Tuesday, 9 December 2025
Continued to Friday, 12 December 2025 — Volume 789
Sitting date: 9 December 2025
TUESDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2025
TUESDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2025
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.
[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Visitors
Mongolia—State Great Khural
SPEAKER: I’m sure members would want to join with me to welcome the visiting members of the State Great Khural of Mongolia, including the chair of the Mongolian - New Zealand friendship parliamentary organisation, Mr Erdenebold Sukhbaatar, and their delegation, who are present in the gallery.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: Six petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:
Petition of Brian Webb requesting that the House require early childhood centres to have cameras that record all interactions between children and caregivers
petition of Before16 charitable trust requesting that the House pass online safety legislation for children that includes a minimum age of 16 for social media access
petition of Mackenzie Dowell requesting that the House require that cosmetics and beauty products list allergens by plain English names rather than scientific names
petition of Nick Ruane requesting that the House urge the Government to increase funding for the Total Mobility scheme
petition of Renee Jens requesting that the House urge the Government to pause the emissions trading scheme for industry and remove the emissions trading scheme for electricity generation
petition of Lily Foster requesting that the House urge the Minister of Education to retain art history for years 12 and 13 students as a standalone subject.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 63 papers.
CLERK:
2024-25 annual reports of the:
Accreditation Council
Auckland Light Rail Ltd
Civil Aviation Authority and Aviation Security Service
Classification Office
Commerce Commission
Department of Conservation
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority
Fire and Emergency New Zealand
Health and Disability Commissioner
Health New Zealand
Health Quality and Safety Commission
Human Rights Commission
Independent Police Conduct Authority
KiwiRail Holdings Ltd
Te Papa Tongarewa
New Zealand Artificial Limb Service
New Zealand Blood and Organ Service
New Zealand Film Commission
New Zealand Growth Capital Partners Ltd
New Zealand Lottery Grants Board
New Zealand Railways Corporation
New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Ngarimu VC and the 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Board
New Zealand Transport Agency
Outdoor Access Commission
Radio New Zealand
Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand
Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Sport Integrity Commission
Sport New Zealand Group
Takeovers Panel
Te Māngai Pāho
Tertiary Education Commission
Transport Accident Investigation Commission
Tupu Tonu
Whakaata Māori, and
WorkSafe New Zealand.
erratum to the 2024-25 annual reports of the:
Department of Conservation, and the
Parliament Sector
Government responses to the:
petition of Heather Tanguay, and the
petition of Mehnaaz Ali
the Social Services and Community Committee’s report on the petition of Safeguarding Children
the report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the petition of Deborah Chappell, and the
Climate Change Commission’s report on the 2050 target review recommendations
international treaty on the Agreement to Establish the Pacific Resilience Facility, together with the national interest analysis
2025 long-term insights briefing for the Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Statement for August 2025, Monetary Policy Statement for November 2025, Financial Stability Report for November 2025
2025-29 statements of intent for the:
Health and Disability Commissioner
Human Rights Commission
New Zealand Lotteries Commission, and
WorkSafe New Zealand
2025-26 statements of performance expectations for the:
Health and Disability Commissioner
Health New Zealand
Health Quality and Safety Commission
Human Rights Commission
Te Papa Tongarewa
New Zealand Artificial Limb Service
New Zealand Blood and Organ Service
New Zealand Film Commission
Sport Integrity Commission
Sport New Zealand Group
and Tupu Tonu
State of the Public Service 2025.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Twenty-four select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of Crown Regional Holdings Ltd
review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd
review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Real Estate Agents Authority
reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:
Employment Relations Amendment Bill, and the
petition of Katherine Lamont
report of the Environment Committee on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill
reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:
Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill
Online Casino Gambling Bill, and the
Public Service Amendment Bill
reports of the Health Committee on the:
briefing from Arthritis New Zealand
Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, and the
inquiry into the aged care sector’s current and future capacity to provide support services for people experiencing neurological cognitive disorders
reports of the Justice Committee on the:
Constitution Amendment Bill
Electoral Amendment Bill, and the
report of the Ombudsman OPCAT Report: Report on an examination of the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989
report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the briefing on accountability settings and outcomes for Māori
reports of the Petitions Committee on the:
petition of Christina Gillmore
petition of Miriam Woon, and the
petition of Summer Fraser
report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)
reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:
petition of New Zealand Equestrian Advocacy Network
report of the Controller and Auditor-General Regulating vehicle safety inspections, and the
review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of Meridian Energy Ltd
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Controller and Auditor-General and the Ombudsman, the inquiry briefings, etc., and the review briefings are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of nine bills.
CLERK:
Crimes Amendment Bill, introduction
Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction
Public Works Amendment Bill, introduction
Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill, introduction
Arms Bill, introduction
Natural Environment Bill, introduction
Planning Bill, introduction
Emergency Management Bill (No 2), introduction
Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Urgent Debates Declined
Public Statements—Former Commissioner of Police and former and current Ministers of Police
SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from Mariameno Kapa-Kingi seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 public statements by the former Commissioner of Police and both the former and current Ministers of Police regarding former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming. Urgent debates are a way of holding the current Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible, so an urgent debate cannot be held on matters for which a previous Government had some responsibility. Urgent debates are not a means through which to discover what a Minister knew or why they said something; that is the role of parliamentary questions. The application is declined.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: To our friends in the gallery, that was an impromptu performance—a little bit of poetry and lots of performative art as well. I think we’ll now progress to Questions for Oral Answer.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who actually speaks for the Government: the Prime Minister, who says that he wants “modest, consistent house price increases”, or the Housing Minister, Chris Bishop, who says the Government is “trying to drive house prices down”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what this Government doesn’t want is a 30 percent growth in house prices in a single year as we experienced under the last Government. House prices have come down, I think about 13 percent on average. What we want to see is gradual, moderate, consistent house price growth, while we want to see wage growth obviously growing faster than house price appreciation.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Chris Bishop wrong when he said only recently that the Government was “trying to drive house prices down”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what this Government is doing is we are radically increasing the supply of land available for housing, and I would just say to that member, I would put our record on housing up against his any day of the week because housing is more affordable for purchase; rentals [Interruption]—just remember, house prices went up 30 percent in a single year under Labour. Rents went up $180 a week. There is 5,000 fewer people now on social housing wait-lists under this Government; kids are out of motel rooms, and, actually, this Government’s record on housing beats his record any day of the week.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When Nicola Willis said, “I agree with him that house prices need to fall; I’m with him.”, was she admitting that her alignment on housing policy is with Chris Bishop and not the Prime Minister?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a country that has been experiencing a housing crisis for many, many years, and it’s a function of having not enough supply in the market. It is not a demand-side problem, it’s a supply-side problem, and that’s why I’m very proud of what this Government is doing, launching its new RMA reforms today to make sure that we can actually get more houses built for New Zealanders. I think that member should be thankful that we have actually done a good job of making sure house price affordability is down—that’s a good thing. Rentals are down—that’s a good thing—not up $180 a week; we’ve got 5,000 fewer families on the social housing wait-list now in housing; we’ve got 3,000 kids and families out of emergency housing. I’m proud of our record on housing.
Hon David Seymour: Is it the Government’s desire that wages grow faster than house prices, and that requires sound economic management from this Government?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. That’s what I was saying in answer to the first question, which is that we want to see wage growth, income growth, be faster and higher than house price growth so it becomes more affordable.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So what is the Government’s policy position: his position that the Government wants “modest, consistent house price increases”; Chris Bishop’s position where he says the Government is “trying to drive house prices down”; or Nicola Willis’ position where she says that she agrees with Chris Bishop that house prices need to fall?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is to unlock growth in this country, to open up more land available for housing so it becomes more affordable. We’re not interested in KiwiBuild—remember that one? It didn’t go so good. What we’re interested in doing is systemic reform of our planning laws so that we can get more houses built so they become more affordable for people.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his reluctance to answer the question on whether he speaks for the Government on house prices, or Chris Bishop or Nicola Willis speak for the Government on house prices, because he’s not sure whether they do actually support his position?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the bigger question the member should be concerned about is: what’s happening with house prices? They are more affordable under this Government in two years than they were under his Government in six years. What’s the situation with rentals? They went up $180 a week under his Government; they’ve come down under this Government. When you think about the position on social housing, we actually have 5,000 fewer families now on a social housing wait-list, and that is a good thing. We’ve got 3,200 families out of emergency hotels, where they were sitting, now in houses, and we’re also supporting the homeless as well. I line up our record on every dimension, every component, any day of the week. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I appreciate that members will be a little unsettled due to the theatrics we experienced at the beginning of question time, but you do have to keep it reasonable.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he not calling out Chris Bishop for contradicting him on falling house prices and not calling out Nicola Willis for saying that she’s with Chris Bishop on falling house prices because he’s worried that Nicola Willis is also going to end up with Chris Bishop when he tries to replace him as Prime Minister?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Look, I’ll just say, I think the member should worry less about the National Party and worry about his mates in the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, don’t you think? I think that’s what you should be worrying about, son.
Question No. 2—RMA Reform
2. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcement has he made about replacing the Resource Management Act 1991?
SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Bishop. [Interruption] Just hang on. Let him at least get a couple of words out.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Today, the Government has announced its new planning system to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 to make it easier to build the homes and infrastructure our country needs, give farmers and growers the freedom to get on with producing world-class food and fibre, and strengthen our primary sector while protecting the environment. The Resource Management Act 1991 has been a failure. It’s slowed down energy and infrastructure projects, and has fuelled a housing crisis in a country the size of the United Kingdom but with only 7 percent of its population. It’s created uncertainty for developers, councils, farmers, and growers, yet hasn’t protected the environment. The reforms announced today are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to free ourselves from a millstone that has weighed on both our economy and our environment. Of course, the foundation of the new regime is the centrepiece of liberal democracies: property rights.
Catherine Wedd: What are the major features of the new system?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The system will need fewer and simpler consents with fewer activity categories, so low-impact activities no longer require consents. We will move from over 100 existing plans to 17 regional combined plans integrating spatial land use and natural environment planning. Spatial planning means 30-year regional spatial plans to identify growth areas, infrastructure corridors, and areas needing protection. There will be clearer national direction and more consistency through nationally set policy direction, and the system will be more proportionate; consent conditions must be necessary and proportionate, reducing red tape.
