24 annual review of the New Zealand Institute Ltd

report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the

Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill

reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the

Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill

petition of Murray Tingey

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the

Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Paul Barton

special report on the petition of Ross Hoole.

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

CLERK:

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill, introduction

Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: the Prime Minister when he said, “we’ve got the right economic plan”, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, who said his Government is “pursing a failed economic strategy”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not sure the member said that. I’ll just say the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been here a long time—he’s been here almost half a century. He has a lot of entrenched positions on lots of different things, but he and I are very, very cognisant of what our pronouns are, and they are “we”.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters that his Government has “failed to run the economy properly”, and, if not, how is shrinking the economy by 1.2 percent proper economic management?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we have discussed before in this House, this Government inherited the biggest recession in 35 years. It also inherited the longest post - COVID-19 hangover, which I note that members on the opposite side failed to take responsibility to discuss or to show up for any hearings on, and, as a result, it’s been difficult cleaning up that mess. But the good news is that parts of our economy are recovering well; other parts are continuing to struggle, but there are positive signs that future growth is on the way. Just look at the 3.5 percent growth in jobs ads, look at the 4 percent growth in exports, and look at the job-rich infrastructure activities that are coming our way.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he agree with Winston Peters that the Government is “not actually fixing the economy”, and, if not, how does he explain why more people are out of work and staying out of work for longer than at any time in the last 30 years?

Hon Shane Jones: Context—context.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Please repeat the question, without any interruptions from anywhere in the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he agree with Winston Peters that the Government is “not actually fixing the economy”; and, if not, how does he explain that more people are out of work and staying out of work for longer than at any time in the last 30 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because there was a Labour Government that increased Government spending by 84 percent and that drove up domestic inflation, which drove up interest rates 12 times to record highs. That ends up putting an economy into recession, and that means people lose their jobs. The good news is that unemployment is about peaking; it’s less than what the forecast was under his Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Winston Peters correct when he said of the current Government this morning that “we haven’t turned the economy around in the way we should have as fast as we should have”; if not, why was he wrong?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, parts of our economy are recovering well and are experiencing growth. As I’ve said before, it’s a two-speed recovery at this point in time; there are parts that are also struggling. But the good news is just look at the commentators’ reports and look at the forecasts going forward from here, and you can see that people are feeling positive that the economy is now growing. It’s expected to strengthen its growth, and that’s a good thing that we should be celebrating, because cleaning up a mess, after six years of mismanagement in less than two years, is pretty good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee there’ll be no sale or reduction of the Government’s current 100 percent ownership of Kiwibank before the election; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve been very clear: we won’t have asset sales under this term. But, as I said yesterday, we should be able to have a more serious conversation, rather than a political one, about what is the optimal use of capital. With very high-functioning economies like Singapore, one of the hallmarks of their success is asset recycling, and we should look to do the same.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: In that case, is the Government preceding with Kiwibank’s current capital raise, which Kiwibank has announced will be concluded by June next year; if so, how can he say that the Government‘s ownership of Kiwibank won’t be diluted before the next election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There is ongoing engagement with the market and there is ongoing advice being taken.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister said in his answer to the previous question that there will be no asset sales before the election. Kiwibank are currently in the process of trying to raise capital, and that is going to be concluded—according to Kiwibank’s announcement and the announcement of the Minister of Finance—by June next year. I’d ask the Prime Minister how he can reconcile those two statements.

SPEAKER: Well, you’re asking me to judge the quality of the answer. I sit here, listening to the question, and immediately, in my head, thinking that there are many ways which capital can be raised. If the Prime Minister has got more to add, he may do so.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was clear to everyone that the Prime Minister had addressed the question, as the Standing Orders require. The Leader of the Opposition is using points of order to make political points, and I think that’s unacceptable.

SPEAKER: Yes, well, I think the leader of the ACT Party is doing exactly the same thing at the moment. I was in the middle of explaining a position when you decided you’d add your little bit to it—very unhelpful. Does the Prime Minister have more to say?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say that that’s not characterised as an asset sale. The member seems to misunderstand what equity and debt and asset sales actually are. We saw a similar response to the Chorus proposal. He sold Kiwi wealth out of Kiwibank. That was an asset sale; this is not that. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Someone from the Government backbench is going to be leaving the House very shortly if we have more of those outbursts.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that under the last Government, Kiwibank sold its KiwiSaver business for $310 million to Fisher Funds, whereas under this Government, we are focused on getting more investment into Kiwibank through a capital raise?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and that is what is the difference between an asset sale and a capital raise. They’re two different things.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was that sale of Kiwi Wealth Ltd conducted before or after the previous Labour Government bought back the 49 percent of Kiwibank that the previous National Government sold?

SPEAKER: Well, I think you’ve made a point, but it’s not something he’s got responsibility for.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, hang on. You asked: can he confirm something that a previous Government had done—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which was exactly the question the Minister of Finance asked him immediately prior to that. So if he’s responsible for question that she asked him, which was to do with the actions of a previous Government, how is he not responsible for my question?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know if you want the Prime Minister to be responsible for the actions of a previous Government—and that would be something new. But the Prime Minister may like to make a comment on that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’m not responsible for the actions of a previous Government, but what I would say is that the member has got himself a bit worked up into a lather and has gone down a bit of a wormhole, and the reality is that this is a Government that is committed to not having asset sales over the course of this term. But there is a legitimately serious conversation that we should be having in this country so that we can ensure that Government capital is deployed to the highest possible purpose, with the best returns and the greatest benefits to its citizens.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to the substance of Nicola Willis’s question, does the Prime Minister know the massive dissociated scandal that went with that transaction?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m unaware of the details, and, again, I’m not responsible for the actions of the previous Government.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that the public of New Zealand recognise the challenges their country faces and are up for an honest, rather than an emotional, conversation around how the Government manages its assets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think that we should make the case to the New Zealand people pro and for the position on asset sales, and the reason is very simple, which is that if you are a high-functioning economy like Singapore, one of the hallmarks of their success has been their asset recycling. They’re able to take Government capital and redeploy it to higher purposes that generate greater returns and greater benefits for their people. It’s pretty simple.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell us as to who privatised a third of the BNZ without going to tender, so that within three years that bank was—the biggest bank in this country—insolvent?

Hon David Seymour: You’re not responsible for a previous Government.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think that might not be—I’m not responsible for previous Governments’ actions, yeah.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm, with reference to the Leader of the Opposition’s remark about the sell-down of Kiwibank in the previous Government, that in 2016, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund acquired a 25 percent share in Kiwibank and the Accident Compensation Corporation acquired another 22 percent share, all of which, of course, are on the Crown balance sheet?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: And we had to buy it back, because they were trying to sell it off.

Hon Chris Bishop: Buy it back from what—from the super fund? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on. Sorry—

Hon Chris Bishop: That’s your proposal.

SPEAKER: —do you want to leave the House? Do both sides want to leave the House, because that will be happening if that sort of exchange occurs again. The Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t have anything further to add, except to say that I think we’re going to have an adult conversation—a serious conversation, a strategic one—to say that if there is Government capital or Government assets that could or should be recycled for greater purpose and greater benefit for the New Zealand people, that’s a legitimate question that we should have. But we should have it without trying to politicise it in the way the member started today.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does he have to the 29 kura and the 95,000 kaiako and ākonga who have spoken out against the education reforms his Government intends to pass tonight?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That they should be incredibly supportive, because this is a Government that is focused on lifting educational achievement and attendance for Māori and non-Māori students, and the success that we have seen already in the lift of new-entrant Māori reading rates under a structured literacy programme are incredibly encouraging.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by the answer that the Minister of Education gave last week to our question on removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations from school boards that “Elected parents to a school board should not be delegated what is a core Crown responsibility.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do. I don’t believe it’s the board’s responsibility to discharge a Crown responsibility around Treaty obligations. I believe it is the board's responsibility—their No. 1 priority—to make sure that they get kids to school, that they teach them the basics brilliantly, and that they focus on academic attendance and achievement.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Should Crown entities be expected to uphold core Crown responsibilities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the Crown has its relationships and its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and I’ve addressed that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why should school boards—a specified Crown entity—not be delegated a core Crown responsibility?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are making it crystal clear to board members that we expect, in a country where half of our kids don’t go to school regularly, thanks to a Labour - Greens previous Government policy; in a country where half of our kids are not at the standard that they need to be at for reading, thanks to a Labour - Greens education policy; and where 80 percent of our kids who are hitting high school are not at the standard that they need to be at in mathematics, that we are going to do everything, and that nothing is more important than setting our kids—Māori or non-Māori—up for success so that they can access high-paying jobs. We are not tolerating, after five-and-a-half years of an absolutely hopeless education Minister who ran our education into the ground, couldn’t get the kids to school, couldn’t teach them to read and write, and couldn’t teach them maths—we’re not doing that any more.

Rawiri Waititi: What is his Government’s track record of upholding their core Crown responsibility to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We, as a Government, are very focused on improving outcomes for Māori, and I would appreciate it if that member maybe had some policy contribution to make as a party as to what he’s doing to improve educational outcomes for Māori, what he’s doing to improve health outcomes for Māori, or improve economic opportunities for Māori. There’s been nothing from that member that I’ve heard on those policies.

Hon Erica Stanford: Can he confirm that the core tenet of upholding the Treaty is around raising achievement for Māori students, and that it has, in fact, been the first time in the last two decades that we’ve seen an increase in Māori reading achievement through the phonics check?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can. Again, what we believe, on this side of the House, is in providing kids—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry. Prime Minister, stop for a minute. It’s not possible for the House to hear an answer when there is an immediate barrage as soon as he stands on his feet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I can hear him.

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve clearly got a greater capacity for hearing than I do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m happy to swap with someone who can’t.

SPEAKER: Prime Minister, you’re going to be given a little bit of a better opportunity to answer that question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: On this side of the House, we believe that Kiwi kids, setting off on life, should have an equality of opportunity, and one of the ways we do that is we lift educational outcomes for all kids, irrespective of their backgrounds, their ethnicities, and their circumstances. I am proud to say that our focus on back to basics has meant that for young, five-year-old Māori kids, doing their first phonics checks 20 weeks into school life, there has actually been an 18 percent improvement, where they’re at or above expectations. There has been a 15 percent reduction in Māori new entrant kids needing new and targeted support. That is a good thing, and I would hope that those members of that party, if they genuinely cared about improving outcomes for Māori, would celebrate that.

Hon David Seymour: Does removing Treaty obligations from school boards actually stop anyone from doing anything they would like to do, or does it simply give more people the choice to live as they would like to in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It makes it crystal clear that the primary, No. 1 job of school boards is to focus on educational achievement—nothing matters more than that.

Rawiri Waititi: If Crown entities are not expected to uphold core Crown responsibilities, and if his Government is not expected to uphold core Crown responsibilities, who is?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Crown does honour and uphold its responsibilities under the Treaty—that is our obligation to do that. In this case, when we’re talking about school boards, we want school boards focused on getting kids to school and getting them set up for success, and I would hope that those members really would want those same outcomes for their kids, too.

Hon Shane Jones: On the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi as a part of the education curriculum, can he confirm that conflict resolution is a key outcome, and sadly it’s lapsing?

SPEAKER: Rawiri Waititi—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That question in no way violates 390 of Standing Orders. Conflict resolution is a key part of educational outcomes.

SPEAKER: You’re quite right, but the Prime Minister didn’t stand up to answer.

Rawiri Waititi: Why has he allowed David Seymour to test his deregulation agenda on our mokopuna with the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: With apologies, I don’t really fully understand the gist of the question. I’d just say that the Regulatory Standards Bill is about making sure that we make regulation in a better way, that we get better quality legislation and regulation, and that’s what’s been proposed with that bill.

Rawiri Waititi: Why does his Government feel so threatened by Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not. We’re a Government that’s very focused on saying that it’s high time we improved educational outcomes for Māori, we improve health outcomes for Māori, we improve economic opportunities for Māori, and that’s what this Government is working really hard to do.

Hon Shane Jones: Following up on the question of “threatened”, does the Prime Minister feel threatened by any of the Māori members of his Cabinet?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I appreciate the challenge that I get from them on a daily and weekly basis.

Question No. 3—Economic Growth

3. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What actions will the Government take to boost the success of the New Zealand screen industry?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): Last week, I announced changes to the international screen production rebate, ensuring New Zealand remains a competitive and attractive destination for international productions to invest and create jobs for New Zealanders. Analysis shows that, for every dollar invested, the scheme delivers around $2.40 in economic return, supporting more than 24,000 jobs and more than 5,200 businesses. The Government backs New Zealand business to do well and compete on the world stage, and that is why in Budget 2025 we confirmed $577 million in new funding over four years for the scheme. The rebate will only be paid out if new productions come here and make investments in our economy. These changes that I have announced will generate more investment, create more skilled jobs, and ensure New Zealand remains screen test ready.

Dan Bidois: How will the updated rebate settings make New Zealand more competitive internationally?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Global competition for large-scale productions and small and medium size productions is fierce. The updated settings ensure that New Zealand has its ticket to the game and lower the qualifying threshold to attract more productions, a change described by the screen production association as a game changer; making the 5 percent uplift more accessible for productions delivering lasting economic benefits; extending eligibility to our world-leading post-digital and visual effects only projects; and removing the cap on above-the-line costs to bring us into line with international standards. These refinements respond directly to industry feedback and will help secure more consistent work for our world-class crews, technicians, and creatives.

Dan Bidois: What has been the reaction from the screen sector to these changes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The response has been overwhelmingly positive. The screen industry guild described it as big news for New Zealand’s screen sector. The screen producers New Zealand president said it is incredibly welcome news, a pragmatic decision, and the one that’s the real game-changer is taking down the value of projects. The New Zealand Film Commission said the changes will strengthen New Zealand’s competitive position, and industry figure Cliff Curtis called the updates crucial to keep New Zealand competitive on the world stage. This Government is listening to industry to secure growth, investment, and opportunity in a very important export sector.

Dan Bidois: How does investment in the screen industry contribute to the Government’s wider economic goals?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We see the screen industry as part of our plan to develop talent, create higher-paying jobs, and double the value of New Zealand’s exports in 10 years. It attracts international capital, builds skills, and promotes New Zealand’s brand to global audiences. Modelling indicates the improved rebate settings, which we have delivered, could attract as many as 15 additional international productions per year and increase foreign investment by several hundred million dollars. Productions made here, like Avatar and The Lord of the Rings, generate not just the jobs on set but the flow-on benefits for tourism and hospitality. I am told that one boat produced for the Avatar movie involved contracts with more than 40 small New Zealand businesses. We are backing this kind of activity, this high-return industry, to deliver growth for New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement of 29 August 2024, “Difficult conditions are starting to ease. We are already seeing the green shoots of recovery”; if so, why?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. Let me take the member back in time. That was the quarter when Consumers Price Index inflation finally came back within the 1 to 3 percent target band, having been above the top of the band for three whole years, reaching a peak of 7.3 percent under the previous Government, driving a cost of living crisis. Two weeks before the statement the member quotes, the Reserve Bank had lowered the official cash rate for the first time since 2020. In the following two quarters, following my statement, GDP rose by 0.4 percent and then 0.9 percent. Business confidence was high. So, yes, there were certainly green shoots of recovery. Like many recoveries, there have been bumps along the way.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why did she claim in October 2024 that “The green shoots of business confidence are re-emerging.”, when construction liquidations are up 23 percent, retail liquidations are up 16 percent, and hospitality liquidations are up 41 percent, just in the last year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because current activity in the retail sector recorded the highest response in four years; because building consents in terms of the monthly numbers are the highest in two years; and because the October ANZ Business Outlook showed a jump in confidence, the highest in six months.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why did she claim on 5 November 2025 that an economic recovery is under way; the same day that we learnt that 160,000 people are now unemployed, the highest since 1994?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, as economic literature concludes, the foundations for an economic recovery are inflation back in target, interest rates reducing, and the conditions for investment and growth. Our Government has rebuilt those foundations that you trashed.

SPEAKER: No, I didn’t trash anything, and it’s not appropriate to use a question to attack the Opposition. [Interruption]. I beg your pardon; who’s speaking at the moment?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is Winston Peters correct that “We’ve got a situation where we haven’t turned the economy around in the way we should have, as fast as we should have. I know it can be turned around but not with this sort of strategy where you’re not actually fixing the economy.”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Winston Peters is one of 20 Ministers around the Cabinet table who are absolutely of the shared, collective view that we need to do more to recover this economy, to have it growing faster. I am in complete agreement with him about that. I’ll tell you what we all agree won’t help, and that’s loading more taxes on to every business and KiwiSaver account in the country.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m not calling you just yet. There are people who are constantly calling out during the answer to a question, in order to drown out what the answer is. If that continues, that and those people will need to leave the House.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order Mr Speaker. In that last answer, the Minister of Finance—I hope it was deliberately, because I can’t think why she would have done it otherwise—deliberately mislead the House about the nature of our tax policy; there is no tax on KiwiSaver, there is no tax on businesses.

SPEAKER: There was no particular allegation made in that, from what I was able to hear of it.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Who should Kiwis believe: the Minister of Finance last week that, “A hard-won”—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. Why are backbenchers from the Government speaking during the asking of a question?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Who should Kiwis believe: the Minister of Finance last week that “A hard-won economic recovery is now under way.”, or Winston Peters this morning, that her Government “has failed to run the economy properly”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think New Zealanders should believe me, and they should also believe Winston Peters, that we want to turn the economy recovery around faster. I’ll tell you, if we’re talking about the question of who should be believed, believe you this: your capital gains tax will hit every business and KiwiSaver fund in the country.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance is incorrect. Our capital gains tax will not hit KiwiSaver, will not hit businesses. She is completely misrepresenting us.

SPEAKER: It would be a debatable point that I’m not going to rule on.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why should New Zealanders believe her repeated declarations of an economic recovery when since mid-last year the economy has entered recession, unemployment is at long-term highs, food prices are up, and record numbers are fleeing for better opportunities offshore?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because I am the finance Minister in a Government that has delivered tax relief to working people. I am the Minister of Finance in a Government that has got inflation back under control after three years of a cost of living crisis under the last lot. I am the Minister of Finance in a Government that has seen interest rates fall, and I am the Minister of Finance who says no to a capital gains tax on businesses, KiwiSaver funds, and hard-working Kiwis.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. I seek leave for the Hon Deborah Russell to ask two more supplementary questions on this question.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? The Hon Deborah Russell.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions are heard in silence.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why should New Zealanders believe the claims that the Minister of Finance has made about data points when the lived experience of everyday New Zealanders is that they cannot get appointments at the doctor, that the cost of living is up, and that they simply cannot afford to live in this country?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: From the tax lecturer, I’d expect she would understand that when the data shows that price increases have been far lower in terms of inflation, that food price inflation is far lower than it was under her Government—those are real facts that matter—and because it is absolutely the case that were we to have a Government with a higher inflation target and more taxes on everyone, things would be a lot worse. That’s the alternative prescription you’re proposing.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does the Minister of Finance understand that even though the rate of inflation has decreased that still means that prices are going up and still means that New Zealanders are still worse off every week because her Government is failing to fix this economy? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just calm it right down. [Interruption] Just wait. Calm it right down.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I well understand and actually have daily recourse to reflect on the fact that when inflation has got as high as 7.3 percent—as it did under the last Government—and when that is sustained for a significant period of time it does bake-in prices across the economy at a higher level. Actually, bringing that back down again takes a lot of work. I also reflect on the fact that when a Government puts forward proposals to reduce inflation; to increase supermarket competition by fast-tracking new supermarkets, to increase jobs by fast-tracking new housing developments, new ports; when a Government reduces tax on investments that businesses make, it is supporting growth. When other people stand up in this House and say that their one solution is more tax on the economy, I wouldn’t take them seriously.

Question No. 5—Health

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Health: What announcement has he made about improving access to timely, quality healthcare services in Hawke’s Bay?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Today, I announced the completion of stage one of the radiology upgrade at Hawke’s Bay Fallen Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital. This upgrade is part of a $35.8 million investment to double imaging capacity and deliver more than 10,000 additional MRI and CT scans each year for Hawke’s Bay patients. These significant upgrades are all part of our focus on putting patients first and will help Hawke’s Bay patients get the answers and treatments they need sooner. My thanks go to the project team, who delivered this critical project within a year of funding being allocated.

Catherine Wedd: What benefits will this project deliver for patients in Hawke’s Bay?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The first stage has delivered an additional 808 square metres of floor space, and from next week a second MRI scanner will provide 4,000 to 6,000 extra scans per year, and a second CT scanner will double CT capacity with 6,000 to 10,000 extra scans annually. The facility has been designed to maximize efficiency, with dedicated spaces for patient preparation and post-scan care, to get as many scans done—for timely, quality access to radiology services in Hawke’s Bay.

Catherine Wedd: How will these upgrades support the Government’s health targets?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: These upgrades directly support our health targets to reduce wait times for patients. For cancer treatment, CT wait times will now consistently meet the two-week target. Increased CT capacity means faster access to urgent imaging and quicker clinical decision-making, helping reduce emergency department stays. Expanded imaging will also streamline diagnostic pathways for first specialist assessments and support faster treatment planning for elective procedures.

Catherine Wedd: What other projects are under way to improve access to timely, quality healthcare in Hawke’s Bay?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good news for Hawke's Bay: Health New Zealand is delivering a rapid-build ward with 28 beds to boost capacity at the hospital and reduce wait times for patients. We're also progressing a linear accelerator and bunker to improve services for patients needing cancer treatment in Hawke’s Bay; and more good news: the third endoscopy room will open later this month, further boosting diagnostic capacity. There's a lot of work under way in Hawke’s Bay as part of our focus on putting patients first.

Question No. 6—Children

6. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What recent reports has she seen on serious and persistent youth offending?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I have seen a recent independent evaluation report on the Military-Style Academy (MSA) Pilot which shows two-thirds of participants reduced the frequency or seriousness of their offending in the six months after the residential phase of the pilot. I want to acknowledge these young people who have taken this opportunity to make better choices, but I also want to acknowledge all the staff who have been involved, including the mentors and social workers helping these young people. The Military-Style Academy Pilot had a real focus on the transition back into the community, and we have seen some good results.

Laura McClure: What else did the independent evaluation report show about the outcomes of Military-Style Academy Pilot participants?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Comparing the six months before the residential phase to the six months after the pilot, participants reduced their violent offending by 67 percent. To put the outcomes of this group into context, the participants in the MSA pilot were matched with a cohort of nine other young people. The MSA cohort had longer periods of non-offending than the matched cohort. The independent report shows there were wider benefits too, including involvement in education, work experience and employment; improved physical and mental health; reconnection with whānau; and stable living situations. The evidence shows that these are all important protective factors that young people need as a foundation to be a success in life.

Laura McClure: What have been some of the other outcomes for the young people in the Military-Style Academy Pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There have been 11 young people in total involved in the pilot. One elected to leave the programme in the first couple of weeks. One young man tragically passed away in a car accident, and my thoughts go out to his family. Seven of the 11 had some alleged reoffending, generally at a lower level than before the pilot; and five of those are now back out in the community, and I’m told they’re doing well with no further offending. Reoffending rates are not the only measure of success. Every single one of these young people has the potential to do amazing things with their lives and become the best versions of themselves, and I hope they can achieve that moving forward.

Laura McClure: What is the Government’s record on youth crime?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There has been a 16 percent reduction in children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour. We have taken an issue that was out of control and achieved our Government target four years ahead of schedule. We’ve invested in and expanded the few things that were showing results, like the fast track programme, but we also brought more accountability for young people and their actions. We’re getting on with the important work of fixing what matters.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the health system is “finally turning a corner”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): In the context it was made, yes. We're seeing steady improvements, with more Kiwis getting care sooner and wait times coming down. Patients are at the heart of everything we do and after years of decline, the health system is starting to move in the right direction. We have brought back health targets—because you can't manage what you don't measure—and we're now seeing those results show up for patients. There is still a lot more work to do. Too many New Zealanders are still waiting too long to get the care that they need. We are making progress, but we won't stop until every Kiwi can access timely, quality healthcare.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Christchurch emergency department spent over a third of its winter days in code red, was it turning a corner?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The majority of patients at Christchurch Hospital were being seen within six hours, and we are now measuring that through the health target which the previous Government removed. What I would point out to the member is that the last Government decided to remove the health target for shorter stays in emergency departments. The number of patients which were being seen within six hours when Labour came to office was 89.2 percent; when they left, it was 67.5 percent.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is 400 patients attending Christchurch emergency department on every day in September a sign that the health system is turning a corner, or a sign that more people can't afford to see their doctor in the community?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Each year, we see increased presentations at our emergency departments due to population—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Because each year, you let GP fees go higher.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if she's going to talk about GP fees, Labour let GP fees increased by 30 percent in their six years in Government. That is on Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party. What we're focused on is making sure that we're investing in primary care, investing in the workforce that’s needed, and we are having to turn around a health system which the Labour Party decided to restructure during the middle of a pandemic.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is that emergency department being crowned the busiest department in New Zealand and possibly Australasia a sign that the Canterbury health system is turning a corner, or that successful systems for keeping people out of hospital in the community have fallen apart?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the member will know, if people need to have emergency care, they should go to an emergency department, but we also need to make sure that we're investing across our health system. That's why I'm proud that, under this Government, we have made a record investment in primary care this year, and a record investment in the primary care workforce, all whilst the previous Government increased GP fees by 30 percent.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is erecting a tent care facility outside the Christchurch emergency department a sign that the health system is turning a corner, or a sign that it is in terminal decline?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I'm not aware that that was done at that hospital, but what I would say is that, under her Government, she allowed GP fees to increase by 30 percent; and, whilst we are focused on trying to improve access to primary care through our Primary Care Tactical Action Plan, the Labour Party still won't answer a simple question: do they support extended prescriptions to 12 months, which will save patients $105 per year and improve access to general practitioners? Why won't the Labour Party say whether or not they support that policy?

Question No. 8—Mental Health

8. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about combating methamphetamine harm?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): The best way to take a drug is not to take it at all. The reality is meth destroys people’s lives, rips families apart, and harms our communities. That’s why the Government released a bold and comprehensive action plan to combat the harm caused by meth. We’re taking action to reduce demand by increasing the range of addiction services in our communities that have been hard hit by this drug. The health actions are just part of a wider plan across Customs, police, and justice to combat organised crime and give people the support they need. Whether it’s your child, a friend, or a family member reaching out for support, this Government is committed to ensuring support is there.

Greg Fleming: How will the Government’s action plan reduce demand and boost intensive treatment services?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: One of my top priorities is to improve access to addiction support so we can ensure that when someone takes a brave step of reaching out, that support is there. We’ve invested an extra $30 million to deliver faster access to support by rolling out screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment services in seven hospitals; boosting existing treatment services so they can scale up; training more front-line workers while also upskilling the existing workforce; and establishing new community early intervention and peer support services. Behind every one of these new services will be hundreds of Kiwis getting the support they need.

Greg Fleming: How will the Government’s methamphetamine action plan help prevent people from starting to use meth?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The Government’s health response to meth is focused on “stop people from starting”, “start people stopping”, and “keeping people stopped”. By expanding the Tūturu programme, we can get in a lot earlier and actually stop our kids from starting. We know engagement with education is a powerful protective factor for preventing drug use. Tūturu has been shown to improve outcomes for our young people by reducing the number of students being stood down, suspended, or excluded. There will also be a hard-hitting national media campaign from the proceeds of crime fund. This campaign will raise public awareness about the dangers of meth and show that support is available. The Government is not just focused on ensuring the right support is in place but on preventing Kiwis from getting to that point.

Greg Fleming: How will the Government’s plan to combat meth deliver more early intervention and peer support services?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our mental health and addiction plan is working, with 77 percent of people seen within three weeks for specialist drug and alcohol support, with a growing front-line workforce, with our addiction workforce vacancy rates down by 17 percent. We don’t want people to get discouraged from reaching out for support. If someone is ready to get treatment, then that support needs to be there. That’s why we’re boosting community-based early intervention and peer support funding which will increase access to recovery groups, which are proven to support long-term abstinence. Increasing availability of these programmes in areas hardest hit by meth will ensure the right services are ready to support those who want to stop using. Our priority is to improve access to support so more Kiwis can get the help they need when and where it’s needed.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. 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: Does he think it undermines the mana of the Royal Commission of Inquiry to continue with boot camps in the face of unequivocal opposition from survivors and care-experienced youth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m proud about is this Government has seen a 16 percent reduction in serious youth offending, which was completely out of control under a Labour-Greens Government. Our change to our general approach on law and order is working.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement that his boot camps are “a powerful targeted intervention”, or does he accept findings that the boot camps had insufficient preparation, therapeutic support, and individual intervention due to a lack of capacity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, they’re an important part of lowering serious youth offending, which is down 16 percent under this Government.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that expanding boot camps, despite official advice saying they’re costly and ineffective, is a mistake, when community-based, trauma-informed solutions, like Ngāpuhi social services youth remand programme, are having far better outcomes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Serious youth offending’s down 16 percent and the community is safer.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is it a priority to invest in millions of dollars in boot camps when care-experienced youth implore the Government to instead fund properly trained staff, better access to education and healthcare, and safe therapeutic spaces in existing residences?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this is a Government that doesn’t believe a 30 percent increase in violent crime, a 51 percent growth in gang membership, a doubling of retail crime, and a quadrupling of ram raids is what is needed. This is a Government that’s invested in restoring law and order. That’s why there are 29,000 less victims of serious violent crime, that is why serious youth offending is down 16 percent, that is why there is growth in police out on the beat, and ram raids are down 85 percent.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is the Prime Minister attributing the 70 percent drop to boot camps?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Can you clarify what drop, please?

Hon Marama Davidson: In crime and reoffending. Is the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: Is that the same question or not? You’ve had an answer.

Hon Marama Davidson: No, he didn’t address it. He asked for it to be— [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Rhetorically, that’s right, but it is addressing the question.

Question No. 10—Hunting and Fishing

10. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing: What recent announcements has he made about Herds of Special Interest?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): On Saturday, I was with the Prime Minister at the hugely successful Sika Show, where we announced the opening of public consultation on the draft herd management plans for wapiti deer in parts of Fiordland National Park and sika deer in the Kaimanawa and Kāweka forest parks. These plans outline a proposed new approach to sustainably managing these two herds. The changes will allow hunter-led conservation groups to better manage herd numbers, improve our native biodiversity, and create opportunities for economic growth and jobs in those regions.

Mike Butterick: Why are these draft herd management plans needed?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: A herd management plan is required before the Minister can designate a Herd of Special Interest. These draft plans contain the blueprint for how we can sustainably manage sika and wapiti deer numbers, enhance ecological monitoring, strengthen community stewardship of the herds, and improve our biodiversity. These plans are now open for public consultation so that all members can make a contribution and ensure that we reflect the values of our local communities in Fiordland and in the Central Plateau.

Mike Butterick: How will Herds of Special Interest influence conservation outcomes?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Herds of Special Interest represent an exciting opportunity for all New Zealanders to better sustainably manage deer numbers in these two herds. By managing these herds for their hunting attributes, we can achieve smaller herd numbers and healthier animals. That means better environmental outcomes, enhanced canopy recovery, better meat recovery for our whānau and families, and more valuable hunting opportunities. It is a win-win for hunting and conservation.

Mike Butterick: How can Kiwis have their say on draft herd management plans?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Anyone, including members, can have their say on the Department of Conservation website. I would like to encourage all interested parties to have their say. Let us know what needs to be improved or changed in order for these plans to deliver the best possible Herds of Special Interest. Consultation opened on Monday and is open until Monday, 8 December.

Cameron Luxton: How does a Herd of Special Interest management plan recognise the hard work that hunters do on the ground as conservationists?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Fantastic question, from one of our best hunter-conservationists in this House. These draft plans highlight the fact that hunters are one of our biggest conservation assets, and the plans actually acknowledge the contribution that they make to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. I can only point to examples of the great work done by the Central North Island Sika Foundation in leading the Kaimanawa whio duck recovery project or the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation, who operate over 500 predator control traps. These are just some of the many, many, many examples of hunter-led conservation in New Zealand.

Question No. 11—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

11. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: Does she stand by her statement regarding her abuse in care redress decisions in May that “here is what we can do now, we can do quickly, we can get in place so that we can prioritise that certainty and surety for survivors”; if so, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Can I first acknowledge the National Day of Reflection for abuse in care tomorrow. In response to the question: yes, in context. The context was about prioritising improvements to the current State redress system that could be delivered quickly and would make an immediate difference to survivors. So I can advise the House that since those comments were made in May, in the June to September quarter, 1,056 new claims for abuse in care were lodged with agencies. This is a 114 percent increase in new claims on the previous quarter. This shows that survivors have responded to the certainty that the Government redress decisions provided. In addition, over $13 million has been paid in top-up payments to over 1,100 survivors. This is an average of almost $12,000 per survivor.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How has the Minister prioritised speed and certainty for survivors when a survivor died before getting her claim settled because she had to fill in additional forms about her criminal history?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There is a process for those who are terminally ill to have an exemption from that process. The process is that it comes directly to me and I sign it off. One of those has come to me and it was signed off on the same day it was delivered. In that particular situation, Health New Zealand did not follow the correct process, but I can advise that the payment will be made to the estate of that survivor.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Is lawyer Sonja Cooper correct to ask, “Why should somebody who is terminally ill, hospitalised, unable to move, in their last [few] weeks or months of life, why should they be put through this additional hurdle to get redress when it is hard enough, in any event, to go through the redress processes?”

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There is no additional step. The exact same step that you have to follow when you are terminally ill as a survivor to get your claim expedited is exactly the same as to get through this other process. All you have to do is show that you are terminally ill. It’s the same process. There is no additional step. So the person who is terminally ill provides the report to show they’re terminally ill and, in the back end, we do all the rest. There is no additional step for the survivor.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she requiring survivors to fill in forms about their criminal offending before the legislation is even passed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, if the member were to read the legislation, she’d understand the answer to that question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she inform a survivor that their claim was not paused when the Ministry of Social Development told them their claims could not progress to settlement until the legislation is finalised or the new declaration and consent forms are ready?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t remember saying that. If the member wants to put that in writing to me, I’ll be able to respond.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she promise speed, certainty, and surety for survivors in her May announcement, yet months later, claims were not progressing because of her new legislation and new forms?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, since we have made that announcement, we have put a huge amount of resource into making sure that there are more people processing claims. I can say that we took the amount of claims being processed from 1,100 a year up to 1,550 a year, and this year we are on track to exceed that number because of the hard work that we are doing. So we are providing more certainty and more surety to survivors, and that is exemplified in the fact that more survivors are coming forward to make their claims.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that every New Zealander—particularly our young people—can get the support that they need to prevent them from sleeping homeless on the street tonight?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s what this Government is going. We’ve done a good job of making sure housing affordability is in place for owners and renters; we’ve taken about 5,000 people off the social housing wait-list; we’ve taken people out of emergency housing; and we’re continuing to support people who are in homeless situations.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why will the Prime Minister not commit to ensuring that all New Zealanders—especially our young people—get the support that they need to prevent them from sleeping rough on the street tonight?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this Government’s undertaken quite a few actions, as was announced by Ministers just recently. We’ve put $10 million of additional funding into support services for rough sleepers in exactly that situation; we’ve expanded the Housing First programme with another 300 spaces—I think 100 of the 300 have been allocated already, and 200 of the 300 are actually in Auckland itself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s the local MP doing about it?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that a job is available for every young person who he has decided to make access to the jobseeker support more difficult for?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a Government that wants to see young people connected to employment, training, and education, and we are putting expectations on our 18- to 19-year-olds to do exactly that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister read the advice to his Government from his officials that introducing his new barriers to young people’s access to jobseeker support will not reduce barriers to employment and could actually increase unemployment, or is he just ignoring like he did the advice that his decisions would make more people homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m proud of our record on housing, and when I consider that against a Labour - Greens Government that had a fourfold increase in State housing wait-lists, that actually drove up house prices by 30 percent in a single year, and drove rents up $180 per week—we’ve taken 3,000 people out of emergency housing and put them into homes, and we are supporting homelessness. When the Greens member had their own Minister, homelessness went up 37 percent despite spending a billion dollars on it. Our record on housing beats that record on housing any day of the week.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the Prime Minister chose to resource housing and job creation for all of our young people, would it cost more or less than his $3 billion tax cut to landlords?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually proud of the tax cuts that we made to working New Zealanders—the people that Labour and the Greens used to purport to care about, but didn’t, and didn’t support that initiative.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to address the questions from one of our co-Deputy Prime Ministers about what the Auckland Central MP is doing about this homelessness issue—

SPEAKER: Sorry, I can’t—

Chlöe Swarbrick: —which this Government has exacerbated.

SPEAKER: Sorry—[Interruption] I’m sorry—[Interruption] Excuse me. I didn’t hear what she just said. Could you say it slowly and clearly?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I was seeking leave of the House to address the questions put to me by one of our co-Deputy Prime Ministers about what the Auckland Central MP is doing about the issue of homelessness, which this Government has exacerbated.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t seek leave on behalf of someone else.

Hon Shane Jones: In relation to jobseeker support, is the Prime Minister aware that a couple of Māoris are about to become unemployed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a Government that actually offers support to all New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Have Ministers received any advice—

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry, Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, there are people behind you speaking. There are people throughout the House who are speaking. The next one who speaks will be leaving.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Have Ministers received any advice on potential law changes to move-on homeless people from central business districts, and, if Ministers have, why did the Prime Minister tell the House last week that they hadn’t?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because the member’s question was different from the one that he’s just posed now. I’d just say that the Minister for Auckland, as I have said subsequently over the course of the last week, is going to do everything we can to make sure that the CBD is safe for Aucklanders. When we have cruise season upon us, when we have major events, a convention centre, and the City Rail Link opening up, we want people to be able to go into the Auckland CBD and not be intimidated. We are considering move-on orders, but we need to make sure the support is in place so that those folk, when they are moved-on, actually have somewhere to go and we don’t move the problem around the city.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee—

SPEAKER: Wait on—just wait for the House to settle itself. This is a bad day. There is too much discussion going on on the Government benches while questions are being asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that homeless people won’t simply be moved into outer suburbs or other areas out of CBDs because they don’t have anywhere to go?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can guarantee is that we are not a Government that is putting emergency housing and 501 deportees into downtown Auckland CBD to create unsafe environments for other citizens. We take this very seriously—that’s why we’ve increased police on the beat in the CBD, and that has helped in some dimensions. That is why a Minister for Auckland is actually engaging with NGOs, Government agencies, and local government to actually identify what solutions—together, collectively—we can do. That is important.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm that thousands of visitors to Queen Street fear for their own safety and that it’s not purely an issue of homelessness, but potential criminality, drug taking, and people defending victimhood?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can. Many Aucklanders in Auckland refuse to go into the CBD for exactly that reason. We are opening up cruise ship season, where visitors from overseas are coming to our country, and that is their experience in the Auckland CBD. We will fix it up—

SPEAKER: Prime Minister—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —another mess created by the Labour - Greens Government—

SPEAKER: Prime Minister—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —but we’ll sort it out.

SPEAKER: Just stop. We’re going to hear the answer in absolute silence. Barracking across the House like that is totally unacceptable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, I don’t dispute that direction whatsoever, but it needs to be pointed out that it is extremely difficult to expect order in the House when Ministers regularly ignore the clear guidance and direction that you have given on the quality of answers. The Prime Minister, just then, used that answer, given to him by his own Minister, to have a swipe at the Opposition. No wonder there was disorder as a result.

SPEAKER: Well, the reality is that I just couldn’t hear it—that’s why I intervened and said we’ll hear it in silence. If there is such commentary, it’ll be stopped.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No New Zealander wants to see homelessness in this country. The previous Government would acknowledge that they spent a billion dollars on emergency housing, and homelessness went up 37 percent. That only speaks to the complexity of the issues around homelessness. What we are doing as a Government is working with many agencies and NGOs to actually get a solution in Auckland CBD, because it has to change. It will be different, and this Government will get that job done.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Environment Committee

1. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Chairperson of the Environment Committee: Why did an advertisement go out in her name allowing only 11 days for submissions on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill when there was no instruction from the House for a report deadline under six months?

CATHERINE WEDD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): The Government has been clear to the public that it expects the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill to be passed before the end of the year. As the chair of the Environment Committee, I agree, as does the majority of the committee; therefore, as per Standing Order 198, I set out a timetable to ensure this expectation is met. I would like to point the member to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, which makes clear that chairs can, and do, frequently call for submissions on the committee's behalf, and that the chair's actions are subject to the direction from the committee and must be endorsed by the committee at its next meeting. As that member knows, the Environment Committee voted, by majority, to endorse this call for submissions on Monday, 10 October. The Government has been clear to the public that—

SPEAKER: That’s good—that’s probably enough.