Catherine Wedd: What other major features are there?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The new planning system will include: more standardisation; planned national standards on zoning and common activities will cut red tape and speed up the system; consultation will only occur where necessary; councils will also be required to provide practical relief mechanisms when imposing restrictions on heritage and on things like significant natural areas; a new planning tribunal will deliver faster, low-cost conflict resolution; and it will mean better environmental protection, enabling community decision making over water quality and improving the efficient use of resources.
Catherine Wedd: What does this mean for New Zealanders?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This all adds up to an easier, cheaper system. It means less paperwork, less cost, and faster and easier progress for those who want to do basic things like putting a deck on a house, building a fence on a farm, constructing some townhouses, or even—even, Marama Davidson—a wind farm. This means a planning system that works for New Zealanders and their aspirations rather than against them. More land will be unlocked for housing. Long-term spatial plans will give investors certainty. For farmers, it means less red tape; farm plans to manage environmental risks. It means making planning simpler, faster, and fairer so we can build homes, grow food, farm animals, and deliver the infrastructure that New Zealand needs while caring for the environment. If we get this right, the 2030s can be New Zealand’s decade.
Simon Court: How is introducing a regulatory relief mechanism for property owners—subject to significant natural areas, heritage, culture, and landscape overlays—strengthening private property rights?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for his excellent question. I’ll just reflect on the fact that, at the moment, it is costless for councils to impose quite significant controls on private property. I think about my own electorate of Hutt South, where the council imposed significant natural areas—in some cases, on 70 to 80 to 90 percent of people’s private land, thus diminishing the value of that land and what they could do with that land. That was costless for the council but comes at real cost for people and their private property rights. We are tilting the balance back in favour of property rights by requiring councils to actually think about those things and think about offering regulatory relief in those circumstances. Individual cases and individual councils will vary, but, clearly, there is a shift in balance back towards the idea of private property.
Simon Court: How does introducing a planning tribunal strengthen the rights of property owners?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Many members of this House will have experienced people who have approached them who are having arguments with their local council about, often, quite simple things. Again, I think of my own electorate and a man who was arguing for nine months with the local council about replacing the garage on his house or on his property, where there was an existing garage, and the council didn’t like the design of the new garage. Again, almost every member of this House will have examples of people who’ve approached them complaining about similar experiences. Now, at the moment, you can go and complain to the council, who's creating the problem in the first place, or you can go off to the Environment Court at vast expense, time, and money. The planning tribunal sits between the council and the Environment Court and will be like the Disputes Tribunal, which will offer low-cost access to justice for people who are being screwed over by councils. Of course, the whole point is that there will be less ability for councils to do that, because the system will manage fewer things in the first place.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with the Prime Minister's comments about asset sales that “we'd take it to the election, and it would be part of our programme”; if so, what advice, if any, has she received on the Crown's ownership interest in State-owned companies?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I agree with the Prime Minister’s full quote, which was: “We take it to the election and it would be part of our programme that we’d want to talk about, and be up front with New Zealanders about. The Government is not selling State assets this term.” As Minister of Finance, my job is to ensure the Crown’s half-trillion dollar - asset base is working for New Zealand. What we are doing is asking whether the assets we own are performing and how we can get better value for taxpayers. When the Government took office in November 2023, Treasury proactively advised in its briefing to incoming shareholding and responsible Ministers that Ministers should consider being clearer about the purposes of the Crown’s ownership of several Government-owned companies. Treasury noted that “OECD guidelines recommend that countries also set out an ‘ownership policy statement’, and many OECD countries do so,”. Shareholding Ministers accepted Treasury’s suggestion and have been receiving advice on the ownership purposes of a number of Crown-owned companies. This advice has not been considered by Cabinet.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she requested any further advice on options to sell State-owned assets?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve said, we are evaluating the Crown balance sheet, which I would point out Crown companies are a very small portion of. New Zealanders collectively own many assets, which are social assets—schools, hospitals, houses, roads. I would point out to the member that it is the case, for example, that on our watch, Kāinga Ora has sold many multi-million dollar homes in Ponsonby and Herne Bay so that they can reuse the proceeds to build homes in areas of highest need. Similarly, under the last Government, Kiwibank sold Kiwi Wealth, releasing $225 million in capital to improve its growth prospects, potentially increasing lending to New Zealanders by 14 percent.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The question was a relatively straightforward one: has she sought any additional advice? We are none the wiser as to whether that is the case. That particular aspect of the question was not addressed by that long answer.
SPEAKER: Well, I think the start was by saying what the Government has decided to do. You can go around this stuff for ever, but, you know, have another supplementary.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are all Associate Ministers of Finance receiving all the advice on the ownership interest in State-owned assets; if not, why not?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That would depend on the advice. But as I made very clear in my answer to the primary question, all advice will be taken to Cabinet and Cabinet collectively will make decisions about the ownership statements; that has not yet occurred.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it an appropriate use of public sector resources to do the ground work on asset sales, given the Government has ruled out asset sales this term?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I utterly reject that assertion. The member is confusing basic financial stewardship with privatisation, because, unlike the previous Government, we take seriously our role as stewards of public assets, and we believe it is in the interests of New Zealand taxpayers to ensure they are performing well and to their purpose. Where they are not performing well or to their purpose, you can bet we will be holding their boards and chairpeople to account for lifting that performance on behalf of New Zealanders. You sat back—
SPEAKER: No, no, that’s enough—that’s enough.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she rule out asset sales while she is Minister of Finance?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Crown has made very clear that we will not be selling Crown companies this term. What I’ve also made clear is that it is the case that we have, for example, sold multimillion-dollar homes previously owned by Kāinga Ora so that we can recycle that capital into better-value homes for people in need. This is consistent with the practice of the previous Government, which also did the same thing, selling assets owned by Kāinga Ora to put the dollars to better purposes. It’s also the case that within entities that the Crown owns, from time to time they will divest some of their assets in order to better recycle that capital, as is the primary example: Kiwi Wealth, a $225 million asset owned by KiwiBank, sold by the previous Government—
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Not true.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —with the proceeds recycled to Kiwi Wealth. Mr Hipkins says that’s not true. I can assure him the statements I make in this House are accurate. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—question being asked.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many homes has she funded and built this year from the recycling of the funding from the sales she mentioned in her previous response?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s a question probably both better put to the Minister of Housing and better put in writing, but what I can confirm is that on this Government’s watch, we have delivered more social homes in our first two years in office than the last Government did in three.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why must she lie? Every time she lies about this.
SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—that will see you leaving the House.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, I’m happy to stand by that, so I’m not going to retract it.
SPEAKER: Well, if you’re going to stand by it, then you’re going to get yourself in a lot of trouble. Think of another way of putting it.
Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the proceeds from the sale of the house in Trinity Street, Ponsonby, next to Lorde’s mansion, has funded the retrofit of six to seven other Kāinga Ora properties in Auckland?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can confirm that. What I am surprised to also have to confirm to members of this House today is that there are some members here who would prefer we sat on those multimillion-dollar homes in a very expensive part of Auckland than deliver more homes for families in need. I stand by our Government’s decisions.
Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware of any other investor that’s been around for 170 years, like the New Zealand Government, that only ever buys and never sells to get a better deal?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As the Deputy Prime Minister rightly points out, that would be the worst sort of financial stewardship, and it is a reflection on the economic capability of others if they’re to suggest that we should never, ever decide that an asset is no longer serving taxpayers to its best purpose. It has been the case of successive Governments that they assess the value of assets and how they are performing.
Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. 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: Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for rough sleeping in Auckland nearly doubling between September 2024 and May 2025, during which his Government’s emergency housing changes came into effect?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we’ve discussed before in the House, I’m very, very proud of this Government’s progress on removing and getting rid of emergency housing in motels. We’ve been able to move families and kids into dry, warm homes. This is also a Government that cares deeply about the challenges of homelessness, and as that member well understands, they saw an increase in homelessness of 37 percent after spending a billion dollars when they were in Government. It’s a complex issue; we’re doing everything we can to work on that, too.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he accept the community organisation’s concerns reflected in the open letter which I passed him before question time today began, that Government choices to cut access to emergency housing, cancel State housing developments, cut funding for rangatahi housing support, and weaken tenants’ rights are directly linked to more Aucklanders sleeping in our streets, our parks, and their cars?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we’ve talked to before, we have actually met with key stakeholders in Auckland’s CBD to see what more we can be doing around the homeless situation there. These are complex issues, with people with complex needs, but this also a Government that has opened up 300 more Housing First places, we’ve got 200 of them going into Auckland, and we also now are talking to the NGOs that we partner with to make sure that they are doing everything they can to make sure they are managing vacancies and vacancy management within their own system, by which of course the Government is working with them and providing them with contracts to do so. So there is a concerted effort to do everything that we can. But I’d just ask the member to stop and reflect on the fact that we have 5,000 fewer families on a wait-list waiting to get access a State house or a community-housing provided house. We have 3,000 families out of emergency housing in motels, after that being a systemic problem for a long period of time, and we should be very proud about that.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee that every single New Zealander experiencing rough sleeping can access emergency housing or whatever support they may need, if they were, today, to walk into a Work and Income office?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we’ve talked before, this is a Government that has actually put together 300 more Housing First places; 200 of them are available in Auckland, and we’re also now getting the NGOs to record their vacancy rates daily and weekly so that we can make sure that they are actually delivering those dwellings and that accommodation for those people that need it. But we’ve also put in place $10 million of additional funding for support services for rough sleepers.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Can he guarantee that every New Zealander who is currently experiencing rough sleeping could today walk into a Work and Income office and get access to the emergency housing and support services that they need?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member is aware, and we’ve talked about in recent weeks, we’ve also directed the Ministry of Social Development to show greater discretion to support people who are in need. But I’d just say to the member again, when you see housing affordability at the best its been in a long period of time, when you see rents coming down, when you see people off a social housing wait-list, when you see people out of emergency accommodation in motels, and you also see support with 300 more Housing First places, $10 million available for rough sleepers, and coordination between Government and key agencies, that’s good work.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister rule out the much-discussed move-on orders, which community providers have said will result in them struggling to reach homeless rangatahi in Auckland when they are pushed out to further suburbs and afraid to enter the city centre, where the services are?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as we’ve discussed this before, the Minister for Auckland has met with other key Ministers and agencies. There is a six-point plan, developed in conjunction with Auckland Council and the Government and others, about housing for rough sleepers, we want increased police and council presence, we want safer public spaces, targeting of criminal behaviour, targeted support services, and cleaner streets. Yes, we are exploring move-on orders, and we’ll have more to say about that shortly.
Question No. 5—Oceans and Fisheries
5. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What reports has he received on the fisheries sector?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I have received a report that shows 87 percent of our stocks, according to a scientific analysis, are definitely sustainable, and it’s backed up by the United Nations. We should remember that over 9,000 people are employed in this sector; $1.5 billion in exports, and despite the best efforts of my critics, the furry Luddites, we stand strong with this industry.
Andy Foster: How will the fisheries reforms help sustainability and increase the value of fisheries?
Hon SHANE JONES: Earlier this year we announced some reforms that will make their way through Parliament during the course of next year. Of course, it’s important that we have balance and that when catch limits for our various species of fish are set, it’s driven by science. But also we stand against the demonisation and the tainting of the commercial fishing sector. The rules that will be put in place via our upcoming reforms will be consultative, but they will also enhance science to ensure that sectors seeking to taint this important sector do not get a free pass.
Andy Foster: What actions has the Minister taken to increase exports from the aquaculture sector?
Hon SHANE JONES: Our Government has, during the course of our rule, as a consequence of far-sighted voters in 2023, extended marine farming permits by 20 years. This enabled the industry and the holders of those permits to dedicate capital, take a risk, and grow the footprint of aquaculture in New Zealand. It has been a key improver in terms of productivity, and we will be working very closely as a Government in a cohesive fashion to ensure that the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms identified today do deliver for coastal-based industries.
Andy Foster: How will those Resource Management Act reforms support the aquaculture sector?
Hon SHANE JONES: The RMA, as our colleague Minister Bishop stated, is broken. It has become a major drain on productivity. It will provide an opportunity for people to go about their business, celebrate the fact that they have property rights that can be utilised to grow the wealth of the country. We will also ensure that the Coastal Policy Statement, a failed attempt to balance the needs of the coast, does not continue and blight the development opportunities, and ensure that ports, aquaculture, and other related matters continue to grow. I look forward to the submissions that may come from the industry through the select committee process, as I am aware that they hope to see one day a bespoke aquaculture type of legislative outcome to grow that industry.
Question No. 6—Prime Minister
6. RAWIRI WAITITI (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.
Rawiri Waititi: Did he or the Minister of Police have any knowledge of allegations made against former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming before 6 November 2024?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to myself, no.
Rawiri Waititi: Did he have any knowledge of the allegations made against his former deputy chief press secretary Michael Forbes before June 2025?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.
Rawiri Waititi: Were these cases examples of police negligence, or were he and his Ministers being wilfully ignorant to the behaviour of their high-ranking colleagues?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m very proud of the police. I think the 15,000 men and women of the police force do an amazing job each and every day. I’m very proud of the work that they’ve done in undertaking to remove 38,000 serious and violent criminals from New Zealand—the number of victims of serious and violent crime has been down. I’m very proud of the fact that they’ve got a 16 percent lower level of serious youth offending. Yes, we have 1,900 more people in prison, but they’re not out in the community causing pain and suffering to fellow New Zealanders.
Rawiri Waititi: Will he commit to initiating a royal commission of inquiry into the New Zealand Police in response to these obvious failures to identify serious misconduct?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, because this Government has moved incredibly quickly to the outcome of what a royal commission of inquiry would generate anyway, which is the strongest statutory oversight mechanism possible, which is of course an inspector-general.
Question No. 7—Health
7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his actions in the health portfolio; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): On behalf of the Minister of Health, yes, particularly the action of setting targets for delivery in the healthcare system. For too long before this Government was formed, Government and Ministers tended to show their aroha for the patient by throwing money at the problem rather than setting targets for productivity in order to actually get people the results, the vaccinations, and the appointments they need in a timely manner, which is this Government’s action.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Which action does he stand by: his cuts to graduate nursing roles or his partial reversal of those cuts?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I can’t speak to the Minister’s allegations, which seem to be more of an attempt at making social media. What I can say is this Government has hired 2,000 additional nurses. I don’t know if the member’s ever seen 2,000 additional nurses in one place, but that’s a lot of nurses.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his plan for digital investment or his unsafe cuts to hospitals’ digital systems?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I absolutely, on behalf of the Minister, stand by this Government’s plan to invest in digitisation. And the reason for that: I happened, in my own capacity, to be visiting Waikato Hospital a time ago and they explained to me that as an Aucklander, if I was to be in a car crash in Hamilton, I would need to have my records emailed from Auckland, potentially while I was bleeding out on the table. I asked them, “Didn’t the previous Government merge the DHBs together?”, and they said, “Well, that was just the letterheads. They didn’t do the hard work of investing in a patient record.” That’s what this Government is doing, and, yes, I stand by that—yes I do.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by decisions to centralise hiring outside of local hospitals, causing months of delay to doctors’ recruitment?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is certainly true that under the previous Government’s centralisation and merger of the DHBs, the hiring of staff had to be routed through Wellington, leading to enormous delays. The Minister of Health has reversed that change and decentralised hiring so that the people at the coalface can make the decisions about who to hire. That is actually an improvement, and I’m starting to wonder, Mr Speaker, if this member is trying to make the Government look good.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it the case that the Minister is unaware that that decision to centralise hiring outside of hospitals, as well as the cuts to nursing graduate roles and digital infrastructure were all under that Government?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is simply untrue and the simple facts are: 2,000 extra nurses, 600 extra doctors. You can’t argue with results.
Question No. 8—Economic Growth
8. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What impact will resource management reform have on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): For too long, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been a handbrake on the New Zealand economy. It has created costs and complexity, headaches and confusion. It has stifled growth and competition, and the changes Minister Bishop announced today, will release that handbrake. To improve living standards, create jobs, and lift incomes, New Zealand needs to stop saying no and start staying yes—yes to investment, yes to innovation, and yes to growth. That’s what these changes are all about: making it easier, faster, and cheaper whether you’re building a deck or a wind farm.
Cameron Brewer: How will these changes improve economic performance?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The changes the Government has announced today will improve economic performance in three main ways: first, they will lower the costs at each step of the planning system—in fact, reducing, dramatically, the number of circumstances in which a consent will even be required. This will put a stop to the gravy train of consultants and lawyers that has characterised the RMA. They will help ensure that New Zealand’s scarce resources are being used in the most valuable way they can, and they will establish a more flexible and enabling system that promotes innovation, investment, and adaptation. Together with other reforms from this Government, these changes will help lift New Zealand’s productivity, reduce regulatory burdens, and get the economy growing.
Cameron Brewer: What effect will these changes have on costs?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The changes announced today will generate administrative and compliance savings for all participants in the resource management system—users of the system, of course, but also local and central government. From the mum and dad wanting to renovate their home, through to the farmer wanting to grow vegetables for our plates, fewer activities will require consents in the future. I am advised that close to half of consent applications may become unnecessary. There will be fewer hearings, fewer appeals, fewer delays, and economic consultants Castalia have calculated that the net administrative and compliance benefits, in present value terms, will amount to $13 billion over the next 30 years.
Cameron Brewer: What wider effects will these changes have?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Of course, cost savings are just one part of a bigger story. Most importantly, projects that under the current system would be delayed, deferred, or not happen at all, despite those with capital eager to get started and make things happen, will, in the future, go ahead in a timely way. There are huge benefits, for example, for making housing supply more responsive to demand. Instead of tying up, in court, proposals for new houses for New Zealanders, the new law will make it faster for them to get built. There are huge benefits from infrastructure projects in low-risk locations proceeding at a greater pace and scale than they are now, not tied up in the current multi-year delays which have plagued so many Government transport projects. The complexity and uncertainty of the current resource management rules is costing New Zealand in terms of growth, incomes, and opportunities. The changes that Minister Bishop announced today will get things moving again.
Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment
9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “Our Government does not accept that a life on welfare is as good as it gets for our young people”; if so, why?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, and we know that people under the age of 25 on the jobseeker benefit are estimated to spend another two decades on a benefit over their lifetimes. Our Government has far greater hopes and aspirations for young Kiwis than a life on welfare, and we make no apologies for encouraging them into education, further training, or employment. That’s why we are delivering more early intervention, clearer expectations, and stronger partnerships with employers to help more people move from welfare into work. We’ve seen over 26,000 young people leave welfare for work in the last 12 months. The steps we are taking will put New Zealand and young New Zealanders on a better path.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she launch her community coaching pilot at Youth Inspire in the Hutt Valley, which helps young people into work, and then subsequently cut their funding?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said in the annual review last week to that member, the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) runs their procurement basis, as most Government agencies do, on the all-of-Government procurement guidelines, and when they go out to tender for services and for products, they want to make sure that what they are purchasing delivers Government outcomes and also provides value for money.
Hon Ginny Andersen: What are the other programmes that have been funded by MSD in the Hutt Valley to specifically support young people into employment?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, what I would say is that the provider that is going to be providing the youth job coaching in the Hutt Valley will be announced in the coming weeks, and, as I said to that member, we have great providers all over New Zealand who are doing fantastic work with young people; that’s why 26,000 young people in the last year alone have exited from welfare into work.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Chris Bishop, who said that “Youth Inspire do a great job in our community”; if so, why did they have their funding cut when they are the only provider in the area that supports young people into employment?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, the member is completely wrong; there are other services in the Hutt Valley that deliver services to young people, whether it’s driver licensing or the youth coaching that is up for renegotiation. What that member fails to realise is that Youth Inspire will continue to have contracts available through MSD.
Hon Ginny Andersen: What message does it send to young people when she cuts the only programme in the Hutt that gives young people the skills and confidence to get a job, and even the local National MP is at a loss as to why their funding has been cut?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, the member is just blatantly wrong; there are other service providers in the Hutt. MSD has run—
Hon Ginny Andersen: Name them—name them.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —a programme, and the programme provider that will be replacing the youth coaching will be announced in the coming weeks—so, no, I’m not going to do MSD’s job in announcing—
Hon Ginny Andersen: They’re not youth.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —who they have procured the services from.
Hon Ginny Andersen: We know who they are, and they’re not youth.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They are—they are absolutely, because when a procurement is reissued, it is based on the services that MSD is buying. They are buying job coaching for young people. I’m really proud of the work MSD do all over New Zealand. I accept that for individual providers, it’s challenging when they have a change to their contract, and I’m really excited that they will continue to provide He Poutama Rangatahi services. I’d be surprised if that member isn’t pleased that they’ll continue to do that.
Question No. 10—Local Government
10. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made on capping council rates?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government): For too long, Kiwis have seen unsustainable double-digit rate rises at a time when they can least afford it. Last week, we said enough is enough and announced that we will cap increases to council rates, at a time when central government, businesses, and households are tightening their belts. Councils need to do the same.