CATHERINE WEDD: —they want to deliver benefits to Kiwi shoppers—

SPEAKER: Thank you.

CATHERINE WEDD: —as soon as possible—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

CATHERINE WEDD: Yeah.

SPEAKER: Sit down.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, sir. The member is being asked a question in her capacity as chair of the Environment Committee. Is it appropriate for that member, therefore, to be using the answer to a serious question, which was straight to the point, to be broadcasting what her view of the Government’s intentions are? I believe that is going beyond her responsibility to the House.

SPEAKER: Well, the question did ask why she made a decision. The answer was far too long, but it did appropriately point to the Standing Orders and also Parliamentary Practice. That would back up the point, and make further the point, that any decision by a chair has to be backed by the committee, which, clearly, it was. The Hon Rachel Brooking, one supplementary—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the answer that has been provided to this question by Rachel Brooking, can I ask how on earth did this question get on the Order Paper? Because it's all there—no instruction from the House. Well, the House actually sent the bill to a select committee; the committee gave the instruction. So how did this question get here?

SPEAKER: Well, members are able to ask questions under the Standing Orders. If something that should be patently obvious to everybody is not obvious to the person asking the question, then it can be answered.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Which Ministers or ministerial advisers, if any, did she communicate with about the 11-day submission deadline before the advertisement was issued?

CATHERINE WEDD: I’m not responsible for that particular decision. As the chair of the committee, I acted under Standing Order 198 to make a call for submissions—

SPEAKER: Good. That’s enough.

CATHERINE WEDD: —to open up submissions, and this was within Parliamentary Practice—

SPEAKER: Thank you—that’s enough.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: It needs to be a fresh and genuine point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I refer you, therefore, sir, to Speaker's ruling 185/2, made by Speaker Smith, which dealt with this exact situation. In the answer to the primary question, the member outlined that she made the decision, which was subsequently backed up by the committee. It is, therefore, I believe, inappropriate, or certainly not living up to the requirements of her to address the question, to say it is not her responsibility when she has actually just informed the House that she made the decision. The question as to whether she liaised with or consulted with or, indeed, was instructed by a Minister is entirely valid, and the House deserves a response.

SPEAKER: That may have been how you interpreted the question; it's certainly not how I interpreted it. I think the response that was given was satisfactory, and that ends the member’s question.

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 to consider the following Government orders of the day: consideration in committee of the whole House of the Regulatory Standards Bill; the third reading of the Medicines Amendment Bill; consideration in committee of the whole House of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill; consideration in committee of the whole House of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill; and the second reading of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: Those who are leaving the House need to do so without any discussion on the way—very quietly.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Point of order. Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: We’re just, it’s unusual to take—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know, but I seek leave to see the Green Party Whip’s authority for the last two votes that they cast.

SPEAKER: I’m aware that they have the authority.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’re aware that they have the authority?

SPEAKER: I am. I’ve been notified by the members that the Green Party carries their proxy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but have you seen them?

SPEAKER: I don’t have to see them. I’m allowed to take members at their word.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, that’s a mistake.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ve been giving the member the benefit of the doubt for the last couple of years. We will have silence while the vote is called.

Bills

Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): In the first person pronoun, we present a legislative statement on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We move, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. We nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, we intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 March 2026.

Since 2021, the greyhound racing industry has been on notice, after three successive reviews over a decade all found animal welfare concerns and a need for change. These concerns clearly put the industry’s social licence to operate under threat, and in December last year, the decision was finally made to close commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand from 1 August 2026.

This decision was not taken lightly. Many MPs are adverse to any business shutting down. It was acknowledged that the industry, in Greyhound Racing New Zealand, had undertaken genuine efforts in recent years to improve animal welfare. However, it was considered that the rate of dogs being seriously injured remained too high, and the improvements made were not significant enough for the industry to retain its social licence.

The decision to close was also taken against the backdrop of greyhound racing declining worldwide. Since December 2024, Wales, Tasmania, and Scotland have all followed suit. It is pleasing to note that Greyhound Racing New Zealand has withdrawn its judicial review against the Government. We encourage members of Greyhound Racing New Zealand and the wider racing community to actively engage in the select committee process and focus on the way forward.

To close our own industry, a carefully managed approach has been undertaken. The approach comprises two bills. The first bill was the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill 2024, which unanimously passed all stages of this House on 10 December last year. That bill was to prevent the unnecessary killing of racing dogs as the announcement of an incoming enclosure meant that racing greyhounds became less economically valuable or viable, and I thank members across the House for their unanimous support of that bill.

It was necessary that the first bill was passed under urgency to immediately put in place protections for the greyhounds themselves, and it was undertaken in the knowledge that a second, more substantive bill that would close the industry would follow and allow for public input. That leads us to the second bill, the bill before the House today, the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. This bill’s primary intent is to close the industry in a way which prioritises greyhound welfare and the wellbeing of greyhound racing participants throughout the closure process.

This bill is based on the recommendations of the Greyhound Racing Ministerial Advisory Committee, which was established to provide expert independent advice on the closure and oversight. The committee, which is comprised of Heather Simpson as chair and Lindsay Burton and Murray Johnson as members, has met and continues to meet with a range of industry bodies and organisations. They’ve also maintained close contact with Greyhound Racing New Zealand. From those meetings, the committee delivered a report at the end of May, with a set of detailed recommendations for the legislative changes needed to close the industry in a measured way. Thank you to the committee for its ongoing hard work and its well-informed report, and thank you to all of those who were engaged with the committee in good faith.

After further consideration, the committee’s report was released in August, alongside the announcement that the Government agreed with the committee’s recommendations and would proceed with a bill that implements those recommendations. The bill sets out the framework for a transition to closure for the industry which prioritises the welfare of greyhounds and is concerned with the smooth transition out of the industry for affected people.

To provide a well-managed closure, this bill comes into effect over three stages. This will ensure a framework for closure is in place before commercial greyhound racing ends on 1 August 2026. It will also allow sufficient time for some subsequent work to wind up the greyhound racing industry, such as ensuring that greyhounds are successfully rehomed over time. The first stage will be from the day after Royal assent and lays down the framework for closure ahead of 1 August 2026. This stage will see the establishment of the transition agency responsible for ensuring that a transition plan relating to Greyhound Racing New Zealand is in place to wind up the industry.

It’s intended that the current members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee would be appointed to the board of the transition agency, and collectively these members hold relevant skills and experience in governance, project management, and animal welfare. These members have built their necessary relationships to continue working with the industry, and it’s in everyone’s best interests that engagement in good faith continues. The agency would be responsible, amongst other things, for ensuring a transition plan is in place, closing Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) and clubs, facilitating greyhound rehoming, and supporting industry participants.

The second stage is from 1 August 2026 and will bring the actual closure of commercial greyhound racing in this country. This stage will see the removal of references to greyhound racing from the Racing Industry Act, so it is no longer permitted. During this stage, Greyhound Racing New Zealand will be dissolved and appropriate remaining functions will be transferred to the agency.

Finally, the third stage will see the repeal of provisions relating to the agency. While the bill anticipates the agency will have completed its function within three years, it allows for some flexibility in timing in case there is still some outstanding work at that time. Hence, the third stage comes into force on a date set by Order in Council, but no later than 31 July 2031. We might possibly still be around to see what’s going on at the time! Once disestablished, any residual assets held by the agency would be distributed to the other racing codes.

This transition to closure needs to be as smooth as possible. Members of the greyhound racing industry, wider stakeholders, and the general public are all encouraged to engage with the select committee process so that this bill and this process is as robust as possible. It should also be noted that, whilst the select committee is undertaking its consideration of the bill, the Ministerial Advisory Committee will continue its work to lay the groundwork for the transition agency. This includes ongoing work with greyhound rehoming organisations to identify what practical steps are desirable to scale up the rehoming effort.

Finally, greyhounds make great companion animals, and we encourage New Zealanders to consider adopting them as the industry is wound up. We will need to find these dogs homes. In conclusion, the bill is commended to the House. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I call—away you go!

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I know that you know that. It’s always a question of which “Rachel B” is it in the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill as Labour spokesperson for animal welfare. Just noting at the beginning of this short call that Labour will be supporting this bill, and our hope is that this bill will receive unanimous support from across the House.

Can I just begin by acknowledging the Minister and thanking him for his work on this important transition approach to ending greyhound racing in New Zealand. Where we are today is a continuation of work that was begun under the previous Labour Government. Can I begin, as well, by acknowledging our previous racing Ministers Grant Robertson and Kieran McAnulty, both of whom did significant groundwork to address the animal welfare concerns that existed within industry to get us to this point

Just to begin, I just wanted to acknowledge that for many people working in the greyhound industry this decision will have a significant impact on the people who work in this industry—who train dogs, who race dogs—and who have done that for most of their lives; many of whom are part of generational families who have worked in the greyhound industry. This will have an impact on their lives and their livelihoods. Can we acknowledge that for those people, they will need that transition support. We acknowledge in the Labour Party that there is that need for fairness—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. OK, carry on.

RACHEL BOYACK: We acknowledge within the Labour Party that there is that need for fairness and for meaningful support for those involved in the industry who will need to be transitioning into other work, and so we acknowledge that for those people today will be a difficult day in their working careers.

What this bill does is it formally ends commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand by 1 August 2026. As I noted earlier, there have been a number of reviews into greyhound racing. The industry was put on notice. They were told that if things weren’t significantly improved, that the industry was likely to close. I want to acknowledge that there have been some improvements made by industry, but those improvements have not gone far enough. They have not been enough in order to ensure that this industry could continue. The social licence to operate greyhound racing has been lost. I note that in the 2024 to 2025 season there were 17 greyhound deaths, which was an increase on the previous year. Just at the end of October, two greyhounds were killed in Invercargill as a result of spinal injuries due to racing.

As animal welfare spokesperson, I hear from members of the public. The public of New Zealand cannot tolerate this any further. It is clear from reports in the media and from engagement with the people of New Zealand that the social licence for greyhound racing has been lost and people are no longer willing to see dogs perish or be injured as a result of this practice.

What I think will be the most important thing to do, alongside supporting those who’ve worked in this industry, is ensuring that animals are rehomed. What I’m pleased to see as part of the transition plan is that it will continue to do that work alongside organisations like the SPCA, like Greyhounds as Pets, and other organisations to ensure that these dogs can be suitably rehomed. I’ve said in the House before that if I didn’t already own two labradors, I’d probably look at adopting one of these beautiful animals. They are wonderful pets.

They aren’t for every family. Some people would prefer cats—Camilla Belich. So people do need to take a considered view around—like they should anytime they adopt a companion animal, they should do so knowing that they have the ability to care properly for that animal. But can I encourage New Zealanders who are listening to this debate today, who are following this in the media, to seriously consider adopting a greyhound? We will need to see a significant number of New Zealanders over the coming weeks and months adopt a greyhound into their family. They can be, as Kieran McAnulty often points out, exceptionally lazy. Then when they do want to chase something, they can go at a wicked pace, as we sometimes see with his dog, Zoi, down the corridors of Parliament.

So I commend this bill to the House. I thank the Minister for his work in leading this change today. I do encourage New Zealanders to get in behind the rehoming programme. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to speak on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. This bill is underpinned by an important principle and a strongly held New Zealand cultural value, which is that New Zealanders don’t want to see animals suffer. It’s a simple principle. Whenever there is a survey done, whether it’s in regard to companion animals or farm animals or animals in entertainment, overwhelmingly, we have a strong-held cultural view that animals shouldn’t suffer. They should not be the subject of cruelty. They should not live miserable lives. Unfortunately, in the case of the greyhound industry, there has been years of evidence and facts, in regard to the operation of that industry, that have brought us to the point where it is clear that this is not an industry that has a place in a country that holds to that principle of animals having a good life.

For a long time, the Green Party have called for an end to the greyhound racing industry. I want to acknowledge previous member Mojo Mathers, who, in 2016, presented the first petition by the greyhound protection league calling for a ban on greyhound racing. I want to acknowledge the campaigns that were run in the 2020s. My colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, in 2022, introduced a member’s bill with the help of Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE) and the Animal Law Association to ban greyhound racing. I adopted that bill on my entry to Parliament in 2023 and only removed that bill from the member’s tin because of the announcement by the Minister that it was the intention of this Government to bring in a ban on greyhound racing. We commend that intention.

I cannot put it any more clearly than how the Minister himself put when he said, “The bottom line is too many dogs continue to die and be seriously injured, and it is time to do the right thing.”. For those people watching to understand the extent of the harm that comes to greyhounds and the extent of that death toll, just to be clear, in the 2023-24 season, there were 145 greyhounds that died or were euthanised. In the 2022-23 season, there was 145, and in the 2021-2022 season, there were 236. These dogs are doing what they are bidden do, which is race, but very often that leads to serious, fatal injuries or injuries that are so irreparable that the dogs must be euthanised. There are very high rates of euthanasia in this industry.

One of our concerns is that dogs will be exported for racing. In April this year, the Goldstar Racing training organisation exported 80 dogs to Australia to continue racing. We’ve made it clear: our expectation is that the legislation should ensure that there is a prohibition on the export of dogs for continued racing. We also note the Minister’s comments that they will be re-homed, not re-racetracked, and we support that principle.

Just to finish, greyhounds are gentle animals, they are loyal dogs, and they do love to run but not, perhaps, as much as they would if they were being raced. We want to see them put into loving, caring homes where they will be free to run of their own volition, not because they are compelled to. They make great companion animals, and we support the call of colleagues across the House that we would love to see New Zealanders step up and take these greyhounds into their homes and rehome them so that they can live out a good life, having been part of this racing industry that is coming to an end, and rightly so. We commend this bill to the House.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): I rise in very cautious support of this bill. To speak frankly, this bill is taking away people’s property rights. For the first time in our history, the State is stepping in to takeover and shut down an entire sport. It is the Government deciding that an industry people have built with their own hands, their own money, and their own passion no longer deserves to exist.

I know emotions run hot on this issue, but when feelings are running high, that’s exactly when Parliament needs to keep its head. Behind all the noise, we cannot forget the people whose lives are being upended by this.

When the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government rushed through their firearms ban, ACT stood with the people affected. We went out and listened, we heard their frustration and their sense of betrayal. Today, this House and its members must do the same for the greyhound community. They deserve to be heard, not shut out and dismissed.

Unlike some, I, alongside ACT MPs, have met the people affected. I went to the races in Christchurch to see the sport in action. I have sat down with Greyhound Racing New Zealand, with owners, trainers, and their families who have poured generations of work and love into this sport. What we have here is heartbreaking. They’ve written letters, they’ve asked for meetings, they’ve begged for a chance to be heard since this was announced, and they have been ignored. These people are not the type of people that some people make them out to be: villains. They are good, hardworking New Zealanders who have done everything the Government has asked of them. They have followed the rules. They have poured millions of dollars into ensuring the safety of these animals during their racing lives, as well as getting them rehomed. They love their greyhounds, and they are now being told that their livelihoods are being taken away, while other people in this community and in this House celebrate.

I keep hearing the argument that greyhound racing has lost its social licence. But I ask: how long until it’s rodeo—or roe-dayo? How long until it’s the horses? If the Government can erase an entire industry because it’s politically convenient, then no one is safe. What we’re saying is that if enough people shout loudly, the State can trample over property rights, over livelihoods, and over communities built through generations. This is not just about racing; it’s about property rights. It’s about fairness. It’s about a group of people, especially in rural New Zealand, who are losing a community.

There are some big questions that the select committee will need to answer. What will happen to the leftover assets built up over decades? What happens to TAB revenue from betting on dog racing outside New Zealand? And what happens to the thousand-odd people who depend on this work to feed their families? When the State takes something as fundamental as private property, it must answer to the people it is taking it from.

My message to every MP and Minister here: go and meet the people this bill affects, look them in the eye, hear their stories. This isn’t about a faceless industry; it’s about families, generations deep, who are now on the verge of losing everything. The people in this industry aren’t responsible for what past Governments or Ministers have done or spent. They deserve respect, understanding, and the basic dignity of being met face to face, and the least that we can do is listen to them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand the point that my colleague from the ACT Party makes. This has been a well-signalled change. Over the last 12 months, I’ve met with people from the industry; I’ve met with those who oppose it; I’ve met with those who rehome dogs like in my electorate in Manakau from the Great Mates team, but also those that work outside of the industry to rehome dogs. I don’t think any of those that I’ve met with would see this being about property; I think this, for them, is about passion. I think it’s about the thing that they love.

What I have found in every person I’ve engaged with is that they are passionate about these wonderful animals. They’re passionate about what they do, and for those in the sport, they’re really passionate about that as well. I do think this is a really significant step that we’re taking. I do accept the argument that the world has moved on, that the social licence right around the world to continue in dog racing has been eroded, and that as much as this is a difficult decision, it is the right step to take at this time.

I also think it’s important to give these people a voice. And that’s why I hope and I encourage all of those I’ve met with and those that I haven’t to engage in the select committee process—to have their say. I look forward to reading their submissions and to them having the chance, one last time, to have their say. But I do commend this bill to the House to move to the next stage at select committee.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. A privilege to follow on from my colleague Tim Costley. I just want to reiterate a point we haven’t actually so far this afternoon: that New Zealand at the moment is one of only five countries across the world where commercial greyhound racing is still permitted. It’s not an easy decision that the Minister is making but it is the right one, because it’s actually about reflecting our commitment to prioritising animal welfare while providing the industry the time and support that they need to bring about this change. Therefore I commend it to the House.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Racing for bringing this to the House, and I want to acknowledge the previous members and Ministers that have worked on the piece of legislation up to this point.

I just want to acknowledge some of the issues that Cameron Luxton raised in his speech and I don’t believe that anybody in this House has made out the people that work in this industry to be villains. I don’t believe anyone in the House has said that. In fact, what we have heard in this House and what this piece of legislation does is acknowledges that there are people who will be impacted by this decision, as the member who spoke previously said, that have perhaps been in this industry for generations. It is important that we do acknowledge that and acknowledge that it’s not easy for anybody to be losing their job, and particularly in this day and age.

So, again, nobody has accused these people of being villains but what we have said is that the industry has basically been on notice since 2021 and there have been constant calls for improvement in the industry. Sadly, for whatever reason, it hasn’t happened as it should have. What we know is that New Zealand is a country that prides itself on its animal welfare standards, and what we see with this industry is that there is a really high risk of injury and death for these dogs when they race: broken legs, fractured skulls, spinal injuries, heart attack, and heat stroke.

After an injury, they are simply euthanised because they are no longer deemed to be profitable for those who wish to race them. In fact, according to SAFE, since December of last year and as of 9 November 2025, 645 greyhounds have been injured, 93 have suffered fractures, and 17 have died. So this decision is the right decision and I am proud to be standing here as a member of the Labour Party that supports this piece of legislation. Greyhounds are gentle, social animals and if anyone has met Zoi, the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s dog, we can all attest to that. They might not be the smartest and they may not be the prettiest, but they are—Kieran, don’t judge me—but they are certainly social, they are loyal, and they are absolutely lovely animals.

It’s interesting to note, as the Minister in his opening speech mentioned, there are several other countries who have followed suit since, since the Government announced that this was going to be happening. As the Minister mentioned, this is going to be a staged approach to the shutdown of this industry, and that is important because it does speak to the people who are involved in the industry, as far as jobs go. Re-homing—and as my colleague Rachel Boyack mentioned, I do urge people or encourage people to look at adopting one of these greyhounds in order to ensure that they are sent to loving homes around the country.

There were three options, I think, that were put before the Government with regard to this piece of legislation. One being that they stick with the status quo, no changes. Well, that’s not acceptable to anyone, I don’t think. Option 2—industry continuation with increased oversight and regulation. But there were some concerns that outcomes and enforcement of animal welfare—that it actually wouldn’t happen appropriately, that it would only make slightly better improvements. Option 3, that would have the most positive impact for animal welfare, was to work through the closing down of this sector in a transitional way.

So I am pleased to be able to support this piece of legislation whilst acknowledging those that are going to be impacted by this and working with them; urge them to submit. Thank you.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this bill. I have to say that the decision was not taken lightly. It follows three independent reviews that were done about the industry back in 2013, 2017, and 2021, and it is for the welfare of the greyhounds. I commend the bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this bill and am very pleased to be able to take a call because Labour supports this bill. We’ve heard other speakers talk about the welfare of greyhounds and I want to thank the Minister for his opening comments. I think it’s really important in this day and age, as members in the House, that we try to achieve a balanced argument. What is important is that we’ve heard more and more concerns from animal welfare supporters as to why, over time, with the reviews and all the work that has continued, as the Minister pointed out, that it is an important issue about animal welfare. New Zealanders want to come to a point where the industry has worked on trying to get better outcomes for the greyhounds, but we’ve seen and we’ve heard the injuries cannot be sustained. So it is important that the Minister has undergone, with appointing the ministerial advisory committee that has been set up, through a process and looked at the best options with Greyhound Racing New Zealand.

I do want to point out—and I’ve heard other colleagues from across the House talk about it—the other side of the argument for those who have invested time and money and their careers to do with greyhound racing. We’ve heard that the wellbeing of the industry specifically for these animals—and we’re quite lucky because, like my colleague Jo Luxton pointed out, we’ve got Kieran McAnulty’s greyhound, in terms of the approach that he had taken to adopt one of these animals.

The bill ensures the framework in closing the industry, with the set date of 1 August, and that will have the upside and the downside. The downside will be for those who are affected by the closure of the industry. In particular, we’ve heard that those who’ve been in industry for quite a long time are affected. One of the things that they’re asking about is: is there compensation? Is there going to be a transition period? Are their concerns going to be heard?

Again, I go back to the earlier a point that I mentioned around compensation, but also around a balanced argument. Well, it’s probably from their perspective that it’s going to be an unbalanced time for them, specifically for those who have been in the industry for such a long time. They wanted to have their day in court. They wanted to be heard about their concerns about their investment of time, and they don’t agree, because for their livelihoods this has a significant impact and is a significant step for the industry.

I do want to raise that through the transitional period there needs to be meaningful support, compassion, and also fairness for those who have worked in the industry: the trainers, the communities, and those who supported the activity. However, we’ve come to a point now where we, in Labour, are supporting the decision, as we’ve heard the Minister announce in this bill. It will have a major impact. I know we will have a committee stage in this process after the select committee process, but specifically, my plea is that the transitional authority that will be appointed to do that role, with the cost of the role of $60 million, that the steps in place—again, I want to mention, just as I wrap up, the balance of hearing how those in the industry will have the opportunity to raise their concerns about when the industry is going to be closed, is going to be wrapped up. Will it be fair compensation? But Labour does support this step in this bill. I commend the bill to the House

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to take a very short call on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. We've heard across the House that there's unanimous support for this very compassionate bill, and we've also acknowledged that there will be a huge impact on those people involved in the industry. Without extending the time any longer, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Instruction to the Primary Production Committee

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I move, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 March 2026.

And I thank my colleagues for the abbreviated version of support.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This this day marks a significant milestone in our journey towards a smarter and more efficient road network. This bill will cut congestion, boost productivity, and help futureproof our transport system. Today, we take a decisive step forward in tackling congestion and modernising how we manage road use in New Zealand. The bill creates an enabling framework that can be used to establish a time of use charging scheme anywhere in the country that needs it. This legislation is not just about traffic; it’s about time, productivity, and the future of our cities. It places New Zealand amongst a growing number of countries embracing intelligent transport solutions.

The design of the bill and the schemes that will be created under it—or potentially created—draw on international best practice with tailored findings to our unique needs. It enables targeted and adjustable charges that are designed to improve traffic flow and make better use of existing infrastructure. It embeds a partnership approach between local authorities and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), working together to design and deliver charging schemes. It puts strict limits around exemptions to ensure time of use schemes are fair and effective and to reduce overhead and bureaucracy. We had quite a debate in the committee stage of the bill’s passage around whether or not there should be wider exemptions. I think Parliament has rightly decided that there are narrow exemptions in the bill for emergency vehicles and for school buses, for example, but anything wider than that leads to a potential slippery slope where, once you start one exemption, you keep going, and then, eventually, everyone’s got an exemption, and the scheme becomes deficient. We have taken an agnostic approach to the use of technology, which means that, in the future, time of use schemes could interface with future road pricing mechanisms like fleet-wide road user charges, which, of course, the Government is advancing separately.

Time of use charging is not about raising revenue; it’s about improving network performance. Every scheme must show it will enhance traffic flow and efficiency, and it has to go through public consultation and impact assessments and will be subject to strong oversight. This is a really important point: net revenue raised through congestion pricing, or time of use pricing, will be reinvested directly into local public transport infrastructure, which means it supports better services and outcomes for those communities. The trade-off is quite simple: people pay a bit more to travel at peak times, which encourages them to travel at different times or to alter their behaviour or to use different routes, thus smoothing traffic across the road network and increasing productivity and efficiency. The revenue that is generated from that can be reinvested into the public transport options on the local road network, creating even greater options for people, and creating a synergistic feedback loop—as someone said to me.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: I love it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Now, listen, I’m not one for big buzzwords like that, but I did quite like that—synergistic feedback loop. When I first heard about that, I didn’t know what it was, and I’m still, today, not sure I’m using it in the correct way. Anyway, there we go. What will be achieved is fewer hours stuck in traffic, more reliable traffic, and more reliable journey times.

I do want to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. This is a bill that I was really determined to try and get cross-party support for. It is really important, and, I think I said in the second reading or maybe the first reading that Parliament, or at least New Zealand, has looked at congestion pricing since 1994. We’re well over 30 years. I think the first New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report was 1994. Back then, it was a bit of a new concept, but in the meantime, lots of countries and jurisdictions have done it, and we’ve sat there saying, “That sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should do that one day.” Well, we’re actually doing it, and to be fair to the previous Government, they did advance some legislation around that. I don’t think it’s as good as this piece of legislation, but they did take those first steps in that direction. When I talk about cross-party support in infrastructure and transport and bipartisanship, that’s what this means, because, ultimately, if we’re going to make this scheme work for New Zealand, we’ve got to make sure that it enjoys broad support. It will be bumpy on the way through. I fully anticipate that the first scheme will be quite contentious.

Dan Bidois: Probably in Auckland.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’ll probably be in Auckland; Dan Bidois is right—MP for Northcote. It will probably, almost certainly, be in Auckland. We’ve already said we want to work closely with Auckland Council on the first scheme. It will be bumpy. Successive countries and jurisdictions that have done congestion pricing have found that people, broadly, don’t like paying for things they think they’ve already paid for. Fair enough. But, actually, once it starts—and this was certainly the experience of New York, where I was three or four months ago—and the benefits start to flow in terms of smoother journey times, reduced traffic at peak times, smog goes down, and safety improves, people go, “This is fantastic.”, and, immediately, public opinion turns around. We’ve just got to hold—

Dana Kirkpatrick: Ride it out!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —ride it out. Literally ride it out. We’ve just got to ride it out, Dana. We’ve just got to hold our nerve as a polity and—

Dan Bidois: Foot on the accelerator.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, foot on the accelerator in a smooth congestion-charged way.

I want to thank the committee for the work on it. It was really well led by Andy Foster, and I understand the committee worked quite hard to find common ground. The Government did cede some things through the committee process. Thank you to the public, who submitted on it, and to all the officials and the parliamentary staff. There has been a range of people working on this for a large number of years. In particular, I do want to thank Mr John Edwards, who members with long memories will know. He is the Ministry of Transport’s lead official on the bill, and he will soon retire after four decades of service at the Ministry of Transport. Isn’t that remarkable? Four decades; 40 years. I was going to say it’s longer than I’ve been alive, but that’s not true anymore—but 40 years, four decades, of service at the Ministry of Transport. When he began his career at the Ministry of Transport in 1986, back in the halcyon days of the fourth Labour Government, he worked on future road pricing policies, including, I am told, congestion charging—all the way back in 1986. The first report might have been in 1994, but, actually, smart cookies in the bureaucracy have been talking about this and thinking about it for four decades. Isn’t that remarkable? Here we are, in 2025, and we’ll get congestion charging over the line in 2026 and 2027. I hope that Mr Edwards—who I don’t know well—will get an opportunity to drive on the first congestion-charged scheme.

This has been a long time coming, and I think it is a significant achievement, actually. I think we will look back on this day with a great deal of pride. Certainly on behalf of the Government, we are proud of what has been developed, and we are looking forward to rolling it out. We know that it’ll be a difficult journey at various points, and we know that it’ll be a bumpy path along the way, but it is the right thing to do for productivity in our major cities, and I therefore commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Minister, for those words and for summing up what we agree is a very good bill, and Labour will be supporting it.

It’s a simple idea: essentially, when too many people are driving at the same time, the system—unsurprisingly—clogs up and makes it worse for everybody. It’s important to note, as well as the Minister’s comments, that it’s not a revenue grab—unlike many changes, sometimes, in the transport arena—but it is, as has been depicted, a really smart tool to fix what is a serious problem.

The bill is about making our cities better and making our cities move faster. It’s about tackling that very common frustration of sitting in traffic and not moving. It’s not just a waste of people’s individual time when that happens; it’s a real pull on productivity—it has huge complications for all aspects of the economy, let alone aspects of everyday life. It establishes a framework for time of use charging, as has been discussed, allowing local councils with New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi to introduce congestion management schemes in those high traffic areas. I’m sure we can all probably relate to sitting in a queue on some motorway and watching the lights change once or twice before anything ever moves, and knowing that we are losing time that we’ll simply never get back. This bill does give us a way to tackle that.

In terms of a little bit of background to further elucidate on the comments that the Minister has made, when we think about Auckland, congestion in our largest city is something like 35 percent more time in traffic is spent by people in Auckland than their counterparts spend in traffic in Sydney and Brisbane and places like that—so it’s one of the worst in the OECD. It’s definitely not a solution looking for a problem. As I said, that’s productivity loss, that’s lost time with families, that’s lost opportunities to spend your leisure time differently. The international experience, as the Minister correctly pointed out, is that when this congestion charging has been introduced elsewhere in big cities where there’s specific congestion, it has appeared to work.

However, the proof of how good of a policy this will be, as with any policy, is in the implementation. That’s where things fall down, if they’re going to, and whilst we’re supporting this, we certainly will be keeping an eye to make sure it’s well implemented. Realistically, all we need is a 5 to 10 percent drop in that peak traffic usage to actually make a significant change. That is something that we can certainly look forward to.

With regards to fairness and accessibility, that was certainly a theme that came through the prior stages of this bill as it’s progressed through the House—and it does matter, because fairness does matter. We have to make sure that in introducing a congestion charge, or a different system—an alternative—that there are actually viable alternatives to people to make those behavioural changes. It’s OK for people that have relatively equal choices to make—do they travel at this time? Could they travel a little bit later to avoid the traffic and avoid the congestion charge?—but we do have to acknowledge that for lots of people, they simply don’t have the luxury of necessarily being able to time their life around peak traffic, or they don’t have the luxury of being able to take any other form of transport other than their personal vehicle. So we do have to ensure that the system is fair and that it’s equitable, otherwise that public buy-in will erode—and that public buy-in, that social licence, will be incredibly important to this.

My colleague Tangi Utikere spoke at the committee of the whole House stage about consultation and fairness, and that it is going to be important that people understand what they’re being asked to pay for, what alternatives exist, and that those, particularly with mobility challenges, are not left out. That was a point raised by the Hon Julie Anne Genter in so far as the amendments that she put forward, and it’s a really, really important consideration. I take the Minister’s point that he made—quite correctly—early on: that if the integrity of a system can be degraded really quickly, the more exceptions that you make. But exceptions are there for a reason, to be carved out when there are exceptional circumstances, so we were very disappointed that the mobility permit holders weren’t—that that amendment wasn’t considered. We do urge the Government to reconsider that and to think about the overall integrity of the system, should it not—well, should it affect people particularly adversely.

It’s really also important that revenue from the scheme go back into better transport options, not just motorways or—certainly not back into the Government’s central coffers. As highlighted during the committee of the whole House stage, successful cities where they have introduced this scheme—the ones that have been the most successful have used those initial congestion charges to expand bus services and reduce fares, therefore really making that alternative option—if we’re looking for behavioural change—something that’s more and more viable. We’ll be watching closely to ensure that that pretty simple basic principle is applied to this one.

With regard to transparency and local leadership, public trust will be important here, and I think that the points that have been raised in previous readings and certainly in the committee of the whole House stage were really important. If we think of new section 6E requiring consultation before a scheme is submitted—but consultation must mean more than just a survey buried in the junk mail or at the bottom of some website that people may or may not see. It’s incredibly important that it be done really well. With regard to the potential flow-on effects, I think it goes beyond just basic traffic flow—and cities overseas, as we’ve heard, are linking congestion charging to low-emission zones, tackling pollution, and improving public health. So there’s an opportunity here, if implemented correctly and implemented well—and we have to wait and see how this Government tackles that, but if done well and if revenue comes in and can be channelled into, firstly, improving those alternatives through cheaper buses or more reliable buses, and then actually providing some public good, I think that that’s a real win-win for this scheme. Cleaner, faster, more efficient transport could be the outcome, if done well.

Labour supports this bill, because, fundamentally, we have to; because, at some point, we’ve got to change the way that we operate as a society. For too long, we’ve been so used to one person in a car driving, roads being congested, and as the population grows and as our infrastructure—our woeful history of infrastructure spend—has not kept up with all of the alternatives to those more roads, we find ourselves in this situation.

In the committee of the whole House stage, there were a couple of amendments that I just want to briefly touch on. The Hon Chris Bishop’s Amendment Paper 400: Labour did support efforts to tidy up and strengthen the bill by the host of things that were touched on in that Amendment Paper, and we supported these changes because, essentially, they did address some of their concerns around transparency and around accountability. But, as I alluded to earlier, I think it’s a real shame that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s Amendment Paper 376—we’re disappointed that the total mobility users are not part of the exemption criteria. We do understand, again, that exemption criteria can degrade the integrity of a system, but that’s what exemptions are for.

We support the amendment which exempts vehicles registered to people who hold those disabled persons parking permits from having to pay time of use charges. That’s not about saying there’s an intrinsic fairness issue there; that’s just simply saying that the fundamental conditions that allow for behaviour change aren’t in play when someone doesn’t have a legitimate alternative. You can’t change a behaviour toward a legitimate alternative if those conditions aren’t there or if those factors aren’t the same. So we are disappointed in that, but, overall, we support this goal.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): The Green Party has had in its transport policy a point about investigating congestion pricing for at least 15 years—probably closer to 20—so we do support this bill. Enabling local authorities to have tools to better manage their transport systems and their streets is the right thing to do. This actually starts to take a paradigm-shift approach to how we define and manage our transport problems. We now have decades and decades of research that shows that expanding lane capacity—that’s a technical term for adding more car lanes within cities—does not reduce congestion. It never has, and it never will. Adding car lanes will actually result in more congestion and more car trips within five to ten years of building those roads, and that’s why urban highway projects are not the best use of money to solve the problem if your goal is reducing congestion, improving travel times, and reducing transport costs.

It seems like many members on the Government benches don’t really grasp this concept, so I’ll take this opportunity to say that we can’t build our way out of congestion. Bringing in congestion pricing or enabling more direct pricing, whether that’s through time of use charges or changes to road-user charges, will result in a shift in demand away from private car trips to other modes of transport, hence why the Green Party has always said that we need to invest better in more capacity for public transport, for rail and coastal shipping, and for active transport modes. These are all things that absolutely have to happen, and, if we’re going to bring in congestion pricing—or if local authorities are going to be enabled to do that—we need to have a shift in transport investments.

The current Government’s transport investments over the next ten years make zero sense. They’re just incredibly expensive, they don’t solve the actual problems, and, when we bring in demand-management tools like time of use pricing, there will be even more demand for the alternatives, and even less demand for the roads. I really hope that the Government is going to take on board the fact that, once this legislation is passed, every single investment case for every single urban or urban fringe highway must include congestion pricing as a base case in the transport modelling. If we did that, we would see that we don’t need to spend $3.8 billion on two kilometres of one extra car lane in each direction in the centre of Wellington. That makes no sense. We should be investing in much better, more frequent public transport and lower public transport prices.

The Greens support the bill, but there are three big, missed opportunities with it. The first one is local autonomy. Basically, the vast majority of trips are local trips. Whether they’re on State highways, whether they’re on local roads, whether they’re on public transport, the vast majority of peak hour trips are local trips. If we want decisions to be made well and efficiently, we need to give the funding and the decisions to the local authorities, and we do need to have the right setup for that. Maybe we need some more regional transport authorities. This bill really puts way too much control in central Government’s hands. It really should be more for local authorities to be controlling the scheme boards, how the scheme is operating, and where the revenue is going. We raised that in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, it’s in our differing view, and we put Amendment Papers to that point.

In places around Christchurch or around Wellington, you could have a whole lot of suburban or fringe territorial local authorities joining a scheme board and then outvoting the local authority who are actually the managers of where the scheme is going to be. Imagine we’re bringing in congestion pricing in Wellington city or in Christchurch city, and we’ve got a whole lot of outlying territorial authorities and the New Zealand Transport Authority who can outvote the local authority on the design of the scheme and the use of the revenue—that doesn’t make sense. That’s a missed opportunity.

The second big, missed opportunity is around the low-emission zones and addressing air pollution. I was the only one who was on the committee last term who heard the inquiry into a congestion question or Auckland congestion pricing, and we heard from a lot of experts from European cities and other cities that have brought in congestion pricing, and they said that low-emission zones are big. It makes sense, if you’re enabling legislation for congestion pricing or time of use pricing, to also enable local authorities to bring in low-emission zones, which is a different type of tool. It’s similar to congestion pricing, but, actually, it’s addressing an even bigger productivity challenge, which is air pollution.

We aren’t even really measuring the true cost of air pollution from vehicles in Aotearoa, but the Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand report, the most recent one, was absolutely shocking. It says that the cost of harmful air pollution from vehicles—well, harmful air pollution generally—costs $10 billion a year, and the majority of that is actually from vehicles. A lot of those aren’t old vehicles—they’re brand-new diesel vehicles. Diesel has turned out to be far worse for human health than people realised, and that’s why European cities have been actively managing it and reducing diesel particulate in their city centres for the last 15 years. A recent OECD research report shows that 30 percent of all the productivity growth in European cities from 2010 to 2019 was due to improvements in air quality. A big part of that is low-emission zones.

Another big part of it is making cycling, walking, and public transport the priority for urban areas, which also makes sense from a transport cost perspective, from a congestion perspective, and from an air quality perspective. If the Government’s goal is productivity, they should be thinking about air pollution and giving councils the tools to manage air pollution from private motor vehicles, because that is a big hidden cost. It causes tens of thousands of children to have asthma—to be hospitalised with asthma—and far more premature deaths than we even have through road crashes, which this Government is, of course, absolutely keen on increasing with their absolutely evidence-free approach to speed limits.

Finally, the third thing with this bill that is a missed opportunity is the earlier point that I raised about how it changes the investment priorities. The Government policy statement on transport funding needs to be revised, and we need to make sure—we proposed an amendment at the select committee stage—that we limit what the revenue can be spent on. It needs to be spent on providing for the alternatives. Everybody knows that New Zealand has underinvested in public and active transport for decades. This isn’t a result of people’s choices—people have not chosen to own and use cars at a higher rate than pretty much any other country in the OECD—it is the result of previous Governments’ decisions. Local government and central government, over decades, have made it difficult, impossible, impractical, and expensive to do anything else, and that costs New Zealanders tens of billions of dollars a year. That is a major cost of living issue. After rent and food, transport is the largest expense for most households. Households who own one car are having to spend thousands of dollars a year owning that car, and that doesn’t even take into account the full costs of car parking, etc.

The costs of high car ownership are far more than congestion; congestion is probably one of the smaller costs associated with our transportation system. If we look at all the cities in the world that have embraced congestion pricing early—and there were only about five of them until recently: Stockholm, Singapore, the City of London, Gothenburg, and Milan—all of those cities had higher levels of residential and employment density in their cities. They had much lower levels of car ownership, much higher levels of public transportation services, and better provision for walking and cycling. They also had higher prices for car parking—so the cost of car ownership was already more direct in those places—and then they brought in congestion pricing. Of course, that’s been extended to New York City, but I would say that those criteria also apply to New York City.