Ryan Hamilton: How will the proposed rates cap work?
Hon SIMON WATTS: We’ve adopted a target band approach, similar to the way the Reserve Bank approaches inflation. This will mean that rates increases can only be between 2 and 4 percent per year. These numbers are linked to the midpoint of the inflation target and long-run GDP growth. The upper band ensures that rate increases remain affordable and sustainable, while the lower band ensures councils keep up with investment.
Ryan Hamilton: Can councils exceed the target band?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, we acknowledge that unique circumstances may arise in which rates may need to exceed 4 percent, such as natural disasters. The rates target model allows councils to apply for a temporary deviation from the target band. But, let me be clear, deviation will be the exception, not the rule.
Ryan Hamilton: What comments has he seen on the Government’s proposed rates cap?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, you might imagine that this has been very much welcomed by ratepayers, who have been hit hard by rates increases. I’m also pleased to see that even some councillors and mayors welcome this announcement. Thames-Coromandel mayor, Peter Revell, welcomed the announcement, saying “The move to a target range gives council a clear and workable framework.” Christchurch city councillor Sam MacDonald said, “This is a significant step forward in reining in the cost of living crisis. Our council is up for the challenge, and we have already got a programme in place and under way.” A rates cap is a pragmatic policy, and I encourage the whole House to get behind it.
Question No. 11—Prime Minister
11. 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: Will it be communities and the environment who benefit from his Government’s pushing through of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill or will this solely benefit the corporations seeking to undermine communities and the environment to rush through their projects?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question: both.
Hon Marama Davidson: Why is his Government further expanding unchecked ministerial power over large-scale projects when the original fast track bill was criticised widely for concentrating power in the hands of Ministers without meaningful public or environmental oversight?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. We're very proud of the fast track legislation and the implications that it's now having. There'll be probably about nine projects that'll be approved before Christmas. I just take the example of the Auckland ports who needed to build two wharves; it would have taken five years under the old Resource Management Act, but thanks to the work of Minister Bishop and Minister Jones implementing fast track, it was done in 55 days and on the 56th day they started digging.
Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response, then, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who said that the fast track bill is a “thinly veiled attempt to guarantee a favourable decision; executive overreach for which no case has been made” and that there are “no guardrails.”
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree completely. What is exciting about fast track is that we are going to get things done and built in this country. We have been tied up in red tape, green tape, just a bunch of bureaucrats, and we need to unblock the joint and get the show on the road and get it moving.
Hon Marama Davidson: What does he think it says, then, about his Government, when the most controversial amendments in the Fast-track Approvals Act were only supported by corporations who are current and past applicants, with the other 95 percent of submitters opposing?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it's actually New Zealanders that are winning because of fast track and because of our Resource Management Act reforms, because it means that they'll get renewable energy faster, it means they'll get homes faster, farmers will be able to get on with farming and growing, we'll be able to get hospitals, schools, and roads built much quicker; that's great stuff.
Hon Marama Davidson: Is the Prime Minister simply of the opinion that the Government knows best and that communities, the environment, and hapū and iwi all deserve less of a say on fast-track projects than the corporates submitting applications?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I listen to the voice of everyday New Zealanders who say, “It's just too hard to get things done and built in this country.” They can't understand why it costs 50 percent more to build a three-bedroom house here in New Zealand than it does in Australia—because of our Resource Management Act, because of our slow track, because we've clogged the joint up with red tape and green tape. We're getting rid of it. We're prioritising economic growth and we're going to grow.
Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Prime Minister please confirm that there are at least two Māori-led fast-track projects that have been approved, one at the top of the South called Maitahi and one at West Auckland called Rangitoopuni?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can, and I can also confirm that iwi businesses and organisations are beneficiaries of fast track and our new Resource Management Act reforms, as well. All Treaty settlements will be upheld, but they will also be able to use their land as they see fit, exercise their property rights, and get things done and built.
Question No. 12—Media and Communications
12. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does he stand by his commitment on 2 July 2024 that “The Government is taking immediate action to support New Zealand’s media and content production sectors”; if so, what immediate action has the Government taken to date?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Media and Communications): I thank the member for the question. Yes, I stand by that statement, and the immediate focus back then was the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Of course, as is highly obvious to everybody, circumstances changed somewhat at the end of 2004 with the US presidency changes and a more cautious approach was adopted. But since then, we’ve made excellent progress on a whole host of other areas, such as finally passing legislation to remove outdated advertising restrictions on Sundays—and I do want to thank the member of their party for their bipartisan support for that, notwithstanding some snide comments made during the debate. We also made changes to the screen production rebate to help Shortland Street continue on its way, and in a period of intense fiscal challenges, we continued our funding for NZ on Air and the screen rebates alongside Minister Willis. There is much more that I could go into.
Reuben Davidson: Supplementary—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Wait for your colleagues to give you—I mean the whole House to give you silence while you’re asking a question.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement that “Firstly, the Government will progress the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill with amendments, to support our local media companies to earn revenue for the news they produce.”, and if so, given that other countries have taken steps in that direction, why has the legislation still not had its second reading more than a year later?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it’s important for politicians to be light on their feet. That member, of course, did hear the answer to that question in the previous answer and I’ve given them the answer and I think it makes perfect sense. So, I’d encourage him to try and be a bit more light-footed next time.
SPEAKER: No, hang on. Wait on. That’s not an acceptable thing. You can’t determine what he knows. So if he wants to ask the same question over and over, he can. You should answer it over and over as well. Reuben Davidson, ask the question again.
Reuben Davidson: The same question again?
SPEAKER: Yeah.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: Well, if you can’t remember it, just move on.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: Luckily I have it written down. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he still stand by his statement that—and I repeat—“Firstly, the Government will progress the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill with amendments, to support our local media companies to earn revenue for the news they produce.”, and if so, given other countries have taken steps since, why has the legislation still not had a second reading more than a year later?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, as I said in my answer to the primary question, that events have changed since I made those statements, and to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, when the circumstances change, I change, and what else would he do?
Reuben Davidson: How many New Zealand jobs could be protected if the Government did what they promised to do more than a year ago and passed Acts like the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it’s impossible to calculate.
Reuben Davidson: Does he share the concerns of his National Party colleague Greg Fleming regarding the impact of a 25 percent reduction in funding to multimedia, and, if so, has he raised these concerns with the Minister for Māori Development?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we all know that Mr Fleming has a wide range of concerns and he passes them on to us regularly and we are very supportive of those concerns. What I would say, of course, is that the most important thing we can do for the media is to get the economy growing again so that advertising revenue grows, and that is what our Government is absolutely committed to do. I would also make the point that there’s been a lot of work that’s been done in this area and I encourage Labour to continue on in the spirit of bipartisanship, which they showed on the Sundays and public holidays. There’s much more that we can do together.
Reuben Davidson: How can the media and content production sector have any confidence in him when his party didn’t even turn up to vote on the only legislation he has introduced to support the sector since he became the Minister, and now even his own MPs are second guessing his Government’s cuts?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m not quite sure what the circumstances are that the member is referring to, other than to say that notwithstanding all the fiscal pressures, we continue to fund NZ on Air, we continue to fund the screen rebates, and we’ve also put some extra resources into the local democracy and the open justice initiative, which have been great initiatives and I’m sure will be welcomed right across the sector. I’d leave it at that—oh, by the way, no, I won’t leave it at that. One thing that we haven’t done is waste $20 million on a failed RNZ and TVNZ merger—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s enough—no, that’s enough. Thank you. That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have other items of business to go to to leave the House quietly, without conversations on the way.
Bills
Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): I present a legislative statement on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill.
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 Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.
Over the last three decades, house prices in New Zealand have increased more than any other OECD country. According to the OECD’s Better Life Index, we ranked 40th, out of 41 countries, for housing availability—just in front of the Slovak Republic. Our housing crisis has held us back economically and socially. As I’ve said many times, the Government is determined to get on top of this problem by focusing on the fundamentals, treating housing as a complex and dynamic system. There are three pillars to our housing growth programme: pillar one is about freeing up land for development and removing planning barriers; pillar two is about improving infrastructure funding and financing to support growth; pillar three is about incentives to support growth. Pillar one includes housing growth targets, requiring them to enable thirty years of development capacity, enabling intensification and a greater mix of uses in the right places, and making greenfield growth easier.
Members who have read—or at least glanced, so far, at—the planning bill that is being introduced to Parliament today, which will have its first reading next week, will notice that one of the aims, or goals, of the new system is competitive urban land markets. That is an extremely important objective and goal for the system, and that is reflected in the bill we are reading for a first time today, as well.
Pillar two of the Government’s reforms relates to infrastructure funding and financing. This is very important because you can have as much land supply and abundant development opportunities as you like—whether or not that’s achieved through housing growth targets or more responsive land supply and land release mechanisms in cities, which we’re also proposing—but without the infrastructure and without the nimble infrastructure funding tools, the capacity will not be realised into, ultimately, houses. Pillar two is under way as well. We’re publicly consulting on an exposure draft of the Local Government Infrastructure Funding Amendment Bill; this is to replace development contributions with a development levy system. Public consultation runs until February next year. The Government intends to introduce legislation mid - next year. The reality is that under the status quo, councils and developers face significant challenges to fund and finance enabling infrastructure for housing. The Government’s aim is to move to a future state where funding and financing tools enable a responsive supply of infrastructure where it’s commercially viable to build new houses. The aim is to shift market expectations of future scarcity, bring down the cost of land for new housing, and improve incentives to development land sooner rather than land banking.
It brings us to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) Act, which was established in 2020 by the previous Government, picking up on work developed by the John Key and Bill English - led Government in 2016 and 2017. It’s an alternative means to fund and finance infrastructure for urban growth. It involves the establishment of a special purpose vehicle to finance the infrastructure needed to enable development, repaid by levying the properties which benefit off council balance sheets. I think it would be fair to say that the Act has fallen short of delivering infrastructure needed to respond to growth. Only two IFF Act levies have been established since 2020. This was a piece of legislation developed in a relatively bipartisan fashion, actually. As I say, it started life in the last National Government, passed by the Hon Phil Twyford and friends in 2020. It has not quite worked out the way that people intended it to work out. This amendment legislation makes some, I think, sensible amendments to allow it to be used more frequently in a cheaper way and in a way with less red tape. The bill aims to remove unnecessary barriers to using the Act and to improve the viability of it to make the levy development and approval process simpler and more streamlined.