The answer is pretty simple. It’s going to become very clear. As the Minister said, he embraces congestion pricing, and he thinks it’s the right thing to do. Does he understand—does the Government understand—what New Zealanders need their Government to do as a response to making the cost of using a car at peak time more direct? The answer is Government investment priorities need to change. Right now, we are barely investing in, or planning for, any improvements to public transport right across the country. The Government is spending not one cent on the critical public transport spine along the quays in Wellington. The big project that they’re bragging about is one that I campaigned on for four years—the City Rail Link—before the then National Government agreed to pay for it, and there’s almost no planning for serious capacity improvements for public transport outside of a few busways. The Government needs to step up and realise that New Zealanders are crying out for passenger transport services. We need to invest in those, and that helps the roads, too.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT supports the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill because it is a smarter way of dealing with congestion. It sends a price signal and creates an incentive for motorists traveling at peak times—and I’ve been one of them. As a civil engineer and working as a contractor, I’ve spent hours and hours and hours of my life stuck in traffic on Auckland’s motorways and arterial routes, cursing the people who failed to provide the capacity for our city to grow.

Now, it’s true that congestion charging can influence people to choose to travel at a different time, but for the 60-, 70-, 80 percent of New Zealanders who do now and always will rely on private transport, it’s not necessarily going to help them unless they have alternatives. So, look, congestion charging is important; it's just one more funding tool in the funding toolbox. This Government will also be introducing Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act amendments—we’ve talked about that previously—so we can actually start to increase revenues from land that benefits from large-scale infrastructure and development projects. We're moving to road-user charges so that Kiwis, no matter what type of vehicle they drive, pay the full cost of using the roads. But it doesn't change the fact that growing cities, growing populations, people who are more mobile, need extra capacity.

There's going to be a test. The honourable member Julie Anne Genter said that this Government does face a test. Well, we will see it. If you raise a congestion charge to a certain amount and you collect the money but the congestion doesn't change, what that tells you is that even despite providing public transport services and, maybe, these bike lanes, which, you know, carry a very small amount of people at great cost—maybe what that signals is that you then have to provide the additional capacity, the additional lanes. Because Auckland is a city that's going to grow from about 1.3- or 1.4 million to 2-, maybe 2.5 million people between now and 2050; and simply assuming the next million people who come will only ever catch a bus is the kind of fantasy, unicorn-chasing thinking we hear from the Green Party. It's not real; it's not true. That's why congestion charging is one very small part of the way to solve this problem.

ACT does support this bill, and we're also very keen to let people who have been concerned about their privacy know that this bill actually contains protections for their data. For the ACT party, privacy is not up for negotiation. Clause 65ZF of this bill deals directly with privacy, and it's one of the most important parts of the whole framework, because people using a network and paying a congestion charge, they want to make sure that any information collected under a time-of-use scheme is handled responsibly, securely, and only used for its intended purpose. Under this clause, personal information can only be kept for as long as it's needed to calculate and collect the charge—no longer. That’s vital; it means that this information won't become a backdoor for Government to track where people drive or how they travel. Now, I know some members of the Green Party would love to know where people drive and how they travel, so then they can work out how to change their behaviour. But I trust Kiwis to respond to price signals, like congestion charging, and also respond to other incentives.

The clause will also require a clear and transparent privacy policy. For each scheme, it puts limits on agencies so they can't use the information for anything beyond the operation of the time-of-use system itself. This charging system could have easily gone the wrong way and became a mechanism for State surveillance. ACT will not accept that. This bill includes clear, practical limits that keep it focused on the roads and on reducing congestion and providing incentives for Kiwis to travel at different times. ACT supports this bill because it represents modern, practical reform done the right way. It’s another example of this Government fixing what matters.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and delighted to speak on this time of use bill, and that time of use changing will soon become available as another tool in the transport tool kit. It’s something that local government—in particular in our biggest city, Auckland, but also in the Wellington region—has been asking for, for several years, and saying, “Can we have some empowering legislation that allows us to look at time of use or congestion charging schemes?”

As a former councillor in the Wellington City Council, I was charged often with, and quite enthusiastically, advocated for that both to the Hon Phil Twyford when he was Minister of Transport, and Urban Development, and also to the inquiry which was headed by Greg O’Connor in the last Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee where we, as a Wellington City Council and we as a Wellington region, were advocating for this very tool.

It’s really nice, now, to be in a position of having been able to shepherd this bill through the select committee process as the chair of that committee and to make some good improvements to that bill. I did want to start by saying thank you to all the members of the committee, to our great committee clerks, to all the officials who helped us, to all the submitters, and also to the Minister of Transport. I’m going to come back to the Minister later on because there was a particular role which I think is really, really important that he played in this process.

Time of use charging, really, is all about managing or balancing supply and demand. It’s what you potentially impose; the price goes up when supply is overwhelmed by demand at those peak times. While we’re not used to it in the road transport situation, we are in many other situations. Think about public transport pricing: peak, off peak; those prices are different. Think about energy prices, think about aviation, think about ferries, think about accommodation; all of those we have a charge which is greater at times of higher demand than it is at lower demand periods.

The Infrastructure Commission has encouraged greater use across the board of charges to modify behaviour so that we take some of that pressure that the Hon Julie Anne Genter was talking about off our infrastructure system. Time of use charging in the transport area is about putting a charge in place so that people either change the time of travel or the way in which they travel, the mode in which they travel. It sometimes only takes a small change in traffic volume to make all the difference to the speed in which you travel and the travel time that it takes to get from A to B.

It also potentially—and I guess this reflects one of the things that Julie Anne Genter was talking about—allows you to either delay or even not to do some major infrastructural projects. I think she’s quite right that every one of those business cases now should really be considering what would happen to that business case if you put in place a time of use charge. Does it still hold water? Is it still something you should do or maybe it’s something you can do later or maybe it’s something you don’t need to do at all. Those are the things which we should be thinking about.

She also raised—it was interesting—the old induced demand. If you build some more lanes, they’ll automatically fill up over a period of time just because you built the lanes. Well, yeah, but do think about sometimes the population has grown very, very significantly, and those people, as Simon Court said, might not all travel on a bus; they might also put their cars on that road. There might also be different changes in land use which are driven by—so, for example, in the Wellington region, you think about the roads which have been built up towards the Kāpiti Coast. Funnily enough, as soon as those roads were announced, what did the real estate agents start saying? “Well, there’ll be more development up there.” Of course there’s going to be more development up there; that is induced demand. But it’s not just because you built the road, it’s because people decided to go and live there—more people decided to go and live there; that is where that demand is coming from.

Dr Tracey McLellan raised concerns that some people cannot change their time or their mode of travel, and that’s absolutely true, but they will get a benefit from that. That’s one of the answers we have, particularly to the freight sector: you do get a benefit because you’re able to travel to where you want to get to much quicker. She said that that the cost of congestion was one of the smaller costs in the transport system. The estimate in Auckland alone is $2.6 billion in time lost in traffic congestion every year; that is not a small cost to the system, not a small cost to us as a community, and not a small cost to productivity.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee listened carefully to submissions, we asked questions; I think we engaged authentically and that is what we should always be doing, whether it is in select committees or any form of Government or local government, and also challenging submitters. All of those things are really vital to trust and confidence in process. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee made several amendments and one of the things I did want to say—I go back to the Minister of Transport—we did get pushed back from the Minister’s office on three amendments, but we pushed back again and said, “Actually, we think that those amendments really hold merit.” We had some conversations and ultimately the Minister said, “Actually, I agree with you and I’m going to accept those amendments.” I think that is the select committee process at its best; it is not just automatically going along with what the executive says, but it’s saying let’s think about those things, let’s push back, let’s come to the right answer.

It’s interesting to reflect that when we are considering the issue of a four-year term, the bill—which is still, I think, somewhere in the system, talks about the role of select committees in that process and that being one of the checks and balances on the system and on the executive. So I think that is something that we should be thinking about: what do we expect from our select committees in terms of the way in which they look at, consider, and report back legislation?

So, quickly, on those three changes, one of those was around governance and we put in place several safeguards for local government, for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), and for the community. The particular one for local government was that local government was quite adamant that if NZTA was given the dominant role—was given the chairing, effectively, of the scheme boards which we set up—that they weren’t going to have a bar of it, and that would defeat the whole purpose.

So what we’ve done is we’ve listened to that very carefully and we’ve recommended that there is an independent chair of that process to balance NZTA and the councils, and that is something we should push with the Minister, and the Minister said, “Ultimately, yes, I agree with that.” So that was really, really good.

The second one was exclusions and originally the bill as introduced only had emergency vehicles being excluded. The ACT Party representative decided that they even those shouldn’t be excluded, but we figured that those had to get to where they had to get to and the ambulance officers aren’t going to get out and walk with their equipment, or the fire engine crew aren’t going to be able to walk their hose from A to B. So that exclusion stayed, but we did include the exclusion for public transport, for scheduled public transport, and for Ministry of Education rural buses. The reason for that simply is we want—part of this is changing the time you travel, part of it is changing the mode you travel. That was about changing the mode you travel.

The third one which we pushed was the use of surplus funds, and hopefully there are some surplus funds because there is a big, big deficit in the transport budget, over decades probably, and we need to be able to address that over time. We said there needs to be a closer nexus between where the money comes from and where the money is used; not just in the wider region, but in the area close to the area which the congestion is, to help deal with that congestion. That’s about making the ideas of these schemes palatable and understandable to the communities. The Minister, again, accepted that after discussion.

The legislation does not implement any time of use charges, but what it does do is create the framework so that councils and NZTA can go and engage with their communities and implement those, working together. I think it’s great that we’ve got to this point. Again, I thank everybody for the hard work that’s gone into this and I commend this bill to the House

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you. I rise to support this bill, and it’s a pleasure to speak after the man who was the chair of the Transport and Urban Development Committee at Wellington City Council. I know we jointly signed off a number of submissions supporting time of use, but remember that transport and urban development should go hand in hand.

There are a number of things that I want to say, despite the Green Party—and I listened to Julie Anne eloquently putting our position. I want to say that this is a good step forward, but it’s lacking some systems thinking. For example, it promotes people being able to choose a different transport mode if it’s available, but it’s a bit like the old saying—and some of you may be old enough to remember this—“Mother, mother, may I swim?” “Yes, my darling daughter, but don’t go near the water.”

It’s a bit like that. “Choose another transport mode, but we won’t fund walking. We won’t fund cycling. We will put up the prices of public transport, but, oh, time of use will encourage people to use different transport modes.” You actually have to do both. You have to do time of use and you have to invest in transport modes that are less emitting and less congesting.

Talking about urban development, I take the point from Mr Court, who is not listening at all at the moment, which is sort of typical of his approach to evidence, I would suggest. There may be population growth, but where is it going to go? Is it going to go in the inner cities? Only yesterday, Minister Bishop approved less residential intensification in Christchurch. He said, “Let them off the hook.” I mean, Christchurch doesn’t have the benefits of a hilly city that has given us topographical limitations that have promoted us as being the highest proportion of people who walk to work because (a) it’s downhill to walk to work and (b) people live close to their work, whereas if you live on the outskirts of Auckland or the outskirts of Christchurch, it’s very difficult to walk.

I would also suggest that this is partly during the hours—and I’m glad that it’s up to the local scheme boards to determine questions like the hours and where the boundaries might be. Some of that congestion will be caused by parents or caregivers dropping off children to school and the amazing cognitive dissonance between saying, “Yes, we want to reduce congestion, but we’re not going to fund safe routes to schools. We’re going to allow for there to be a tiny period in the day with lower speed limits around schools, but we’re not actually going to do anything to help children walk or cycle to school.”

Frankly, putting those time limits on lower speed limits in areas around schools is like saying that you’ve got a curfew for kids, that OK, if they’re going to school, if they’ve been dropped off by their parent on one side of the road, they’re going across a crossing, it’s a lower speed for that moment, but if they’re going back home from after-school sports or after-school drama or Duke of Edinburgh club or all of the different things that kids do, “Oh, it doesn’t apply then, because, my gosh, we’ve got to let the cars through at 50 kilometres an hour.”, which is not safe for people on foot.

The other interesting thing is how Government parties talk about localism and yet all of those councils that consulted on mainly lower speed limits consulted with their communities. If they hadn’t done it exactly ABC for six weeks, that was reversed, and at a huge cost to councils and communities. So stick with it, stay local, have your development and population growth in the centre of cities, and now we can do the time of use congestion charge. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): This is a good day for this Parliament, that we come together and support legislation unanimously. You wouldn’t think that from the previous speaker’s speech. But it is unanimous because we recognise that this bill is a game-changer. It’s a game-changer for productivity on our major roads, for reducing congestion, and for investment in public transport.

This bill is the right thing to do. As I said, it’s got the unanimous support from our Parliament. It follows other successful schemes implemented overseas and it makes good economic sense to put a price on congestion. Now, we know, as the Minister said, that this bill is going to have a bumpy road through to implementation, and we’re saying let’s stick with it so that the public can see the benefit for themselves of lower congestion, increased investment on public transport, and certainty, for how long it takes you to get across Auckland, for example.

I wish to thank the Minister for entertaining the important amendments that the select committee wished for inclusion as part of this bill. I also wish to acknowledge our bipartisan select committee led by Andy Foster. Great committee and leading, really, some real tough challenges. This is an important tool in the tool box, and I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to rise today to speak in this third reading of the time of use charging bill. As I’ve said before, Labour supports this bill. I do, too. As a resident of Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, and on the North Shore, I support its intention to decongest our city, get our transport networks flowing, and allow Aucklanders to get from A to B more quickly and efficiently. This legislation has been, in fact, a long time coming. Work began under Labour in 2021 when we opened an inquiry on addressing the congestion challenges in our cities. It was a robust and thorough consultation, as any legislation with such a large impact should have.

But we know the statistics, that Kiwis spend up to 35 percent more time commuting across our cities then our Australian counterparts do. It leads to lost productivity, a reduced quality of life, and greater frustration for us all. The estimations for Auckland were that congestion would cost us $2.6 billion a year by 2026 if we did not act. There was simply too much time, too much productivity, and too much money to be lost to congestion.

I do want to take this opportunity to talk to the impact this will have on the community where I live in Northcote. I’ve said before that the reality of this legislation is that it will halve congestion, and that for people in our community it will mean the dreaded morning rush down Onewa Road will look more like what we experience during the school holidays. It’s a stark difference we all relish during those school holiday commutes and soon we will get this experience on every day. This is a good thing.

However, I do acknowledge too that this is another cost for our community, one that they are faced with during a time when there are many cost of living pressures biting at their heels. If we look at the six charging options presented by Auckland Council, I note that five of them will directly impact our community who travel over the Harbour Bridge—all through the isthmus to get to and from work each day. So I appreciate the anticipation from our community about what this will mean money wise for them going forward.

Auckland Transport’s 2020 modelling suggested that for light vehicles this would cost up to $3.50 per trip at peak times. Of course, more work now needs to be done to update these figures. It is important that our community is informed and consulted on what this will look like for them. To date, there hasn’t been a lot of information provided by Government MPs to the North Shore, and it is important that not only do they get to have their say but also our local board in Kaipātiki does too.

As you can imagine, with congestion charging coming, there is a lot of discontent and concerns coming directly from our community that currently remains unresponded to. Congestion charging is not a solution in and of itself. The charge is a demand management tool that requires alternatives to motivate people to change the way that they move around the city.

The 2023 census showed 84 percent of Aucklanders use private or company vehicles to get to work. That is why it was always the vision and intention of the previous Government to roll out congestion charging alongside the alternative measures we were working on. Investments in reliable and available public transport, active walking and cycling measures, and affordable fees that encourage behaviour change and an uptake in buses, in rail, and in ferries.

Congestion charging cannot be left as a revenue-gathering measure alone. Under this Government, they have cut the regional fuel tax, leaving a $1.2 billion hole in transport infrastructure in Auckland. The result of this is that Aucklanders are paying more to use our public transport system, whether that is individually or through their rates. Half-price fees and free for under-12s made a significant difference in the affordability of using public transport to get around our largest city.

Mayor Wayne Brown and Auckland Council have also made it clear that under the National Government’s national land transport plan, Auckland’s public transport network has been cut. Thirty-nine percent less funding for bus projects, 37 percent less for ferry projects, 35 percent less for cycleway projects, and 36 percent less for road safety. These are all things that we need to be investing in if we want this legislation to be successful.

The North Shore has one of the most progressive transport systems in this country, thanks to the Northern Busway, which was an innovation established more than 50 years ago. While we support congestion charging in principle today, affordability and reliability need to remain the priority for Aucklanders to be able to take public transport to get them to and from work. Currently, the Government is not investing enough in public transport and alternative modes to ensure that this legislation will be successful. That, of course, is my main concern.

This has been an ongoing conversation for a long time and that is why I’m happy for this legislation to be before the House today. But it does worry me, the lack of information locally that has been provided, or not provided, by MPs that represent our area. I wonder—I wonder why they haven’t spoken up on this issue. Why have they not put it out to the community? Why have they not taken a leadership role to educate the community on the benefits of congestion charging as a tool and the opportunities and benefits that it presents to our community?

I think I know the reason for that. It might be unpopular, but it’s the right thing to do. But it also holds Government members accountable for the cuts that they’ve made to our public transport system. It is more expensive than ever to catch the bus in Northcote into the city where the majority of people use the system.

This goes through today. Further consultation will be up. But I hope that Government MPs—and there’s seven of them across the North Shore, seven in total—actually front up, hold a public meeting on the North Shore, take the responsibility to educate our community about this tool, and ensure that they do the right thing in putting the information out there. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Mr Chair.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Carlos Cheung. It’s Mr Speaker, because I’m in the big chair.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Oh, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): There you go.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: This Government is doing the right thing. The intent of this bill is very clear: to better use a transport network and to ease congestion. This is a goal we can all support. However, as the MP for Mt Roskill, I want to urge Auckland Council to treat this as an opportunity to deliver real solutions, not as a tool to punish drivers. Aucklanders, including people in Mt Roskill, already contend with a long travelling time, unreliable public transport, and a rising living cost. Any charging scheme that is set up must not—let me repeat: must not—become another burden on hardworking families or, worse, lead to further congestion, as we have seen in the past, with poorly designed T2 and T3 transit lanes.

This is a chance to get it right—for Auckland Council and for Auckland Transport to pair smartly, to communicate clearly, and to ensure that Aucklanders experience travel that is genuinely smoother, fair, and more efficient. I commend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise, like my colleagues, to speak in support of this bill. I’ve been a resident of Auckland for 30 years, so I am very familiar with some of the congestion issues that our beautiful but very big city has. I do think that this is a positive step that’s being taken in terms of changing behaviours, but as my colleagues have said, it can’t be the only step. It must be one of many that supports people to take public transport and that informs people about the fact that these changes are going to happen.

I wanted to address some of the privacy issues that were discussed at select committee when the bill went through that process, and I do commend the committee for making some changes in this respect. The committee made some very helpful changes in response to a number of submissions, including inserting new paragraph (fa) into new section 65Z(2) to require that the scheme impact assessment must set out potential impacts on privacy, to include that there must be privacy policies in place as well, and to ensure that there’s consultation with the Privacy Commissioner—all good things.

However, my view is that this is one of those bills where we do need to ensure we’re actively monitoring how privacy requirements are playing out. It is because, as with a number of different bills that travel through the House, they are still subject to the privacy principles which sit separately. In this case, as in those other cases, the police, for example, could bypass the requirements in this bill due to information privacy principle 11(1)(e), which says that “the disclosure of information is necessary—(i) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law”. So, in essence, there is an out clause to still allow the disclosure of that information even if privacy and interests are protected within the bill itself. This is something that I do think we need to actively monitor.

The Law Society also made some useful suggestions, which in my view should be periodically reviewed as we see how the bill impacts people’s lives. They talked about the fact that the current tolling provisions were deemed to be sufficient because people had another option, whereas with this framework they simply won’t.

Now, you have countries like the US where they have these sorts of user charges, but they also offer lanes and ways through the city where they’re not subject to those user charges. One might say that that’s a positive and that it retains that option of choice, but what they’ve found in the US in those circumstances is that there are arguments that it creates layers of privilege and access as well. So these are certainly not easy issues to grapple with. However, I do think that we must ensure that we keep a keen eye on the privacy interests.

The Law Society also made the point that there’s power within the current scheme for specifics within the scheme to be changed, and that perhaps there should be explicit consideration of privacy policies when changes are made. That’s not a current requirement that those policies be updated. So again, that may be something that we want to look at down the track.

From here on in, I do think there are still questions about implementation, and Shanan Halbert has made the point that there hasn’t been sufficient socialising of this thus far, so there is absolutely a need to bring the public on board. We’ve seen how in Edinburgh there was a failure to do this and a rejection by the public of moves towards a system like this. We’ve seen operational issues in Germany, where they underestimated the technology that would be needed to effectively run this kind of system, and we’ve seen the system where, in London, people did stop using their cars but then opted for taxis, which then maintained the congestion that the city had.

So the need for active review is absolutely necessary. But, again, for now, this is a good bill as part of a broader scheme of changes that we would like to see, and I commend this bill to the House.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie):

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

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I’m very happy to be making a contribution on this third and final reading of the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. The reform that this bill sets up the framework for is, in my view, one of the most important reforms that we can make as a country to kind of modernise our legislative and policy framework to support the growth and development of our towns and cities.

This and its policy cousin—the shift to an electronic time of use charging system for our entire transport system to replace the old road-user charge and the petrol excise; the chief sources of funding for our whole transport system—will make very, very important system changes for us. When you put them alongside some of the other reforms that have been adopted in recent years or are in the pipeline, like the whole reform of our zoning system to enable urban intensification, actually, it’s remarkable and good that both the zoning reforms and this reform to put in place time of use charging are supported across the House, and we have cross-party consensus in the Parliament for two of the most critically important reforms.

Others that I would put in the same category in terms of really important modernisation are the elimination of mandatory parking minimums, which was contained in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and the ongoing quest for new funding and financing streams for the infrastructure that enables urban growth. Both transport networks and the pipes that carry water and waste water—these are the system reforms that will allow our cities to grow. They have been put together because our policy framework has been so unfit for purpose and so out of date that it has acted as a terrible roadblock that has stopped the market responding to demand—that is, we just haven’t been building the homes and the urban infrastructure that our growing population has needed—and that is one of the things that’s at the root of the housing crisis that has bedevilled New Zealand for best part of 20 years now.

There’s one additional reform that’s critically important if this one is to succeed, and it is that we need more investment in public transport, in rapid transit, and in walking and cycling. If you want people to change their behaviour at those critical peak congestion times—that is, in the morning and the afternoon peaks; that’s what this reform is all about—it’s about smoothing off those peaks to allow a more efficient use of the transport network. If you want people to make those decisions not to clog up, in my patch, the Northwestern Motorway, then you have to give them proper alternatives. You’ve got to allow people to use other ways to get where they need to go, so we need more investment in the ferries, we need more modernisation and more efficiency in our rail system in Auckland, and we need more high-frequency, comfortable, convenient buses. That’s what will enable people to make the choices. If we don’t make that complimentary investment alongside time of use charging, we won’t get the returns.

Some people, to avoid spending 5 bucks to use the motorway to get into the city or to go out south on a busy afternoon in Auckland, will choose to delay their journey or do it at another time, but many, many people cannot do that, and so they have no choice. Because of the dictates of their employment, they have to travel at a certain time, and so we must give them better choices, and that means walking and cycling, trains, buses, and ferries, otherwise this won’t work.

The second point I wanted to make is that this is critically important, because all of the international evidence is that with cities of scale that are growing, congestion always, always comes. You cannot build your way out of urban congestion in large growing cities, and the reason is induced demand. If most people rely on the private car to get where they’re going and you build more roads and more motorways, you increase the carrying capacity of the urban transport network, people will simply buy more cars and use the roads more. You might add an extra lane to the motorway, as we have done time and time again in Auckland, and in no time at all, those extra lanes just fill up with cars.

It’s called induced demand, and the members on the National Party benches would benefit, I think, from doing a bit of reading on induced demand, because their fetish—the cult that they have on that side of the House for the private car as a solution to every transport problem is one of the biggest issues we’ve got in developing good transport policy in this country. So please do some reading up on induced demand because it will change your perspective on how we modernise our transport system.

The next thing I wanted to say—and other colleagues have referred to this—is that one of the really challenging parts of this framework that we’re putting in place with this bill is that there are real equity, real social justice fish hooks in here. Pricing to ration the use of the roading network—let’s use Auckland’s motorway network as an example—is very likely to be extremely efficient. Pricing works as a rationing mechanism, but it’s very, very tough on the people who can afford it least, and so we have to take that seriously, and it’s up to Auckland Transport and Auckland Council to really apply themselves to this problem.

If you spend 2½ hours on the road every day driving to and from work—and in West Auckland, where I’m from, more people have to drive every day to get to and from work than any other part of the city because the jobs and the education opportunities are, by and large, in other parts of the city. So if you have to spend all that time on the motorway every day—and for some people it does amount to two hours or 2½ hours—that’s less time that you can spend working and earning money to feed your family, spending time with your family, or spending time doing things like getting an education or starting a business. That is a form of transport poverty that affects large areas of our city.

We have to invest in the public transport choices and walking and cycling choices that will give those communities real options. It is distressing at this time, when the country is in a cost of living crisis, when there is more than 5 percent unemployment, that this Government has chosen to slash by a third the expenditure on public transport and road safety and cycleways. It cuts completely against the grain and shows no common sense.

I want to just briefly mention a part of the electorate that I represent in West Auckland, Te Atatū and Henderson. It is entirely dependent on State Highway 16, the Northwestern Motorway, for connection to the rest of the city. We’re talking about 100,000 people in Henderson and Te Atatū, and 15 years ago, it was a transport crisis. The congestion on the Northwestern Motorway spilled back on to the arterials like Te Atatu Road and Lincoln Road. State Highway 16 was, basically, a parking lot, and yet in the 10 to 15 years since, we now have a form of rapid transit - lite on the Northwestern Motorway, which I’m very happy to say I played a part in getting the funding for. We now have a high-frequency bus network serving our communities, with buses going every 10 minutes, seven days a week. We have much better cycling infrastructure and the promise of Te Whau pathway/cycleway connecting New Lynn to Te Atatū.

We’ve made enormous progress—we actually have. The public transport system is much, much better now and congestion is no worse than it was 15 years ago. You can make a difference with these things, and it’s not by building more motorway capacity and more roads. It’s by investing in public transport infrastructure, and that’s what this Government needs to do to make this time of use policy work.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to be invited to make the final speech in this third and final reading of the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. Let me just take you back. This has been 25 years in the making, and I was working in the Auckland mayor’s office at the time when the Land Transport Management Act 2003 came through. And that was, in theory, about enabling user-pays funding, but it didn’t work—It didn’t work.

Steven Joyce in 2011 amended the Act, which of course removed the barriers to tolling and public-private partnerships. And now, the third leg of the treble, we’re amending the bill again with the time of use charging. As has been articulated, 25 years ago it was a billion dollars in wasted time and wasted energy for Aucklanders every year; now it’s projected to be $2.5 billion. I congratulate the Minister of Transport, Chris Bishop, on putting this bill together—25 years in the making and getting unanimous support across the House.

Aucklanders will soon experience school holiday - like traffic—school holiday - like traffic. It might be a little bit bumpy to start with as far as the small cost involved, but that will well and truly be outweighed by the savings in time and energy. I commend the bill.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you. I rise to speak on this bill, in support. I think this is actually a really good opportunity. Obviously, it’s been in the pipelines for a long, long time. I remember as a city councillor when I chaired the Urban Development and Transport Committee between 2019 and 2022 at Christchurch City Council, we were trying to get measures in place for road pricing. At that point, we did have a few councillors pushing back and most of them were on the, let’s say, right side of the political spectrum. So I hope, actually, when this is approved that we can work with local government to ensure this does happen smoothly.

I know we’ve heard a lot about Auckland, but the slowest commute in New Zealand is actually in Christchurch. A 2025 report showed it took Christchurch drivers 33 minutes on average to travel just 10 kilometres during the 5 p.m. rush hour. So this is a very good tool to have.

But I think we need to acknowledge this is actually the stick; it is not a carrot. The solution to congestion is modal shift, not actual congestion pricing. What we’ve seen of late is actually the taking away of funding from the areas that we will get modal shift in public transport and active transport.

When I look at Christchurch City, we were very fortunate to have investment from the last Labour Government, the previous National Government. That paid massive dividends in our cycleway roll-out, which we started in 2013, and we’re probably at least two-thirds or three-quarters of the way through. Last year, we had 4 million cycle trips in Christchurch City. One cycle counter had 500,000. That was because of investments. Point of contact surveys showed that 15 percent of the people on the cycleway cycling had got out of a car because of the cycleway. Survey after survey shows that, actually, the reason why people don’t bike is because they feel unsafe and it’s the cycling infrastructure that actually encourages them to bike and start biking.

That—that—is what reduces congestion. When we give people true modal choice, you will actually see congestion ease. It’s very, very simple to actually understand that. It surprises me when I see the likes of $54 billion going to be invested in roading, when, actually, the solution is not in building more roads; it’s about encouraging modal shift—a very, very cheap and affordable method to not just make people move easier but also help people’s health.

One of the things that’s also been interesting as well in the transport space is this clear desire from the Government to not care about the health of people too, because there’s a really good opportunity to actually bring more into this space when you look at the amount of people having premature deaths because of pollution from vehicles. But yet we simply ignore the elephant in the room and just focus on little things that you think are wins when there are bigger things that we can do in the transport space.

It has been very clear that this Government has deprioritised actual moving people and just focused on vehicles. It is not good enough for the cities. If we want to be a truly modern and sustainable country, we need to ensure that people can move around safely in all forms and modes and it’s just not happening. We have seen that in Christchurch, where the Government reduced funding to active transport, that suddenly the cycleway programmes have almost come to a halt.

Hon Member: Hallelujah!

MIKE DAVIDSON: This is not helping people.

You say “Hallelujah”, what about the young tamariki that want to bike to school? The reason why we have congestion is because you focus on cars, cars, cars, and kids are too scared to bike to school because of the attitude on the other side of the House.

While I support this bill, I think we need to realise that, actually, the solution to congestion is modal shift. If you actually care about people’s wellbeing, you’ll actually help them to get there with where they need to go safely.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2).

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

This bill represents another meaningful step towards strengthening New Zealand’s education system. It introduces a range of legislative changes designed to advance the Government’s key priorities and improve outcomes for learners. Among its proposals, the bill requires schools to place students’ education educational achievement at the centre of their decision making, provides schools and families with more time to respond to planned union strike action, and ensures that initial teacher education, teacher discipline, and competence processes are fit for purpose. It introduces new requirements for schools to have attendance management plans, and mandates that universities uphold freedom of expression for students and staff. Changes include further measures to support a high-performing, equitable education system. My colleagues Ministers Seymour and Reti will speak to those proposals shortly. The changes in this bill are vital to advancing our goals to raise student achievement and attendance, prepare our future-ready workforce, and build a knowledge-rich curriculum grounded in the science of learning.

One of the key proposals in this bill relates to changes to section 127 of the Education and Training Act. As the Minister of Education has previously raised, this Government is relentlessly focused on lifting student achievement and closing the equity gap so that every learner gains the skills they need to thrive. Section 127 sets out the range of objectives that school boards must deliver. This bill amends the section to make educational achievement the paramount objective for all school boards. This means that boards must treat educational achievement as their highest priority when making decisions. To achieve this, boards must also meet a range of essential supporting objectives, including a new focus on student attendance and good quality assessment, as well as other existing obligations around safe and inclusive school environments.

During the committee of the whole House, the Minister of Education introduced Amendment Paper 428 that made further changes to section 127. This proposal responded to the Government’s Treaty reference review, which was part of the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to undertake a review of all legislative references relating to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Currently, section 127 requires schools to carry out a legal duty to give effect to the Treaty. However, questions were raised during this review, about whether it was appropriate—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Can I ask members to not talk across the Chamber, because we’re trying to listen to the Minister. Continue, please.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —thank you—for boards, who are made-up of parents and volunteers, to be held accountable for meeting the Crown’s Treaty obligations. This Government considers that it is unreasonable to expect elected parents, who volunteer their time, to discharge the Crown’s legal responsibilities in respect of the Treaty. Instead, the Government believes that it is the Crown’s responsibility to support Māori educational success. And we currently do this in education—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —through a range of different initiatives—wait and I’ll tell you—plans, and programmes, including the Māori Education Action Plan, which sets clear goals for delivering better outcomes in the classroom for Māori students and focuses on delivering a knowledge-rich curriculum using evidence-based teaching methods in te reo matatini and pāngarau.

The curriculum refresh, which makes changes to the national curriculum, includes te Marautanga o Aotearoa and includes a more knowledge-rich approach to teaching and learning and includes more concepts drawn from te ao Māori than previous curricula covering history, language, and culture. Further Budget 2025 investments include the allocation of over $100 million—$100 million—to lift Māori education achievement through things like new curriculum resources in te reo Māori and investing in safe, warm, and dry classrooms for kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium kura. We are already seeing indications of progress from this work. When phonics was first introduced, only 25 percent of Māori five-year-olds were meeting expectations. That figure has now risen to 43 percent, and the number needing reading support has dropped from 62 percent to 47 percent.

The bill replaces the provisions on how schools are required to give effect to the Treaty, with new, supporting objectives—that all boards must give effect to—to meet their paramount objective of educational achievement. These new objectives require boards to seek to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students, take all reasonable steps to provide for students to be taught and to learn in te reo Māori on request of their parents or immediate caregivers, and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices for the school reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity. This change continues to maintain the need for boards to seek to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students. However, it also reflects the reality that while some families may consider teaching in te reo Māori important to their children’s education, this change provides choice so that they can enable their children to be educated in line with their child or family’s aspirations. Overall, we consider that these new changes will help focus boards on delivering equitable and excellent educational outcomes for all New Zealand students through clarifying expectations.

Alongside the changes to school board objectives, the bill also removes the ability for a Minister of Education to issue a statement of national education and learning priorities—NELPS. This tool was originally introduced to give schools greater strategic direction. However, the updated school board objectives, together with curriculum statements and frameworks, provide stronger, clearer directions setting clear requirements to help guide schools more effectively. Again, the Minister of Education does not want schools to be overburdened or distracted from educational achievement. By streamlining boards’ obligations and removing the NELP, schools will have a clear, simple framework with achievement at the forefront.

We know that schools will need some time to give effect to these changes, and that is why the Education and Workforce Committee have agreed to amend the date at which the school boards’ next strategic plan takes effect, from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027. This will provide for boards to prepare for and make changes to their strategic plan in 2026 and consult with their community.

Another key change proposed 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. We recognise and respect the rights of unions to strike—it is a fundamental part of a democratic framework. However, schools and parents need adequate time to prepare for the disruption that strike action can cause. This includes determining whether they remain open, and, if so, arranging provision for supervision. Parent, caregivers, and whānau deserve sufficient time to make alternative arrangements should their school decide to close. Every learning day matters, and this change continues to preserve the rights of union to strike, but we believe that it is a practical and fair adjustment that supports our students, respects our educators, and strengthens our system overall.

As mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech, teachers have a significant influence on the educational success of all learners. In particular, the quality of teaching is a critical factor that influences educational outcomes. This bill makes amendments to strengthen initial teacher education through greater Government involvement in standards for teacher registration and practising certificates and approvals of initial education programmes. The Minister wishes to pass on her thanks to colleagues who have given consideration to this bill, and we commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe—

Hon David Seymour: Oh, God!

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —e te Māngai o te Whare. Did that member across there just say “Oh, God!” as I—

Hon David Seymour: No, I’ve heard your speech before.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh right, what a start—the Deputy Prime Minister.

This bill is an absolute travesty—travesty—because what we have here is this Government ramming through these changes and this legislation. They’re ramming it through because they didn’t—

Carl Bates: Hey, we went through a full select committee process.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Is that right, Mr Chair? Full select committee process for the two Amendment Papers?

Carl Bates: You were there. Did you concentrate?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I do not want you having conversations across the Chamber. Please refrain yourself.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll point out for the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee that this did not go through a full select committee process. The two Amendment Papers tabled by the Minister last week in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill did not go through a select committee process, so the public did not have an opportunity to make submissions on the proposed changes to remove the section regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi for boards or the changes to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. Now, this is a travesty, because what we have here are two really significant changes which, as I just said, have had no consultation, no select committee process, and, actually, very little debate.

In terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi: first, the Government’s plan was to deprioritise that in the legislation, but then, after significant lobbying by Hobson’s Pledge, the Minister caved to Hobson’s Pledge, caved to the Deputy Prime Minister’s political and ideological agenda, and actually removed that provision for boards. There were patronising comments that volunteers and parents cannot understand what Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations are from both Ministers—that Minister that has spoken today, and the Minister that spoke last week. They are elected members of a Crown entity, and, in fact, we had the president of Te Whakarōputanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa, or the New Zealand School Boards Association, Meredith Kennett, say that the change would undermine the legal and practical standing of schools as Crown entities and risk damaging wider social cohesion, to no clear benefit. Kennett said that the clause did not cause harm, but removing it would. “To understand attendance and achievement statistics for rangatahi Māori, you have to understand our history—and that includes Te Tiriti,” she said. “That understanding leads to more practical, effective, and inclusive school policies.”

This particular amendment that the Government introduced during the committee stage, without consultation, without a select committee process, is absolutely undermining our founding document and undermining our boards of trustees. It’s no wonder we have seen them, in the last week, rejecting this Government’s moves to undermine them—doing the best for their schools and their communities—by patronising, saying that they can’t understand what the obligations must be.

The Minister did not answer my questions in the House last week, when I asked what are the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it comes to education, and how will the Government ensure that the authority that they give to school boards is going to be overseen and that we are going to have assurance that the Minister is going to be able to ensure all schools uphold her Treaty of Waitangi obligations, when there is no mechanism for us to be able to see that. They are delegating significant authority to school boards with no responsibility to do it in a way that upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We have had organisation after organisation, school board after school board, in just a week, come out condemning this Government’s changes to removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from school boards.

The other issue that I want to talk to—which we didn’t have an opportunity in the committee of the whole House stage last week—was the significant changes that this Government is making to the Teaching Council through their Amendment Paper. To the chair of the committee on the other side of the House, I say that this was another one that did not come to select committee and did not have consultation. What we have is, basically, the Minister had already tried to do this before: remove these powers from the Teaching Council. She wants to set the standards for the teaching profession. This is a political overreach. This is going to allow for the political influence and interference into the teaching profession. We don’t have that for doctors; we don’t have that for lawyers—but here, this Minister wants to take on that responsibility and have the ability to have that level of political overreach into our teaching profession.

Now, this did actually come up in one submission in the select committee, and I point that out for everybody, because basically, the Minister is adopting the playbook of The New Zealand Initiative. This particular change was in their submission, and I don’t think anybody in this House should be surprised that the Minister has chosen to pick up the suggestions and recommendations from The New Zealand Initiative and take that and put that into an Amendment Paper, introduce it at the last minute with no consultation, no select committee process, and pass it through the House, because so many of the things that this Minister of Education is doing comes from suggestions—the manifesto, submissions—from The New Zealand Initiative. We should all be concerned, because if the Minister is successful in taking these powers of the Teaching Council and putting them in the Ministry of Education—and tonight is the first stage of that—they will be responsible for setting the standards for the teaching profession.

I also think that they are starting to lay the groundwork, the foundations, soften everything, ready for performance-based pay. That is something that has been rejected time and time again, and here we have the Minister taking the steps to allow that to happen. Mark my words, that’s what her agenda is. Also, the Minister has already developed the set of standards she would like for the Teaching Council, so she’ll just be able to bring those: “Here’s what I prepared earlier but wasn’t able to get through because I was advised by the ministry not to. Now, I have this opportunity to do that in law. Here is the first stage.” Again, this is going to be rammed through.

So we have teaching organisations who have hit back on the Minister’s proposals. Here, we have the headline “Education groups oppose minister’s Teaching Council shake-up”. We have signatories from NZEI Te Riu Roa, the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, the New Zealand Principals Federation, Te Akatea, New Zealand Catholic Primary Principals Association, New Zealand Pasifika Principals’ Association, Aotearoa Educators Collective, Montessori Aotearoa, Kindergartens Aotearoa, and the Tertiary Education Union—representing approximately 100,000 educators in New Zealand, all expressing significant serious concerns about the Minister’s proposals to take the Teaching Council into the ministry so she can have the ability to influence and interfere in the profession. Ultimately, this, they say, will put the quality of teaching and learning for our students at risk.

We should all be seriously concerned when that many organisations, representing close to 100,000 educators, are writing an open letter and expressing serious concerns about a piece of legislation that the Minister simply introduced as an Amendment Paper in a committee of the whole House stage, without a select committee process, without consultation, and it’s just going to pass into law tonight. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an absolute travesty that we have the Minister here first trying to deprioritise Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and now entirely removing it from the responsibilities of school boards. They did not consult on this. They did not get support for this through the proper process. They introduced it in the House in the committee of the whole House stage. That is not democratic, and we are seeing backlash from the sector, from the schools, from our communities.

I hope the Minister will listen, but I don’t believe I have seen her demonstrate that to date. She is going to continue to push ahead, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence to support these proposals that she has here—no evidence. What she has as a coalition agreement that said she was going to do these things, so that is political, not educational. We do not commend this bill to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a despicable bill by a despicable, despicable Government.

The Green Party will not be supporting this, and let's discuss why. First of all, the bill is going to remove giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the school board under section 127 of the Education and Training Act 2020. Now, this, as the previous speaker the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has mentioned, is an amendment that was introduced in the House during the committee of the whole House stage. This was not consulted on, this was not part of the select committee stage, and this has received backlash from the New Zealand School Boards Association themselves, who are most affected by this. It removes local tikanga Māori, it removes mātauranga Māori.

Why is the Minister of Education doing all of this? Let's face it, the mask has really come off from the Minister on her agenda to attack Te Tiriti o Waitangi. She doesn't need the Minister of Justice’s support any more—she can do that for herself. We're seeing the removal of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP), despite the fact that in the truancy inquiry report done in 2027, it says that NELP is helpful when it comes to attendance.

What is this bill aiming to do? Actually, more broadly, what is the Government's agenda? A lot of this bill is the Government and the Ministers saying that they want educational outcomes for students. Are educational outcomes important? Yes, but what is education? Education is about curiosity. Education is about children understanding and having a love of learning and asking questions. Education is not a means to an end. It is not that you go to school, you go to uni, you work, you retire, you die. But that is what this Government wants out of education, because it has a Minister who has never set foot in front of a classroom, who does not understand what it means to be an educator, and who has the arrogance to not consult with the sector on any of the changes that are being made.

This is a bill that is going to create good little productive units, because that is what this Government wants. They want labour units. They don't want people to ask questions. They don't want people to learn. This is what's going to happen with this bill. When we have an announcement made by the Minister with a backdrop of Business New Zealand that's done in a law firm with no teacher or student in sight, that is a problem and that should be a concern for parents, for students, and for teachers in Aotearoa.

We are seeing Te Tiriti under attack. What we're seeing from this Minister is that while, yes, they are tooting about the fact that they are doing all of these little things—first of all, if you look for success, you can find success anywhere, and that's what we are finding with some of the reports that are coming out regarding education. We are seeing a cherry-picking of evidence.

Ninety-seven percent of ākonga Māori are in English-medium streams. They will be under this system. This Government is like, “Well, what is wrong with removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from school boards? They can still do it.” But do you know what? School boards had 150 years to teach Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to teach New Zealand history to students, and it wasn't done. So the fact that they're like “Oh, school boards can still do it.”—that's not going to happen.

When they are talking about “We want to make sure that everyone's going to succeed.”—no. They want to make sure that people only succeed within a white framework. They are saying that they want educational outcomes for Māori, but God forbid as Māori; God forbid that there should be educational outcomes as Chinese. They mean that with this legislation, you have the option, if you ask for it, and so if you want access to your heritage and your culture, you’d better beg for it.

That is what this Government is trying to do when it comes to education: “Know your place; otherwise, we will put you in your place.” That's what's happening with this bill right here. It is sheer arrogance.

When we're looking at this bill, when we're looking at the fact of changing the New Zealand history curriculum—I want to know, how is that history curriculum going to be taught? Are they going to teach about the colonial history of the oppression that Chinese people had to go through in the Opium War, when our imperial palaces were sacked by the colonial power and our heritage looted? Are they going to talk about the Congo massacre that Leopold II of Belgium committed on the people of Congo, which was one of the worst tragedies in the world? Are they going to teach about blackbirding, where Pasifika people were traded as slaves in Aotearoa and Australia? Are they going to teach the colonial history of the world and the fact that it was the colonial powers that caused what we're seeing here today? Are they going to teach any of that in this history curriculum? Because if they are not, if they are not—

Celia Wade-Brown: I don’t think they know about it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: No, of course they don't know about it, because that would actually require people to know global history, for a change. It would require them to know the history of Aotearoa, for a change.

When we are looking at this bill and when we are looking at the fact that Te Tiriti is going to be removed from board obligations, we are looking at the fact that the Minister has, without consultation, decided to stack the Teaching Council and rob it of its independence, where now there are going to be more ministerial appointees on the Teaching Council than genuinely independent elected officials. When we're looking at the fact that amendments that have been dropped during the committee stage have not had proper consultation, that is undermining not only Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that is undermining the democracy of Aotearoa and that is undermining the unity and kotahitanga of Aotearoa.

That should never be accepted by the House—that should never be accepted by anyone in the House—but am I surprised? No, because we're seeing decisions made by this Government over and over again in sheer arrogance, because they think they know what's best for every single sector. They think they know more than teachers. They think they know more than educators, more than people who have spent decades of their life—and from a Minister who has been a Minister for half a second—and they think that they then know better than the people who are the professionals. That is hubris.

As I mentioned during the committee stage, this is something that the Green Party will not support. Also, when we did ask the Minister a question during the committee stage on why she chose to cherry-pick certain things and certain data, there was no response for that. There's no response. The Minister keeps on talking about the recent changes being made for the Teaching Council because of the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey report of 2024, but there were lots of things in that report, such as the fact that our teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand feel that they do not have the authority to make decisions about their curriculum—about the changes they're making—and the fact that, on average, they work 6½ hours more than the OECD average. That data was not addressed by the Minister.

To close, the Green Party is making a commitment to educators and to teachers and to students, now. We are going to revert to and commit to the vision and direction of Te Mātaiaho as implemented in 2023, and we are going to commit to the intention of the original history curriculum, because ka whawhai tonu mātou, āke, āke, āke.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to take this call to support this bill on behalf of the ACT Party. This is a great bill from a great Government, and I really want to commend the Hon David Seymour for his work that is part of this bill.

As the previous member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, who has just sat down, has said, their commitment is towards unions, our commitment is to parents and students. Their commitment is confined to only unions, not to student and not to parents, but on this side, we are committed to seeing what is best for students and what is best for parents. We have been hearing from parents and we have been taking their interests on board in making sure that this legislation goes through this House in the best possible version.

We are really pleased to see the changes that have been made to this legislation in the committee of the whole House, and I heard members on that side saying that the committee of the whole House stage was not the appropriate process. They had so many Amendment Papers, and even if like one Amendment Paper of theirs had gone through, I would ask them: would have said the same thing—that that process was not the right process? No, they would not have, because this is the process that we adopted, and it was in the committee of the whole House that we made the changes on the basis of the feedback that we were getting when the bill was reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee. So I don’t understand what those members were saying about the committee of the whole House, because that is a process, and I can’t remember how many Amendment Papers there were. I think that it was close to 130 Amendment Papers, or something like that. They were fighting to make changes in the committee of the whole House, and now they are saying, “Why did you make changes to this bill in the committee of the whole House?”

I’m really pleased to see the changes that have been made to this bill in the committee of the whole House because the objectives of school boards are not to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is just a distraction. It’s just shifting their attention to something that is not measurable. We want to see that school boards are able to deliver in the best interests of students. We want to see that they are focused on improving numeracy, they are focused on improving literacy, they’re focused on improving attendance, and they’re focused on improving engagement. These are the kinds of things that parents have been asking to see school boards deliver, and that is what we are delivering.

School boards are not entities that are there for any kind of cultural or political kind of motivation in these institutions. Their job as a governance board is in being an educational institute, and so we want to see that they are focused on delivering the best educational outcomes for all students, irrespective of their racial background, whether they’re Māori, Pasifika, Chinese, Indian, or of any racial background. To say that this is going to have a negative impact on Māori students—that is just rubbish. Why do I say this? Because still now, that is happening, and we haven’t seen that making any difference to Māori students.

I do accept that, yes, there will be some students who do lag behind. Not every student can learn at the same pace, and so what we need to do is we need to focus on those students on the basis of their need. Race has nothing to do with that, and giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi is not going to help anybody. It’s just a waste of resources, and so I’m very pleased to see that in the committee of the whole House, we’ve managed to make this change. In my second reading speech, I said that this was going to be removed as part of the wider Treaty clauses review, or even before that, and so we’re really pleased that it has happened before that so that schools get more certainty, parents get more certainty, and students actually know that they have to focus on numeracy and literacy, and they have to focus on learning the subjects that are going to give them the skills to succeed in the real world.

Talking about attendance, yes, attendance management plans in schools are really important. We saw that attendance in schools dropped under the previous Labour Government, and we have been working really, really hard. Again, I want to commend the Hon David Seymour for his work, and we are seeing that the attendance data is looking better and better, day by day.

This will happen only when students see that they have value when they go to school. If we’re not providing value to students, they’re not going to turn up to school if we’re just wasting their time, and even parents will think that sending their children to school is just a waste of their time. We want to see that schools are able to provide real value to students so that parents also think that “Yes, my child should be in school.” That is what we are doing.

In this legislation, we are ensuring that schools will have attendance management plans, and of course I understand that there can be so many different reasons why students don’t turn up to school. That’s why we are saying that the schools should respond to the underlying reasons, as well, for students being absent, because that will give us a really good picture of what is happening in different schools.

Now, finally, I want to talk about freedom of expression in universities. Yes, we start from school, and in school, the children learn about the skills that are needed to succeed in the world. In university, they learn those skills, but they also want the exposure to the wider world, and what is happening at the moment is we are restricting that kind of exposure for students. We want to empower students. We want to protect those students who want to bring different kinds of speakers and those who want to express different views on campuses—they should be able to do that.

Under the previous Labour Government, open debate was under threat. Open debate was under threat under the previous Labour Government, and we want to see that open debate is protected.

We want to see that people are able to hear different kinds of views and they’re able to make up their own minds. If they want to accept those views and agree with those views or disagree with those views, students should be able to do that when they are at university. That is the age at which they should be able to develop that kind of thinking process, and we want to see that that is happening. I’m really pleased to see that in this legislation, universities will be required to develop and commit to having a policy of freedom of expression, and also there will be a complaints process, which will make this whole thing really transparent.

So this is a really good bill. We’re very pleased to support it and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Mr Speaker. When I was listening to the Opposition speeches, which seemed like a defence of the current education system, you’d kind of think that from the Opposition point of view, everything is working really, really well. Willow-Jean Prime said that this bill is a travesty. To me, that is defending the indefensible, because at the moment the travesty actually is that our education system has been failing our young people for a very long time and it’s getting worse. The level of attendance is really, really poor and we are starting to see that beginning to come back up again with a lot of hard work, particularly from the Ministers in this Government.

We’re also seeing the levels of achievement in some of those core skills—the ability to read, to write, to be numerate. Those kind of skills had got to a level which we should be collectively ashamed of and yet the Opposition seem to be defending that. That, to me, is defending the indefensible.

Look, if you don’t believe what I’m saying there, just look at what the regulatory impact statement (RIS) says: “While there is much good practice and achievement in the New Zealand education system, educational achievement data shows significant gaps and variability in the educational achievement of New Zealand students. The 2022 results of the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) examinations continue the trend of worsening overall performance of New Zealand students and large equity gaps.”

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What has that got to do with Te Tiriti?

ANDY FOSTER: That has nothing to do with Te Tiriti, but what that does have to do—actually, I’ll come back to that. It does have a little bit to do with Te Tiriti, but what it does say is that we have a problem in our education system. That problem is that our students—[Interruption] I don’t know what these people are yelling and screaming about, but what that says is that our education system is failing our students.

What this bill does is it quite rightly says that that is not acceptable, and it says that instead of a confused mess of several equal and competing objectives in the education system, we are going to say that there is a primary objective—a primary objective in the education system, a paramount objective—and then there are a number of supporting objectives. That seems reasonable, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it seem like common sense to say that a school 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 in educational achievement? Does that sound like a terrible thing? It sounds like a very, very good thing to me, because what’s quite clear is that at the moment that has not been happening and this bill is about saying that is front and centre. There are a whole bunch of supporting objectives, but that is front and centre. That is the most important objective of our school system.

In terms of Te Tiriti, I think there was a question and a bit of interchange that that happened during question time. It was about what this bill does in terms of giving effect to Te Tiriti. Well, it actually does one very, very practical thing because what it says is it seeks to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students. We know that Māori students generally are performing much worse than students as a whole, and so to lift that surely has to be a good thing, and it is not an amorphous objective about Te Tiriti. It is saying very concretely that we want to lift the performance of those students, in this case Māori students, who are not performing at the level that they need to. Across the board, our students are not performing at the level they need to. That is particularly true of some sectors of society—Māori students and people from lower socioeconomic areas are performing particularly poorly, and they need to be lifted up. We don’t want just to have some really high performers up here and then a big tail of people who are not able to cope in the education system. That is not setting those people up to be citizens of the world, citizens of this country.

The next part of this bill is about ensuring that schools have attendance management regimes. Again, that makes sense. How can you learn if you’re not actually at school? This Government has put a lot of focus there, and the Hon David Seymour has put a lot of focus on making sure that we get more of our students spending more of their time at school so they are—guess what!—learning more. That has got to be a good thing.

Finally, in terms of the Teaching Council—because we had a lot of that from the Opposition as well—again, if you look at the RIS, the RIS is quite clear because it says that at the moment what’s happening is that we are not setting our teachers up for success either. It talks about saying, if I can find—oh, there we go. “If new teachers do not feel confident in their preparedness to teach areas of the curriculum, it is likely that their learners will struggle in these curriculum areas.” So what that is saying—and we know that’s the case—is that we are not setting our teachers up. I was a teacher 30-odd years ago. We are not setting our teachers up to succeed either, and it is really, really important that we rectify that.

The last couple of things I would say—what an impassioned speech that was from Lawrence Xu-Nan. In terms of history—and I used to be a history teacher once—we should be teaching every bit of history that we can. Of course, I mean, history is such an enormous thing. We should be celebrating history. We should be teaching that and we should do that, warts and all. There are no perfect races, no perfect groups in history. We should be doing that warts and all. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, you’re quite right; curiosity, love of learning is really, really important. What we should be making sure is that people are able to look at that information and to make up their own minds about what it means, not be told what to think. I think that is much more the fault of Governments of the left rather than Governments of the right.

The final thing I wanted to say, it seems slightly anomalous to the rest of the bill, but it is an important thing as well, and it’s good that we actually bring a lot of things in together—the issue of freedom of speech at universities. Quite clearly, we have seen quite a number of instances where freedom of speech has been denied, where both staff and students have been unable to say what they would like to say. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy and it is really, really important. It is really, really important that universities are required to adopt statements on freedom of expression and the way in which that is done is set out very, very clearly. I think that will make universities, which should be the place where you have debate, sometimes uncomfortable debate—they should be the place that we have those discussions and I think that is a good thing as well. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

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

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. It’s an honour to be here, standing on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in staunch opposition to this Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). This is not a minor or technical tweak. It is actually the rotten stripping and the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the education system. That’s what we’re contending with today. It removes Māori partnership, it removes iwi partnership, it removes accountability to tangata w’enua, it removes accountability to iwi, and it’s deliberately silencing our tamariki Māori in their own classroom. It’s a regression. It’s a regression to a monocultural colonial model of education that is knowingly erasing Te Tiriti in this time and age—knowing the importance of mokopuna, of tamariki, of rangatahi, turning up to schools and being comfortable in their own cultural identity.

We are all here because of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and yet we have a Government who’s intentional on trying to wipe it and attack it from the moment it got in.

Repeka Lessels, who is the president of the New Zealand Educational Institute, with 50,000-plus members, said that this is the latest in a series of racist, dogmatic attacks on our education system. That is from an absolute specialist. We have got schools—and I’m going to read them out because what I want our whānau to do in listening to this debate is actually get in behind these schools and encourage more to join them: Whakatāne High School, Te Uru Karaka Newton Central School, Allandale Primary School, Apanui School, Tauranga Intermediate, Te Kura Takiwa o Opononi, Prospect School, Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery school, Te Hiwa Shirley Primary School, Richmond Road School, Pāpāmoa Primary School, Somerfield Te Kura Wairepo, Sunnyvale Primary, Victoria Primary School, Te Kura o Hau Karetu, Huirangi School, Waterloo School, St Mary’s School in Foxton, Opoutere School, One Tree Point School, Ruakākā Primary School, South Otago High School, Porirua East School, Paraparaumu College, Albany Senior High School, Te Aute College, and Te Kura o Mangaweka. These are colleges that are actually in the areas that some of these Government MPs belong to, and huge accolades to these schools for showing leadership because they are actually doing something that we encourage the rest of the country and the rest of the schools to stand in solidarity and support them.

This is what we have and Governments cannot wipe us out. Governments cannot wipe us out. They have tried before. Today, there are 29 kura and growing; 950,000 ākonga and tauira and teachers who are calling this Government out. They are calling out the Government’s short-sighted, anti-Māori, anti-Treaty approach that they have shown from the moment this Government got in.

I think of Moana Jackson above, who reminded everyone in Aotearoa that the Treaty has “never been about Treaty rights, It’s always been about the rightness that comes from people accepting their obligations to each other.”

This Government is out of touch with the very communities it’s meant to represent. Instead, this Government has been ignored, quite rightfully, by the schools that have got the courage to show their commitment to a united Aotearoa hou, to a country that is intentional on peace. Indeed, we’ll have the last laugh in 2026 when we see the end of this Government and its revolting attacks to Te Tiriti.

We have continued to see the beautiful, humble leader Rahui Papa and the National Iwi Chairs Forum have spoken out about this Government—spoken out about it again: its blindness to what it is that encourages our tamariki with their whānau, with their communities to stand in unison. You can only learn when you’re in an environment that encourages you to be who you are, when you are allowed to express your culture, when you’re allowed to express your hapū, when you’re allowed to express your iwi, and they are the very communities that help fund and get these schools up and running.

This Government is bereft. It is bereft of any conscience that should be shared towards these schools, towards our students, and towards the nation-building of Aotearoa. Shame, absolute shame on the whitewashing and the continual back-pedalling we have to the colonial construct that ruined the education, and the whole fact that they are in denial of the equity that we have in education. They are in denial of how Māori children arrive to not fit into this education system. No, instead we have a Government intent on dragging every Māori child back to where it is that they think normal is. Nō reira, we are absolutely opposed to this bill.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Good evening. We are still on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). Francisco Hernandez.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And points for the full, correct name. I wanted to take the speech to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We do our best.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m rising in opposition to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), but in contrast to my usual form of speech, I’m going to try and give a slower and more measured speech. It’s good to, sort of, practise different kinds of speech techniques.

During the committee of the whole House, it was disappointing not to have been able to explore the contribution which I’m going to focus my speech on, which is the issue of how this bill potentially creates restrictions on the ability of universities to act as a critic and conscience of society—a function which I’m sure all of us members can appreciate. It is something that I’ve gotten a new appreciation for, on how important it is to ensure that universities are able to have people that are able to speak to potentially, you know, controversial ideas and such. I mean, obviously there’s a spectrum of what limits can be placed and there’s a spectrum of what sort of conduct is allowed to be engaged upon. But I think we all agree, in general, it’d be good to not place undue restrictions on the ability of people to exercise, you know—to invite speakers or overly restrict what speakers on campus are allowed to say and do.

This is something that was impressed on me, quite unusually, when as the Green spokesperson for tertiary education—we’ve been doing this save our polytechs tour—and I tried to get a booking on the Otago Polytechnic campus to hold a public meeting around saving Otago Polytechnic. It all seemed to be fine at first glance. They accepted the booking, but I think a few days before the event was due to be held, the event was cancelled at the last minute by Te Pūkenga, by the administration, because they didn’t want the campus to be politically influenced. So, having had that happen to me, I’m sympathetic to the idea that we should be protecting the rights of speakers to be able to speak on campus, because it is concerning that in a tertiary institution that people are not able to speak. I do think that this was one of the potential omissions of this bill that could have been included.

Obviously, we take exception to how sweeping the powers of the bill are, but if we are to place polytechs on the same status as universities, and I’m sure all of us members here agree that polytechs, you know, should be on the same status as universities, then they should also be required to uphold academic freedom as universities have been required to, in our view, in an overly strict way. I mean, we’d water the bill down and, you know, just protect the right of speakers.

We do take exception to the how this bill, essentially, restricts universities from being able to take a public position on issues. And this is concerning to us because, you know, when we asked the Minister questions during the committee of the whole House stage on how taking a public position would be defined, we weren’t able to get a concrete answer. That’s concerning to us because universities should be able to take positions as a public institution and also submit on bills. We got no assurance from the Minister that the function of universities as a critic and conscience of society in the context of being able to submit to, you know, for example, bills in the House or really any legislation, anything that’s being done in the context of the role, would be protected.

Another area that we would have grave concerns about, in terms of taking a public position provision, is in terms of the curriculum. Now, a very strict, hard-line application of this legislation could render universities being unable to take official stances on what they’re teaching. For example, whether it’s evolution versus creationism. Now, you know, we do know people are allowed to have opinions, but the difference is evolution is a scientific fact, and universities should be able to proclaim that. But, unfortunately, this bill casts doubt to that, which is why we oppose it.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To anyone listening at home to this debate this evening, they might have got confused around what is trying to be achieved here. I want to help just make it pretty clear and pretty simple, because the Opposition have tried to confuse everyone about what the role of schooling is about. This bill is focused on ensuring we help get students to school—attendance—and, secondly, we focus on educational achievement; and for parents like me across the country, I know that that’s what we want. I commend the bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), the legislation that nobody asked for, that universities didn’t ask for, that schools did not ask for—yet here we are again, debating a piece of legislation that takes away the localism, the autonomy, the decision making of our educational institutions.

Hon Matt Doocey: Like three waters.

SHANAN HALBERT: Like three waters, and, Mr Doocey, you campaigned against that and you promised localism, and here you are taking it away. Minister Doocey is advocating for localism, in a bill that takes away localism. How does that go? All of this because this National-led Government thinks that they know better than our educators, the sector, the school boards, and universities. It’s another example where they are out of touch. In fact, the only people that this bill serves is Hobson’s Pledge, Don Brash, and the Free Speech Union.

I want to start by reflecting on clause 11 of the bill amending section 281, and its freedom of expression requirements for universities. Over the past eight months, I’ve had the absolute privilege to travel across tertiary education institutions in this country and see the fantastic work that they do. I’ve listened to the concerns of their leadership, their staff, and their students, and you know what? None of them have said to me that universities adopting a statement of freedom of expression is something that they want, that they need, or that it is a priority for them. This proposal is a mishmash of things. It’s an afterthought, mentioned as a joke in passing about how the tail wags the dog in this Government, because in the current educational environment this is not a priority for our universities. They want to focus on the core issues, the real issues: how they can deliver for students and provide an education that sets them up for a successful workforce.

On the perceived problem of freedom of expression, the Ministry of Education’s regulatory impact statement makes it very clear: “We have limited evidence on the actual extent and impact of freedom of speech concerns in New Zealand.” Additionally, it said that universities themselves have a “lower level of overall concern that freedom of speech is being constrained.” The ministry’s preference was in fact to maintain the status quo. When I asked the Minister, in fact, in our select committee, who it was that asked for this bill, the only person that she could reference was in fact Don Brash. Don Brash was the only person that the Minister could say asked for this piece of the legislation. It comes as no surprise to those of us who sit on this side of the House that during the select committee process’ submissions, only 13 percent of submitters who mentioned these sections of the bill supported these proposals. Ridiculous.

There were core themes throughout the submissions that were heard. This legislation is absolutely unnecessary, overly prescriptive, and actually creates greater risks around academic freedom and the freedom of expression. The New Zealand Law Society have noted that this legislation is unnecessary—they’ve noted it too—and “would at best simply affirm what is already accepted to be the case under existing legislation.” They asked a simple question: whether anything is gained by the proposed reform, which would impose legal obligations upon university councils.

Universities New Zealand, the sector voice for our eight universities that represents their collective views, I think answers this question best in their submission: “All universities in New Zealand regard the protection of freedom of speech, academic freedom and the encouragement of robust and respectful debate to be essential to our work and critical to our purpose. Given this enduring focus delivered via the current institutional policies, Universities New Zealand does not see that there is a problem requiring legislative change with respect to freedom of expression at our universities.”

So the question remains, who other than “Uncle” Don Brash and the Free Speech Union, does this part of the legislation serve? In the UK, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and its provisions, including a mandatory complaints process like the one proposed in this legislation, resulted in the proliferation of frivolous and vexatious claims, and weaponisation of the complaints process that actually had a chilling effect on free speech.

At the heart of it, we actually know what the real issue is here and who it impacts most. It will be Māori, it will be rainbow communities, it will be those with disabilities, those that are marginalised, and it will be women. This bill sets out to undo this.

I move on to the second part—and there’s a lot in this unnecessary, bundle-junket of a piece of legislation. It’s a lack—

Stuart Smith: It’s a bit negative, Shanan—quite negative.

SHANAN HALBERT: Somebody from the Government side just said that I’m negative. Actually, the entire sector is negative about this bill. They don’t agree with any of it, Stuart Smith. Are you in touch? Are you in touch with your communities? I will share one of my schools. Written to myself and National MP Dan Bidois, and to the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, “As an appointed body to provide governance in this school, we are, effectively, the representatives of the Crown in a relationship with our school community and particularly, in this matter, with Māori. The obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi have been clearly and consistently restated by national and international rulings.” They are one of many school boards across the country releasing statements like this, open letters opposing this legislation. That is because they recognise the important role they play in honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a recognition that is built on their work on their ground in their own communities. Yes, we call that localism, and it is the National Government in this legislation that is taking that away. Boards of trustees lead our schools. They set the strategic direction and they are the vehicle for bridging the Crown’s educational responsibilities with their local community in its unique educational context.

The final comment: in the committee of the whole House last week, I asked the Minister directly: how do you achieve equity without Te Tiriti o Waitangi? I’ll repeat, for ears in this House—

Hon David Seymour: Just treat everyone like a human being.

SHANAN HALBERT: —how is it that you achieve equity without Te Tiriti o Waitangi? David Seymour wouldn’t know, he wouldn’t have any idea. The Minister came back to me and asked me how you achieve equity. It comes to partnership. It comes to taking care of all tamariki in our school system. It doesn’t come about by taking away the rights, the responsibilities of Te Tiriti, and the choices of schools, of trustees, and of whānau in our education system.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the key parts of this bill that I think is really worth highlighting is that the foremost obligation of boards of trustees, the priority for them, is to concentrate on educational achievement. Now, if everything is important and everything is a number one priority, then nothing is really a priority. We’re returning a sense of order to things and we are making it very clear that this is the one number one thing that we care about in education: actually educating our children. They need to turn up—and that is a part of the obligations—and they need to be seen to achieve. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, we have here a bill that got changed quite dramatically in the committee of the whole House. When those sorts of things happen, when we see a change that is made so drastically at that point, there is nothing other than to say that this is a grubby little bill. Not giving people the opportunity to actually speak on clauses and parts of this bill that are absolutely critical is a really, really big affront to democracy. I’m really surprised because I’ve heard members on that side of the House say that democracy is really important, and yet they go and they do this to this particular bill—particularly when we see how the bill now removes the need for boards of trustees to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

When I hear the arguments on that side of the House, I think “Do they not realise, when they say that that is what the Crown needs to be doing, that boards are a Crown entity?” It almost beggars beyond belief that they have no understanding of the make-up and the nature of a board of trustees. If that is the fact and in effect what they are saying, is it that they’ve got a broader agenda around what they want to do with those boards of trustees? Giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an incredibly important function of a board of trustees.

The fact that this came through almost under cloak and dagger was absolutely disappointing—and, yes, they should be hanging their heads for such an obvious affront to the democracy of legislation in this House. [The Hon David Seymour throws his hand up] And, yes, that member over there can go like that [Member throws her hand up], because that’s how I feel when I see such a terrible piece of legislation that will impact on education.

What I will say, though, is that according to the bill as it was written and went through the committee of the whole House, boards of trustees don’t have to give effect to their change in their strategic plans until 2027 anyway. So that means that they will still have to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which means that when this Government gets elected out in 2026, it will change anyway. So I would suggest that boards of trustees will be looking to make sure that they can keep that as they’ve always known, because it is an incredibly important function of boards of trustees—not that anybody that has not been involved in education would actually know that; they think they might know, but they don’t have the data to actually show how much that makes a difference, because they don’t understand it at that level.

The other important aspect that came in cloak and dagger in this particular piece of legislation, which was absolutely disgraceful, was the fact of altering the composition of the Teaching Council of Aotearora here in this country. It is just unbelievable that here we have professional bodies in every area in this country—we have lawyers’ professional bodies, we have doctors’ professional bodies, we have them right across the board, where the profession owns what is happening and owns what that profession will look like and the standards for that profession, but that Government on that side of the House will not give that ability to our teaching profession. What does that say? That says that they have very little regard for our teachers in this country.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No regard.

Hon JAN TINETTI: They have no regard for our teachers in this country, and that is absolutely disgraceful. No wonder the Ministers are getting so much correspondence from the teachers and from the principals saying how much they are absolutely upset with what that Government and what this Government is doing.

I would challenge anybody on that side of the House who comes from an alternate profession to say whether they would like the Government telling them how to do and how to run their profession—such as, how to do operations, how to run a business. No, because we have the people who are the experts in those areas who run those professional bodies. Yet that Government wants to take that away from our teaching workforce.

This is a disgraceful bill and shows little to no regard for our teaching profession in this country. I am disgusted in what is happening here tonight.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Education and Training Amendment Bill is focused on one thing: lifting achievement—lifting achievement so that every Kiwi kid can reach their full potential in school, which will equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to take on life and thrive. Thank you to our Minister of Education for being bold, for being courageous and being game-changing, and for believing in the power of achievement and the power of education to lift our kids from poverty of aspiration. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): This bill demonstrates so much of what is wrong with this Government. It’s a grab bag of right-wing bigotry and settling scores with the Government’s perceived and imagined critics. It’s probably one of the reasons—the fact is that this Government is so inclined to pursue fringe ideological distractions, instead of focusing on the things that people in this country are most concerned with, and that’s the cost of living, actually, they spend the time of the House passing laws like this. This bill is not worthy of this House’s time, it’s not worthy of a Government with any self-respect and understanding of the importance of this country’s institutions, and it’s not worthy of a Government that claims to be laser focused on educational achievement.

Let’s take the issue of freedom of speech in our country’s universities. No evidence has been presented either to this House or to the Education and Workforce Committee to justify putting the long arm of the State into our autonomous universities to basically micromanage them and make them report regularly to the Government of the day on their free speech policies. There has been no evidence.

As Shanan Halbert said to the House, the only instance that was used to justify this, in all of the discussions at the select committee, was the incident when Don Brash was denied a platform at Massey University. That is the only crisis that justified this intervention. These provisions are the bastard children of the right-wing libertarian movement internationally, like the Free Speech Union, which is trying to use the power of Government to break open our universities and require them to provide platforms for the racists, the Holocaust deniers, the trans haters, all of the people that the libertarian right want to give respectability to. They want to force our universities to provide platforms for those fringe people at the cost of the credibility and the status of our universities.

The thinking behind this provision completely confuses the idea of free speech with academic freedom. Our universities are based on a tradition of academic freedom that is hundreds of years old, where ideas get tested against research in a climate that fosters independence, fosters critical thinking, and thinks about the quality of ideas. The notion of free speech that people like David Seymour and his ilk are promoting has no notion of quality. Actually, they want the most fringe, notorious people to have access to our treasured academic institutions.

It also completely misses the point that free speech traditions in this country have grown up with a much more balanced approach that requires people to think about the consequences of what they say, because we live in a small island country where we have to get on with each other. The whole idea of freedom of speech should, in any sensible society, sit alongside the balance and the responsibility to consider the consequences of what you say. In universities, it’s the job of the universities to make that judgment, not to have people like David Seymour and right-wing libertarians like him imposing some foreign concept of freedom of speech on our institutions.

I want to talk about the provisions in this bill that set out to neuter the independence of the Teachers Council. Again, a measure in this bill for which no evidence was provided—no serious or plausible rationale for these principles. Where did it come from? Where did it come from? The New Zealand Initiative. Now, I asked the House, why would the Government deliberately undermine the autonomy of the Teachers Council, the body that’s legislated to govern the profession and set standards? Who’s next? Lawyers, accountants, doctors? No, only teachers. That’s right.

There’s only one reason. We have to surmise, because they haven’t actually been open enough and transparent enough to tell us why, but there is only one reason the Government would do this, because they see teachers as their ideological enemies. Now, let’s think about that for a moment. The National-led coalition Government sees the people who get up every day and go off to work to teach our children and help them grow and develop and learn as their ideological enemy. You can see that in the recent comments that several Ministers made about the teachers taking industrial action.

They are happy, in the interests of cultural war politics, to reduce education policy to some kind of parody where they demonise the very people who teach our children. Their whole approach to education policy is to set up this false contradiction between teachers and parents that they’re somehow in opposition to each other. Well, they’re not. They are simply not. If you ask people in the community that I represent, if you ask parents what they think of the teachers in our schools, they respect them, they thank them, they appreciate them, because they know that their kids’ progress in life depends, to a large extent, on good schools and good teachers, but for this Government, teachers are just pawns in their culture war.

Finally, I want to talk about the move to remove the clause that says that schools don’t need to give effect to our country’s founding document. Whose idea was this? No, it wasn’t the Free Speech Union. No, it wasn’t the New Zealand Initiative. This one came from Hobson’s Choice, shoehorned into the coalition agreement by David Seymour and ACT, supported by New Zealand First.

No evidence was supplied to justify this move. In fact, it was basically inserted into the bill late in the select committee process. It’s just an assertion that parents and teachers, the people who govern our schools, cannot be expected to understand or give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. Who says they can’t? How patronising, how absolutely patronising to say that the people who govern and run our schools—thousands of schools around this country, from one end of the country to the other—cannot understand and cannot give effect to our founding document.

Think about this: our public school system is one of the core and most indivisible parts of the modern State. It is one of the main ways that Government touches the lives of people on a daily basis. The people who run those schools are now being told, “You’re not capable of understanding or giving effect to our founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.” It says to us as New Zealanders that we have rights and responsibilities for ourselves and to each other, that this country is built on a partnership between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti.

Is that so hard to understand, that we owe each other the obligation to ensure that each other’s views are taken into account, are heard, that Māori have a say, that we share this place and we are bound together? Is that so hard to understand for the volunteers who govern our schools? I find it absolutely gobsmacking. I worry that this philosophy that is terrified of Māori aspiration, that’s terrified of our founding document is actually percolating through every Cabinet discussion, every Cabinet paper, every bit of law that comes to this House, they are trying to ethnically cleanse out of it the idea that sits beneath our founding document, and that is that this country is based on a partnership. For this side of the House, it’s so terrifying. It’s so obnoxious that they want to pour Janola on every bit of law and bleach out of it any kind of commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Three changes in this bill—all of them fringe ideas that have come in from the outside, with no evidence to support them. This Government is content to bring pure right-wing ideology into this House at the expense of educational achievement.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to note that there are many New Zealanders who moved here to seek refuge from actual ethnic cleansing, and I think the use of that term was incredibly irresponsible and, really, he ought to withdraw it for the reputation of the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, Mr Seymour. I heard that and I think it’s probably a little bit of grandstanding on your part.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s great to have the privilege to take the last call on this bill. It’s a great bill. Listening to the people on the other side of the House, I’m beginning to think they’ve missed the memo. This bill is very simple. It’s about prioritising educational achievement for students and children. And, you know what? I think it’ll do the members on the other side—they can do themselves a favour and go and stop talking to all their union mates and talk to parents—you know, those people out there that are parents. The ones that want to send their kids to school and let them get ahead in life.

This Government is focused on getting kids to school, educating children, and giving them a greater opportunity in life. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Standards Bill.

Bills

Regulatory Standards Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 5 November.

Part 3

Regulatory reviews and information-gathering powers

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Standards Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we had just completed the debate on Part 2. We now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 41 to 47, “Regulatory reviews and information-gathering powers”.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank you, the other presiding officers, and members for their engagement on this bill so far.

Part 3 is a relatively simple part of the bill. It sets out provisions for the Ministry for Regulation to carry out regulatory reviews—that is, backward-looking evaluations of the stock of laws that the Parliament has previously made or allowed. It then goes on to set out how the ministry—the regulatory standards ministry, that is—should go about reviewing a regulatory system, or rather its responsibility to present a report to the Minister on any review it does, and subsequently for the Minister to present that to the House of Representatives.

It goes on, in a series of clauses, to set out powers for the Ministry for Regulation as a central agency to require information to be shared by Government agencies in the course of preparing briefings for regulatory management, which is a procedure that’s been described earlier in Part 2; also, for giving information on regulatory reviews, such as asking for information from Government agencies. It then sets out a series of limitations on that power to request information, noting, for example, in clause 44 that it cannot demand information from the House of Representatives, an Office of Parliament, the Clerk, or the Parliamentary Service. It also goes on to say that it cannot require information from non - Public Service agencies, or at least has restrictions on that; and, finally, that it cannot require information from a person who is contracted to a Government agency.

It concludes the bill, or at least this part, with the consequences of failing to comply with a notice issued by the regulatory standards ministry to provide information, and it provides that a court may make an order if the court believes it’s necessary or desirable to enable the regulatory standards ministry to review a regulatory system to which any legislation relates. It has a role for the court at the very end if there is a dispute over providing information to allow the Ministry for Regulation, as a central agency, to do its job, both preparing reports and also carrying out regulatory reviews into existing regulatory systems. I hope that that will make clear that the purpose of this—it’s really quite a straightforward purpose, with a series of exemptions and conditions for using that power for that purpose.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I heard the Minister for Regulation say that a person who is a contractor couldn’t be asked for information. I might have misheard that, but if I didn’t, that isn’t how I read the Act. But that’s not really where I want to start.

Where I want to start is around why we need this part at all, because the ministry has actually undertaken a number of regulatory reviews already, and the idea that one ministry whose job it is to undertake regulatory reviews—the Ministry for Regulation—needs a special statutory power to ask another agency for information about the regulations that are being administered seems truly extraordinary. That kind of interaction between ministries can be dealt with entirely by Ministers and, if necessary, by Cabinet minutes. So why on earth we need this, I seriously don’t know.

The other thing is this: it’s actually really intrusive. You’re asking about how a regulation works and you have a sweeping, or a largely unconstrained power. The only constraint on it is that it’s for the purpose, if necessary or desirable—or whatever the exact words are—of undertaking a regulatory review. So it’s entirely conceivable that you might want to look at complaints information which contains personal information, or any other number of kinds of information which ought not readily be shared between departments. So it’s funny that you’ve got the first half of the bill saying it is to protect liberties and rights—presumably, including the right to privacy—and then Part 3 of the bill says “Forget about that. If we’re undertaking a review, we should be able to embark on a sweeping inquiry. A bit of a Star Chamber inquiry, where we can look at, essentially, whatever we like.”

I guess that’s why in my amendment—and there’s a few of them here—that I lodged on 4 November at 12.08 p.m., I suggest that there should actually be some further constraints, and there are a couple of constraints. One is the obligation—because in these regulatory reviews, you’ve got all this information-gathering power and no direction as to how the reviews themselves should be conducted.

So there’s a couple of points there. First, which is the obvious one: consult with affected stakeholders. It’s all very nice to do a review, whether it be on farrowing crates or otherwise, and consult with farmers, but not animal welfare groups—so all affected stakeholders should be consulted. The other one, of course, is that when you’re undertaking a review—particularly one that touches on things to do with Māori—you should take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Now, that’s a pretty standard thing, and I would have thought that that would have been a really easy and reasonable thing to do.

It might be that the Minister, or his officials, has some better and further rules about what it actually means to undertake a review and what it should look like, because it’s all very nice to say that “You do a review, and here’s information-gathering powers.”, but to give some procedural rules about what a review is, what its purposes are, and what its extent is would be very useful, as well. That’s why I’ve got that amendment in—but, on reflection, perhaps it doesn’t go quite as far as it should. But I’d very interested in the Minister’s observations as to (a) why this is needed, (b) what the constraints on intrusion are, and (c) what, in particular, constraints there are on what is reviewed how and why and when.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions for the Minister for Regulation regarding Part 3, but I think I want to start by asking a broader question around clause 41 regarding regulatory review reports. It’s, again, looking at the report and briefing from the Regulations Review Committee. I still have some concerns over the potential overlap between the work that is being done by the Regulatory Standards Board and also the Regulations Review Committee. There are a couple of things: if the Minister wouldn’t mind sort of clarifying. My understanding is that the Regulatory Standards Board covers primary and secondary legislation, whereas the Regulatory Review Committee covers only secondary legislation, so I’ll be approaching this only from the context of secondary legislation.