The improvements to infrastructure funding and financing reflect the Government’s overarching approach of growth paying for growth to enable more flexible provision of infrastructure that responds to development. As I said earlier, what we’re trying to do is move to a system where there are abundant development opportunities and the funding and finance required to support those development opportunities is allowed to turn up and is not artificially constrained by artificial constraints on funding and financing, in the same way that there are artificial constraints on land supply, which is what we have at the moment. Our future state will move to a world in which the economics of development dictate where and how it happens and when it happens, rather than artificial planning rules which have held our cities back for too long and are the root cause of the housing crisis that has bedevilled New Zealand for too long—with all of the moral, fiscal, social implications that come from that. Fixing our housing crisis is going to take a long time. It is not something that can be done overnight. It is a complex system, but we are making good progress, picking up on some of the good work done under the previous Government.
In terms of streamlining the levy approvals process, the extensive process required for applicants to have a IFF levy approved can be a barrier when trying to use the Act. We are now simplifying requirements for levy proposals and recommendation reports, simplifying the mandatory considerations the Minister of Housing must take into account when assessing a levy, improving certainty for developer-led proposals by limiting councils’ ability to withhold the necessary endorsements where statutory requirements have been met, removing the requirement to assess a levy’s affordability for these proposals supported by developers and all other existing landowners. For new developments, levy payers self-assess affordability and opt in to the levy when deciding to purchase a property. As such, ministerial consideration of whether a levy is affordable is not needed if existing landowners are supportive. These things will make a difference, and I’m looking forward to seeing the feedback through the select committee to see whether or not we’ve got it exactly right. This bill will go to a select committee, and I’ve nominated the finance committee because I think that’s the appropriate committee for it.
The bill broadens the scope of the Act to improve its flexibility and viability for a range of infrastructure projects. This is really important. This will better reflect developer-led use of the tool and enable the Act to be used for transport projects delivered by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) or KiwiRail as part of a funding stack for transport infrastructure investment, where it benefits property owners. Broadening the scope of the Act beyond simply addressing local authority funding and financing constraints aligns with wider transport system changes that signal to the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport to require NZTA to consider alternative funding and financing arrangements for all new infrastructure projects to ensure that New Zealand delivers more infrastructure sooner. The simple proposition is this: if there is public expenditure on infrastructure projects that private landowners benefit from, and they are the beneficiaries of that expenditure, they should help to cover the cost of that expenditure. It’s a form of value capture; some would call it that, we prefer the term “cost recovery”. It doesn’t actually matter what you call it. The proposition, or at least the value proposition, is a simple one. There’s a lot of complexity to actually implementing it, but the changes we’re making through the IFF Act amendment will allow that to happen.
It will also enable the Act to be used for water infrastructure investments delivered by new water organisations delivered through the Local Water Done Well policy. The bill replaces the definition of “community infrastructure” so that it’s not required to be owned or controlled by territorial authority. This broadens the potential use of the Act to include community infrastructure that is owned or controlled by a third party rather than vested in a territorial authority. The bill will enable levy deferrals to help manage any affordability concerns and better support the use of the Act for the purposes of value capture or cost recovery. There’s a variety of other changes to improve the Act, including clarifying the special purpose vehicle may commence recovery action if levies remain unpaid for more than four months, and amending the Local Government Rating Act to ensure that rates and levies rank equally in the event of a rating sale.
This is an important series of changes, but it can’t be divorced from the context of the flexible funding system we’re trying to create for local infrastructure. This is one tool in the toolkit. It will be used, I think, for large, new greenfield subdivisions on city fringes where the economics of that development make sense. I’ve already had some people say to me, “Well, I’ve had a look at the IFF. It doesn’t work. It’s too expensive.” Well, that’s OK. That’s actually OK because if the cost of the infrastructure and the special purpose vehicle doesn’t make it economic to develop, then maybe we shouldn’t be developing it. Actually, letting price signals diffuse themselves into land markets is actually part of the problem. Too often, we’ve been cross-subsidising development in areas that don’t make sense and not allowing those price signals to work effectively. We may see it for greenfield subdivisions where people can make a buck out of it and the economics stack up. We will also, potentially, use it for large, new State highway projects in the future. Also, just in my last 25 seconds, the next time we do a City Rail Link project and we build a brand new $6 billion train station next to a casino, we should ask them to help cover the cost of the massive new infrastructure we’ve put into their private company. We’ll be able to do this with the changes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Let’s go for a wealth tax, Bish!
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You don’t need a wealth tax; you just need sensible infrastructure funding tools. I look forward to your support.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ve heard from the infrastructure and the local government sector the very clear message that they want some certainty. They want to see an end to the stop-start carry-on that they have seen over the last couple of years, and today is a particularly important day to point that out because it is relevant to this bill.
We’re hearing a lot today around how much the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act will make things better, but no mention of the fact that it was this Government that put us back to the old Resource Management Act, which was no longer fit for purpose. Now, I’m pleased that the Government is not following the approach where there was a reform, they scrapped the reform and went back to the old approach and then used that as justification for the fast track, and then bypassed proper parliamentary procedure and public feedback to pass that bill.
At least they haven’t scrapped the original Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act and started again. That is a positive, and it gives an opportunity, as the Labour Party, to be able to indicate that we will support this bill to select committee because it does build on what was intended by the 2020 Act. It is true that only two levies have gone through the process as a result of that, and it is quite clear that there are some barriers to establishing those.
We would like to see more occur because, at the end of the day, many councils are at their debt ceiling. Even with the changing of that ceiling by this Government, they will be under significant financial strain. That is particularly true with this bungled water reform by this Government, the additional requirements that they have placed on council, and the Government’s inability or unwillingness to consider alternative revenue streams for councils outside rates, and let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that a rates cap is going to be the silver bullet here. In many cases, it is going to make things more difficult, and, in fact, this is potentially the only way in which some areas will be able to go through some infrastructure projects because, frankly, councils’ hands will be tied behind their backs. But what is of concern is the lack of consultation that was delivered as part of the development of this bill.
Now, it’s been a couple of years and, frankly, the changes that are in this bill have been signalled by Ministers for some time, and so it is quite telling that if you look through the departmental reports and regulatory impact statements, it’s quite clear that departments did not have enough time—they say so themselves—to assess this and actually understand whether the changes that are being proposed here will actually deliver what the Minister has just outlined. It’s very difficult for us, as a Parliament, to assess a piece of legislation when departments haven’t been given enough time to actually look at what is being proposed and give Parliament a steer as to whether it’s going to work.
It’s quite telling that they consulted with only a hand-picked, select few councils, and not councils across the board and not Local Government New Zealand. They could argue that they only talked to those councils that are at their debt ceiling already, but, as we know, many, many more are predicted to fall into that situation, and they will indeed be interested in the provisions that are proposed in this bill.
It is also interesting and worth noting that the Government hasn’t consulted with iwi on this bill, despite the fact—even though the Minister’s speech didn’t touch on this—that this bill actually proposes quite significant changes to how Māori land is viewed and considered as part of this process. Now, I am pleased that it is going to select committee because we will work constructively with the Government to look to improve this bill, but we will have questions around that.
The expansion of this to include transport is worthy of pretty detailed assessment. We want some assurances that the changes that are being proposed around Māori land, in particular, do not disadvantage those shareholders in that land. Given their unique status, which is unlike any other shareholders of landholdings in this country, and of course the responsibilities of the Crown through Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it is essential that we get those reassurances, and I’m not sure that enough consideration has been given to changing the requirement for a levy to be linked to a specific project. We’re keen to dive into those at select committee, and so we’re happy to support it to there, but we’re keen to look into it more.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Minister for Infrastructure, in his speech, referred to enabling more greenfield development, and I think I have to fundamentally disagree with his assertion that that is necessary or desirable for Aotearoa New Zealand. We have known now for decades—there has been study after study that has quantified—that infrastructure costs associated with greenfields development are significantly higher. The places we need homes and businesses and schools—and everything else, now—is within the existing urban area, close to good quality public transport in walkable neighbours.
Simon Court: That’s another “can’t”.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That is what will deliver for Aotearoa New Zealand.
Simon Court: We say “can”.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The people opposite are actually just a bunch of walking contradictions, Mr Speaker, if I could. Like, everything they say as a Government is a walking contradiction, because they say that they want things to be value for money and they want taxes to be low, and at the same time, they have a wish-list of outrageously expensive highway projects which are not actually going to improve productivity at all, but would probably facilitate a lot of suburban sprawl.
So the one kind of coherent thread that links what the Government is doing is that they’re doing what land-bankers want. It’s those people who own farmland that is somewhere out near Auckland who are going to benefit from the Government investing in highways, because they’ll be able to sell-off that land as houses. Will New Zealanders benefit from that? Well, no: those neighbourhoods will be neighbourhoods where people do not have good, affordable access to the amenities that they need to live good lives. Overall, our country will be spending more on fuel and private vehicles, we’ll have higher emissions, more air pollution, more sedentary lifestyles. All of that is cost, cost, cost, cost, cost. And it actually doesn’t make people happy, and it doesn’t benefit the economy, but it does benefit some vested interests. That’s why you can guarantee that the coalition Government will be doing something—is to help those vested interests make more and more money at the expense of public good and our taiao, our environment, and our climate.
So when it comes to infrastructure funding and financing, like, the whole thing is a very complex, new structure that tries to get around the fact that if we want to have more infrastructure, we have to pay for it. As much as they say, “Well, we’ll internalise the cost of that infrastructure.”, when does that ever happen? It’s not happening. And if it did, if people actually had to pay the cost of the infrastructure, it would be hugely unaffordable and they would choose not to develop there, they would choose not to live in those places. That’s the truth; it’s quite, quite simple.
Now, we’re going to support this bill to select committee—and we did support when the previous Government did it—but, ultimately, what they’re trying to get at is the idea that public infrastructure needs to be paid for by a group of people who benefit from it, which is actually the public, and that’s what taxation is meant to do. If you are using more direct pricing-mechanisms—if we were doing that, we certainly wouldn’t be prioritising the highways they’re prioritising, we wouldn’t be prioritising greenfield growth, because we have quantified the cost and it is unaffordable.