What sorts of instances can the Minister foresee where there is a partial or complete overlap between the function of the Regulatory Standards Board and that of the Regulations Review Committee, and when that does happen, how does the Minister foresee that engagement between the board and the committee on matters such as this? Additionally, what happens then when the review done by the Regulatory Standards Board and the review done by the Regulations Review Committee do not necessarily overlap or align? What are the mechanisms there for the two groups to come together? That’s my first series of questions regarding the two, and I’m sure that others who have been on the Regulations Review Committee much longer than I have may also have additional questions for the Minister regarding that.

I want to continue on with looking at clause 41(2), which is talking about “reasonably practicable after completing the review”. I just want to check what, then, would the Minister, in this case—because they have to give it to the regulatory standards Minister—be expecting when we are looking at “reasonably practicable”?

I guess that the next question that I have for the Minister is when we are looking at—let’s say, I’m going to ask the last few questions, but I’m going to just focus now on clause 42(1). I think that this is something that submitters have raised concerns around, which is the scope of power when you’re looking at “The chief executive of the regulatory standards Ministry may, by a written notice, require”—so is that requirement then mandatory, again, to fulfil? I guess, in a way, that consists of centralisation of power, particularly—unlike the Regulations Review Committee, which is a Parliament committee—that this is solely within the one ministry, and no ministry or agency has that kind of power to expect or to require information from others, as far as I know of. The Minister may have other advice on that, but I do want to know what the scope of the term is when you are looking at “require”.

The first series of questions is around the interaction between the Regulatory Standards Board, in the context of clause 41 in Part 3, and the Regulations Review Committee. What does the Minister consider to be “reasonably practicable”, and also what is the scope of “require” in clause 42(1)?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Mr Chair, I usually try and take four or five questions or speeches before replying, but I just feel I should get up now.

The Hon Duncan Webb makes the point—he asked why is this statutory power necessary when Cabinet minutes could issue directions for departments to share information with each other? One answer for that is that actually Cabinet has decided to introduce this legislation and express its will this way if Parliament agrees. And the second, which also answers Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question, is actually the Treasury does have very similar powers in relation to public finances. So it's also not unusual for a Government to ask the Parliament to pass such a law to administer the interactions between its own departments. This is another example of that.

The amendments from Dr Duncan Webb suggesting that there should be more consultation or the Treaty of Waitangi should be taken account of—when one Government department decides to use its power to ask another department for a purpose which is set out in clause 16, which we debated in Part 2 earlier. It's not clear what benefits that Duncan Webb thinks we would get from that, and the Government is not interested in adopting the amendments that he has proposed. So we won't be doing that.

He suggests that there should be limits on powers. Again, I don't want to be repetitive, but clause 16 sets out the purpose of requesting this information, and clause 44, 45, and 46 all begin with the word “restriction”. They set out the restrictions that are placed on the use of these powers. So we've actually already put quite a lot of thought into how we restrict the use of these information-gathering powers.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan asked at some length about the interaction of the Regulatory Standards Board with the Regulation Review Committee. I would just refer him to the extensive debate that we had on Part 2 where that issue was covered in in some depth. I’m not sure that it's relevant to quite a different issue here, which is the ministry’s ability to request information from other departments.

Then he asked about clause 41, subclause (2), what does “reasonably practicable” mean? This is a term that appears throughout the statute books, throughout Government papers, and what it means is exactly what it means. Is it reasonable to think that a person could do this thing? If there are clear reasons why they couldn't, it's not reasonably practicable. If there are no good reasons why you couldn't do it, then it is reasonably practicable. This is something that I think people can work out without me needing to talk about it more in the House.

Finally, he asked about clause 42(1). Again, I've addressed that—see clause 16 for the purpose of doing this.

There was a final point—oh, sorry, I'm struggling to read my own writing, but he said no other ministry has this power. Well, actually the Public Finance Act gives the Treasury—and he's now nodding. He knew that already when he asked the question. So I think we're there. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that discussion on the overall purposes of Part 3 and clause 41. I wanted to turn to clause 42, which gives the chief executive of the Ministry for Regulation the power to require an agency to supply information. One of the things we’ve heard throughout this debate is concerns around the costs of that. But also when we look at this, it’s a largely unconstrained power. Most notices to produce generally have things, particularly dates. So the notice “must state the date by which, and the manner in which, the information must be provided”. Now, I’m hopeful that our Government departments and the Ministry for Regulation will be reasonable and give a significant period of time, but it doesn’t say that, right—or in the manner in which it must be provided.

So, you know, we’ve all got Official Information Act responses saying, “That’s going to take far too long to collate and we’re not putting that in a spreadsheet for you, so we’re not going to provide that information.” There’s no such power to decline here.

Now, that’s my view in my Amendment Paper—filed on 4 November at 12 p.m. and nine seconds—and it outlines at least some constraints on that. It requires the chief executive, in making a request under clause 42(1), to take into account the costs of the agency providing that information and whether the request is, in all of the circumstances, reasonable. So it’s a balancing exercise because the danger is—of course, this is classic poor regulation—that there’s no costs on the Ministry for Regulation and asking for the information. They don’t have to pay for it and there’s all the costs on the other agency who is obliged to comply. Now, we do expect our public servants to act reasonably, but the incentives there go in all the wrong directions.

So, that’s why I have suggested that there is some constraint and that you can at least have a discussion and say that the request is unreasonable because we can’t tabulate—because this is the manner in which the information must be provided: “So please provide a tabulated spreadsheet of all of the instances of prosecutions, the provisions under which it was prosecuted, and the penalties imposed.” Now, if you do that for, I don’t know, the Ministry of Primary Industries, it’s going to be months and months of work, and if it says that it would like that by next week, all of a sudden you’re putting entirely unreasonable demands on your Public Service.

So there’s two things. One is that the date and time frame should be prescribed. You shouldn’t just have it that the Ministry for Regulation can absolutely make up its own mind. The second thing is it’s got to be reasonable. It’s got to be something which isn’t unduly onerous.

Now, there’s actually an argument to say that if you’re going to do this, the cost of it should be funded or one ministry should have to pay the other ministry for the costs of compliance, but a lot of that is captured simply by the concept of reasonableness that I’ve proposed in proposed clause 44(5)—that is, that the request is, in all of the circumstances, reasonable.

The other thing we’ve got here is this: there’s no tiebreaker. In legal matters, the tiebreaker is the Crown Law Office. If two departments disagree about the law, they don’t go to court and sue each other, they go to the Crown Law Office who says, “Look, here’s the legal position and here’s our”— essentially—“adjudication on this matter.” If there’s a scrap going on between the Ministry for Regulation and a department, who’s the tiebreaker? What is the procedure here? Because you’re going to need a dispute resolution procedure, and you don’t want relationships within the Public Service to come to breaking point because either a department’s unreasonably refusing information or the other department is unreasonably demanding information. So that’s a pretty expansive power and I’m very surprised that it isn’t limited in some way. The Minister’s comments would be welcome.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I will give some very quick answers. I just note the last two contributions by Dr Duncan Webb. In the first one, he said that really none of these powers is necessary because it can be sorted out amongst Cabinet Ministers. I made the point that Cabinet has a general view and hopes the Parliament will pass a law reflecting the general view that this central agency should have power to request information. Now, Duncan Webb is saying that the Ministry for Regulation will abuse this power and run unfettered, as though he's forgotten that only a few minutes ago he was saying that of course departments are responsible to Ministers who can sort out matters amongst themselves back in Cabinet.

So it is possible for Cabinet and Parliament to give a general direction, but also Ministers who are responsible and who are colleagues in Cabinet to moderate the use of that power. Therefore, we don't have an interest in adopting any Opposition amendments as Government amendments in this area.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just wanting to seek a quick call, at this stage, just to ask questions about two things. The first is the interaction between clause 41(1)—and I acknowledge I’m asking information around 41(1) in relation to an earlier clause, but I do want some guidance from the Minister for Regulation on this. Clause 41(1) states “This section applies when the regulatory standards Ministry reviews (in whole or in part) any regulatory system to which any legislation relates.” I just wanted to check that clause 6A(1) earlier in the piece still applies, so that 41(1) does not actually, in fact, refer to “any” regulatory system and “any” legislation that it might relate to, that it still excludes the items that the bill says that it excludes under Schedule 1A. So I’m just checking that this part of the bill doesn’t trump the earlier clauses of the bill.

My second question is specifically around clause 42(1), but it’s also a bolder question because I know that the bill uses similar language in this clause, which is the phrase “necessary or desirable”. Why has the scope been expanded to such a wide extent? I mean, I understand “necessary”, but “desirable” seems to widen that up quite substantially.

I guess, related to that point is: is there any intention to build privacy safeguards into this bill, so that personal information isn’t unnecessarily being hoovered up into this? Because it does confer quite sweeping powers. The chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry could simply deem it as “desirable” or “necessary”, and then request potential information.

So I’m just asking those two questions. The first is around whether clause 41(1) trumps the earlier clause 6A(1), or whether clause 6A(1) still stands. The second question is around that language around “necessary or desirable”. Related to that is: what sort of privacy safeguards does the Minister envisage being potentially built into this?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I’ll very quickly answer. I point the member to clause 6A(1), which says “Nothing in this Act”, so clearly, from reading that, the answer to his question is actually in the paper in front of him. Then the question of whether privacy applies—well, of course, if the Ministry for Regulation was to acquire information, it would still be governed by the Privacy Act regardless of whether it got it from this mechanism or any other, so I don't see why that would change.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do think this is in an interesting part of the bill, because it’s the most enforceable part, of course, as well. It’s the only one that’s not subject to the provision that we all reflected on earlier in this conversation. But, essentially, the bill’s saying that while you don’t need to comply with the substantive parts of the bill, you must review compliance—so it directs review of compliance, which is quite fascinating, in many ways.

Other members have raised questions about the interaction with Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee. My understanding is the Minister is saying a lot of is left unsaid here, but he expects that the Minister would pay heed to whatever might be happening in these dual streams that are both potentially operating at the same time. My view—I suspect, as others—is that it would be better if that was specified in the legislation, and potentially within section 41.

But I did have a question about what the Minister’s understanding is about the scope of the power of this board to direct or to compel the production of documents and evidence versus the powers that the Regulations Review Committee currently has. Is his understanding that these powers would give this body more scope in terms of what they could obtain either by request or by a High Court order, or that they would be the same?

My colleague has asked a question about “desirable” and the scope of that. I’d just say that I agree with that question, and whether it ought to be narrower. Dr Duncan Webb referred to section 43 and the issue of cost lying with public agencies. There’s also the issue of clause 43(2)(b): that covers “a person that is engaged under a contract with a principal agency to support or facilitate the performance of a function that is imposed under legislation.” So it’s one layer removed, again, and the cost would likely sit with that entity—a contracting entity—and to what extent that the Minister believes it would be fair. I can understand provision for or requirement that the public entity itself must be those costs. It becomes more complex when we have a contractor who’s sitting underneath that public entity—whether the Minister had considered differentiating between those two so that there are less stringent, or there are more criteria if you were to ask a contractor to provide information, as well.

Dr Duncan Webb has very usefully suggested some language about reasonableness or proximity to the issue that’s being investigated. That seems to make sense to me. That, again, probably speaks to the issue about “necessary” versus “desirable”, but a two-tiered system, in my view, would make sense.

The restriction on giving notice in connection with Parliament: there’s, of course, the listed exclusions there. My understanding—I could be wrong—is that the Office of the Clerk does have some obligations under the Official Information Act, which are different from the other parts of Parliament; and whether the Minister considered that some of these document requirement rules ought to apply to the Office of the Clerk even if they weren’t to apply to the other entities, as well?

Just clarifying, as well, that the Minister’s view is that, if information is passed on, and it does include information that falls under the Privacy Act, that entity would be responsible for notifying the individuals concerned; or is that the Minister’s view that the board would have that obligation under the Privacy Act?

And then, finally, just asking out of curiosity whether the Minister had considered specifying withholding grounds, as well? So other than the kind of blanket reference to other legislation, whether the Minister considered that there were other grounds that may be a justifiable limit on disclosure—so framing them as withholding grounds as opposed to a threshold, as Dr Duncan Webb has suggested.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have further questions for the Minister, but I wanted to clarify, I think, two points that the Minister mentioned. First of all, I actually didn’t know that Treasury is one such agency. It was the Minister’s earlier response to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in the same block of answers that the Minister gave that I was like, “Oh, I did not know that. That’s good to know.”

The second point I was going to make is that the difference between why we are discussing the Regulations Review Committee now as opposed to what was discussed last week is that, last week, the report on the briefing on regulatory reform was not publicly available, and it is now publicly available. As a major stakeholder in a lot of these, I thought it was important to address the report that just came out of the Regulations Review Committee. The Regulations Review Committee, in the report, says, “we remain concerned about the constitutional implication of the potential for overlap between the board and our committee.” Last week, it was theoretical, but now from the board itself, it’s more concrete.

In terms of my questions, I want to now move on to clause 43 and also clause 44. The first question I have, in terms of clause 43, is around clause 43(2). It’s important that, in the earlier legislation, local government has been sort of alluded to as part of this, where information, for example, could be requested or would need to fulfil certain requirements. I think we talked briefly about one of the schedules around local bills, but I don’t know, unless it fulfils the requirement of, I guess, a Public Service agency or a maker of secondary legislation, perhaps. Would the Minister articulate which of, I guess, subparagraphs (i) to (iv) under clause 43(2)(a) is where local government potentially falls under, because I think that’s potentially a quite an important point.

My next question is around clause 43(3), because here it says, “A notice must state the date by which, and the manner in which, the information must be provided.” Now, on the surface, there’s no problem with that. However, there’s no safeguard in terms of what that date potentially could be. The thing is, when there’s no safeguard around the date, it means that the date could be as long or as short as what the chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry may determine. I would like to ask the Minister to consider my amendment on this, which is, rather than saying “the date”, it is “a date” that is reasonably practicable.

Now, the Minister has mentioned previously—thank you for his response to my earlier question on “reasonably practicable” as something that is consistently used throughout this bill. I will ask the Minister to seriously consider this amendment, because I think something like that would provide just enough safeguards. That way agencies or a maker of secondary legislation or anyone isn’t going to be frantically trying to gather information because the regulatory standards ministry decided arbitrarily that the date is two days, without any specific requirement or consideration for the scope of what they’re asking.

My final question is around clause 44(b), which is around the definition of an Office of Parliament. Now, I did have a look at the Public Finance Act 1989 and Office of Parliament is specifically limited to the Ombudsman, the Controller and Auditor-General, and the Commissioner for the Environment. However, it doesn’t include other things like, for example, the Commissioner of Mana Mokopuna, etc.

Now, the reason I mention some of these commissioners is very specific and potentially quite niche. Under certain international requirements—and I’m thinking of OPCAT, which is the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture—there are five national preventative mechanisms that we have here in Aotearoa. Now, the Ombudsman is one of them, but there are another four. I wanted to check whether there should be a restriction being placed on the other four national preventative mechanisms that allows for this sort of exemption on giving notice in connection with Parliament, because of the fact that they fulfil a very specific and very important role under international convention. Those are my three questions on clauses 43(2), 43(3), and 44(b).

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just taking Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions first, the Regulatory Review Committee’s report may well have been released since we last met on this topic. However, there will be commentary, including from parliamentary committees, on this legislation and matters that it affects for a long time, I suspect. I would still point to the debate that we’ve had quite extensively over that overlap.

The question of where local government fits: under clause 43(2)(a), it could be either subparagraph (ii) or subparagraph (iii). A local government can be an administrator of secondary legislation—by-laws are secondary legislation—but also a maker of that because by-laws are secondary legislation under the Legislation Act.

In terms of the date amendment for what is reasonably practicable, the Government will not adopt that amendment, for the simple reason that “reasonably practicable” is a term in good use that is well understood within Government administration. Making dates, actually, in a way, adds additional complication because they can be seen as arbitrary and then you have to argue about whether the date was reasonable, rather than just saying the time that it’s done should be reasonably practicable.

Then there was a question of whether there should be exemptions for other “preventative mechanisms”—that was under clause 44(b). In my view, the purpose of this exemption for Parliament and its various Officers is simply to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament is not in any way affected by this law. I have been very clear through all of this that the purpose of the law is to increase the accountability of the executive to Parliament, not to undermine Parliament’s sovereignty. Having achieved that purpose, we wouldn’t go further. You could argue that the Clerk of the House should be exempted from the exemption, or not exempted. However, the Clerk of the House is not really a regulator that puts restrictions on how New Zealanders live their lives. He’s an official within Parliament, so I don’t think there’s any problem with him being exempted from the Ministry for Regulation’s use of these powers.

Vanushi Walters asked about the power of the committee vis-à-vis the Regulations Review Committee. These powers technically aren’t vested in the Regulatory Standards Board but, rather, the ministry—although it is true that the ministry does act as a form of secretariat to the board. Regardless, her question was about the power of a select committee, which has all of Parliament’s privileges, versus a committee with statutory powers that might be upheld by a court. I’m sure she would probably know more about the comparative powers of those than I would, but, suffice to say, they’re both things that people in general should follow and observe.

She asked about clause 43(2)(b). This is the idea of a person who has a contract with a principal agency and the question of, well, if you contract, should you be exempt or included as if you were a central agency yourself? Should you have to provide information in these cases? I think, first of all, it’s important to say that it’s only if they are performing a function that is imposed under legislation. What we have in mind is a regulatory function there. Second of all, I’d just go back to the point I’ve made a few times now that these powers can be used only for the purpose of carrying out a sector or a regulatory review or compiling a report on the state of regulatory systems. By the time you have that specific purpose for using the powers at all, and the limitation to people who carry out a function, then I think you find that power is a bit more circumscribed than it might seem.

Finally, there was a question of the Privacy Act: should an agency notify someone that the information has been requested? Again, this doesn’t alter the obligations that any agency has under the Privacy Act. The information is not leaving the public sector. It is still with an agency that has the same obligations as the agency that originally had it. I wouldn’t view there as being a need for a notification in that sense, because the Ministry for Regulation is part of the public sector. The Privacy Act is applicable, so it’s not material that it’s with a different agency.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just whip through a few of my Amendment Papers. Some of the issues have been raised, so I don’t want to dwell on them, and then I’ll get to some material around clause 44.

It is interesting: the Minister seemed to suggest that there weren’t going to be many private agencies that administer regulations. As I thought about that, I thought of Serco, that administers a prison, which is just a raft of regulations. If the ministry were to inquire into how the regulations around prisons worked, and asked Serco to provide reports on all of its investigations, inquiries, complaints, and what have you, at no cost, that would, essentially, be rewriting the contract with Serco, which is an unusual thing for the ACT Party to advocate. That’s why my Amendment Paper, essentially, does a little contractual amendment. It allows for a private agency, a contractor, to charge a reasonable cost because it would seem to me that it’s not good form for Parliament to impair the property rights conferred by contract and require them to supply information which wasn’t previously required.

In terms of clause 43 and the time limits, my suggestion, in another Amendment Paper, filed on 4 November at 12.20 p.m., is simply to say “within 20 working days”, which is the Official Information Act (OIA) framework. I think it would be really useful to have that guidance.

I’ll skip over that one because it’s being talked about. The other thing is this: I’ve proposed in clause 43 to insert a new subclause (2)(a), which says the chief executive of the Regulatory Standards ministry may exercise the power under section 43 only if it is consistent with the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether it’s a person, or property, or correspondence, or otherwise—because this is a search power; let’s get it right—particularly if it’s a private agency. This is a power to demand the production of private information. It might be that it’s done in the discharge of a contract, and it might be that it’s done in the discharge of a statutory power, but it’s a search. Let’s be upfront about this. This amounts to a search and there’s no rights analysis here of the balancing of privacy, the right to freedom from an arbitrary search, and the right to demand this information.

I wanted to turn to clause 44, which is the exclusions. There’s two questions I have. The first is actually just about exclusions generally, if this doesn’t affect the general law, and this is a very clear question, and it is this: are OIA grounds for refusal under this power? They fall into two categories: absolute, national security being the archetype; and kind of not absolute, which are things like privacy, commercial interests—too expensive to collate. So do those grounds apply here?

That’s the kind of general exclusion question. The particular exclusion question goes to two other classes of people. One is members of Parliament. Now, as members of Parliament, we may not be an agency, but nevertheless we are part of this institution which has regulatory powers. If we’re excluding the House of Representatives, which I struggle to see how it’s an agency as well, actually, shouldn’t we be excluding members of Parliament?

The other one, which I’m surprised isn’t in there because it kind of smacks you right between the eyes when you think about it, is the Governor-General, the regulator-in-chief, who actually passes and, by executive order, authorises almost all of these regulations. Why isn’t the Governor-General exempt from the power in terms of her, or his, information around how regulation works and how regulation-making powers are exercised, in particular? This might be interesting information, but in terms of the Crown prerogative and her being the domestic embodiment of the Sovereign, that would be a very unusual thing indeed.

So a few issues there. Interested in your views on the power to charge, if you’re Serco, but also the exclusions, I think, are an important part.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Regulation for those initial responses. I am a little bit concerned about his response to the question about third-party notifications. My understanding would be that there is a notification requirement—I’m trying to think of the Privacy Act changes that have gone all the way through the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Which clause is the member referring to, please?

VANUSHI WALTERS: Sorry. So this is third-party notifications—where was I? So it’s the power to obtain information to enable the review, so it really connects to clause 43, but also connects to clause 45, restrictions on requiring information from non - public service agencies—so individuals—and clause 43(2)(b) was the one I was specifically referring to, where a person is engaged under the contract. The Minister’s comment was that because it would be a across the public service, the information wouldn’t be shared outside of public entities. However, my understanding of the changes to the Privacy Act is that a notification would still be required. I was just making the point that there’s obviously a cost associated with that as well. So I’m just asking whether that is intended that this would be an additional burden and cost that’s put on those entities as well.

In terms of a clause 46—so I just wanted to know whether it was the Minister’s intention to include former contractors. This is something I was thinking about in terms of what the Regulations Review Committee could do, because it can, obviously, look at any regulation-making power, and could look at situations where an entity had been contracted to deliver a service, but then that contract had ended and a new contract had begun. The parliamentary committee could easily look at the former contract as well. My question was around whether it was the Minister’s intent for the board not to be able to look at a former contract, and, if so, what the rationale for that was.

But also, the trigger for enabling a person who’s engaged under a contract, to have information sought from them seems to me to be a little unusual. So in clause 46(2)(a), one of the options is that the principal agency has been asked to supply the information, but has been unable to supply the information within a reasonable time. I guess I’m just worried that if you have a department that’s dragging its heels, or for whatever reason doesn’t meet that time deadline, the obligation—and we’ve talked about the burden of the cost that would fall on that contracting party—would then be moved to the contracting party. So what I’m wondering is whether there’s potentially some language within paragraph (2)(a), where it can be clear that reasonable efforts have been made, or it is a last resort type of option. Paragraph (2)(b) I can understand—it feels like if there is information that the public entity simply doesn’t hold, that would be a very valid reason for seeking it from a third-party contractor. However, it feels to me that we must pursue those within the public space first to avoid the burden falling onto contracted parties.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to move on a little bit, not too far, to clause 44—actually no; let’s go to clause 45. This is about a non - Public Service agency, which is the most kind of perplexing and unusual power when you're talking about a regulatory inquiry, to be able to go and just demand of someone who's under contract that they produce information. As the Minister pointed out earlier, clause 45 starts with the word “Restriction” but it doesn’t really restrict anything. It just gives some procedural notes and, in particular, subclause (2) states, “The chief executive of the regulatory standards Ministry may exercise the power under section 43 only if they have first consulted the relevant chief executive.” I mean—really?

If you take the Serco example, the chief executive of Regulation consults the chief executive of Corrections, and then they go and demand a raft of information from Serco, their contractor. Now, that consultation is meaningless. They don’t have to consult with the agency they’re about to demand information from. My amendment actually says that it doesn’t place an unreasonable burden. Following the words “consulted the relevant chief executive” it inserts the words “and there is no more appropriate way to obtain the information.” A lot of that information is likely held elsewhere, and, in fact, it is referred to elsewhere in this legislation but it isn’t clearly set out that there’s a hierarchy whereby you’ve got to go to your Government agency first and then—and only if you need additional information—can you go to your citizen contractor, who, in the contract, isn’t expected to and isn’t paid to provide all this addition information.

So it does seem reasonable to me to say, “Well, look, even if you don’t accept the amendment that they can charge for doing additional work that’s not in the contract, at least this is a residual power, one that isn’t exercised as a first resort—because, of course, that’s the danger, isn’t it. You consult with the chief executive of Corrections and you get the response, “Oh, gosh, my crew at Corrections is pretty much under the thumb. Why don’t you ask it from our private contractors because they’re obliged to under the legislation and it doesn’t then fall on the Public Service.”

So, again, this is about incentives. There are some real risks in there. So that’s the amendment I’m proposing to clause 45. I did suggest an amendment to clause 44 as well, which was filed at 12.52, which really, again, limits the power. It says that the chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry may exercise the power under section 43 only if it’s consistent with the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and so on. So it’s a reflection of the earlier proposed amendment but it’s new and different because it’s a much broader note on the restriction of those powers.

I’d be very interested in the kind of hierarchy of demand and whether the Minister would be amenable to making sure, when you’re demanding information from a non - Public Service agency, as to whether that’s only going to be in the case where there’s no more appropriate way to obtain that information.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to address a few questions, starting with Vanushi Walters’—the question about former contractors, whether the Regulations Review Committee has that power. With the legislation, the trick is in the word “is”—“is engaged under a contract”—so a person that used to be engaged under a contract would not fulfil that. I hope that addresses her concern.

She then raised a question, which Duncan Webb carried on, about why the contractor is seen as the last resort or has less protection—if I can address that. I noted Dr Duncan Webb asking whether an organisation like Serco would face punitive or undeliverable demands for information. I thought that was interesting—the Labour Party’s new-found concern for Serco—but my answer was actually given earlier: just because this power exists for a ministry, to use it under legislation, a ministry still has a Minister.

One of the reasons for informing the chief executive of the other department is so that Ministers can talk and say, “Well, is your department really acting in the best interests of the Government when they do this?” Yes, the Government has asked Parliament to pass this law to express a general intent, but departments will share information with the Ministry for Regulation, but that doesn’t mean that it is a completely unfettered power. Ministers are still in charge of their departments and can intervene if they feel it’s necessary. I don’t think we need to worry about powers being taken to absurd extents, so long as, of course, the Government has competent Ministers, which I am sure it will.

That means that we will not entertain the tabled amendment on clause 43 that was introducing time limits or requiring 20 working days, as the member has suggested. He then asked whether there should be exclusions like the Official Information Act. Well, no, this is a central agency within the Government asking for information from another department. It doesn’t involve a person outside the Crown asking for information from withinside the Crown.

In relation to the Privacy Act, which Vanushi Walters raised, I may have misled or misspoken when I said there wouldn’t be any need for any notifications. I didn’t mean to say that notifications currently required when a department transfers information from one department to another would be somehow wiped. I meant to say that the requirements of the Privacy Act for handling information would continue as they are today, regardless of the mechanism of transfer—whether the department transferred information to satisfy this requirement as opposed to any other that they might have. I hope that addresses the members’ questions.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): There’s a small section that hasn’t been addressed in this part, so I’ll just see if anyone attends to it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I’m going to address a follow up question for the Minister for Regulation on clause 43(2)(b), but I’m going to then move on to clause 45 and then clause 47. So in terms of 43(2)(b)—and this is in response to Vanushi Walters’ question around contractors. Now, just using the Official Information Act (OIA) examples that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned before, I wondered if a person that is engaged under contract, whether you are also going to be seeing circumstances where the response from that is that it’s commercially sensitive, because, again, a lot of OIAs—particularly when it comes to contractors—often come back saying that the OIA is rejected on that basis. I just want to check with the Minister if that has been a consideration.

In terms of clause 45(2), just a very short question for the Minister. When he says the chief executive—“section 43 only if they have first consulted the relevant chief executive.”—I wondered if “first consulted” would also imply received approval from. The reason I ask this is I do have an amendment on this particular part because I think it does add reassurance that the consultation needs to also have the approval from the relevant chief executive. Otherwise, they could just consult, but if the other chief executive says no, they’ve done the consultation anyway.

Finally, in terms of clause 47(1), I do have a very short question. This is the important clause, of failing to comply with a notice. I understand this is a safeguard measure, but has the Minister received any advice on how likely it is that something like this would happen? Are there any sort of other comparables—for example, using the OIA or anything else; whether we’re going to be seeing quite a substantial or drastic or even a reasonable increase in terms of the pressure that’s going to be added on to the High Court and High Court judges when it comes to a failure to comply notice. That’s all.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Can I quickly address the question about clause 43(2)(b). The member asked if this is like the Official Information Act (OIA) where information could be withheld because it’s commercially sensitive. This is not an OIA. The Ministry for Regulation is a central agency within the Government. It has the ability to request this information under the law because it too is bound by the kind of confidentiality that is required to deal with commercial sensitivity.

The question was whether we would consider amending the bill so that the information could only be supplied if the chief executive of the department it was asked of agreed to provide the information. Now, if you had to get them to agree, then there would be no point in having this whole section of the bill that we’ve been debating for the last hour, because they could already ask for information and get them to voluntarily agree without passing this law, or this part of it. That’s definitely not an amendment that we will adopt because, frankly, it’s silly.

On clause 47, whether we have any advice on how likely it is that this matter will fall under adjudication, no, we don’t, but it would seem extremely unlikely. It would seem to be a backstop rather than something you would expect to frequently occur, because Ministers who are in charge of departments have an incentive to ensure that the public spectacle of their departments suing each other is not apparent.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I can tell you, before I take another call, that there is no part of this part that has not already been covered. If you’ve got something unique to the debate, I’m happy to take another call.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk about a clause that nobody has talked about tonight, and that is clause 47, which talks about the powers of the High Court. One of the difficulties is it kind of falls short. I’ve actually got two Amendment Papers in in respect of this clause, both filed at about 12.20 p.m. on 4 November. One is doing it light and the other’s doing it a bit more thoroughly, so I’ll talk about the one that does it more thoroughly.

The difficulty here is that the power here, or the direction here, is that if someone doesn’t comply with the notice, the ministry can go to the court and the court can then make an order on any terms that it thinks fit—if it’s satisfied that it the information is necessary and desirable—but it doesn’t, essentially, do the flip side. My Amendment Paper does two things: first of all, it says the court can set aside the notice, so it makes it clear that the court has the power to make one of two orders: comply with the notice and do it like this, within this time, and in this way; or that was a silly notice, you don’t have to comply with it at all. Essentially, the court may set aside the notice.

The other thing is this, and Minister, I think this is actually a relatively useful clause—it would be new clause 47A—any person who receives a notice can themselves go to the court. So any person who receives a notice under this part may, within 20 days of the service of that notice, apply for an Order of the High Court setting the notice aside. You could have people go, “That’s a silly notice. I’m not required. This isn’t necessary.” That requires the ministry itself to then, essentially, prosecute, if you like, the notice in the High Court. It would be a lot cleaner if someone could simply say, “Look, we don’t consider ourselves obliged, so we’re going to the court to seek clarity on that.”

Then, the court can do all of the things it could otherwise have done, which is set the notice aside or say, “No, that is a legitimate notice; comply with it in full.”, or anything in between: “It is a bit silly because it asks for seven days; you’ve got 60 days, because it’s a big notice”; or “It’s far too expansive; you can comply with the notice in a much narrower class of information”; or “It’s asked you to do something which is entirely unreasonable. It’s not your job to collate and sort information; that’s the job of the ministry who’s undertaking the review.”

So that kind of power, importantly, probably falls within it if the ministry goes to the court, but not if the person who is subject to the notice goes to the court. So that’s actually a very reasonable Amendment Paper, which clarifies the court’s powers and actually truncates the timeline because the person subject to the notice doesn’t have to sit on their hands and wait with bated breath to see whether the ministry decides whether or not to go and seek that court order.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Can I very quickly address this. I’ve had members of the Government benches suggesting that Dr Duncan Webb is actually trying to audition for a role on the Regulatory Standards Board, which I find an interesting proposition, but, at this point, I’m not very persuaded, because he asked whether the court should be told in legislation that it can set aside an application. The court can already do that. Even a dumb engineer like me can read it and say that the court may make the order—so that implies that the court doesn’t have to make the order—meaning it could set it aside. There’s no need for more verbiage to spell that out; the law should be as succinct as possible, if not more succinct.

Then he asked whether there should be a sort of Mexican stand-off where the recipient of the request for information could actually go to court and say that they don’t want to answer? That, I think, is bureaucracy in the absurd and not something that the Government will entertain, nor the previous tabled amendment.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 427 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 41A 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clauses 42 to 47 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting new subclause (5) 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 43(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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting new subclause (5) 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 43(2)(a) deleting subparagraph (iv) 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 43 inserting new subclause (2)(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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 43(3) replacing “the date” with “a date that is reasonably practicable” 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 44, inserting new paragraph (e) 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 44, inserting new subclause (2A) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 45(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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 45(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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to delete clause 47 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 47, inserting new subclause (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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 inserting new clause 47A 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 3 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 deleting clause 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 deleting clause 5 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Schedule 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1A set out on Amendment Paper 427 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to Part 1, deleting item 5 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Part 1, inserting new item 10 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Part 2, inserting new item 10 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Schedule 1A as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1A 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 1A as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 427 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 1AA 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi

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 3, inserting new subclause (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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

hat the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new subclause (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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is t

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new subclause (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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 replacing clause 8 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 inserting new clause 9A 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 10 inserting new subclause (6) 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 16 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Schedule 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

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

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I’ll briefly describe that the Regulatory Standards Act is the name of the Act. The Government has no intention of entertaining any of the alternative names that members have proposed, entertaining and hopeful as some of them may be. We are happy with our own name for this bill.

Secondly, the commencement says that the Act comes into force on 1 January 2026. That is Part 1 and Part 3, which set out the purpose and interpretation of the bill, and, in the case of Part 3, the powers that we’ve been debating tonight for the purposes of obtaining information, reporting, and doing regulatory reviews. However, Part 2 comes into force on a date no later than 1 July 2026. This is what is set out in the subclauses of clause 2, “Commencement”.

The reason for the delay of up to six months is to provide time for the Government to issue guidance—which is required under, I think, clause 27—to also appoint the Regulatory Standards Board, and to prepare ministries for adhering to the Act and administering it. We don’t believe that there is any need for debate on those timelines. We’re very confident that all of the things required for Part 2 to come into force can be done within the time frames set out, along with the flexibility of it being up to six months.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. It may come as a surprise, but I have some amendments on this, and one of them actually suggests that we title this Act—and this isn't a joke title; it's actually quite a serious title—the “Regulatory Constitution Act 2025”. There are two reasons for that: one is that it actually reflects what this piece of legislation will do, which is to change the very structure of our constitution in New Zealand, and it will change the way in which the organs of Government work with and speak to each other. In fact, you know, if we go back and see the history—in New Zealand, at least—of this bill, you'll see that it really started with a paper by Richard Epstein in April 2000 called “Towards a Regulatory Constitution”.

Todd Stephenson: Great guy. I met him.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah—I even read stuff like that. Of course, that was commissioned by the New Zealand Business Roundtable—now the New Zealand Initiative—which really just tells you what you've got in front of you here. So for two reasons: one, call it the “Regulatory Constitution Act”, because it is about a shift in how Government works, and that’s what constitutional law is about. It's appropriate to recognise that, but also, it's appropriate to recognise where it came from. This legislation came from libertarian philosophy in the United States, adopted and promoted by the Business Roundtable, and that's exactly how we've got to where we are today. So there you go. Let’s be a bit upfront. It’s still a serious title: “Regulatory Constitution Act 2025”. I’m surprised that the Minister won't entertain anything. He hasn't been very entertaining all night, which is a bit of a pity. There is plenty more of those amendments, but I'll do them one at a time. So I'll come back to my next one in my next contribution.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Regulatory Standards” with “Lawmaking Procedures” 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 1, inserting “(Right to Personal Property Rights)” 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 1, replacing “Standards” with “Constitution” 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 remaining six tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s six tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment replacing 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 2, replacing subclause (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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 2, replacing subclause (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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 2(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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Regulatory Standards Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m.

Sitting suspended from 10.08 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2025

(continued on Wednesday, 12 November 2025)

Bills

Medicines Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I present a legislative statement on the Medicines Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Today, we bring the Medicines Amendment Bill to its third and final reading—a bill that is about improving access to medicines, trusting expertise, and delivering better health outcomes for New Zealanders. It is also about politicians listening to concerns about the community, formulating solutions, and staying the course until they are implemented so that people get better outcomes.

Throughout COVID-19, myself and others noted it was strange that Kiwis were waiting for medicines and devices that had been approved overseas and yet somehow we had to wait for Medsafe to check they were OK for us, too. It was crazy. We asked the question: has the rest of the world ever approved something, and New Zealand, at the end of the queue, said, “Oh, sorry, you guys got it wrong”, and they all cancelled their approvals? Of course not. Kiwis should not come second to anyone in this world and we should not be waiting to access things that have been consented elsewhere. That is why we have introduced the rule of two: if a medicine is consented in two other developed country jurisdictions, then within 30 days, Medsafe will approve it here if there’s an application from the manufacturer.

The bill also expands rights in a safe and sensible way. Nurse practitioners and now pharmacist prescribers will be able to prescribe unapproved medicines that are in their scope of practice just as doctors can. Especially when there’s a supply shortage, this is important. Authorised prescribers will be able to prescribe funded alternatives without more hoops, and it means continuity of care for patients and a better use of our health workforce. Again, a clear problem in the community heard by the Government and a practical solution put in place. We’ve tidied up outdated rules around medicines classifications, committee-making membership requirements, fit for purpose, and moving detailed operational matters out of legislation and into procedures where they belong, because Good governance actually matters.

During the committee stage, we added two further changes that are a result of listening to people in the community and fixing things that matter to them. For too long, New Zealand clinicians have been going to trade shows where new medicines are promoted, in places like Fiji and Noosa—all that money going overseas, when, actually, we could be having these medical trade shows right here in New Zealand. Clinicians will be able to go and learn of the latest medical technologies in places like Queenstown and Auckland, that are part of the New Zealand economy, because we are removing an outdated restriction on advertising new medicines at trade shows—within strict limits that there has to be a genuine purpose to it.

We’ve also removed an outdated restriction on pharmacist prescribers having an interest in a pharmacy. You can understand what the intention of that might have been, but when we trust professionals to act ethically, we should also allow them to have a financial interest in a pharmacy where they may be prescribing.

This bill is ultimately about pragmatism, trusting professionals, speeding up access to medicines, and making sure our regulatory settings are agile and focused on the outcomes. I particularly want to acknowledge officials at the Ministry of Health and Medsafe; the Parliamentary Private Secretary for Health, Todd Stephenson; the select committee; and all the stakeholders who contributed their expertise. This has been a collaborative effort. I note that the rule of two was campaigned on by all three coalition parties and so far has had support from every party in this Parliament. It’s a very good example of how politicians can actually hear people’s concerns in the community, formulate a solution, stay the course, implement it confidently, and make New Zealand a better place to live, one step at a time. I’m very proud to be part of this bill and to commend it to the House. Thank you.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Medicines Amendment Bill. As the Minister has just outlined, this bill has achieved good support from across the House, and I’m pleased to say that Labour continues to support this bill. There are many things that we want to call out as positive aspects of this bill. One of the things that does reflect the Minister’s statement that the bill was a collaborative process is the positive inclusion of changes made at the Health Committee.

The bill originally listed overseas regulators. It specified them by name in a schedule and, as submitters pointed out, that meant that, were there to be changes or were New Zealand to lose confidence in some of the processes of those regulators—and, let’s be clear, they are very, very esteemed regulators internationally—we would need a change of the Act in order to no longer accept that organisation’s approvals. The fact that, now, the bill takes an approach of specifying criteria that would allow the approval of particular overseas regulators is, we think, a positive development. It allows flexibility; it allows New Zealand control over its, shall we say, regulatory sovereignty should we ever have a reason to question those regulators in the future. That’s not an unreasonable concern; some of those regulators have been the subject of political interference or suggested political interference overseas, so it’s important that, should that ever reach a threshold that is concerning to us, we have the ability to take action there. We’re grateful to the other members of the select committee and the Government for accommodating that change.