What we need Government to be focusing on is removing the barriers to building density done well in our existing urban areas, investing in high quality, fast, frequent, affordable, free public transport in rail and electric bus services linking up our communities across the motu, as we once had. That would all make sense. When you go to other countries—and I appreciate that many people here won’t know what the rest of the world is doing, but if you go to other countries that we aspire to be like, they have much higher use of and much higher investment in public transport, in walkable and cyclable neighbourhoods. They do have more community-driven development of mixed-use neighbourhoods, which here in New Zealand it’s like, “Let the landowner dictates how the city develops.”, which is crazy. It just doesn’t deliver what people need to live good lives. People need to be walking distance from schools, walking distance from public transport stops.
The big lie is they claim that this is all about choice—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s enough.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —rubbish. Rubbish. It is not about choice.
Simon Court: Mr Speaker, point of order. I don’t mean to interrupt the member, because she is quite economically coherent on most matters, but she’s just referred to members of the governing parties as liars. I object to that, it’s unparliamentary, it’s going to bring the House into disorder.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I appreciate that members might be feeling sensitive, but I’d said “The big lie”, not accusing someone of being a liar at all. “The big lie” is a more general thing about the idea that cars give independence and freedom.
SPEAKER: Yeah, well—
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It’s an expression.
SPEAKER: I think it’s a debating point. You’ve got 22 seconds left.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So people have not chosen this. This is something that benefits an overseas industry that sells motor vehicles and fossil fuels to us at high, high cost, that actually drains our country’s productivity, makes our air dirtier, our water dirtier, it’s the source of all the microplastics in the oceans, and it costs us a whole lot of money. The Greens have a better solution.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today’s first reading of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill is about fixing one of the biggest handbrakes on New Zealand’s growth: how hard it is to get infrastructure built when and where communities need it. The original Act came out of a rare moment of genuine innovation. A developer found a practical way to deliver the infrastructure for the Milldale development without being trapped by council debt limits or funding constraints. It should have set the standard for how we fund future growth. Instead the Act has barely been used. It’s been weighed down by process, bureaucracy, too many chances for delay or obstruction by those who don’t carry the cost of saying no. This bill removes those barriers so that more projects can get off the ground. It expands so you can use the Act. It improves viability of a wider range of infrastructure and it simplifies the levy and an approval process so the tool becomes practical instead of theoretical.
The bill widens access to the Act, extending it to new water organisations like Local Water Done Well and to transport projects covered by the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail. New Zealand has a massive backlog of infrastructure needed to support growth. If the people who benefit can pay through a levy, these projects can move sooner rather than waiting for councils’ balance sheets to catch up.
The bill also makes sure that developer-led proposals get a fair run. When developers meet statutory requirements, councils will be required to endorse them, instead of finding new ways to stall those projects. That certainty has been missing for far too long.
We also introduced levy deferrals, giving flexibility where affordability concerns arise, and better supporting use of the Act for cost recovery purposes. The current levy process is so complex it puts people off before they begin. This bill fixes that by enabling levy orders to be made directly on the terms of the levy proposal itself, removing duplication and simplifying the process for developing a recommendation report; simplifying mandatory considerations of the Minister of Housing, cutting paperwork in the evidence burden placed on applicants; removing the ministerial affordability assessment, where developers and all existing landowners agree to the proposal; removing the need for an infrastructure endorsement, where the infrastructure will not vest in a responsible authority, making the Act far more workable for developer-led and -owned assets. These remove real-world costs, time delays, and the fiction that currently kills the momentum that will actually get more homes delivered sooner.
The bill also provides several targeted fixes to the Act to make it usable on the ground. These include providing special purpose vehicles clear authority to begin recovery action if levies remain unpaid for more than four months, allowing infrastructure to be completed for up to two years before a levy proposal is submitted, because sometimes developers work much faster than the system they’re forced to work within, ensuring councils can recover reasonable administrative costs when providing endorsements on these proposals; refining the definition of “protected Māori land” so that relevant land can be identified from publicly available information, rather than forcing proposers to spend potentially months and a whole lot of money to identify records that are almost impossible to find.
The new changes will prevent double-dipping by ensuring levies and development contributions cannot fund the same infrastructure more than once, expanding how leviable land categories may be defined, including developed or undeveloped status, floor area, or categorising land at a fixed point in time. Together with minor and technical improvements, these changes finally make the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act a practical tool. They give developers, councils, and central government clearer rules, better incentives, and far fewer avenues for delay. Combined with the Government’s Going for Housing Growth programme, this bill helps build a system that actually supports flexible, demand-led growth instead of resisting it at every turn.
This bill cuts through obstacles and enables people who want to build to actually get on with building. That’s how we fix what matters for New Zealanders—more homes, more infrastructure where we need it, delivered without the bureaucratic drag that has kept this country back. I commend this bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is one of many initiatives being made by this Government to make it easier, cheaper, faster, and more certain to get things built and delivered in New Zealand. We have to raise our productivity; that is what, ultimately, this is all about. If we’re going to have a higher quality of living—a higher standard of living—and if we’re going to be able to deliver the public services that we want to deliver, we have to raise our productivity. It doesn’t grow on trees; we can’t borrow that living standard; we can’t borrow those services, as some in the Opposition benches seem to want us to do.
New Zealanders have been trying to deliver that higher productivity with a ball and chain wrapped around our collective ankles. This bill is part of reducing that barrier. Today, we’ll be talking about making consenting easier; we’re also talking here about making the financing and funding and delivering of infrastructure easier and cheaper. Industry and business know this; this Government knows this; I’m not quite sure if all of the Opposition know it. They keep on complaining about workers, particularly in the construction industry, leaving for Australia, and one of the things they don’t seem to realise is that every time we, in this Government, remove a barrier that helps more construction happen, that is helping to keep those people here in New Zealand.
It was a real delight to be on the West Coast recently to visit a number of mines and to see that there were a number of the people working in those mines who have come from Australia to work in New Zealand because we are providing employment opportunities in New Zealand—in this case, on the West Coast, which I know is a place very familiar to you, Mr Speaker. This bill is about helping to provide funding through making the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act (IFF) easier and less bureaucratic, as we’ve already heard. At the moment, it’s only being used in two places in New Zealand, and that obviously shows the barrier that there is there.
Two final things to say: the first is a note of caution. The bill’s general policy statement says that the IFF Act was introduced to help deliver infrastructure projects free from local authority funding and financing constraints. Well, I note that we’re also, as a Government, trying to make sure that we keep a lid on rates rises. What we don’t want to do is to see IFF being used as a way around rates rises and the limitations that there are on council raising money because there is a limitation on how much money they can take from their ratepayers, which we want to make sure there is a limitation on. The second one is that, as the Minister introduced this, he talked about growth paying for growth, and that’s a really, really, important concept. When we had the Infrastructure Commission in front of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee during Scrutiny Week, they told us, in answer to questions, that growth, at the moment, is paying for something between 30 and 50 percent of the costs of growth. That means growth is nowhere near paying for growth, and that means that the costs of that growth, at the moment, are landing on existing ratepayers, consumers, and taxpayers, and that’s something that needs to change.
I was surprised by the comments made by Julie Anne Genter in this debate, talking about greenfield development, and then, somehow, it’s a bad thing that that happens, and somehow linking it with the transport agency and KiwiRail. What this specifically does is it allows the possibility that the likes of the New Zealand Transport Agency and the likes of KiwiRail can say, “Look, we have built some infrastructure that allows some development to happen, and we are going to charge the beneficiaries of that development for some of that cost.” That is growth paying for growth; that’s been a hole in the system for a very, very long time. It’s a great thing that we move to fix that, and I look forward to this bill progressing. I commend it to the House.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, it’s time for us to get things built in this country—say yes to housing, yes to infrastructure, yes to renewable energy, and this bill is about providing the financing tools to do that. I commend it to the House.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. Earlier this morning, I had the privilege and the pleasure to attend the opening of 18 new homes, which will be owned by Pacific people, in Porirua East. What was really important about that project is that it was a project that spanned different Governments. In Budget 2020, $249 million was set aside for that particular project, with a commitment to $115 million over 10 years to build up to 300 new homes in Porirua East. What also accompanied it was a $132 million investment in the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, which cleaned up—basically fixed—the pipes in Porirua East so that we didn't have sewage going into the Porirua harbour whenever there were heavy rains. Effectively, if we hadn't fixed that pipe, about up to seven swimming pools of sewage could flow into the Porirua harbour.
Thankfully, through the work at the time, the Labour Government—I was the local MP—local iwi Ngāti Toa Rangatira, the Porirua City Council, and the Central Pacific Collective managed to, now, be in the process of actually building homes; built the homes; and, tomorrow, 18 new homeowners will actually be able to turn the key into their properties. What's important about that is it shows an element of bipartisanship, because, yes, the funding was done in 2022, the works had started in relation to that particular project, but what was really good—and I acknowledge the Minister, Dr Shane Reti, today, who attended that particular opening—I acknowledge them for not cancelling the project. That was a really important point: to both acknowledge that they didn't cancel it but, also, that it's actually continuing. I think acknowledgments are due where they are due.
And so I do want to acknowledge Minister Bishop as well. In his first reading speech, he spoke about how this particular piece of work—which ended up being the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020—had started under the previous Government, was continued by the Labour Government, came into an Act, and the Minister is bringing forward improvements to this particular bill. We do welcome improvements to this particular Act to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to be able to allow for infrastructure funding and financing. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for those particular comments.
I also acknowledge our infrastructure spokesperson, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. He spoke about the number of times that we have been approached by the infrastructure sector. I was the infrastructure spokesperson before the Hon Kieran McAnulty, and I have lost count of the number of sector leaders, organisations, construction firms, and engineering firms who approached me during that period, and still to this day, about pleading for a bipartisan approach when it comes to infrastructure. Infrastructure projects don't just get spades on the ground on day one. A lot of planning, a lot of processes need to happen, because we would not have been able to build 300 homes had we not fixed the pipes underneath the ground. That’s just a matter of form, particularly for a city like Porirua City, which was built for 6,000 and now has close to 70,000 people who live there. It's so important for infrastructure—for the sector—to have some certainty. So Labour is happy to support this bill through the first reading so that we can hear some submissions during the select committee phase. We, again, want to acknowledge the Minister for allowing the select committee phase to happen for such an important bill.
I do want to echo the concerns by Kieran McAnulty around the consultation for this. It's now by the past; however, my disappointment, really, is that the regulatory impact statement was finalised in November 2024. That's, like, a year ago—a year ago. Officials and Ministers could have kept consulting to finalise that regulatory impact statement, given that it's taken a year to get this bill to the House, to the point—well, we're basically hitting up a wall to Christmas; we’ve got, obviously, something big happening next year with an election. But, hopefully, through the select committee process, I do encourage the community to submit on this, and the particular sector.
My last concern, which I would just want to put on the record for officials, is just around eligible infrastructure—around community infrastructure. They're broadening the definition of that. Looking forward to seeing their advice when it comes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I commend this bill to the House.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, this Government is about getting things done, and it’s about getting growth to fund growth, and getting things done now. The communities, like Kerikeri, are sick and tired of paying too much for land because it’s taking too long to get things approved and it’s taking too long to get funding because councils say no. I commend this bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. As my colleagues have already indicated today, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill through to select committee.
It’s been already mentioned that the previous Government brought this bill into being. The focus there is on looking at alternative means to support growth in high-growth areas. Now, infrastructure is always a challenging issue for, I think, any council around the world and around the country—in New Zealand—as well.
I want to acknowledge the comments that my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds has just concluded, making acknowledgments where they are due—that is important. But I also think it’s important to indicate criticism where criticism is due. While this is a bill that seeks to try and speed up or free up the ability to fund some key pieces of infrastructure, we also know that in some communities—in many communities—there are pieces of infrastructure that, effectively, have been put on hold because the Government had put a bit of a stop to things. That is certainly something that we want to avoid and that is part of, I guess, the approach in the Labour Party supporting this bill through to select committee.
The Minister himself talked about the applicability or relativity of transport projects being brought into the fold around that; there’s no doubt in my mind that there are, for the future, a number of transport projects and transport pieces of infrastructure that are proposed. We do have a little bit of a concern around the full extent to which this would apply to transport projects—what specific projects. That’s not going to hold us back from supporting this to select committee but it does send a message to the Government that we will be interested, at select committee, in delving into the applicability of specified transport projects and what they might mean because there is a real risk that the costs for these projects could either directly or directly be shifted on to households. As Mr McAnulty indicated, the proposed rates cap from the Government—there are still a number of questions to be answered in that particular space, but we do have some concerns around how transport projects will play a role as part of this bill moving forward.
Likewise, we have some concerns around the local accountability. Again, I guess that’s also framed in the local democracy sort of view, as well: how there will be an understanding that some of those local democracy or democratic considerations are applied for any of these pieces of infrastructure when they’re considered in situ or in place.
I want to make some concluding comments around my concern around what appears to be the very limited nature of consultation that has previously been undertaken. Really, they are in two areas that I’d like to touch on. The regulatory impact statement’s Annex A actually very helpfully identifies a full list of all of those stakeholders that were consulted. The interesting thing is, I guess, not who’s on there, but who’s not on there. For example, Local Government New Zealand don’t seem to have been consulted. There is a massive role in terms of councils and the local government sector as to where this would play out. I note there are a number of councils listed there, most of them are from larger metro sort of areas, maybe that’s because of the high-growth capacity considerations that they might be placed with at the moment but, none the less, it’s important to ensure that we have a bit of a wider brief.
The other two are in the transport and water reform areas. I know that developers and some other stakeholders have been identified here but given that transportation is seen as a key avenue for which this bill would be applicable, I would have thought that outside of the developers there was an opportunity there to engage from those in that particular sector. The other is in relation to the proposed changes for Māori land. The Minister has very kindly tabled a legislative statement that outlines some of the changes to that, at paragraph 8. It would have been really helpful, I think, in terms of the officials’ preparation of the regulatory impact statement, being able to identify the fact that Māori landowners, iwi, and others would have been consulted as part of this process.
That really does lend itself, in our view, to ensuring that through select committee, those are the types of issues that are explored deeply to ensure that some of the concerns that we’ve identified can be mitigated and perhaps allayed. For now, we do support this bill through to select committee.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Oh, it's great to stand and speak to this bill, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. And as we've heard, there have only been two that have been implemented, despite it having some bipartisan support. So these are sensible amendments. They're pragmatic, which will be more enabling. I've got one example in the north end of Hamilton: Te Awa Lakes. They're literally on the bleeding edge of this stuff, and once they get this over the line, then they can unlock 2,500 homes. By virtue of their development, they can then unlock 25,000 homes, so I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Urgency
Urgency
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded to
the introduction and passing through all stages of the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill;
the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) and the Arms Bill;
the remaining stages of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill and the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill;
the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Crimes Amendment Bill and the Public Works Amendment Bill;
the second reading and committee stage of the Electoral Amendment Bill;
the passing through all stages of the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill;
the remaining stages of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill;
the recommittal and reconsideration in the committee of the whole House of the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill to consider Amendment Paper 472;
and the introduction of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill.
As I think most people know, the Government does not like moving urgency—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Ha, ha!
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —well, we don’t, but it is a necessary evil in some scenarios, and it is well justified in all of these cases.
The Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill is being introduced and passed today as part of the Government’s resource management changes to address resource consents that will expire before the enactment of the Government’s planning replacement regime, which will take effect, pending Environment Committee progress, mid next year.
The Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill is a Government priority to improve grocery sector competition and to add some finesses to the Fast-track regime, which is generally working well.
There’s a range of first readings that the Government is keen to send off to select committee so they can start their considerations this side of Christmas—the Arms Bill and the Emergency Management Bill (No 2), obviously.
The Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill is having its remaining stages passed before Christmas. There is some legally imposed time pressure on that to get that passed.
The Public Works Amendment Bill is another bill that we’d like to send to a select committee this side of Christmas.
The Electoral Amendment Bill has been well-signalled, and it’s important that these changes can be put in place for the next election, which will be at some point in 2026.
The Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is also being passed this week to allow the Minister of Climate Change more time to set an emissions target.
The Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill has, again, been well signalled, and the Government wishes to have its remaining stages passed this week so it can take effect early next year to make sure we can reduce compliance cost while ensuring we facilitate greater foreign investment into New Zealand.
The Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill—
Tangi Utikere: What’s wrong with that one?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —well, I think Mr Utikere knows what’s wrong with that one. The bill itself is fine—I think it’s actually widely supported—but, due to a snafu during the—
Tangi Utikere: A snafu?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —well, I think that’s the polite way of putting it—
Grant McCallum: Technical term.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —it’s a technical term. There was a snafu during the late-night voting on the bill. My understanding is that there was an amendment accepted from the member who’s in the chair currently that is not in line with Government intentions, so the intention is to send the bill back to the committee of the whole House stage for Amendment Paper 472, I think, so that we can fix up that little error, and, of course, we’ll get that into law probably next week, I would say.
The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation—yet another first reading we’d like to get away this side of Christmas.
The reality is that the New Zealand Parliament does not sit for very long, and we need these hours in order to advance Government business. It’s not something we do lightly, and something I try to avoid as much as possible.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Just every other week?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Ms Brooking, it’s a busy Government with a busy agenda, and I’d just point out to the member—I was going to say, “What goes around comes around”, but that’s too negative. All Governments use urgency, as the members well know. I see Sir Geoffrey Palmer was in the media this week saying that this Government was an abuser of urgency, which I found slightly rich from the man who put the House into urgency for roughly 20 percent of the time when he was Leader of the House before the 1987 to 1990 period, when he was Deputy Prime Minister, when that Government spent around 30 percent of its time in urgency—but, anyway, with those kind of little backhanders at Sir Geoffrey Palmer, I commend the urgency motion to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
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.
Bills
Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill
Introduction
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.
CLERK: Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill, introduction.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for first reading immediately.
First Reading
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I present a legislative statement for the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): 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 Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Today, the Government introduced the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. It’s a major milestone in building a modern resource management system or planning an environmental management system. Those bills are not having their first readings this week. We could have done that, but I think it’s worthwhile that those bills—they’re around 700 pages, I think, in total—sit on the Order Paper and members have a good chance to digest them. They are chunky pieces of work and I encourage members to have a read, and, no doubt, caucuses will wish to consider their positions on those bills.
Camilla Belich: Grateful.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that? Are you shaking your head already?
Camilla Belich: No, I said we’re grateful that we get to read it.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Right. Well—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I think there’s a legislative statement, isn’t it?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, I’m into my speech. So those bills are going to go to select committee, as I say. But until the new system is in place, there is quite a degree of uncertainty, which I think many members will have heard about around the community, around what happens in the interim. So this bill, the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill, aims to provide that certainty. So we do want to make sure that businesses and communities can continue to operate smoothly. At the moment, consent holders face an unnecessary burden. Many of them are required to renew resource consents under the current system, even though the new system will be in place; that will streamline processes. It’s our view that that is inefficient and unnecessary. So these are temporary yet urgent changes that will avoid uncertainty, stress, and cost.
So there are two key changes to the bill, and, actually, it’s a very short bill. In fact, it’s a five-clause mother; it’s a five-clause bill, so it’s a very short bill. So two key changes: first, it extends resource consents set to expire before the new system is in place, and it reinstates and extends recently expired consents where a replacement application has already been lodged. This is where people have a—their resource consents have expired. I forget the exact section of the Resource Management Act (RMA)—
Hon Andrew Hoggard: 124.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?
Hon Andrew Hoggard: 124.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: 124—there you go. Thank you, Minister Hoggard—124, where a replacement application has already been lodged, and it just makes sure that those recently expired consents can be reinstated and extended until December 2027, ensuring they fall within the general transition provisions of the new resource management legislation, which will include longer-term arrangements for all consents and benefit from select committee scrutiny.
So the bill imposes minimal costs. Consent holders do not need to take any action. If Parliament agrees to this bill, authorities will simply update the records, notify affected parties, and so the only cost is really just the process of Parliament passing the legislation, which of course I’m keen that Parliament do quickly. We are progressing it under urgency to give immediate certainty and avoid unnecessary expense during the transition. Thousands of consents expire every year, and every day that passes risks additional and unnecessary cost.
There are, I know, members of this Parliament who have been contacted by people who are quite worried about what—they’re welcoming of the new regime. They’re quite keen on resource management reform. In fact, they’re very keen on resource management reform, but that is a few months away. It’s a while—well, it’s not a while away, but it’s, you know, not tomorrow, if only that was true. But it will be sort of mid - next year, depending on progress through the Environment Committee, who I’m sure will do a good job. But there’s a bunch of people out there who are pretty worried about what happens in the interim. So this bill provides that certainty and that relief for them.