Another positive change was the inclusion of pharmacist prescribers among those that can prescribe unapproved medicines. It appears that unapproved medicine prescribing has grown in scope due to the challenges in supply chains for medicines, which have really escalated in recent years and following on from the pandemic. More and more, substitute medicines that are unapproved are being used, and, therefore, the very narrow ability for those to be prescribed is being shown up. These changes, which allow both nurse prescribers and pharmacist prescribers to prescribe unapproved medicines, are positive, and, of course, the number of protections that exist around the prescription of unapproved medicines remain, which is important.

I want to also note that our main objection to the bill as it is going, apparently, to be passed is the ability for ministerial appointments to the Medicines Classification Committee. It seems undesirable that what is, essentially, a technical committee should be the subject of ministerial appointments. We would have preferred to see the membership of that committee be appointed by the Director-General.

I’ll now turn to the main purpose of the bill. The bill has the intention of speeding up the approval of medicines in New Zealand, and, for that reason, it is a laudable aim. We note that the description of the aim according to the Government has changed over the course of the Government. Initially, it was described as a much more automatic approval process than is now reflected in the bill. Whereas approval overseas would have automatically led to approval as initially proposed, now, not only does the medicine need to be approved overseas in two jurisdictions, it also needs a local sponsor. What that means is that the incentives that apply to sponsors continue to apply under this bill. As we heard at select committee, those incentives are often what delays the approval of these medicines in New Zealand.

To give a little bit more context: drug companies will look at a market like New Zealand—we’re clearly smaller than other markets—and they may not think it’s worth their while to submit an application in New Zealand because they’d rather prioritise their resources for supporting that application into bigger markets. I suppose you can’t really argue with that—it is the fact of being a small country—but that’s one reason why we’re slower to get new medicines approved in New Zealand. That won’t be changed by this bill.

Another reason is that the pharmaceutical companies make a judgment about how much they’ll sell. Of course, if you don’t get Pharmac funding in New Zealand, that is the main determinant of the price of your drug to the consumer and the likelihood of it being widely used in New Zealand. The drug company doesn’t know at the time of their application how likely they are to get Pharmac funding. That won’t change with this bill. For those two reasons, there is reason to think that the incentives on what’s referred to as “sponsors” in the Act, or pharmaceutical companies, are unchanged by this bill, and that’s what makes me question how much this will, in practice, speed up the availability of medicines.

However, the bill also does not do much harm—actually, we’re confident it does not do harm—therefore, the potential improvement is worth us voting for this on this occasion. Really, the proof of the pudding, I would argue, is in whether or not we see a speed-up in the approval of new medicines. We’ll be very pleased if we do. That’s why we’re voting for the bill.

The final point I want to make is about the addition made to the bill at the committee of the whole House stage for the advertising of medicines at medical conferences. This was not included in the original bill, and, officially, the first I heard about this change was when the amendment got tabled. Unofficially, the first time I heard of this change was at a Business New Zealand event where one of the stakeholders who would be a beneficiary of this change approached me and outlined why they thought it was a positive change for the New Zealand scientific conference industry and encouraged me to support it. Good on that person who was up front and engaged with us over this change. It would have been nice to have heard that from the Government when the bill had garnered such cross-party support in every other respect.

It did make me wonder why that idea—the idea that the regulation of advertising at medical conferences should be changed—is being included at the last minute in this bill? Of course, that idea was kicked around when we debated the Therapeutic Products Bill in the last Parliament, and it did make me wonder if the Therapeutic Products Bill was in trouble. When we passed the Therapeutic Products Act, in the last Parliament, I had met an official who had been working on an update to the Medicines Act for over 20 years when I worked on that bill, and now it appears that, having repealed the Therapeutic Products Act and promised a new Medicines Act, David Seymour doesn’t want to wait for that to make these changes in this Medicines Amendment Bill. We’re told that there’s another bill coming down the pipe that’s going to take care of our outdated medicines regulation, but that bill must be in trouble, because why on earth would you put these changes about medical conferences into this bill at the last minute? Then I read in The Press the other day that Casey Costello is indicating that there will be new medicines regulation in by 2030. Well, colleagues, last time I checked, they’re still writing science fiction about 2030. The Medicines Act is an Act from 1981. That is how outdated our medicines regulation is in New Zealand.

We support this bill and the modernisations and small changes to our medicines regulatory system that are in here, but our entire regulatory system is out of date. We saw that in the pandemic, when we had to debate, as a Parliament, retrospective changes to the Medicines Act to get an emergency approval for vaccines. We had no way of getting expedited approval, and, under the current Act, there is no proper way to deal with public health emergencies. There is no regulation of medical devices. There are a number of problems with our Medicines Act, and the fact that this bill has had this addition to it suggests to me that medicines regulation in New Zealand is in big trouble.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to offer our tautoko towards this legislation also. I echo the sentiments of my colleague within the Labour Party around the small changes that are being made that look at patient care and the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders. But of course, reformation of the entire system is required. I thank the former Minister of Health for reminding the House about the challenges of access to medications, to immunisations, vaccinations across the board, but particularly with COVID-19.

The rule of two fast-track is one fast-track that the Green Party do support. So it's good to be standing here to tautoko and also reflect on the select committee process that the Health Committee oversaw and the diversity of submissions received in the 185 rōpū, hauora, individuals, and whānau who provided submissions, both in writing and orally. There was strong support. But of course, you know, we've always got to keep an eye on health equity, on access, on timing—which this is addressing the timing issue.

Also, I want to talk about workforce and ensuring that our workforce is adequately trained, working at top of scope, but also fuelled in the system to deliver these medicines fast into the community. When we think of areas such as the far, Far North where we have a shortage of clinicians, and also those working in general practice, there continues to be these challenges in terms of workforce. But this legislation does open up the space for access for our nurse prescribers to work at top of scope and support an effective access for the community to medications. But of course, we need the trained clinicians in the community in the first place. So those are the questions we ask in terms of the way with which we can fuel not just this part of the system, but the entire system to ensure that we have the relevant workforce that is capable, that is trained, and has the supports and resources available to be able to deliver medications to the front line.

We heard in the select committee the way with which the access to faster medicines, will support better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. The view of those particularly—and I think of our hauora Māori—is how do we take a Te Tiriti based approach, looking at health equity for those most impacted on the system and ensure that voice is heard across the kaupapa? I think about the way with which appointments can be made to committees and I'm thinking about, also, the Medicines Classification Committee having recognition of an ao Māori voice—a clinical expert and leader can offer that lens.

We do have concerns, of course, around the Amendment Paper that was tabled without notice really. It's a missed opportunity that the Minister brought it into the committee of the whole, because we could have interrogated and provided community and the health sector the opportunity to have a voice on the amendment that the Minister put forward at a very, very late stage. While I wasn't present for the debate of the committee of the whole, we have to be really careful about the way with which non approved medications can be advertised and promoted, and what is a conference too. So those are some concerns that we have. But again, going back to the foundation of the Medicines Act in general, this is a good start, but there requires more.

I want to talk particularly again about rural communities and the way with which those—who are in rural and urban settings—who serve those who are most impacted and have the lack of access. Te Hau Awhiowhio o Otangarei Trust came before us and spoke to the way with which they have to work in a collaborative approach. This is a low socio-economic community in Whangārei. The clinicians, as well as those that are allied health, are trying to usher whānau into the health system so that they can access medication and treatment.

They were absolutely supportive of this legislation, but they did also bring in the consideration around how do we bring everyone up in the health system as kaimahi to work at top of scope, because that's part of the challenge; is the way with which we can provide access to timely, quality health services no matter where you live—no matter where you live. Whether you're in Kaitāia, whether you're in Bluff, whether you're in Ōtauthi, Taranaki, or the East Coast, or for me in Tai Tokerau; those are the challenges. While we do provide this fast-track process to bring medications into the country, it is about form following function, and are we readying the system sufficiently so that both our health providers, Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, and those on the front line in pharmacy, dental, everyone has the ability to be able to exercise at top of scope what they need to do to provide the medicines?

Also, when we're talking about Pharmac, you know, we've seen the increase in funding. That's really awesome, because we know that there are a broad range of medications that are available internationally that have yet to land here in Aotearoa. I'm hoping that this will be one of the levers to increase access. I reflect on a fundraiser that a particular whānau member has, a loved sister, cousin, and niece; 10 years fighting a frontal lobe tumour. They are currently fundraising $70,000 for another year of treatment for a medication to help treat this issue she's had for 10 years. She's been everywhere, man, in terms of trying to get a range of treatment options. But this medication, of which I cannot pronounce the name—vorasidenib; something like that—is available in Australia for free. It's available in Australia for free, but she can't move to Australia. She has commitments here and she has whānau.

What I am pointing out to members of the House, is that this is an opportunity for us to open our eyes and our hearts in the way with which funding is distributed into the health system, because there are those that are impacted, like this whanaunga who's reached out to me. She's just like, you know, “Can this new thing that's come through—”, because people are googling, people are watching Parliament TV more now than ever. So when this amendment legislation came through, it's then that I got a message saying, “There's a whānau member. There's an issue. How can we get these types of medications into the country?” I said, “Oh, that's something new to me. Aroha mai. But let's scope that.” This is not something that is foreign to many of us. We have many whānau who have been impacted.

So what do we do? In terms of the levers that are available, we have got this fast track that provides the way with which access can open the door for more medications into New Zealand. We have now seen an increase in budget for medications through Pharmac into the system. But ultimately, it is about the entire system, the health system in the fullest and also providing our workforce with the necessary skills, tools, and ability to be able to deliver these medications into community so that they can help prevent, but also treat.

So, again, prevention is better of course than getting it further down the track and you're only treating it. If we can pull it back in taking a population-based approach, we could start looking to identify and work with those communities most impacted, those who have the biggest challenges to support and care. I always go back to the far, Far North, Te Hiku o Te Ika, and consider the way with which they have a serious lack of access to primary care with some 3,000 whānau members who cannot access a GP. I hope that levers such as this legislation will provide a mechanism for our doctors to be able to offer the medications available. But how do we find the workforce to do the mahi, ultimately? Tēnā tātou.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): It's a pleasure to be able to rise on behalf of a Government that is improving the healthcare system in New Zealand, and the Medicines Amendment Bill helps to further that. The Minister has already spoken about the rule of two, which is going to bring more medicines more quickly into New Zealand—this is a very good thing—and about the extended rights to nurse practitioners and pharmacist prescribers, which is going to increase access, which is much needed. I want to say thank you to the members of the Health Committee for their collaborative and pragmatic approach to this bill and for the positive inclusions that were made in the committee. This is a fantastic bill, another step on the way to improving healthcare outcomes for New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill. This bill is the tonic that the country needs to ensure that we get rid of that bureaucratic sluggishness, which has basically held-up medicines at our door. This bill, as has been mentioned by other members, is a fast track to medicines. Actually, I’d like to go further and say this is the smart track to getting medicines out the door to New Zealanders. We should be at the front of the queue when it comes to accessing world-class medicines; whether they’re safe, life-changing, life-extending medicines, New Zealanders should be at the front of the queue.

The Rule of Two enables this pathway to be expedited, to get these medicines that have been approved by two other regulators, that we agree are the regulators that we can trust. Then those medicines can be prescribed in New Zealand rather than undergoing that full local evaluation. We’ve expanded, also through this bill, the prescribing rights to nurse practitioners, and, through the select committee, we included pharmacist prescribers as well.

Another change was that all prescribers, in times of emergency—where there is a shortage with some supply chain in terms of the medicines that have been approved—will be able to prescribe funded but also unapproved medicines. This is practical and pragmatic, and it is that smart track for medicines approval and getting those medicines to the patients.

I’d like to thank all the submitters that contributed to the development of this bill through the select committee stage, and, in particular, noting Dr Malcolm Mulholland from Patient Voice Aotearoa and the advocacy and the work he has done to get the voice of our patients right into this Chamber. That voice has been loud and strong. We’ve made changes today. I think we should all be proud in this House today that we can support this legislation.

I’d just like to turn to the “good book”, the good book called the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National, and I’d like to read very briefly from the scriptures, which state: “From this coalition agreement, we will require Medsafe to approve new pharmaceuticals within 30 days of them being approved by at least two overseas regulatory agencies recognised by New Zealand”. For that reason, I support this bill. I commend it to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As canvassed by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon, we are supporting the Medicines Amendment Bill. I just wanted to take a moment, before I go into some other aspects of the bill, to just recap reflections of the committee of the whole House stage that we had. I think there’s a bit of an irony here with the other piece of legislation we’ve seen that aims to create better frameworks for high-quality legislation and make sure that we are having robust processes. Yet, while we support this bill, it was concerning to see a last-minute amendment being added which would add—this is the new addition of clause 12A—the exemption for advertising medicines at medical conferences. I think good process would have meant that this change would have been introduced at the select committee stage so that it would have been adequately canvassed. It was a shame that we did not have the opportunity to have the select committee adequately evaluate the merits of the amendment that was introduced by the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage.

An example of this is when we tried to examine some of the commentary by the Minister at the time, in relationship to, for example, the amount of revenue and the changes being made that this amendment would bring to the country. The Minister, at that time, during the debate, for example, made some—I would characterise them as kind of flippant—remarks and just raced figures off the top of his head around the revenue that these medical conferences would bring. I think it makes it hard for us to have a robust committee of the whole House stage when we have these sorts of amendments being introduced at the very last minute and no analysis to go alongside them except the Minister’s opinions on the matter.

It also does not do service to an adequate democratic process when members of the Opposition are not able to adequately engage with these amendments, because we’re engaging with them at the last stage that we’re able to and without adequate analysis to do so. So I think that while this bill has a lot of merits, I’m still none the less concerned that the Government did not follow, I think, best practice when it comes to making sure that the bill was fit for purpose at its introduction and during the select committee stage. We didn’t support the amendment at the time, but we still think that the bill has merits.

As others have canvassed, access to medicines in this country—to the most modern and most, sort of, recent medicines available—is a barrier. What we can lean on are other countries’ robust processes in order to acquire more medicines to alleviate the issues that we are facing in relationship to access to medicines. This is why we are welcoming this bill, and we welcome the provisions that allow us to lean on peer-reviewed research from overseas. My colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan, at the committee of the whole House—and I know that he’s got a pharmacology degree—helped evaluate some of the robustness in which we’ll have in this bill, in relationship to making sure that we have those peer-reviewed studies being done before we are able to evaluate whether overseas jurisdictions have done due diligence.

There were some questions in relationship as to whether we’re genuinely tapping into the wide range of jurisdictions that are out there, particularly because the provisions in this bill require that these entities produce those reports in English. I did welcome the Minister’s engagement on the issue at the committee of the whole House stage, where he did note that some jurisdictions that may not use English as an official language none the less take steps to produce that material in English. But none the less, I think, moving forward, in terms of creating legislation that allows us to genuinely tap into as broad a range of medicines as is available, and where robust processes have been followed, there’s a missed opportunity to move away from the Anglosphere when it comes to access to medicines.

I think in order for this bill to be genuinely successful, we have to turn our eyes to supporting some of the bodies that help distribute those medicines to our communities, for example, our pharmacies. We know our pharmacists are under humongous pressures. They are often the first line of defence when it comes to public health, and they’re often engaging with sectors of our communities that would have been underserved by other parts of the health system. As we broaden the range of medicines that our pharmacists can deliver to our communities, I hope that the Government turns its eyes to adequately resourcing our pharmacies and our pharmacists so that they’re well looked after and they’re community-led, as opposed to risking those bodies being run by corporates. Thank you.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Medicines Amendment Bill in the third reading. This Government has been focused on increasing our access to pharmaceutical interventions. When we look at the money we’ve added to Pharmac, we can see we’ve added an extra $604 million for those really important cancer medications and other life-saving medications. This is a step that makes very good sense so that we can speed up access to cutting-edge medicines that actually will extend people’s lives and make people’s lives better.

We’re also making sure we’re expanding the ability for various health professionals to be able to prescribe medications. This, once again, is all about getting timely healthcare, which is what this Government is very focused on. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a very big claim from a very short contribution, which is probably summing up this bill quite nicely—it claims a lot, and doesn’t necessarily do everything that’s written on the till.

So at the third reading of the Medicines Amendment Bill, it’s worth, I think, reminding ourselves what this legislation actually does—and it does do some good things; it certainly doesn’t do any harm—and what it doesn’t do. So the bill has been presented by the Government as a step forward to access to medicines in New Zealand. In reality, it’s a relatively modest set of technical changes, some of which may help streamline regulatory processes—we have no problem with that; that’s a good move—but few of which are going to make any particular tangible differences in terms of people’s access to medicines, and particularly for New Zealanders struggling to access medicines and the healthcare that they need. There are many other problems afoot, and the Government is choosing not to tackle those.

At the heart of this bill lies Medsafe—as we’ve heard from previous other contributors—New Zealand’s medicines regulator and agency, obviously, that performs an essential public service to New Zealanders. We know that Medsafe’s work is critical, it’s really critical. It’s an agency that people fundamentally rely upon to make sure that the medications that they receive are safe, and that they have access to the medications that they fundamentally do need.

We also rely on standards set by respected international regulators. We’ve heard much said—well, we’ve heard it mentioned; not exactly much said because the contributions from the Government have been very short and very brief. But we’ve heard the rule of two mentioned, and that seems to be a little bit of a catch phrase that has been relied upon quite heavily. But those international benchmarks should fundamentally complement Medsafe’s work, and not replace it in any way, shape, or form. So as Parliament continues to consider these changes, we’ve got to be very clear—and we are clear on this side of the House—that nothing in this or any future legislation should diminish Medsafe’s independence or its ability to make those incredibly important, careful, evidence-based decisions.

So with respect to the verification pathway, Mr Chair—Mr Speaker, I should say—the bill introduces a new verification pathway allowing approval for medicines that have already been authorised by trusted overseas regulators. That sounds sensible, and on paper, that absolutely makes sense. If a medicine has been fully approved by a regulatory body, a comparable regulator, it absolutely could save time and reduce duplication, to recognise the approval process here. But the key, I suppose, is in how that is done. Safeguards must be in place so that Medsafe can swiftly act if issues arise from those overseas regulators. It must retain the power to halt or even revoke approvals if new evidence comes to light that points to some sort of safety concern. It’s also important that the operational details—you know, the documentation, the conditions, the oversight mechanisms—are clear and that they’re regularly reviewed. Without that clarity, we risk that shortcuts could undermine the trust that people have in the system, which obviously is incredibly important. So while Labour sees potential in this pathway, and we do support this bill, we do so with caution. Efficiency, ultimately, must never come at the expense of safety, or at the expense of independence.

So that brings me to thinking about the difference between intent and impact—so intent versus impact. The stated goal of this bill is to improve access to medicines. That’s something that absolutely everybody in this House could get behind, and everybody in this House, no doubt, supports. But the question is whether this particular bill meaningfully achieves that. The Government has promised faster access, but there is little evidence in this particular pathway that it will deliver real change. My colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall outlined some of those specific concerns earlier.

When we consider patients waiting on life-saving treatments, it’s important that this bill is meaty enough to actually make those changes, and not just the sound bites that the Government are offering at the moment. Otherwise, it risks being more symbolic, really, than any kind of proper fix, any kind of structural fix.

So if the Government truly wants to improve access, it should be (a) transparent about who stands to benefit, how much sooner treatments will be available—specifically, we should have been able to hear details potentially about that today—and what accountability will be in place if those improvements don’t actually materialise. We haven’t heard information about that, and it’s important because New Zealanders, quite frankly, are tired of announcements that don’t come with delivery. But as my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall said earlier, in effect it doesn’t do any harm, hence the fact that we will be supporting this bill.

Now, another area that deserves some close attention is the proposed change to the way that members of the Medicines Classification Committee are going to be appointed. Labour is concerned that shifting more power over appointments to the Minister risks politicising this process, opening the door to what could potentially be undue influence from industry.

That brings us, I suppose, to the broader question about priorities. That’s a broader question that is raised on this side of the House frequently because it needs to be. At a time when New Zealanders are struggling with the cost of living, they’re struggling with a health system that is absolutely under immense pressure, the Government has chosen, as core business, to focus on this bill, which while perfectly acceptable, while it does no harm, probably isn’t anything more than a technical fix, but, nevertheless, this is a priority. It’s tidying up a regulatory process, and its tidying up, in regulatory terms, offers little to the average family, who are still trying to struggle to fill a prescription or to actually see a GP. And remembering this is the same Government that scrapped free prescriptions, a decision that immediately made it harder for low-income families and vulnerable New Zealanders to access the medicines that they need. So whilst, again, we’ll support this bill, it’s potentially largely symbolic. I don’t think it’s the fix that it’s claimed to be on the other side of the House during these short contributions. But it’s a little bit ironic that it crows about access to medications on one hand—by a Government that has directly made that access more difficult on the other.

So while we’re here debating procedural tweaks and international alignments that all sound very good, thousands of people are now thinking twice about actually collecting their prescriptions because of the cost. That’s the real access issue. If we’re going to talk access issues to medications, that is the real access issue—not at all something that’s even touched on with this bill. So it’s another example of the Government, I think, focusing much more on appearances than outcomes. After all, they did talk a big talk, and when it comes to delivery, these are the types of things they’re offering up.

Now, in the remainder of my time, I’d like to repeat something that was mentioned earlier in relation to the Medicines Act 1981—which is older than some of the medicines that it continues to regulate; it absolutely belongs in a different era. If the Government truly was interested in making this sector better, and this sphere of operations safer, that’s the Act that they’d be working on. But we haven’t heard much about that. It does raise our interest, on this side of the House, as to exactly what’s going on with the update of the Medicines Act 1981. As I said, it was written in an era before modest biotechnology, it doesn’t reflect today’s complex international supply chains, it doesn’t reflect new forms of therapy, and there’s absolutely gaps around things as basic—as absolutely basic—as medical devices.

Labour will support this bill’s passage, mainly because it does no harm. It could have been better, but it’s not—that’s OK. We remain deeply concerned about the Government’s overall direction in general, but particularly in health. And we implore the Government to start thinking about the fact that New Zealanders need policies that make a real difference—we hope for better, but we aim for less.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): This bill is another critical step by this Government to ensure New Zealanders have access to timely and quality healthcare. This Medicines Amendment Bill increases patient access to medicine by introducing a streamlined ratification pathway for medicine approval, the rule of two, allowing safe and effective treatment to reach patients more quickly. It’s also updating prescribing settings to enable suitable qualified health professionals to prescribe an approved medicine in appropriate circumstances. This reform modernises our regulatory system and aligns with international best practice.

This Government continues to work to improve patient wellbeing and healthcare outcomes. This Government’s focus is all about patients—their safety, their access, and their care. I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Medicines Amendment Bill, and, as colleagues from my party have indicated, we will be supporting this bill this morning. I do want to acknowledge the Health Committee, which has obviously progressed this bill which appears to have multi-party support across the Parliament, and I think it’s fair to appreciate that because this is a bill that will deliver some modest technical changes that I’m sure will make some difference.

I think the jury is still out as to the full extent of the difference that it will make, because we hear from the Government that this bill is about improving access to healthcare, improving access to medicines. What would actually make a difference, I think, is a Government that introduced a bill that delivered things that led to things like three free GP visits a year. That would certainly send a strong signal around improved access to health. What would actually make a difference is a Government that would instead spend its time ensuring that free prescriptions were still made available to the community. That would have a direct impact on access to healthcare, in particular, to medicines as well. But, instead, they decide to strip all that stuff away and make it more difficult, and they have done something quite different.

Joseph Mooney: Health targets. We’re investing.

TANGI UTIKERE: It’s interesting that members opposite love to chip in whenever we get up, and we intend to take our full calls because the public of New Zealand deserve to hear what members of this House actually think about this legislation. It’s unusual that we’re sitting here on a Wednesday morning, but the Government believed that this is so important that it needs to set aside the time of select committees. I look forward to the next Government member taking a full call. [Interruption] There’s no need to chip in with your interjections. You’ve got an opportunity to stand up and tell us exactly what it is that you want to say. So we look forward to that for the future.

This is a particular bill that relies on things like international best practice. It relies on the way in which other jurisdictions are approaching things. It relies on the fact that some specified practitioners, as identified in the bill, will have an increased level of support and ability to be able to provide medication to members of the community.

I was listening to colleagues, and I listened to my colleague from the Green Party talk about the role that pharmacists actually play in our community, and he is absolutely right. Any member of this House who talks with a community pharmacist will know that they are often the first port of call. They are the ones that don’t just dispense the medication but often are in circumstances where they are required to dispense some advice—for example, when someone is choosing between one medicine or another because they can’t afford it. The fact is that when they front up—and this Government have stripped away free prescriptions now so people have to pay for their medicine—pharmacists are tasked with giving advice on what medication might be better for them, given that element of choice.

What this bill does is it provides additional powers and responsibilities to specified practitioners, including pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and others as well, in addition to medical practitioners. Now, my colleague Dr McLellan talked about the fact that we cannot afford as a country, as a community, to set aside the safeguards that are in place to protect communities when it comes to medication. We expect that when someone goes and gets their medicine it’s able to actually hit a particular threshold. We rely on this bill in terms of the international reciprocal approaches that may exist in terms of standards that actually do fit the bill and do cut the mustard. So whilst we are supportive of what are technical changes to this bill, it is important that the underlying intention of providing safeguards is actually not compromised, and that is something that the Labour Party do express some concern around, in particular when we’re talking about the ministerial appointments to the committee that would be making recommendations that would inform the decision-making process.

We cannot afford for that to become a political exercise. Yes, we accept that Ministers of the Crown, through holding the warrant, are empowered to make those appointments. But what we don’t want to see, what we cannot see, is the nature of those appointments becoming political; effectively, jobs for the boys. Instead, what is really important is that those who sit on that particular committee, who are making these decisions, have the technical skill, the medical capacity, to be able to make decisions that are right.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak in this third reading of the Medicines Amendment Bill. Some very sensible changes are made within this bill, and it has real-world implications for people working in the clinical coalface every day. Because of the way our supply chains are often interrupted, some medicines have to be sought that are alternative sources. That means that they are, effectively, unapproved medications and come under what’s called section 29. Previously to this, only a registered medical professional could sign a prescription for those, even if another prescribing authority could prescribe the same medication, because it comes from a different factory, it’s, essentially, not allowed to be prescribed any more. It creates a huge amount of confusion and extra bother for people. So this change will have real-world improvements for people on the ground, along with the other sensible changes. Therefore, I comment the bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to join with my colleagues in support of this bill. I commend the select committee for its work; I didn’t have the pleasure of sitting on the committee, but I have reviewed some of the submissions that went to the select committee, and they tend to fit into one of three categories in terms of the points that submitters were making. Some were around the time taken for approvals; some were around attracting suppliers to New Zealand—so the actual funding gap, and what fund is Pharmac committed to funding; and then there was a third broad set around access to not just medicine but healthcare.

I do think that that’s relevant to this bill, and I do think that that’s relevant to the intent of this bill, which is to address a healthcare issue. The Government really must recognise that all these issues, in terms of access, do sit side by side for people in their real lives. It does cost too much for them to access their prescriptions, they simply will not go and make use of that opportunity to resolve an issue at its earliest stage. If we are finding it takes up to $70 or $90 to visit your doctor, then, again, people will simply just not engage with the system whatsoever. [Interruption] I hear members commenting opposite about the cost—those are the prices in some parts of West Auckland, so those are issues for real people when it’s time to access medical facilities.

The other issue is delay, when you find people who need to access specialist services having to often wait for months and months before they see a specialist, but even for the simplest of things. I’ve spoken to people who have had delays just getting their children vaccinated at their local GP because of the lack of nursing staff in their medical facilities. So delayed access is an important issue as well, and the Government needs to look at the cost of prescriptions. The cost of prescriptions is something you could also remove. It is part of the reason why people do not go and access those medicines at an early stage. Those submitters were making very, very valid points.

In terms of the genesis of the bill—and we do support the bill. I think that the need for the support is really there in the data. The regulatory impact statement refers to some research that was done over 20 OECD countries between 2011 and 2020 where New Zealand ranked last for the approval of modern medicines—last out of 20 countries, which is really shocking. There was a core list of 403 medicines included in that analysis and New Zealand had only publicly funded 24 of those medicines—that’s 6 percent—by 2018, which is really shocking. On the 2020 study, it took New Zealand, on average, 659 days to publicly fund modern medicines, which was compared to an average of 273 days for other OECD countries, which is really, really shocking.

That research was then extended into 2025 and the data remained really bad in terms of New Zealand’s comparators. New Zealanders, at 2025, are missing out on access to 142 modern medicines that are publicly funded in Australia, and 81 percent of those medicines are considered core by international standards; 38 are oncology medicines, including therapies for blood cancer. So this is really significant in terms of some of the data that demonstrates that change is needed.

Change is needed, and this will go some way to addressing that, but I think we also have to recognise that it doesn’t go all the way in terms of addressing what the problem is. A number of submitters raised the issue of the gap between approvals and what Pharmac will actually fund as being a core issue that we need to address before we believe we’ve solved this problem. Many companies, it was argued by some submitters, wouldn’t be interested in entering the New Zealand market because they don’t think it’s worth the effort to submit, simply because the funding isn’t there overall. That problem absolutely must be addressed. Again, we do support this bill, but the view from many submitters is that it doesn’t go far enough.

I wanted to briefly speak to the issue of the secondary legislation provisions that are in the bill, which the committee did make some changes to. This is new section 22AA, the recognised regulatory authority, and this is where the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare a person or body to be a recognised regulatory authority if the Minister is satisfied across a number of criteria. The important thing, in my view, is that the power also gives revocation powers to the Minister, so the Minister may revoke a declaration if they’re satisfied that the recognised regulatory authority no longer meets one of the criteria.

This was important in reflection of what some of the submitters to select committee reflect on, which is that while a certain list of countries can be useful in terms of predicting where we might go and who our comparators are, that’s not always the case. We had members of the Wellington Community Justice Project, for example, who are made up of Victoria University law students, who argued that while a country may historically be relevant and reliable, it doesn’t remain the case that they would always be so, so it’s important that we have flexible powers of regulation to allow determinations to change those standards should they be required.

There were also some submitters who, again, said that the bill didn’t go far enough. The Law Society was certainly one of those, and I do tend to think that we need to review those submissions in terms of understanding whether further statutory changes are needed to ensure that international players are able to pitch in to the market and have a reasonable hope that they will be considered for Pharmac in terms of funding as well, and that is absolutely a barrier.

Other members have spoken about our objection, in this side of the House, to a part of the bill. Our main objection is that the appointment to the Medicines Classification Committee should not be a ministerial appointment, and that’s really because of the technical nature of this role. It shouldn’t be a political appointment, and therefore our view is that that is one change that could really reassure the public that the people who are appointed are being appointed because of their technical skills. Interestingly, on this point, the UK, in 2016, looked at its processes of appointment. They were looking particularly at judges, but they did do an examination of what is an appropriate appointment and to what extent you should assure that there’s independence in the appointment process. They updated their transparency and appointment guidelines—well, in 2016 they were first created; they then updated them in 2024.

I’m of the view we should be doing precisely the same thing. We should have very clear guidance on how appointments should be made and the criteria that Ministers should be following, including potentially having a system where if you have potential appointees that are vetted through a department, the Minister may only appoint from those who are deemed capable and qualified—that the Minister can not appoint from anyone who is outside that “A list”, if you like, of individuals who’ve been individually and independently vetted. Right now, New Zealand doesn’t have that system and Ministers can overlook the recommendations of a department. I think what that has meant for us is that we are subject to political appointments, but also, for me, is a lack of public trust in terms of some of our appointments.

Again, we wish that the Government had considered this. They haven’t. However, we are supportive of the bill overall and I commend it to the House.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We actually live in one of the most exciting times in human history. Science has delivered to us innovations, including medical innovations, that were completely unimaginable only a few decades ago. We now understand the human genome, or we can at least sequence it; I don’t know whether we completely understand it. What this amazing scientific revolution has led to in the area of medicines is that we now have new ways of treating diseases.

Yesterday, I was privileged enough actually to host an event around skin cancer, and that was put on by the Skin Cancer College Australasia. It was focused around prevention and detection, which is extremely important, but unfortunately, skin cancers can often develop into very aggressive diseases. I remember, about 15 years ago, when I was working in the medicines industry, I actually helped launch what was called the first BRAF inhibitor, which is a medicine that can actually shut down a cancer from growing. How that works is it actually attacks a particular pathway that causes the cancer to grow. That’s the kind of amazing medical technology that we’re faced with today, and since then, there have been lots and lots of advances: we’ve got CRISPR technology, we’ve got CAR T therapy, we’ve got immunotherapies. What this bill does is mean that we’re actually allowing New Zealanders to get these technologies much, much faster.

We want to ensure that New Zealanders get access to all of the medical treatments that are available in other countries as quickly as possible, and I do want to commend everyone in the House for coming in behind this bill and saying, “Actually, Kiwis’ health and treatments matter as much as other countries’.” This pathway of allowing us to recognise two other highly competent international regulators who have approved a treatment and then expedite it into the New Zealand market is a great step forward. This was asked for by patient communities and groups; it was campaigned on by ACT, and I’ve got to acknowledge our other coalition partners as well; and it has been supported by members across the House. This is a way of actually making sure we get these exciting technologies and medical treatments to people quicker.

Now, there has been some talk about funding, and, look, I totally acknowledge there is more to do, but this is a very important step in making sure our regulatory processes are fit for purpose and deliver treatments in a timely manner. The Government has an entire other programme of ensuring that Pharmac is fit for purpose. We obviously have increased funding to Pharmac, and we look forward to making the case for more funding to Pharmac. I am very pleased to commend this to the House. This will make a difference to New Zealand patients and really make sure we can get new medical technologies and new treatments into New Zealand faster.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to also speak on the Medicines Amendment Bill in its third reading. Like previous speakers Hūhana Lyndon and Ricardo Menéndez March, we do support this bill. But having partook in the committee stage, there are a few things that I want to address specifically from the committee stage. A part of our time was spent discussing, particularly Part 1, clause 6, subclause (2), with regards to some of the clarifications around the idea of peer reviewing but also around susceptibility to undue pressure from industry and also political pressure. I think, in those cases, the Minister has expressed, which is very helpful, that when it comes to things like peer review etc., those regional authorities, or local authorities, do, in fact, do some of that ahead of time. The reassurance that we were given is that these peer reviews, particularly, will be in line or up to the same standards, if not better, than what we have here in Aotearoa. When we’re looking at the susceptibility to industrial and political pressure, we’re hoping, as the Minister expressed, that we’re not going to be seeing some of those aspects.

We do still have concerns around new section 22C, when it comes to the Minister’s consent by verification, although the Minister did raise the idea that the ministerial consent by verification “does not require independent assessment by the Director-General to contextualise the benefit-risk profile of the medicine due to local disease epidemiology”. I think the Minister said that we are looking at a diverse culture and diverse society. When we’re looking at multiple authorities around the world that do approve these sorts of medicines already, we should be reassured that those kinds of data can be extrapolated or used here in the Aotearoa New Zealand. I think, in particular, part of the concern with that is, in terms of the pharmacological properties, that we’re still not entirely sure if sufficient work has been done on local disease epidemiology and how that relates to, particularly, Māori populations and Pasifika populations, as other regulatory authorities overseas may not have access to some of those data, bar a few particular regions. I think that particular challenge of that element is still something that should be teased out and should be considered when we are reviewing this bill or how this bill is put into practice.

Now, a big part of this bill is also around expanding the prescribing rights by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe medicine under section 29 of the Medicine Act. I think this is also a really pertinent and crucial moment to thank our nurses in Aotearoa for the work that they are doing and for the challenges that they are currently facing right now in the current political environment.

Finally, I think it’s also really important to address, as my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March mentioned, the surprising, and we have seen a lot of that, amendment bill that was dropped by the Minister during the committee stage without any prior select committee process and without any prior consultation with the House. In general, we’ve seen a number of those kinds of amendments taking place, over the last few weeks, but, in this particular case, the new addition of clause 12A, in terms of the advertisement of medicine, was something that this bill shouldn’t really be addressing. If we’re looking at the core essence of this bill, it is to expedite the approval of medicines and make medicines more accessible for the people of Aotearoa. We fail to see how the advertisement of medicine would support or enhance that particular purpose of the bill. I think, more concerningly, we don’t want it to turn into a situation, like we are seeing in the US, where the advertisement is a way of pushing medicine to people who don’t really need in the first place. That’s something that is of a little bit of concern. But, overall, the Green Party does support this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 121, Noes 2.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 4 November.

Part 1

Amendments to Crimes Act 1961

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on for further consideration of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 15, “Amendments to Crimes Act 1961”. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m looking forward to continuing this debate on this bill today with the Minister, and I note that we have the officials here today with us, which is good as there were a few questions I had last time we were considering this bill that I didn’t get a response to. I will start with new section 2A(3). I had a question about the definition of a person who is in New Zealand who obviously owes allegiance under that section. The question I have is: who is covered by the statement “who is in New Zealand”? The reason I raise that question is that the Law Society raised an issue on this about there potentially being a difficulty with the reference to “Persons in New Zealand” due to the need to reconcile, respectively, the Crimes Act 1961 and the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977, which perhaps from here on and I’ll just refer to as the economic zone Act.

In section 2 of the Crimes Act, it defines “New Zealand” as follows: “New Zealand includes all waters within the outer limits of the territorial sea of New Zealand (as defined by section 3 of the … Exclusive Economic Zone Act)”. That’s one definition. It’s referring then to the second Act. Section 3 of the economic zone Act then defines “territorial sea” as encompassing the sea within 12 nautical miles of a baseline, being the lower watermark along the coast of New Zealand, including the coast of all islands. However, in that same Act, in the economic zone Act, section 2 has a definition of “New Zealand”, which “includes the Ross Dependency”. The statutes, essentially, don’t fit together very well on the Law Society’s read, and neither do they on mine. The question is whether the Ross Dependency counts as being part of New Zealand or not—so whether the lean is on section 3 of the economic zone Act or section 2 of the Crimes Act.

The second question I have on this part as well—still on new section 2A(3)—is how, if at all, the proposed law applies to Niue. This is another issue that the Law Society raised in section 3 of the Niue Constitution Act. In section 3 of the Niue Constitution Act, they are self-governing. However, section 6 provides that “Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue.” The question is: is there an application or not? When I asked this question last time we were considering the bill, the Minister’s response was, “Well, it applies to everyone who is in New Zealand, and that’s what the bill says.” I don’t think that sufficiently answers the two questions—one around the Ross Dependency and the other one around Niue as well. I potentially have some more questions on other parts as well soon, but, perhaps, I’ll leave that question with the Minister for now.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I know this also has been a little while. I just want to also do a very small recap because again, my previous question to the Minister hasn't had a response or acknowledgment yet, and that is around new section 2A(4), inserted by clause 4, regarding persons outside of New Zealand. This is something that we haven't quite covered. Part of that is to do with how we are particularly looking at new section 2A(4)(c)(iii). Over here it states that in terms of a person who is outside of New Zealand owing allegiance if the person has family or property in New Zealand that demonstrates an enduring connection to New Zealand.

I guess the question to the Minister is because when we're looking at new section 2A, that is of the highest order in terms of statutory interpretation, just behind the interpretation section, but “enduring connection” is a new term that has just been introduced under this bill. So I’m checking with the Minister how that enduring connection is supposed to be interpreted and what is the degree of enduring connection in relation to the idea of family or property.

Now, the idea is also that family is not a definition that was given under section 2 of the Crimes Act, ergo there needs to be a definition that the Minister is able to provide for family. Property, on the other hand, is a defined term under section 2 of the Crimes Act, but property could also include things like debt or anything like that. So, again, to what sort of extent are we interpreting the relationship of property and enduring connection? So that's my first question to the Minister that I would appreciate a response on.

My second question is just going to move ahead to new section 69(1)(1A), inserted by clause 7. I want to focus on when we're looking at the idea that the person who owes allegiance to a Sovereign in right of New Zealand commits an offense if the person outside of New Zealand aids, incites, counsels, or procures the doing or omission outside of New Zealand. Now, the aids, incites, counsels, and procures is relatable to section 66 of the Crimes Act around party liability, but in this particular context, I want to check. Now, party liability is an incredibly tricky aspect of the criminal law and has a lot of case law around it, and I just want to check with the Minister, how would this be assessed and how would this be judged in terms of all four? All four are a little bit different. Aiding, for example, is probably the most straightforward perspective, but in this case, particularly when we're looking at the definition that we're discussing here under clause 4 on a person who owes allegiance to a Sovereign, how would we see counsels or procures play out, particularly if the counselling and procuring was done offshore or overseas? So I'll leave those two questions to start with.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to the House. Already, there were some very detailed questions from Vanushi Walters and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. To start with Vanushi Walters: hopefully persistence pays off, and we’ll see by the critique of your answers. I’ve been advised, under the definition in the bill, if someone is in New Zealand, they owe allegiance unless one of the exemptions relating to the diplomats and enemy aliens apply. This is because, generally, foreign nationals are entitled to the protection of the New Zealand Government while in New Zealand. The nature of allegiance is reciprocal, so the foreign national is subject to and is required to comply with the laws of New Zealand whilst present in our country. The definition is clear as to who this applies to.

Regarding the Ross Dependency, Niue, and, also, include there the Cook Islands, persons owing allegiance who are outside of New Zealand are clearly defined. These explicitly include persons who hold New Zealand’s citizenship. Beyond this, it is intended that the status of people in New Zealand’s realm jurisdictions be determined by the common law. Maybe going a bit more tightly defined, in response to the question, a New Zealander in the Ross Dependency will be covered. The status of a foreigner in the Ross Dependency or Niue will be determined by common law. Also, while I’m on my feet, to respond to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, with his typical, quite-detailed, punctuated questions. A judge will make the determination of whether a person owes allegiance, as it’s been made a question of law. This was recommended by the Law Society and was added in at select committee.

“Property” is defined in section 2 of the Crimes Act. It is used, through the Crimes Act, and regularly considered and applied by the courts. The term “family” is not defined in the Crimes Act nor under this bill. It will be left to the courts to determine the scope of the term “family”, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the family relationship demonstrates an enduring connection to New Zealand.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for early engagement on this. Just a quick follow-up question before I get into an Amendment Paper in my name. I wonder if the Minister could give us some clarity, because there will be those of us from the Cook Islands and Niue who have used our own passports wondering how this would impact us. I heard the Minister saying that it will be left to the common law, but what does that mean? What will that mean for those of us—for example, the 80,000 Cook Islanders—who can actually go through a bit of a process and actually have all the privileges and rights as Cook Islanders, in this case, living in the Cook Islands as well? I have gone through the process myself. My oldest child has. To have that clarity in terms of what the position is with the common law right now for those of us in that particular circumstance would, I think, be good for us to know. It would be good for those of us in the Realm countries to know as well.

I want to turn the Minister’s attention to my Amendment Paper 431, which is not related—but maybe it is; it’s all kind of related—and in my Amendment Paper, clause 10, new section 78AAA(4A)(a), it says, “after “a profession,” (page 7, line 2), insert “advocacy,” ” and “after “or unpaid,” (page 7, line 3), insert “or in their personal communication,” ”. The purpose of this Amendment Paper is the understanding that there are other roles that people play. Yes, doing things in terms of your normal business or as a part of your job or occupation is fine, but people are often more rounded than that, and the term advocacy is in there around “What about people working in human rights areas?”, “What about people working in different environmental areas?”, “What about people engaging in different activism?”

Activism, in my view, can strengthen our democracy, can improve our democracy, and can improve our processes, so my question is around whether the Minister would, first of all, accept this amendment, and if not, why not? Then, also, how would the Minister unravel and unwrap, if he isn’t keen on accepting this amendment, in terms of making sure that those avenues for advocacy, which are incredibly important, are protected? The questions could be: how would the Minister see, if this amendment is not accepted—could the Minister give us some example—that individuals can engage lawfully in advocacy or activism and will not be unfairly targeted under this particular bill, and perspectives from the Minister around the bill as it is currently worded. Why does it exclude advocacy or personal communications, given that many groups—I mean, I can’t count the number of WhatsApp groups that I don’t want to be part of that I end up being a part of, and Signal groups. The Minister is laughing. He’s probably had his pinch as well.

Francisco Hernandez: And that’s just the Greens!

TEANAU TUIONO: “And that’s just the Greens!”, Francisco Hernandez says to me as well. There has to be some way that people aren’t caught up in this, and if the Minister could provide some light on that, that would be good.

Also, could the Minister clarify how the bill would protect the privacy rights of citizens who use encrypted messaging or secure communication tools just for personal use—not just human rights advocacy or activism, and environmental activism and that kind of thing as well, but just in their everyday life. Some light gathered there would be really interesting. And, I guess, how would the Minister distinguish between legitimate advocacy and community organising, and those types of activities that could actually fall under the phrase of “improper conduct for or on behalf of a foreign power”? If the Minister could help to unravel that for the committee, that would be very helpful.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one relatively short point, and it’s around clause 7, new section 69(1B)—this is the penalty provision: “A person who commits an offence against subsection (1A) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” That is the offence that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan spoke to, which is aiding, inciting, counselling, or procuring, but not conspiring, of course.

The interesting thing is that aiding and abetting, to use the old language, is generally considered a lower offence than doing it yourself. Someone who is engaging themselves in foreign interference would usually be considered more culpable than someone who—if you take “counsels”, for example, it is an offence for me to suggest, on behalf of a foreign power, that someone go and spray paint an embassy. That is acting on behalf of a foreign power and doing an illegal act. Doing it is the serious offence; me kind of suggesting, counselling, or even giving them a can of spray paint—that would be aiding. Now, should that act of giving someone who is determined to engage in foreign interference on behalf of a foreign power a can of spray paint be the same penalty?

As I understand my criminal law, in almost all other situations, it’s not, but here we have a maximum imprisonment of 14 years for suggesting someone troll someone on the internet or offering someone a can of spray paint. They’re probably the obvious ones—the aiding ones and the counselling ones. That, in short, is my question: why is it such a serious penalty for an offence that is not being the main perpetrator but being a party to the offence?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just responding to, I think, probably the latter questions of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I’ve been advised that the usual rules which apply to party liability generally will be applied to section 69, amended by clause 7. There is nothing unusual about the terms, which are regularly considered and interpreted by the courts.

To start my response to the questions by the member Teanau Tuiono, I would point out—and I’m sure it was discussed during the Justice Committee process—there is no need to include “advocacy” in new section 78AAA(4A)(a), inserted by clause 10, because it would introduce unnecessary duplication into the offence. “Advocacy” is already included to make clear that engaging in advocacy does not by itself provide a sufficient basis to infer a person is intending to, or is reckless as to whether their conduct is likely to, compromise a protected New Zealand interest.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for the answers thus far. That was very much appreciated in terms of getting the substance of the last answers.

I do want to ask a question about a change in the bill. In the original iteration, under new section 2A(3)(c) in clause 4, the first item, I guess, on that sub-list was “the person is an enemy alien”, and that has been removed post - select committee. The new subparagraph (iaa) has been inserted, which says, “is a citizen of a State that is at war with New Zealand;”. My question is really a consistency one here, as well, in terms of the Minister’s intention about what should be covered.

I’m just noting that in the Crimes Act, there’s a definition of enemy in section 73, “Treason”, where the definition of treason includes “an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other country;”. I’m just checking whether it’s the Minister’s intent that the scope of liability under section 73 wouldn’t apply in this case, and that that is an active policy decision in terms of the shift from “enemy alien” to “that is at war with New Zealand;”. The proposal from the Law Society was including a definition of enemy alien, so that, I believe, it would be consistent with the Crimes Act provision, but I’m just wanting the Minister’s comment on that.

The other question I had is on the same issue, but it’s on a different point to the one that a colleague has made. Teanau Tuiono asked about what it means to have that reference to the common law in new section 2A(2)(b), and I am also of the view that that is problematic in terms of its vagueness. But my specific question is around what the common law provisions that would apply are when in relation to repudiation or denouncing citizenship.

Generally speaking, as I understand it, common law concepts can be relevant to determining liability for alleged criminal offending, both in relation to the defences under section 20 of the Crimes Act and determining the meaning of words or phrases in the definition of offences. However, that is where the common law is both reasonably accessible and it aligns with common law usage, and in the case of repudiation and denouncing citizenship, it isn’t clear—neither of those qualifications are there—which means that it would be very hard for a decision maker to understand the scope of the common law provisions that apply in that case.

I mean, the Law Society expressed a view that any prosecution be based only on a renounced allegation risk being an abuse of process, and said that that should be excluded from the relevant offence. However, again, the bill isn’t explicit about this, and there’s this broad statement that relies on the application of the common law. Now, I think precisely for this issue, that is a problem.

The other proposal, given we’re at committee stage, that I just wanted to float with the Minister is the concept of temporary allegiance—so understanding and requiring allegiance on the basis of a person being in the country. I’ve mentioned this in the past, but there was historically an understanding that people on short-term visas could be subject to allegiance requirements for the period that they’re in a country, but otherwise they would not, and that seems in many ways the more sensible way to treat offending, as people can come into the country with eyes wide open. I do have a few more questions, but I’ll leave those ones with the Minister for now.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call the Hon Ginny Andersen, because I heard someone calling from over there before, and I wasn’t sure which one of you it was.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I did try earlier, but I was a wee bit slow that time, I do admit. I've got some questions for the Minister, and I just want to clarify, because a range of the existing offences that criminalise foreign interference are there already. So we've confirmed—and the committee process has been good—that we have existing offences over a wide range of harmful activity, and that may include foreign interference. Those offences criminalise activities that can be undertaken as part of any foreign interference efforts. An example would be offences related to bribery, corruption, blackmail, harassment, and any sort of hostile actions against States, such as even treason or sabotage.

Our current criminal offence regime also accounts for many of those things in the Crimes Act, but it is noted that there are some concerning activities that are not captured by existing offences. I'm really interested in the Minister's view as to whether there is some additional work—we know the changes in here will add to the suite of actions that can be undertaken by law enforcement and to take action more proactively—but it's also important to note that as we receive new intelligence, as information is gathered by New Zealand and our security services, I'm interested to know what the ongoing programme of work is to make sure that we keep, I guess, up to date in the way that we're responding. Those activities that are not captured by the existing criminal law, and that's specified in the regulatory impact statement.

I'm interested to know whether there are some additional things that are not captured within this legislation that the Government is looking at or aware of that we can remain vigilant of and consider how we can make sure our laws are always kept up to date, because this is essentially the first piece of legislation in some time that we've updated those previous offences. So I'm interested to know, is there a programme of work ongoing that would review whether these are working, review whether we need to update them, to make sure that there's clear lines of communication between what intelligence we receive and what types of offences are required to make sure that we remain, I guess, resilient or resistant to attempts of foreign interference? I'm interested to hear that.

“[T]he limited nature of [partial] liability allows New Zealand citizens, in some instances, to assist foreign operatives to commit espionage acts in or [even] outside of New Zealand, while remaining immune from criminal liability”. They were the sorts of things that were found in that overarching review that looked at legislative provisions. I'm interested to know whether the Minister considers the additional offences within this legislation addresses some of those shortfalls that were found in their overarching review; and, if not, what is the Government doing to address those?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to members of this committee of the whole House. I’m grateful for the questions that have been posed in my brief time so far in the chair, and I’ve been handed some notes that relate to a question asked by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I’ll do my best to address that.

I’ll start in reverse order—so with the comments of the Hon Ginny Andersen. First of all, in relation to her point regarding adding to the suite of law enforcement opportunities over time: I think her point is well made that, as our updated understanding of advances, essentially—if I can use that term—in the kinds of threats that might be posed advances, of course, her point is the right one, which is that an ongoing programme, if not a formal programme with a capital P but a process of reviewing or a commitment to understanding how the environment may change over time, would be prudent, such that offences and the regime as a whole could or should be updated.

I would just make the obvious point that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I think you can feel assured that the Minister and, indeed, the Government as a whole are committed to an ongoing understanding of the threat environment, so to speak, and would be determined, I’m sure, to make any necessary changes in the future—albeit respecting, of course, that, from a civil liberties point of view, we don’t wish to have broader expression of offences than is appropriate at any given moment, because we don’t want to anticipate further types of offending and catch those in a way that would be unreasonable such that people don’t understand the law. Of course, it’s a key element of the rule of law that the law be accessible and knowable and not retrospective, as it might effectively be seen to be in the event of very broadly expressed provisions.

In terms of Vanushi Walters’ typically astute points: first, in terms of the common law, I take the point that she has made around the fact that it’s ordinarily the case that, to the extent that we would even rely on common law at all to inform a criminal or quasi-criminal regime, we need to have the greatest clarity and accessibility possible. I don’t think there’s anything particular I can add about whether that would be required in the case of repudiation or renouncement provisions. It seems to me sensible that the more accessible and clear such law is—and common law is, by definition, law, albeit of a different variety than statutory law—then that would be more helpful and perhaps might be relied upon more fully, but there isn’t anything, to my understanding, in the legislation that specifies that. I don’t wish to go out on a limb and suggest that that’s the case definitively.

In terms of temporary allegiance, I’ll simply acknowledge the point of Ms Walters’ that it would be more sensible, in her view—and I’m sure I’m characterising her comments correctly—to have a temporary allegiance as opposed to a permanent allegiance related to non-permanent people being in New Zealand. I don’t know that I can take that point much further in terms of what the law could or even should say.

As for the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s comments around penalties and challenging or questioning, at least, the relativity, I suppose, of the offences: my understanding is that the penalty referred to has been carried across from the existing law, and it’s considered as serious as espionage and treason—that’s in relation to section 69.

I don’t know that there are any other comments I could make at the moment that would be helpful, or any comments that I could make that would be unhelpful—members will judge—but I look forward to the rest of the committee’s consideration.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to make another short point, and I am leaping ahead but I wanted to do it because it’s an important one. It’s around the substantive offence. The definitions are actually quite hard to find your way around, but I know officials would know them inside out. The guts of it is this: that is, it is an offence against this Act to commit an imprisonable offence on behalf of a foreign power. It also says that it’s not an offence simply to engage in a protest. Now, since this legislation was considered by the Justice Committee, we have seen the legislation around protests outside people’s houses, and a disruptive protest targeted at a person in a residential address is an imprisonable offence.

So I just want to be clear—and I think, to be perfectly honest, the answer is yes. But the question is this: if, on behalf of a foreign power, I organise or participate in a protest which is intended to be disruptive outside a person’s residence—an ambassador would be the most obvious one, but anyone—am I liable for foreign interference and, therefore, liable to 14 years in prison for engaging in a disruptive protest?

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for his responses. It sounds like there may be some agreement in terms of the status of the common law. I think the problem we have is that the current provisions make it feel like the common law position of retaining your obligations of loyalty may endure even if you have renounced, which I think is problematic in the legislation but—yeah, unfortunate that it won’t be fixed at this stage.

I have another suggestion. In terms of understanding whether someone does owe allegiance for the purposes, or not, of criminality, whether there could be merit and including an officially induced error defence? So where an individual has sought or applied for confirmation from the New Zealand Government as to whether they owed allegiance to the Crown in right of New Zealand or not, had been advised that they did not, but were later charged with a potential offence. At this stage, that is another matter that's potentially uncertain. One can imagine situations where this might actually happen. I think—I could have this wrong—it might be Canada who have a register of third party interests, where people who are in a country and who may be senior members of the Government but they're not there for diplomatic purposes may register the fact that they're in the country and the things that they will be doing. So that's all very clear and transparent.

We obviously don't have that, but I can imagine a situation where people would want to be very clear about which role they held, and where people travelling to New Zealand or who are of New Zealand descent but born in another country, people of dual citizenship—we can't imagine that we would know all the circumstances that are covered. So that just feels to me like something that would be worthwhile exploring, as I'm sure a number of us have a lot of questions in relation to this bill. If the Minister does think that there's potential for something like that to be included, I could certainly draft something up on the go.

The other question I had is around new section 69. This is in clause 7 of the bill, which introduces subclause (1A). “A person who owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand commits an offence if the person, outside New Zealand, aids, incites, counsels, or procures the doing or omission outside New Zealand”—so outside New Zealand is key here—“by any person not owing allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, of any act which, if done or omitted outside New Zealand by a person owing such allegiance, would be [one] of the crimes mentioned in subsection (1).” So that would be a crime inside New Zealand.

A couple of questions here. The first is whether it's intended for the amended offence to capture conduct outside of New Zealand which has no impact inside New Zealand. The way it's currently drafted, it does look to be that way. So just asking whether that is the intent of the bill and the provision.

The second is a suggestion that one of our submitters had proposed, which is to provide a defence that if it's lawful in the jurisdiction where it's done, it shouldn't be counted within this provision. Right now, the test is whether it's illegal in New Zealand as opposed to the country itself. So yeah, just clarifying what the intent is behind those two sections, and if there's appetite for some drafting to make it clear what the intent is.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to move on to clause 8, and then start on clause 10, noting that clause 10 is one of the most substantive sections of this part.

First, I want to raise a question that the previous speaker, Vanushi Walters, touched on. But I think this particular angle would be really good to get the Minister’s elucidation on, and I appreciate both the current Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk, and the previous one, the Hon Matt Doocey, for their engagement and responses.

So when it comes to clause 8, inserting new section 69A, “Party to certain acts or omissions in New Zealand”, the first thing to note is that under “Relevant act done or omitted”, section 69A(2) says, “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” Then, in subsection (4)—under “Relevant act not done or omitted”—it is 10 years. This is when you are looking from a perspective of party liability, as the Minister has mentioned before. But if you are reading it in the context of the Crimes Act, section 76, in terms of treason—as in an individual actively conducted treason, etc.—the penalty’s “not exceeding 7 years”. And if you’re looking at section 77 of the Crimes Act, for mutiny it is no more than 10 years. So I guess the first question to the Minister is: why then is party liability a doubling of the penalty, as opposed to a person performing it themselves? So that’s my first question to the Minister.

The second question is more of a question of clarification. So subsections (3) and (4) of section 69A are “Relevant act not done or omitted”. That, to me, reads like it is a strict liability. I want to check with the Minister if it is the intention that when you’re looking at something like this, it is a strict or limited liability for any individual who owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, when they’re committing an offence under that section, and that they are liable to no more than 10 years of imprisonment. So that’s my second question.

I want to start on clause 10—noting that there is a lot more that I would like to say about clause 10, but I’ll limit it to three questions for the time being. So in new section 78AAA, inserted by clause 10—and let’s start with subsections (1) to (4). Now, subsections (1) to (2), “Intentional conduct”—now we’re wading into mens rea territory. From a men’s rea perspective, the intention or knowledge—under subsections (1) and (2)—I kind of understand. But in terms of recklessness, under subsections (3) and (4), I want to check a particular scenario, because recklessness is in the sense of not just simply you acting on it or knowing of it—that there is even a benefit of doubt that the outcome may potentially even happen. So, in this case, when you’re looking at “engages in … conduct for or on behalf of a foreign power;”, if we’re looking at a situation where MPs or Ministers or public officials travel to another country and take their parliamentary devices with them without following through on the recommendation of, let’s say, parliamentary security, that would be considered recklessness. So, in those cases, let’s say a public official travels to another country, potentially using a device from here and that got found out, would that be covered now under sections 78AAA (3) and (4)—where that particular official, etc.—now would be charged with recklessness and would be looking at an imprisonment rate not exceeding 10 years?

So those are my three questions for the time being.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I encourage the member—when you asked about Part 10, you indicated you had some more questions. If you can succinctly do the rest of those questions in another call, I’ll give you one.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: OK, thank you. I do have more questions, but, like I said, clause 10 has a lot of different parts. But I would like a follow up question later, on subsection (6) of section 78AAA.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll give it a go—I’ve got a few different slips of paper here. Returning first to the question posed by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in relation to peaceful protest that, he says, could be considered as criminal activity: as he’s rightly noted, there is other legislation that’s passing through this House that would create offences of a criminal nature whereby protesting in residential places could be deemed to be criminal in themselves. The question then is whether that imports into the kinds of ways that we would characterise foreign interference in this, if such activity was conducted on behalf of a foreign power.

At the risk of stating the obvious: first of all, all elements of that offence must occur, so I don’t think—and I’m sure the member didn’t intend to suggest this, but I do want to assure anyone who is following—that there wouldn’t be any kind of lower bar than that which Parliament is agreeing in relation to those kinds of protest offences against people’s personal property and so forth. The foreign interference element would need also to be satisfied as to whether it was carried for or on behalf of a foreign power and so on. I should also add that the Attorney-General would need to consent to proceedings, so there’s a safeguard in that, which complements the elements of the offence or the threshold set out in new section 78AAB.

In terms of some of the comments of Ms Ginny Andersen—in fact, I should flesh out my answer a bit more, having provided a reasonably high-level assurance that it seemed to me that it would be likely that there would be ongoing cross-Government work to address foreign interference into the future. I’m well advised that this includes work that is ongoing, and that it includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), intelligence agencies, and various ethnic communities. Potentially—or I’m sure I’m right in saying—these would be quite broad conversations that would also take into account perspectives of civil society and so on. It was earlier this year that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, as part of an all-of-Government work programme to tackle foreign interference, released resources in 30 languages to better inform communities, in a way that’s understandable and clear to them, about what foreign interference is; how it can affect ethnic communities as well as New Zealand more broadly; and how to report foreign interference should they see it.

In terms of another comment—I think it was probably unrelated, but I think it was by the same member, the Hon Ginny Andersen—the bill does provide quite a broad set of tools to respond to interference activities. She will know—she in fact has a background in the Police—of investigative tools for police, including the use of existing warrantless search powers to enable police to act swiftly to avoid the loss of key evidence. We can all think about ways that that’s an important consideration, albeit weighed against usual civil liberty protections. There is also a basis for MFAT—the relevant ministry, external facing as it is—to use diplomatic tools to engage with other countries’ representatives about inappropriate conduct covered by the bill. There’s a bit of diplomatic as well as legal consideration there.

As for the question about the owing of allegiance and whether this would come into play: only if a person has otherwise done the acts constituting espionage or treason. Again, just to highlight, the various different elements would need to be satisfied such that there was the activity that could be characterised as espionage or treason, as well as then considering the status of the person who had been alleged to conduct such activities.

In terms of the suggestion that I think Vanushi Walters has said came from a submitter—and on which she was asking my view—regarding whether we should instead have a bar or a test of whether the conduct complained of is illegal in another jurisdiction as opposed to that of New Zealand: I’m not sure that there is any support in Government circles for that. I hesitate to state a personal view, but perhaps I can venture that that seems to me the wrong way around for New Zealand lawmakers to be considering the question of criminality—an interesting suggestion as it was from said submitter.

As for the contribution of Lawrence Xu-Nan of the Green Party: the good doctor, as always, makes a number of helpful points. In terms of new section 69A replicating penalty levels of section 69 amended: again, it’s because it covers the same type of conduct. I think I’m right in saying this is a point made previously by our friend Dr Webb and, just to point out, the bill doesn’t amend penalty levels for treason or incitement to mutiny, and adjusting penalties for crimes against New Zealand more generally is out of scope for this bill.

Returning to Dr Xu-Nan: I think he’s referred to section 77—perhaps existing? It must be existing. Why would party liability attract twice as great a degree of liability as opposed to performing the act itself? I might need to take some advice on that; I don’t have a coherent or glib or easy answer for that. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood something in the way that he’s asked the question, which is on me, if so. I’ll commit to coming back to him if I can find out more about that. I wasn’t sure which section he was referring to with the comment around strict liability, or asking if strict liability applied, so I wonder if he could, in his next contribution—assuming he chooses to make another and is allowed to make another, Madam Chair—sort of help me out with that one.

Finally, in terms of clause 10 and that new section 78AAA—like the battery—obviously there is a difference between intention, in the general sense, and recklessness, and he’s right to highlight that that is effectively a lower bar, albeit still within the ambit of mens rea more generally. I’m not sure that I can advise on the scenario of a member of this House going overseas and not taking the precautions suggested by a relevant security agency of New Zealand in terms of maybe taking a “burner” phone, just to use that vernacular. I would, of course, encourage all members to act prudently in such situations. I would say, instinctively, that it seems to me that that would be a stretch to indicate necessarily that the member would have conducted interference for or on behalf of a foreign power merely by not taking those precautions. We might characterise that as negligence—maybe in a general sense rather than the legal sense of the phrase—but, certainly, I would be surprised if, on many occasions, that would reach such a bar as this legislation is setting.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to indicate, at this stage, that the Minister has just advised that he is going to seek some advice. I know this committee stage got off to a bit of an interesting start last week, but I feel like it’s had a select committee and it also has no Minister’s amendments. I’m going to give Teanau Tuiono a chance to speak to the amendments that he’s suggesting—and also, Lawrence Xu-Nan. I think there’s a clarification that the Minister has actually asked for.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and particularly to the—

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Sorry, to interrupt the member, but, Madam Chair, I just wanted to bring to your attention that we have been seeking the call on this side of the Chamber, a few times, and haven’t yet had an opportunity. I guess there are a few points within that: there is a requirement (1) to try and ensure proportionality of calls within speakers and, also, (2) to ensure that all sides can take part in the debate. Indeed, we’ve had three members that sit on the Justice Committee seeking the call, and there is preference, typically, given to members of the committee. I guess my concern is that—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m taking—

Tim van de Molen: —it feels like there’s, perhaps, some pre-emption about what the content of speeches might be on this side, which is not the role of the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And often there is. What I would say about that is that often, if there’s a member who genuinely wants a call, they would indicate, or the whip or someone would indicate, to the Chair that that would be the case. If that is the case, I would ask somebody—

TEANAU TUIONO: Speaking to the point of order. I’m happy to yield to the other side if they want to make a contribution and not a closure motion.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this, on this legislation. We traversed it in some detail through the select committee process and had a good opportunity to explore a number of these questions, Minister; particularly interested in this issue of seeking allegiance and who you have allegiance to.

I think for the average New Zealander out in the community watching this debate this morning, some of these ideas about who has allegiance to New Zealand and who doesn't may get confusing. I would appreciate some clarification for the average New Zealander—if you live in the wonderful Whanganui electorate, for example, or up in your part of the world where you fit many electorates into the sort of space of the wonderful Wanganui electorate. That aside, for the average New Zealander who is a citizen of New Zealand who may have come from somewhere like South Africa, in the case of my wife—not yet a citizen—but would she owe allegiance? And, say, in my example where I've got a British passport but also a New Zealand passport, would I have that allegiance to New Zealand? I just want some clarity on those sorts of typical examples for the average New Zealander.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member opposite, as well. Just to support what that is around the clarity, we have heard earlier—

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Apologies—I just note the clock has been reset but he yielded so it shouldn’t be. It should be carried on from where the time had been used by Mr Bates.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Look, I’m taking this as a new point.

Tim van de Molen: It’s not a new call if the member yields, Madam Chair. It’s quite clear in Speakers’ rulings that they can yield and that time is taken out of their call but it’s not a new call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not sure where—

TEANAU TUIONO: Speaking to the point of order, I can live with less—with 10 seconds less.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): About 5 seconds, I’m advised. So carry on, Mr Tuiono.

Tim van de Molen: No, no—this member’s time gets taken out of his call.

Hon Member: She just extended the call.

TEANAU TUIONO: But I took another call. Point of order.

Tim van de Molen: No, no, it’s the same call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Responding to the point of order, we’ll set the clock at 4 minutes.

TEANAU TUIONO: Is this the new call?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I don’t know how long that call was but—

Tim van de Molen: It was a minute, 30.

TEANAU TUIONO: OK. A minute, 30—sweet as. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to support what the member opposite was saying around clarity, we have heard the example I gave earlier around the folks in the Cook Islands and Niue—and, of course, I’m very interested in this because I’m from there—and about what that exactly means, and we did hear that that will be determined by the common law. And I do note that there are officials behind them—just for the sake of my relatives in the Cook Islands, on a remote island, wondering if this might actually impact them—if they might have some information about what the current situation is with the common law. That would be really useful. Also, to support the conversation that we’ve had around reckless conduct, I did note that when Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan mentioned people missing their laptops and iPhones and so on and so forth, I saw a number of people looking around the room wondering if they knew where their laptops and iPhones were, including myself as well.

So I wonder if the Minister could turn his mind to my Amendment Paper 431, which was about making sure that we did define exactly what that advocacy part was, and I do note that they did say earlier that, actually, advocacy and the process was actually covered in the legislation, but there are so many different examples where it’s incredibly grey, where people could, because of involving themselves in reckless conduct, find themselves not liable for three months but actually seven years, because that’s the difference in the carry-through. So if I could get an answer around that, that would be good.

I’ve got another Amendment Paper—Amendment Paper 433—which is about that proportionality aspect. It amends clause 10 and states, “In clause 10, new section 78AAB, replace subsection (4) (page 9, lines 30 and 31) with: (4)A person who commits an offence against subsection (3) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the sum total of the following: (a) the maximum term of imprisonment for the applicable offence; and (b) an additional 3 months.”

There’s a big difference between three months and seven years, and so I wonder if the Minister could give us some clarity around the differences and perhaps look at it from the perspective of the proportionality principles in the Sentencing Act, which I’m sure the Minister is familiar with, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It seems to me that to go from three months to seven years is quite a stretch, particularly if somebody is engaging in reckless conduct, not necessarily sure that they’re doing what they’re doing, and so I’d like to get some comment on that. My Amendment Paper, in my view, would go some way to addressing that concern to make sure that the penalty is actually more proportional and fair, as opposed to automatically adding an extra seven years. So I’d like to get some clarification from the Minister on that.

I did hear earlier that the reason why this is following through is because treasonable offences have a lot more years added to them, but I wanted to get some clarification from the Minister on the rationale—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We are at the point of yield, so we’re just going to reset the clock. Does the member want to continue?

TEANAU TUIONO: Yes. Thank you. I wanted to know the rationale for the Minister and the officials behind him around pitching it to those treasonable offences, and then if people are engaging in treasonable behaviour, that makes sense, but if people are engaging in reckless conduct, then surely there should be a way to explain why proportionality is being used in this particular way—from three months to seven years—so I’d like an answer to that.

I also wanted to get the Minister to engage on the Amendment Paper around that proportionality, making sure it’s consistent as well, so I’d like to get some sort of clear answers there as well.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve had the benefit of a lot of good discussion around all sides of the committee since I last rose to my feet. I’ll do my best to meet the challenge.

I should start by saying, having in my last contribution sought clarifications from Dr Xu-Nan about a point he’d made previously, that I’ve helpfully had some advice that’s indicated to me not only what he was asking but, actually, suggesting what I might provide by way of response. In terms of the question around strict liability, it’s not a strict liability offence. It would be the case that all the elements of the primary offence would need to be made out, and then, obviously, it would be the usual ruling in criminal law, as opposed to a strict liability regime—that is, there would need to be both the mental element, or the mens rea, as well as the actus reus, or the thing itself. I understand that this relates to the new section 78AAB offence of committing an imprisonable offence for or on behalf of a foreign power. So I hope that that answers the question, and it’s certainly my best effort.

In terms of the question posed by, again, the same member, party liability penalties are actually already those set by the Crimes Act, and there isn’t a change in that regard. If the member’s view is that that those are somehow out of whack, then I suppose that that’s a matter which he could consider further in another context. But within the scope of this legislation, I don’t think that we can bring that forward more usefully than just to acknowledge that point.

As for recklessness, I suppose that the point about that—again, I’m indebted to those who are much more knowledgable in this space than me, which is many people, but it’s certainly those in our Chamber today. As to recklessness, it would require in the usual way that the person would recognise a real possibility—or, in other words, foresee the risk—that their actions would likely compromise a protected New Zealand interest, and then, having regard to that risk, that those actions would be unreasonable. I think, going back to that point about travelling with phones without all the necessary protections as recommended—it seems to me that that would be unlikely in any given case to result in a prosecution against said member.

As for the question posed by my colleague and friend Carl Bates—“Mr Everywhere Man”, but particularly of the Whanganui electorate—I think that he raised a really interesting and helpful point for people to understand in layperson’s terms, perhaps, the effect. Certainly, there are many of us, including many in the House—and, actually, other members have alluded to family or even personal situations of what might appear to be a split allegiance. For those of us who have other Commonwealth passports, and I myself have British and Australian ones in the—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Greedy.

Hon CHRIS PENK: —collection, as well as New Zealand, I hasten to add—getting greedy. But if there are any Canadian friends of influence who are watching, you’ll know what I’m going to ask you aboot, eh? But I know, of course, that that is the case for many people in New Zealand, whether they were born overseas or have some other connection such that they enjoy different connections to other nations. Of course, the question is complicated, or more complex, in the case of Realm nations or other Pacific nations with whom we have particular arrangements, but certainly the intent of the legislation is to clarify the common law and provide greater prosecution security, and, really, at its base it is to ensure that everyone in New Zealand is able to be prosecuted for espionage—for the relevant acts, obviously—as proven, unless that person has diplomatic or consular immunity, as defined elsewhere in legislation, and/or that person is a foreign national, or the child of one, of a State at war with New Zealand. So there are some pretty serious but niche ways in which this could apply to someone in this country who is acting for or on behalf of a foreign power.

Finally, in terms of Amendment Paper 433 in the name of Teanau Tuiono, the proposed penalty reduction we don’t think is appropriate. Our starting point, and the position of the Government, is that the current penalty is appropriate and consistent. I wouldn’t wish to suggest that having the foreign interference element merely topping up the other offence would be appropriately punishable by only an additional three months, as opposed to the seven years that’s put forward. But it’s the case, I think I’m right in saying, that, consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—as the member quite rightly points out—we’ve specified that there be a proportionality in terms of that offence and the foreign interference element.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendments to clause 10, new section 78AAA(4A)(a), set out on Amendment Paper 431 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendments to clause 10, new section 78AAA(5)(a)(ii), set out on Amendment Paper 432 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendments to clause 10, new section 78AAB(4), set out on Amendment Paper 433 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 55.

Part 2 Minor and consequential amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 16, “Minor and consequential amendments to other Acts”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to seek your guidance because before, when we were debating Part 1—I didn’t want to interrupt when we were voting—you did mention that you were going to give me a call to finish—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And then the Minister said that he had understood the clarification that I was going to give you the call for, and then answered, so it was solved.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. I thought the call you were going to give was because I indicated that—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I indicated there was a call for clarification.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So this is on Part 2, right?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, in terms of Part 2, what we’re seeing particularly around focusing on the insertion of new section 78AAA and 7AAB into various other legislations—and I just want to check with the Minister, in terms of how that interacts with some of the legislation here, and I think particularly I want to focus on the Criminal Procedures Act but also the Human Rights Act. Can I check with the Minister that it is my understanding in this section that after section 78, it says, for example, under the Human Rights Act, insert 78AAA and 78AAB—however, would that, then, preclude section 78A and 78AA as a part of that? I just want to check with the Minister on why, then, those two particular clauses were precluded as part of the insertion into this area as well, noting that there’s a basis that both 78AAA and 78AAB are also relying on the fact that there is a 78A and 78AA within the legislation. So, in those kind of cases, what sort of allowances are given for the other sections? I will start with that, because, I think, you know, if the Minister’s able to answer that short question, it will help us unpack a lot of the other additional amendments in this particular section.

While the Minister’s thinking, just continuing on in terms of the fact that when we are looking at this section, and I pulled up on the Human Rights Act, and I think what’s probably pertinent here is the Human Rights Act, the Ombudsmen Act, and the Privacy Act, as a start. For those sections that were mentioned in Human Rights Act, 130; Ombudsmen Act, 26; and Privacy Act, 90, is the intention, then, that those particular sections, then, whether there was an exemption of sort in terms of how new section 78AAA and 78AAB are going to be interacting with those particular sections?

I think it’s vital that when we’re looking at this particular part, noting the number of additional bills that are affected by Part 2 of this legislation, that we don’t inadvertently, I guess, challenge or put in—I guess challenge is a good term in terms of some our fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and also the Human Rights Act—the allowances for people when they are being, I guess, charged with any of the new additional crimes under 78AAA and 78AAB. I’m particularly thinking of how does this thing interact with the limitation that’s being placed on this bill and on individuals in Aotearoa New Zealand under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So I just want to check with the Minister in terms of that interaction.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add to the checks we’re doing in terms of the other Acts referred to in the Schedule, my question is in relation to the Bail Act changes. The current heading of section 9 in the Bail Act references “treason or espionage”. It’s, essentially, a restriction on bail if there are charges on those two matters, and it replaces that with certain offences. The certain offences look to me to be the full set of offences under new section 78AAA of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, which relate to “Improper conduct for or on behalf of foreign power to compromise protected New Zealand interest”. These are, of course, just cases where charges have been brought. There’s not necessarily a plea in there and no guilt found yet. There are other provisions in the Bail Act further down—sections 9A, 10, 11, and 12—which also impose other types of restrictions—and I would say lower restrictions—on the granting of bail. I wonder if the Minister had considered whether it would be useful to split the alleged offences that the person has been charged with so that, if someone is a third party and they were assisting, for example, they may fall into further restrictions on bail in certain cases. That would be a less restrictive application of the Bail Act restrictions, whereas if someone was charged with a more serious offence on the basis of the facts, then they could very validly sit within current section 9 of the Bail Act. I’m trying to find a way just to split how those offences would be treated.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the engagement so far on this particular part, which impacts Part 2 and the Schedule, I’d like to draw the Minister’s attention to Amendment Paper 434, in my name. I’ve been thinking about a scenario where you could have a human rights advocate who shares information online as a part of their work, as a part of their mahi, and under the current bill, as I read it, if authorities suspect the work that they are doing is related to foreign interference, they could conduct a warrantless search of their home or devices, even if there’s no immediate threat. The concern there is overreach, and with the amendment in my name, Amendment Paper 434, authorities would need to apply for a warrant, giving a judge the authority to check whether the search is justified. This protects people from excessive or unnecessary intrusions or overreach by the authorities. It was a common theme that came to the select committee, that we were overreaching with this legislation and not necessarily focusing on the issues or finding a way to actually deal with the very real issues that that some of the submitters were bringing in as well.

I guess my question to the Minister is around the justifications for allowing warrantless searches for such broad offences under new sections 78AAA and 78BBB and without additional safeguards—if I’m missing something, could the Minister explain what potentially those safeguards would be? I think it would be important to have some safeguards in there. The right to freedom of expression, the right to be able to have your say, is an important right, and I know that has been expressed by all members of all corners of this Chamber as well. If we’re going to limit things, then I think it’s really important that the committee understands that and that the people, in general, understand that as well.

I also think about it in the context of journalists. They’ve got to be able to talk to as many people as possible. Could the Minister also clarify how the current proposal might impact journalists, activists, and advocacy groups but, in this particular circumstance, the impact on journalists? We know journalists play an important part in making sure that our democracy is robust. Yes, they ask us awkward questions, and we don’t like it as politicians, but that’s an important part that they play—an important part that, I think, the algorithm can’t do as well. The engagement of journalists and the work that they do—where they need to talk to a wide variety of different people—shouldn’t open them up to a warrantless search.

In my Amendment Paper, the suggestion is to delete the amendments to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 in the Schedule—on page 15, lines 11 to 14 on the select committee report. In that way, from our perspective, this ensures that it allows for that extra level of scrutiny of having to go to a judge to make sure that the search that is going to happen is actually warranted. If the Minister could focus on the reasons why he thinks, or the Government thinks, that that extra layer is not warranted, it would be good to hear that.

Just to recap, my questions are around the safeguards available and the protections for journalists, in particular. They have a particular role, an important role. What are the safeguards that are in place to make sure that they can do their job and not be subject to a warrantless search. The example that I gave earlier around human rights advocacy is also incredibly important work, which does require them to talk to people, even people that we might not like, potentially; what’s in place for them?

In my view and in the view of the Greens, this amendment would go some way to addressing those concerns, giving that extra layer of having a judge make sure that there was a warrant there, as well, because, generally, when we look at the context of this bill as it is, there are issues around proportionality, which we have raised, and there are issues around overreach as well. There are issues that need to be dealt with and grappled with, but, I think there needs to be clarity about how this will, specifically, actually do that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Shanan Halbert: Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave to correct a vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Shanan Halbert: Labour is in support of Part 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to members who have contributed in this relatively narrow second Part—obviously, consequential amendments. I think some of the points that were made by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and, actually also by Vanushi Walters, really just go to the fact of cross-referencing in the nature of consequential amendments. More particularly, in relation to the New Zealand Human Rights Act though, as our friend mentioned.

So section 78AA amended by clause 11, (Wrongful communication … of classified communication), and section 78A amended by clause 12, (Wrongful communication … of official information). These are already referenced, so the new provisions are included to provide consistency. So it is, for example, that where espionage can be charged the new offences can also be charged, which is what you would expect and hope for the two regimes to be coherent.

In terms of Ms Walters’ point around the Bail Act, I think I understand your point as being that, you know, there could be a separation or a split. But I think it's in the nature of, you know, a bail regime. Of course, there would merely be a charging as opposed to a conviction for offence, which is why the question of bail would even come up in the first place. So on behalf of the Government, I don't think we've got any appetite to rework any of the ways that those two different legislation or pieces of legislation would connect with each other.

As to Teanau Tuiono’s point, I think, I mean, I'm sympathetic at a high level. Of course, we want freedom of information and a free and democratic society. But of course, as always, there are a balance of rights, kind of, considerations we can make or competing rights we could even say or characterise differently again, as a balance of responsibilities. Clearly, the fourth estate plays an important role, as the member acknowledges, even if it's not convenient to those of us whom they think they are holding to account.

But nevertheless, I think it's entirely possible to separate good investigative journalism on the one hand, for example, and conducting certain activities is defined on behalf of or for a foreign power. Whether one analysis the importance of freedom of information or expression from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, section 14, for example, or that narrative of holding those in power to account. Nevertheless, I think this legislation is reasonably tight around the purpose of what we're trying to achieve, which is to react to the possibility of foreign interference as opposed to a chilling effect on speech more generally.

The member mentioned or asked whether the search provisions are warranted. I think he meant in that general sense of justified, as opposed to warrants that are put forward in terms of search powers. On that note, then, I can provide some assurance either way, actually, that the bill introduces no new search powers, instead it simply relies on existing powers in the Search and Surveillance Act. Warrantless search powers for espionage and the offence of wrongful communication, retention, or copying of classified information are included. These are quite analogous with certain categories, at least for foreign interference activity.

I should point out, just again, more generally, existing powers would be exercised in a way that would have to reflect the case being of great urgency and requiring immediate action and there being reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence relating to the relevant offence is at the place to be searched. So it can't be, as we always say, a fishing expedition.

Just to conclude that matter, courts also apply a warrant preference rule, which is to say, even though there may be the ability to conduct a warrantless search, if there was sufficient time for a warrant to be obtained then it should, or the court may determine that it would need to be. Ultimately, of course, the consequence of all this is that if a warrantless search is conducted in a way that offends these types of rules, then the evidence might be inadmissible, which is the ultimate consequence for those wishing to find the evidence to be able to, you know, make a case of this nature.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got two very short, concise questions to finish this part of Part 2. The first question: thank you to the Minister for responding to my question; I want to check, particularly, with the Minister saying, in terms of the Human Rights Act and the Ombudsmen Act. Again, noting that the section that we are discussing here is privileged proceedings and these two are now 78AAA and 78AAB, and are now exempted from such privilege, as indicated in those sections. Can I check with the Minister how this then also interacts with those two agencies? So we're looking at the Human Rights Commissioner or Commission, and the Office of the Ombudsman when it comes to our obligation under the Optional Protocol Convention against Torture, and particularly as those two agencies are in charge of or are part of the national preventative mechanism. When it is going to be things that touch on their role as the national preventative mechanisms, would that then also mean that they have to break privilege by the inclusion of these two additional sections, under those two particular Acts?

So that's my first question. The second question is also coming to the Search and Surveillance Act. Thank you to the Minister for that response but my question is: what we saw in terms of the power granted under the Search and Surveillance Act as part of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, and the subsequent amendment of that is that when a person's being searched and if they found something that was incidental that wasn't part of the original intention of that search, that that material can still be used for them to be charged with additional offences. I want to get reassurance from the Minister that the similar thing then wouldn't be happening in this case with the inclusion of 78AAA and 78AAB. Because, again, those are kind of the things that potentially will affect or could have a chilling effect for ethnic communities, quite severely, if people are being targeted for additional things; but then when there is a search either warranted or warrantless materials were found and how that would then interact with the new offences created under this bill.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 434 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

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 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

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

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister some questions around clause 2, with regards to commencement, noting that the commencement is the day after Royal assent—however, I think, both in terms of the conversations that we’ve had during this committee stage on some of the uncertainties around the definition of some of the clauses, but also the, I guess, breadth of what could potentially be covered.

So, for example, one of the things that we haven’t had the chance to fully tease out is, you know, while this covers everything, what is, then, the scope of what we consider and some of the scenarios that weren’t actually teased out in the select committee, as well. One of the examples of that is, for example, when we’re looking at the commencement date being the day after Royal assent, in the context of some of the things we have seen, like the way that we’ve seen FBI, potentially, as a foreign agency interfering with Aotearoa New Zealand; we have seen things, like the Atlas Network as a public organisation interfering with some of the things in New Zealand; we have seen trans-exclusionary radical feminists coming from other regions, such as the UK, putting harm on some of these things. These are the potential scenarios that are considered under new sections 70AAA and 70AAB. It doesn’t seem, to me, that having the commencement date as the day after Royal assent is something that allows our court system and the justice system to fully engage with this new offence.

Now, anything within the Crimes Act—and with previous bills, we have seen that have gone through the House have all, as far as I can remember, and the Minister may be able to correct me, had a commencement date three or six months after Royal assent, but this one does not. So I do ask the Minister to consider that considering that this is creating a new criminal offence, which is incredibly serious—imprisonment of up to 14 years is a serious matter—that just a little bit more work is done both in terms of teasing out some of the scenarios but also giving the Ministry of Justice—and the Minister mentioned before the Ministry of Ethnic Communities—while they have had some work done in terms of the education programme, the ability to actually let the public know what the new offence is going to be.

Again, speaking as someone from the ethnic communities, for those whose English is not their first language and particularly those who may not be able to speak English fluently, this new offence may be meaningless to them until if something does come up. But because the commencement date is the day after Royal assent, immediately it then creates an offence.

I do ask the Minister to consider seriously whether there can be a grace period that allows the ethnic communities, in particular, to understand what the new offences are and what the consequences are. So that’s going to be my only contribution for this section, but I think it’s a really, really important one for the Minister to consider.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have some concerns about the time in which the bill will become law. I’m mostly concerned about young people and the behaviour of young people and what they would expect to be an offence or not, just remembering that we do have some quite broad provisions here, including the new section 69A in clause 8, which includes the offence of aiding, inciting, or counselling—so not necessarily being the one who passes on information, but being that one step back.

I note that when we were discussing the Schedule to the bill, one of the amendments was an amendment to Schedule 1A in the Oranga Tamariki Act. Schedule 1A is a specified list of offences for young people aged 17, and so these are still young people and, yes, there is a list of offences that they would be subject to. It adds this bill to that space. I imagine that there would be a number of young people who are just starting to explore the world of protest and international affairs and who are understanding how to interact with international issues and with conflict, and, ideally, it would be good for us to ensure that they are well-educated on what this means for them, whether they are the individual who passes on information, or whether they are one step back and they are counselling, inciting, or—under those provisions that I’ve read earlier—directing someone else outside the country to do something or to pass on information.

Ideally, I wouldn’t argue this for all pieces of legislation, and I think it does make sense for many of our bills to become law immediately. I do think that there are times when we need to consider whether there’s a valid reason why we would want to have a period of education to ensure that it’s not catching people who otherwise wouldn’t step into this area, at all. So I ask whether that is a consideration for the Minister.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really briefly, my understanding is that the issues have been well articulated and canvassed, including by agencies, through the six-month Justice Committee process—for which I congratulate all members involved—I think, as well, with some of that outreach conducted by the Ministry for Ethnic Communities. Respectfully, I think it’s unlikely that there won’t be a level of understanding that’s necessary in the community as to what the implications of the new legislation might be.

I respectfully disagree with Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan in terms of a lack of clarity within the legislation. As to courts having the ability to consider how these scenarios might play out, the scenarios that they will see are cases that will be brought before them in due course, and, on that basis, they will have the opportunity to consider how the law should be applied. It’s no grace period; otherwise, we provide a window of opportunity—a mixed message in terms of the kind of behaviour that we consider to be appropriate in this country. All relevant parties have had an opportunity to understand it, and we look forward to it coming into effect as soon as possible.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The committee has further considered the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading next sitting day.

Bills

Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Madam Speaker, I want to take you back to a convention centre in Wellington in mid-2023, filled with around 500 representatives of early childhood centres up and down the country. It was a pre-election political briefing. Astonishingly, representatives of the governing parties hadn’t shown. As the meeting went on, I started to appreciate why that might be. The people in this room, salt of the earth people, often small-business people who work hard, invest to ensure the next generation of young New Zealanders are cared for and ready for school. These people were ropeable. They were tired of the regulatory overreach of the Byzantine rules and the abuses of power that they perceived coming from the Government. They said, “All I wanted to do was help young children discover their potential. And all I actually do is fear the regulator that is supposed to work for all of us. After all, it’s our taxes that pay for them.” I looked at this and I thought, surely we can do better.

Fast forward a little way, and the Ministry for Regulation was formed. Its first sector review involved going out and hearing from people, like the ones in that room that day, and asking them: what is it that has made it so difficult and so frustrating to do what should be a very rewarding and positive job, and mostly is? The Ministry for Regulation assembled a long dossier of concerns. It assessed them against the need for sensible regulation. It has come up with, broadly, three changes that Cabinet signed off. One is a simplification of the rules, and a binning of rules that make no sense—that’s happening separately from this bill. Another is transferring the responsibility for regulating to the Education Review Office—who are very good at doing this in my view—away from the Ministry of Education, which I don’t believe has done a consistently good job; it tends to depend on the region. It also means that the regulator is separate from the policy maker, which is generally good practice for regulation. Those are two parts of the change coming out of this sector review.

But there’s a third part which is encapsulated in this bill. It is setting out that there should be a person called, in this case, the director of regulation. It’s not a new position; there’s a person that does something like this. But they’re going to actually have their responsibilities set out in legislation, and they’re going to have the rights of people who run early childhood centres set out in legislation, and the purpose of regulating set out in regulation. In particular, things like enabling choice for parents is in this legislation. Things like ensuring childhood safety is in this legislation. Things like ensuring those things with the least possible regulation so that the people like the ones in that room aren’t tied up in endless red tape.

Where the rubber hits the road—and I happen to be the Minister responsible for early childhood education. There’s a wonderful place called Country Kindy, in Manawatū.

Suze Redmayne: Yes.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: These are salt of the earth people. There’s the member for Rangitīkei right there, and I’m sure she knows it well. These people were harangued, harassed, shut down to with an inch of their life. As the Minister responsible, I was very keen to intervene. To this day, I don’t fully understand what they were accused of doing wrong, because when I brought in the secretary to ask—the former secretary, that is—she didn’t have a good answer. I went into Country Kindy and was almost suffocated by a hug from the person in charge, because they were so relieved that this harassment had ended.

Well, what this legislation sets out to do is give people like her the ability to tap on the sign and say, “You regulate for a purpose. We pay your taxes.” Child safety—absolutely, 100 percent; 200 percent. Giving parents choice and information and making it clear what’s needed and what’s going on—absolutely. But overreach and abuse of power and overburdensome regulation and red tape that stops us doing our real job—that’s yesterday’s news.

This is another example of how a Government can hear people’s concerns and aspirations out in the community, formulate a plan, and bring it to fruition in this House. It’s one of many examples that we’re talking about just this week, that makes me very proud to be part of this Government. It makes me proud to be a member of the ACT Party. And it is going to make, I believe, a lot of people even prouder to work in the early childhood sector, because this statute will ensure that they are treated, by law, with the respect that they deserve. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we heard there, in the first sentences that the Minister spoke, exactly the true intent of what this particular bill does. Unfortunately, that was reflected very much in the submissions which also identified the true intent. I just want to start by talking to one of those submissions that came through from the Office of Early Childhood Education, who said, “Let’s be honest; it’s misleading to say this bill is designed to improve outcomes for children and family. Its true intent is to satisfy service providers and their lobbyists who want a much lighter-touch approach to monitoring and enforcement.” The select committee had a number of submissions to this bill—107 submissions in fact—of which 78 of those submissions—78 of 107 submissions—opposed the bill. They opposed the bill because this was not putting children at the centre of this piece of legislation. In fact, it is such a dangerous change to what we will see and have ever seen in the early childhood sector.

The purpose of the regulations has been narrowed so much in this bill and in what it is doing that it does not put children at the centre of their education. Just think about that for a moment—children in the early childhood sector not being at the centre. Suddenly, the purposes of regulation have been changed so much that we’ve taken children away. Let’s just hear, with your indulgence, what the current Act says about the purpose of current early childhood education (ECE) regulation that it “is to regulate an early childhood education system where all children are able to participate and receive a strong foundation for learning, positive well-being, and life outcomes by—(a) setting standards to support quality provision and learning; and (b) supporting the health, safety, and well-being of children; and (c) enabling parental choice by providing for licensing and funding of different types of provision.” So, that’s a service where the regulations, currently, ensure that there is quality provision that supports solid learning for those young people and children being put at the centre.

This bill has made a significant change—a very disappointing significant change. This bill changes that to “[it will] regulate an early childhood education system to—(a) set and implement minimum standards to provide for quality early childhood education that allows all children to establish strong foundations for learning, well-being, and life outcomes; and (b)”—and this is where it’s critical—“support the choice of parents and caregivers to participate in the labour market.” It’s taking a labour market approach to early childhood education, and that’s exactly what the Minister just outlined in his speech. That is absolutely worrying in an educational context in this country. I cannot understand why members on that side of the House have not fought back more about that. Our youngest and, as research shows, our children with the most potential to learn are our under 5-year-olds, those in their first 2,000 days. If we get it right as a country, we have the most potential to make the biggest difference in a young person’s life, but because of the ideological nature and thoughts of one Minister, we are making a change here that will have a very detrimental impact on that. I urge everyone in the House to think about that and take that very, very seriously.

Now, really interestingly in the Minister’s address here this morning—which was very, very short, I should say, for something that’s an incredibly important piece of legislation—he talked about the input from the providers. Well, I can tell you that during the select committee process, we heard from teachers, centre managers, and parents who felt like their voice had been marginalised in that discussion and in that consultation. They felt like they had not been heard at all. I should add another group to that: the early childhood academics, who are some of the world-leading academics in early childhood in this country, people that are well respected around the world and who also feel like that their voices have been marginalised.

Revising the purpose of early childhood regulation and legislation—and this is also important—was not part of the original terms of reference for the review. We understand, from the Ministry of Regulation, that it was not up for debate in that part of the process. Where people did have their input, they didn’t realise that this part of the purpose was actually going to be changed in legislation. Now, again, that seems like a little bit of a grubby process that has happened here. That’s the second time, where we’ve had an education bill put up in this particular session, that similar processes have happened. It isn’t any wonder why the education sector are starting to push back around what is happening to them.

It is really, really important that children must remain the centre of ECE regulation. We heard that time and time again in select committee, not only from teachers and not only from those heavily involved in the sector but also from the parents who are involved heavily in the sector but also want complete quality for their young people and the provision that is there for their young people. They said, “Look, we understand that this helps us get back into the labour market, but that should not be at the cost of quality.” That’s exactly what this bill is setting up. It is setting up at the cost of quality and quality provision. We know, from overseas research, that there have been dire consequences for similar changes that have been made in other jurisdictions. Be that on people’s heads who support this bill if that is going to be the outcome here. From what we are seeing with this ideological approach, I would hate to think that, as a Parliament, we were setting our young people up to be in a really unsafe situation. This is exactly what we are doing if we pass this piece of legislation into law. We heard that from so many different sources during the select committee process.

Another part of this piece of legislation—I just want to finish within my final part of this contribution—that came up time and time again, from many of the submitters, was the omission of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this legislation. We heard, “Look, it would be too hard because it’s in the primary legislation.” Actually, this bill is setting it up to water that down because it is not there and not being given the direct notice that it should be. The bill does not recognise Māori as tangata whenua nor ensures Māori participation in decision making. Now, that is of huge concern. When we have got kōhanga reo and puna reo that come under the guise of this bill, that is of huge concern. Again, I implore members on the other side of the House to think how those parts of our early childhood system are world leading. I have been in other parts of the world where Ministers have said to me: “You have the gold standard of what you’re doing with kōhanga reo and puna reo. Teach us how to do it.” We should be proud. We should be setting that up and standing that up, but instead, we’re taking that away by not making that a big part of the provision of this bill. We are absolutely watering down Māori rights and their values and their perspectives within ECE by what we are doing here.

Once again, that is absolutely disgraceful in this particular space. I absolutely implore members on the other side to think very seriously about what they are doing here—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let’s be clear. This Government is happy to sacrifice children and young people for profit. That is what we are seeing here with this bill, and their intentions have been on full display this week on a wide-ranging education bill, whether it is the easy one we are seeing today or the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) from yesterday.

But let’s unpack why I say that. Let’s start with the fundamental aspect of what parents want to do when sending their children to early childhood education (ECE), other than having it being cost effective. We’ll talk about cost later, but the most fundamental aspect is health and safety. It’s that they are sending their tamariki to ECE, to kindergarten, to puna reo, and to kōhanga reo, knowing that they are safe when they’re in those kind of places. This bill will do none of that.

It’s all very well for the Ministers to go like, “Oh well, health and safety is really important for me.”; thoughts and prayers. They are empty words and empty promises with no evidential backing.

What is evidential is the fact that the move to deregulate the ECE sector has seen wide-ranging health and safety concerns in Australia, to the point that tamariki are being actively harmed in ECE centres, and to the point that we’re seeing rampant issues on violence and violations in Australia due to deregulation. And this Minister and his Government has the gall to come into the House and say that deregulation is helpful for children. For whom, I ask? It’s not for the children. It is for those little corporate elves that are whispering sweet nothings in the Minister’s ear. It is for the international companies that come here and take advantage of our tamariki and our whānau. When you are looking at health and safety here, we are seeing, and we will see more and more of our tamariki being harmed.

Let’s move on to another aspect of what this bill is doing. Taking the bill out of the hands of the Ministry of Education and putting it in the hands of ERO, the Education Review Office. Now, what that does is send a clear signal that the Minister and the Government doesn’t care about ECE teachers because they are moving to de-professionalise ECE so that they can pay the staff less. We have just recently, over the last few days, seen an ad saying, “Look, now is your chance. Staff can be paid at a lower rate.” How wonderful is that for our children? That is shameful. It is shameful that that kind of ad is even allowed to be up.

When we are looking at this bill, part of the thing that the Minister mentioned is the genesis of this bill is based on a Ministry for Regulation’s report. Now let’s unpack that Ministry for Regulation’s report, which we have done in the select committee stage. We also asked the Minister at that stage, “Well, how did you come about with this report, and how did this report actually shape the bill itself?” Because, number one, when the report was conducted, it had a number of leading questions, but also when we’re looking at the actual report itself, there was no genuine data that had been presented. Instead, it was a lot of hot takes from the Minister for Regulation on what they think and how they choose to interpret the data. That’s not genuine independent research. That is leading research and wanting a particular kind of outcome.

So when we did question the Minister in the select committee stage, the Minister was like, “Oh, you know, maybe, the report isn’t everything, etc.” But we asked the Minister, “Well, you based this bill on that report. How did you base this bill on that report if the Minister himself does not have full confidence in the report?” So we actually don’t know where this bill came from, to be perfectly honest.

Also, when we are looking at certain sections of this bill, let’s say in terms of the new role of records of regulations, we’re seeing, again, that for a Government that is all about deregulation and cutting all of the tapes, they certainly love to create a lot of new additional roles, additional bureaucracy, and additional yellow and blue tape. So I think that there is so little information in the select committee stage about how that Director of Regulation is going to eventuate, particularly, as the previous speaker the Hon Jan Tinetti has articulated, about when the Director of Regulation is going to be formed. They are also going to be overseeing kōhanga reo and puna reo, yet there is no evidence in here that says anything about our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In fact, the regulatory impact statement said there has been limited ability to consult with Māori on this bill. Why? Because the Minister doesn’t want to hear from Māori on this bill, or from the general population, or from kōhanga reo or from puna reo because it doesn’t suit their agenda.

I mentioned in the beginning that this is part of a broader attack by this Government on the ECE sector. We’re also seeing the fact that there is an ECE funding review that has been happening again on how we can squeeze more money out of parents and out of Government, and how we can really scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of staff ratio, in terms of teacher qualifications, in order for those international companies coming in here and buying up our ECE centres to funnel the money offshore. That is what we are going to be seeing in this whole ECE reform package. That is not the intention of early childhood education. That should not be any Government’s intention for the future of our tamariki and mokopuna.

We want to see safe and thriving children and young people here, but this bill is not going to achieve that. This bill is not going to achieve the fact that the top comment and the top ask from qualified ECE teachers is to have a better ratio for student teachers. We are seeing that teachers are working longer and longer hours in ECE centres. They are having more and more of a burden, I guess, in many ways placed on them because of the ratio and because they are looking after more children. They are asking for better support, and from a Government that talks about how much money they are putting into learning access in this year’s Budget, not a single cent of that has gone to ECE. We have not seen an increase in the education support workers’ hours that is provided for children and for tamariki in early childhood education settings. That is the ask of the sector, and that is the ask of the teachers because we are seeing more tamariki with more needs manifesting.

For a Government that talks about educational outcomes, by having unregistered teachers in the ECE setting, how are we going to be preparing our tamariki for entry into primary school if this bill goes through? So again, we want to see safe and thriving children and we are deeply concerned that this bill is going to take us backwards and we are going to be putting tamariki in harm’s way.

There are a lot more things that I think this bill could potentially tidy up on, and we’re happy to engage with the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage, but the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not and will never support this bill.

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

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): If I was on that side of the House this morning, I would be embarrassed by the scaremongering they are creating in this House. I am lucky that I have a 17-week-old daughter this week, but I’m lucky because she’s not my first. We have children in early childhood education and we know the value of the work that teachers do across this county in early childhood education right now. But if she was my first and I had to watch what these guys have been saying in this House about the challenges they are creating in their minds and in the minds of New Zealanders about early childhood education, I would be worried about the education my daughter would be going into. But I want to assure New Zealanders that it’s not the truth. The truth is that this bill will support the development of early childhood education in this country, and, therefore, I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill follows what I think was some really good work. It’s good to see the Ministry for Regulation finding its feet and doing some good work. If we want our country to be more prosperous and if we want to be wealthier, we have to reduce red tape in some places.

I heard the words “gold standard” uttered by Jan Tinetti, and, look, I can well recall a number of early childhood education centres which were looking to upgrade what they were. They wanted to go from, if you like, bronze standard, and silver standard was all that they could afford to do, but the ministry would say to them, “No, if you can’t make gold, forget it. You’re not going to go anywhere.”, and so they had to stick with bronze standard.

I also heard, as Carl Bates has said, a lot of scaremongering from the Opposition parties about things like health and safety. Those are all in the bill. There is the primary purpose and a whole bunch of objectives, and that includes health and safety. I think that the Opposition is misrepresenting this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori):

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

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

This is probably one of the most colonial, violent pieces of legislation to move into this House. I go back to a time as a graduate of te kōhanga reo, and when I was at the kōhanga reo, it was driven by community, it was driven by elders, it was driven by hapū, and it was driven by iwi kōrero and mātauranga. This particular bill takes that power away from our people. It takes away the ability to ground our tamariki in who they truly are. It takes away the ability for our people to live by design and not by default. This particular bill is probably one of the most atrocious bills I have seen in regards to Māori being able to live their best lives and being able to grow tamariki mokopuna to stand strong, to stand tall, and to stand true to who they really are.

We don’t need monocultural perspectives. We don’t need monocultural subjugation and assimilation projects and experiments. What we need is to allow our people to live with dignity, integrity, and rangatiratanga. This bill strips away all of that. It takes away the cloak of safety that Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides, not just to Māori tamariki but to every tamaiti in this country. To then move it to a ministry and a Minister who has openly attacked Te Tiriti o Waitangi, who has openly attacked te reo Māori, and who has openly attacked the rights of tangata whenua here in Aotearoa is absolutely appalling. That this Government will allow that after years and years of support for kaupapa like kōhanga reo and puna reo—this particular party and past MPs that have supported kaupapa like kōhanga reo and puna reo would be ashamed. They would be ashamed that they have allowed this piece of legislation to go through this House.

They gave an ability for Māori to be able to build a kaupapa that was grounded in te ao Māori. This iteration of a National Government and a National Party disregards the mahi that their forefathers and those who have gone through this House before them have left. It was a legacy that allowed a relationship to be built—albeit incremental, albeit very slow—but at least they were listening to the people outside of this House. They have forgotten the voices outside this House. They have forgotten those who matter. They are out of touch. They are out of touch. What we need to do is just have a look at the history books, have a look at the Hansard, have a look at what past National Governments have done to ensure that Māori were able to build kōhanga reo and were able to build puna reo

But what we have done is moved it under a Minister that has a fetish to discriminate iwi Māori, not only its language but Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Joseph Mooney: What a load of absolute nonsense!

RAWIRI WAITITI: It’s all in your legislation. What we want to do is to say that Te Pāti Māori are absolutely and unequivocally opposed to this bill. At the second reading, we hope that the National Government and the National Party find the heart that they have had in the past to ensure that this bill doesn’t go through and allow Māori to live by design and not by default. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next half of the split call, can I just remind members that the conversation does not happen across the House. If you want to have a conversation with anyone else that’s not speaking, take it out into the corridor. Thank you.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill. Before I begin my speech properly, I just wanted to acknowledge two of the previous speakers from the Government benches: Andy Foster and Carl Bates. They’re very able and intelligent people, so it surprised me that they couldn’t do full calls on this, that they did sub-one-minute speeches. I had a think: why would these intelligent, thoughtful members have such short contributions to a debate? I think it’s because they know that this bill is actually indefensible, so they can’t muster up any kind of defence to what this Government is doing, which is actually continuing the deregulation agenda that has begun from their term. We’ve seen the impacts of the deregulation agenda on our electricity markets and we’ve seen the impact of deregulation on the monopoly power that our supermarkets enjoy. So this is just continuing a trend that has immiserated New Zealanders.

Now, we have specific objections to this bill that were articulated already quite nicely by the previous Green speaker, but I’ll go through them again. One of the concerns that we have is the speed at which this legislation and all the wider Government reforms are actually taking place. It’s a policy blitzkrieg because they know that they’re on their way out already and they’re trying to rush through as much legislation as they can on their way out.

One of our concerns, as well, is the opaque consultation that has occurred. We know that the genesis of this bill and the report that it relies on was the regulatory review that the Ministry for Regulation did. We know that that report ignored the research evidence relating to teaching and learning, we know that the ministry chose not to proactively release the data collected from the consultation, and we know that this is a trend and that it doesn’t have to be this way, because we’ve seen other bills where they’ve actually released the information proactively. We know that this bill creates potential risks for people not only working in the sector but for the people that they’re servicing, the people who are in these centres.

One of the main recommendations of the genesis of this, which was the Ministry for Regulation’s regulatory review on the early childhood education (ECE) sector was to remove HS5, which is safe assembly areas for children in the event of fires and emergency. We see this sort of thinking permeate with the shift to risk-based monitoring that this bill is proposing to do. We on this side of the House think that’s potentially dangerous, and it’s dangerous because we know that the number of emergency events in New Zealand has only risen quite precipitously since—well, it’s been increasing constantly. One of the things that you do when you’re a new MP is you get taken to the bunker and they show you the number of emergencies that New Zealand sent. There’s a little chart that they show you that shows the number of emergency management events that have occurred in New Zealand. There’s been quite a rapid explosion over the past 10 years. So the removal of safe assembly areas, and the shift to risk-based monitoring that this bill is proposing to shift towards is really a retrograde step in the wrong direction and it’s something that will potentially compromise the safety of the tamariki in the centres but it also potentially compromises the staff and also the wellbeing of the parents.

We also know that the child impact statement was not produced as part of the consideration for this bill, and Mana Mokopuna were not genuinely engaged in the development of this bill. We know that this uneven scrutiny invites breaches of trust, places children and families at risk, and risks jeopardising our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We know that this will further undermine the confidence of parents, whānau, and the community in our ECE provision.

With the remaining 10 seconds that I have left on this bill, I want to reiterate our opposition not only to this bill but to the wider deregulation agenda that this bill represents. Kia ora.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill in its second reading. At the Education and Workforce Committee we did hear from a wide range of people and we were ably supported, and I want to say thanks to all the submitters and all the staff who supported us in this process.

The bill that has come through is a sensible one that focuses on safety, and it makes sure that it clarifies regulations for the education providers so that they can be there for the children and have a better opportunity to be able to start up businesses and therefore improve competition and reduce costs across the board. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thanks, Madam Speaker. So just by way of a bit of context for my comments, there’s no doubt in my mind that the expansion of early childhood education over the last, let's say, two decades-plus has been one of the really important advances in New Zealand's social provision. It's become an indispensable service for so many families now who rely on one or both parents working in order to feed the family. So from a sheer economic point of view, it's become a vital part of modern life for families in New Zealand—but it's now widely accepted, I think, that high-quality early childhood education is one of the best social interventions we can make to give our children the best possible start in life. It's one of the most powerful things we can do to improve the life chances of our people.

We have, through successive Governments, kind of pieced together, layer upon layer, a mixed model of public funding—public provision and private provision. That has its pros and cons. There's a strong view amongst the non-profit providers in the early childhood education (ECE) sector that the competitive pressures inherent in the market actually tend to cut against the really important quality aspects of early childhood education that are so important: that is, highly qualified teachers, appropriate teacher-to-student ratios, an emphasis on child development and really positive learning environment, safety, and the wellbeing of the students.

There are, of course, many privately run early childhood education providers that do a fantastic job. My granddaughter's just graduated to the local primary school. She spent more than two years with a local ECE that is privately run, and the quality of that centre and the teaching and the overall environment was outstanding. But nevertheless, I think the tensions that are inherent to this kind of mixed model are a really sensitive issue that this House should pay attention to.

The suspicion from the beginning of this process that the Minister, David Seymour, initiated with his review of the regulatory settings has been that it was a move by an ACT Party Minister to pursue a competitive market approach to the provision of early childhood education that would further privilege the market position of privately owned early childhood education centres. I think that suspicion has been reinforced with the emergence of this bill, with the submissions that we heard at select committee. I think that many in the sector—in the non-profit part of the sector, particularly—would say their suspicions have been borne out. What we see with this bill is that it puts in place a new regulatory framework, the appointment or the establishment of a new director of regulation whose mandate is framed primarily around the economic imperative to make it easier for parents to get back into the workforce.

Now, of course, that is important; that's part of the equation. But, we ask, why isn't the important framing for this new measure the quality of early childhood education—learning, the safety and wellbeing of the children who are in that system? That seems really to put the cart before the horse. And if there's if there's a part of the education system where the wellbeing of the students and their safety should be paramount, surely it should be the early childhood sector.

The bill also establishes a number of principles that the director must have regard to. That includes the health, safety, and wellbeing of the children; it includes their learning and their development; the role of parents and caregivers; and that good regulatory practice must be risk-based, proportionate, fair, and transparent, and avoid imposing unnecessary costs on parents, caregivers, and service providers. The effect of that and the overall framing of this provision, we believe, is to move the dial in the direction of low-cost regulation that will remove the regulatory burden on providers and away from what we think should be the paramount objectives, and that is the safety, wellbeing, and the educational experience of the students.

There's been a lot of criticism, and it needs to be noted that the process has been rushed, consultation has been limited, and that has, I think, further undermined confidence of much of the sector in this regulatory process. Ultimately, we'll see in the work of the director of regulation and what that position delivers. We'll see whether or not, in fact, the fears that the sector have that this is simply a Trojan horse to run the sector along purely market and competitive lines—we'll see in time whether in fact those concerns are borne out. I'll leave that there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to take this short call on a very important bill. Listening to the Opposition, anyone would think that the world was going to end. Actually, we’re very focused on providing an early childhood education (ECE) sector that is both safe and provides high-quality education for young children. But what we do have to remember is parents. Remember the parents in this situation: the parents actually need the ability to find an ECE facility to use, and to also have the ability to afford it. This bill will allow both of those things to happen, and I commend it to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill. Of course, those words are important—early childhood education. We are not talking about daycares or childcares; this is childhood education. It is not babysitting, and I’ll come to that point in a minute, but I want to start on a positive note, and that is that I’m standing here as the member of Parliament for Dunedin. Of course, Dunedin is famous for many things: amazing wildlife, beautiful heritage, an amazing university, and—

Joseph Mooney: Amazing businesses.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —some amazing businesses. That’s right—lots of innovation. It’s a great city. There’s a real emphasis on education there.

As part of their emphasis on education, there has been the world-renowned longitudinal study, the Dunedin Study, of people that are now, I can’t remember, 52 or 53. This study has gone for over 50 years now, over half a century, looking at, and following, about 1,000 people over that half-decade and more, and they bring them back to Dunedin every seven or so years—it depends on the age that they’re at—and they do a lot of different testing and studying with these wonderful people, who’ve given up so much of their life to be part of that study. From this study, there have been lots of pieces of research, and one of those has demonstrated the importance of the first 1,000 days of life. Of course, for many children, those first thousand days of life will involve an early childhood education centre. This legislation is incredibly important because it deals with those first thousand days.

I also want to add, in my being a person from Dunedin, that I’m also a mother from Dunedin and have had all three of my children go through an excellent early childhood education centre attached to the hospital, and so I know what it feels like as a parent to have your children being educated by trained teachers with good ratios. What a difference that made to my comfort in going back into the workforce. It’s so important that we recognise their expertise and also the stresses that are on that workforce.

Of course, I’ve also been talking to NZEI in Dunedin and the teachers there that are very opposed to this legislation and have problems with both this legislation and the other regulations that the Minister has referred to. I want to go to who does the regulating. That is an issue that the Minister addressed in his speech on the second reading. He said that it’s good to separate the regulatory body from the policy body. That is a common thing that we see in regulatory systems, but it’s also good—and I would argue much, much, much more important—that the regulated isn’t doing the regulating. One of our concerns with the bill is that the industry who is now providing for some of this childhood education will set those standards and will become the regulator. That is of great concern because, of course, they have other incentives there, like the ability to keep on doing their business, which is this childcare. That is a concern and that is my answer to the Minister. Of course, we’ve seen that from ACT in other settings, as well—most recently with farm plans. This is where the industry is doing the regulation rather than a Government body.

I also want to quickly touch on these changes to the purpose of Part 2 of the Act, and that is where the focus becomes on the parents participating in the labour market rather than on all children being able to participate and receive a strong foundation for learning and positive wellbeing. That is a terrible change, and we’ll have more to say about that in the committee of the whole House stage. I do not recommend this bill to the House.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It’s a great honour to rise in support of the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill in this reading. I agree with the previous speaker: this is about education. If we tie up our educators with a high compliance burden, that’s less time for genuine educational engagement and children interaction. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As I rise to reflect on this piece of legislation and, I guess, echo the words of my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, who was talking about the Dunedin Study, I say that I was about two years old and I was too young. I think it was about 1972 that that was first initiated, and I was born in Dunedin in 1975. So—

Hon Rachel Brooking: A great year.

GLEN BENNETT: A great year—but it was. As my honourable colleague has said, the significance of that piece of work and its reputation not only in New Zealand but globally demonstrates the fact that good data and tracking for a long time is what we need to be doing. That was about the role of nurturing a baby from conception right through that first 1,000 days, but often I reflect that now a lot of the research and work talks about the first 2,000 days, and that is the thinking about the fact that the time of conception through to the time a child can start school is significant and is so important in terms of the foundation. It is so important in terms of attachment, and you can look at all the research when it comes to not only early childhood education but also the make-up of a whānau and a community.

Attachment is such a key element when it comes to the wellbeing and the potential that a child has to grow into an adult who can participate in society in a productive way. All the research and the evidence shows that, and often in this House it does concern me—and I talk from all colours of Government—that at times we do ignore research or evidence. That is unhelpful, particularly when it comes to our youngest and particularly when it comes to the foundation, which means, if we get it right in those first 1,000 days and in the first 2,000 days, there is far more chance and likelihood that children will be, as I’ve said, those productive and engaged members of society.

I didn’t sit on the Education and Workforce Committee for this bill, and so I have just a few comments that I wanted to make as I’ve read through the regulatory impact statement (RIS), as I’ve looked briefly through the bill, and as I’ve listened to colleagues on all sides of the House debating this legislation this morning. I want to reflect on some of the comments in the RIS, and often we hear—particularly as this was brought to the House by the Ministry for Regulation, and the leader of the ACT Party, and the current Deputy Prime Minister—that it’s all around the money and it’s all around the cost.

I flicked through the RIS, looking at the cost impacts and what it means and what was presented to the Cabinet, what was presented to the select committee, and what’s been presented to the House this afternoon in terms of the cost benefits. For those who haven’t read one of these documents before, it goes through and it can be fairly methodical at times, and at times there can be lots of bits missing. When we look at this one this afternoon, we can look at the cost and there is, it says here, an outline of the key monetarised and non-monetarised costs, where those costs fall for people and organisations or the environments, the nature of those impacts, and the direct impacts that the cost of a piece of legislation like this will have. I looked at it, and it’s just missing. It’s completely redacted.

Obviously, we know that there are different reasons that information is redacted when it comes to the RIS, but the fact is that the whole section on the cost—the core information around this bill—has absolutely nothing that we can take as a House and there is nothing that we can take as a select committee around the cost implications. Whether it’s good or whether it’s bad, we don’t know, because it is completely missing, and that is always a challenge for us, as we in Opposition want to critique, want to understand, and want to find a way forward that shows that maybe, potentially, there is something good about this. But we don’t know because it is missing.

My second comment that I want to make—and my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, who did sit on the select committee, brought this up briefly—is around the limitations and constraints on analysis on this piece of legislation. Again, we go through the RIS and look at the information that is at hand, and it talks about there being several limitations or constraints on the regulatory analysis outlined in this RIS. That is due to the limitations on the rigour and depth of analysis undertaken as part of the review. It talks about the ministerial direction to accept the findings and recommendations of the review and the ministerial direction to develop and implement the policy response at pace.

It is talking about trying to reduce regulatory burden for the service providers, but then it goes on to say that there are limited opportunities to test the key assumptions underpinned by some of the findings and the recommendations of the review and considered alternative options. That’s because our time wasn’t allowed to make this happen, that is because they weren’t able to necessarily engage with all the stakeholders and key people that they needed to, and that is a challenge when we come back to the House. Not only is the select committee having to unpack it, but then we come here in the second reading, and, again, when we move into the committee stage, to debate, to unpack, and to pull this apart to ensure that it actually has some decency when it ends up—if it does—having its third reading and having the Royal assent.

It talks about there being limited time to undertake a detailed analysis. There just was not time for them to engage with that, and then there was the lack of consultation with key stakeholders—including service providers, parents, and Māori—on these policy proposals, and that is a challenge for us, because we often talk about what the role of the Opposition is. The role of the Opposition is to critique, the role of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account, and the role of the Opposition is, yeah, to pull it apart. Potentially, we might not agree with every bill—in fact, on many of them that are currently coming through, we very rarely agree—but if we have to deal with it, it’s around how do we pull it apart and put it back together in a way that maybe is acceptable, not only to us as the Opposition but to the key stakeholders: to the families and the people involved. But the challenge we have is that, yet again, it’s a rushed process, and so there’s limited analysis and there’s little understanding of the cost, and that is where we have to say no, we can’t continue to support this legislation in its form, because we are just not happy with where it’s landed.

Finally, I just wanted to talk about the shift away from the child-centred approach that this legislation brings, and that is of concern for us. Again, as the Hon Rachel Brooking and I have talked about the first 1,000 days—and others in the House have nodded and agreed—we say that the child-centred approach should always be the key. With every piece of legislation—whether it be about children, whether it be about early childhood education, or whatever it is about—that we should always focus on ensuring that there is a child-centred approach, and in this legislation the concern is that the child development, the wellbeing, and the learning are at risk because of the way that this legislation is put together.

The stakeholders actually talked about the fear and the concern that they have about this, and about the intrinsic value that play brings, that exploration brings, and that holistic learning brings in terms of a child’s development. We look at this bill, and it feels like it’s just around the economic development and participation—how to actually make it work from an economic development perspective—whereas it should be from a child-centred perspective. It should be about creativity, it should be about play, it should be about exploration, and it should be about the social and emotional foundations that we build when we talk about those first 1,000 and 2,000 days to ensure that a child is equipped and ready to face the big, wide world out there, which is so challenging and tough.

We can’t support this bill. It fundamentally goes against many of the values and what we stand for as the Labour Party, and I know that other colleagues in the Opposition agree with that, as well. We cannot support this bill, and we ask the Government to consider voting against it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take the final call on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill. I agree with the comments made by my wonderful colleagues as they have traversed this bill, and we do not agree with many of the comments from the other side. We support the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority 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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

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 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, that is the end of Tuesday’s day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Wednesday)