So it’s a practical solution to a temporary challenge and it reflects the Government’s commitment to a smooth transition. I won’t belabour the point, but there are provisions in the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which members, I’m sure, will want to consider in due course, that allow for quite a smooth transition as the bill is passed and into the transition phase between 2026 and 2029. But, in the interim, this provides some certainty for people and I think it will be widely welcomed in the community. Thank you, sir.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is the motion be agreed to.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very sad that we are once again in this House on an all-stages urgency bill, with a bill that we have seen only this afternoon. There is a departmental disclosure statement that we have just picked up off the Table now because in the Minister’s press release that came out this afternoon, the link did not work. But is it quick reading because it just says no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Has there been a regulatory impact statement? “NO.” Has there been a proper analysis of how many consents this will apply to? “NO.” No, no, no, no, no—that’s all we see in this report. We’re asking why this bill needs to be in all-stages urgency and how many consents it is going to affect, because we don’t get that in this departmental disclosure statement.
We’ve just heard from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. He has said that there’s no cost to this bill and it’s totally fine. What are the costs to the environment—that is the main and most important question that we will be traversing in the committee stage and during these speeches as we find out more about this bill. He has said that “Well, it’s very short.”, but that does not mean that it is not important, and so what are the costs to the environment?
We’ve heard that it means that consents that are due to lapse get to continue on, and surely that’s a fine thing. But the types of consents that we’re talking about here, I think—but I’m not entirely sure, because, of course, there’s been no analysis—are most likely to be consents that regional councils undertake or that they administer for discharges to water and for the taking of water, which relates to irrigation, it relates to hydro dams, and it relates to drinking water, and there are a whole lot of very important issues there. It is also for putting pollution into waterways—those are the sorts of things that you have consents for.
There are also air discharges. We know that we have problems with air quality in New Zealand. Just last week, in scrutiny week, I was asking the Ministry for the Environment what has happened with the national direction on air standards that our Government was working on over two years ago now, and this Government still hasn’t put out anything on it when we know that air quality affects our health. These are the important issues that the types of consents that are in this bill will relate to.
The coastal marine environment is also relevant. The Minister might like to spend some more time in his second reading speech describing the types of consents that he thinks will be affected by this bill.
Land use consents are ones that are administered by territorial authorities. You might need a land use consent to build a house in some particular zone or area. Once you’ve obtained that consent and if you don’t let it lapse and you undertake that activity, that type of consent stays, and so it is not relevant—which is my understanding, and the Minister is very welcome to correct me—to needing to roll over the consent.
I’m also interested in the point that the Minister about people being excited about his new regime and he was saying that it could have been sooner. I agree with the Minister that it could have been a lot sooner if he had reviewed the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act, rather than repealing them at about this time of year in 2023. That was two years ago. That work would have had significant economic benefits to our country and would have also improved the environment, and I’m worried that the people who are interested in Mr Bishop’s new bills are there because they think that they might be able to do worse for the environment. That is why they want this bill to be in place, and I would very much like the Minister to tell me in his second reading speech that I am quite wrong about that and to go into some detail about how it is so.
LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I was genuinely surprised when I saw this bill, and I want to put that on the record because Minister Bishop and Simon Court have been very—maybe “collaborative” would be too strong of a word, but they’ve involved us at some points along the way in the resource management (RM) development. I want to give them credit for that. What was really disappointing with this was not having any heads-up about it at all. That would have been a really basic thing to do, right? If this is so important and urgent to the transition, just let us at least know about it, right? Then we can actually understand it. The fact that we’ve just got this bill, literally an hour or two before it goes through all stages in urgency, is absolutely unacceptable and very, very disappointing. I think it’s a particularly disappointing point when we’re going into what will be such a substantive process ahead, where we’re actually trying to make this whole resource management system work and then we have this bill.
I’m thinking way back to another urgency when the Government—again under urgency—extended all coastal marine permits to 2050. That was unbelievable, but I thought, “Hey, that’s limited to that. That’s limited.” And now we have this, which applies to virtually all consents? I agree with my colleague Rachel Brooking; I would love to hear any kind of impact assessment—any kind of consideration that has been given to the impact of this bill—on extending virtually all consents to 2031. In the Government’s press release, one of the eight released—and they’ve done a great job of just completely swamping the media and the general public so that no one knows what the hell is going on—they say that this bill will ensure a smooth and fair transition to New Zealand’s new planning and environmental management system. We heard the Minister also say it will avoid uncertainty and stress. I just need to say “What bollocks” to that, because I wonder if it is fair to the many people across Aotearoa who literally cannot drink their water because consents operating in their local area are not up to scratch.
I wonder if it’s smooth and stress free for those communities across Aotearoa who, again, make that costly mistake of doing basic things like swimming in their local river or at their local beach and get sick, just like those six kids just last month in Canterbury who were hospitalised and the dozens of people who also suffered the effect of drinking-water contamination. This is, sadly, a reality across our country, and this Government seemingly has complete blinkers on when it comes to the very real impacts of this and the fact that blanket bills like this result in those impacts continuing. And when they continue like that, they don’t get better; they get worse. This is the irresponsible nature of a bill that’s coming through like this. It is estimated that, every year, between 18,000 and 100,000 New Zealanders get sick from drinking pathogen-contaminated water—every year—and up to 800,000, particularly those in our rural communities, could be exposed to unsafe levels of nitrogen in their drinking water. These are the actual implications of consents that are not up to scratch and that have adverse effects on our environment. Communities are left with the cost; they suffer the health impacts.
It’s completely unacceptable, and I would love to hear answers throughout this process, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the Green Party is absolutely against this abhorrent bill.
SIMON COURT (ACT): It was also a surprise to me that this was my call, as much as it was a surprise to Lan Pham that we actually do need a common-sense move—that’s what this bill is—to recognise that we must provide a smooth pathway for those holding existing consents, under the current Resource Management Act (RMA), to transition to the new planning system based on property rights, which Minister Bishop and I announced today. This bill that we’re debating now, the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill, is a simple extension of time for consents under the existing RMA to allow the new resource management reforms for the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill to pass into law, which the Minister and I intend to deliver by the middle of 2026.
This Government’s already implemented a plan stop, recognising it makes little sense to continue to spend ratepayer dollars developing plans that deal with a system that is soon to be replaced. This consent rollover legislation supports that. Thousands of people have RMA consents expiring over the next year, and without this bill, these people will be stuck confronting the eye-watering process and cost to renew them in what will soon become a legacy system. Today, we’re going to relieve the burden of everyone going through that painful process. However, recognising that some individuals may still want to pursue a new application or continue with their existing application, this bill provides choice to those who wish to continue under the RMA or wait to take advantage of the wonderful, enabling transitional provisions of the new system. I want to reiterate that these changes are needed to avoid wasted time, money, and effort that’s much better spent on gearing up for the new modern planning system that will deliver growth, affordable housing, and environmental improvements.
One clear example demonstrates its importance: up and down the country, people have been confronted with the excesses of the RMA we’ve so gotten used to. It’s reached absurd heights. In September, my parliamentary and ministerial colleagues Andrew Hoggard and David Seymour went to mid-Canterbury to visit a farmer by the name of David Clark. The Clarks had an A-grade environmental record that met all of their targets and 17 years of good compliance history, yet they found themselves faced with an estimated cost of anywhere between $60,000 to $300,000 to get a consent to continue operating their A-grade farm, and council were threatening to publicly notify their application, at great cost and time, unless they complied with exorbitant information requests out of all proportion to the risk council said they were trying to manage. It turns out the Clarks’ example is another canary in the coalmine, uncovering story after story we have of world-leading farmers in similar positions facing costs and delay that they can’t afford, which they would simply, if they faced those costs, have to pass them on to consumers and households. The Clarks represent a microcosm of farmers, up and down this country, facing tens of thousands of dollars to reconsent operations. In many cases, these farmers are some of the best conservationists themselves. David Seymour promised the Clarks he would come back to Wellington and ask how enforcement against these “walking zombie laws” that are the RMA could be stopped. Today, we’re delivering on that promise, fixing what matters for farmers and for so many more hanging out for this temporary relief.
Today, Minister Bishop and I have announced our plans to replace the RMA with a system based on property rights and clear environmental limits. Core elements of the new planning system are intended to apply as soon as that legislation gains Royal assent sometime after mid-2026, including a further transitional consenting framework that will immediately start to relieve some of the absurdity of the RMA. Against this backdrop, this bill is clearly a common-sense and compassionate move. It’s less than 1¼ pages. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. History, I think, will judge that this is a big week for the future of the New Zealand economy: a turning point, taking the blowtorch to red and green tape. This bill is relatively simple in its execution: a sensible streamlining of our planning provisions, an interim measure while our new Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms come in, and rolling over existing resource consents. The previous speaker, Simon Court, highlighted the Clarks—and I think many of the people on this side of the House will know the Clarks or have met with the Clarks and be very familiar with their scenario—but there are farmers up and down the country that have just been exasperated: thousands and tens of thousands of dollars and years in some cases, just trying to roll over existing status quo resource consents. That’s where New Zealand First has shown with agriculture, where we’ve been prepared to roll over those permits out to 2050. We actually think this is a pretty modest provision as we work into the overall RMA reform, but it is a sensible transition measure, so we just support it. It is a completely broken system as it stands. The bureaucratic pain needs to end. So we support this bill.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I stand to give a short reply to this because I’ve only had a short amount of time—I guess this is how it’s going to feel when communities are given no notice in a non-notification of changes, including consenting changes, that affect their iwi, their hapū, their communities that they have been protecting and fighting for forever.
The whole objective of this bill is to provide certainty, but it doesn’t. It’s meant to avoid unnecessary administrative burden and costs for consent holders during the transition to new legislation. Well, what about the communities affected by those consent holders? What is it doing to them? It isn’t providing certainty; in fact, what it’s doing is it’s reopening old pollution consents that many iwi and communities hoped were finally coming to an end, in the excuse of being transitional only. What we have here, sadly, is a Government that has decided that it will continue with the degrading of water, with the unsustainable extraction of our awa, as we see with Waikato, and it has had no respect at all for those communities that have been fighting for years and years, who live in the communities and know the strain that is happening within their very own taiao.
I think one of the words that we’ve sort of had to come to battles with is that this unjustifiably grandfathers in a number of resource consents. It will, effectively, lock mana whenua out of any opportunities to transparently challenge any existing consents. How is that providing certainty to anyone else but the polluter? What does it take for this Government to realise that bringing these things through urgency doesn’t provide certainty for anything other than people out there knowing that this Government has one objective, and that is to destroy the resources that have been meant to be kept for our future generations. We have seen many iwi and hapū, up to two generations, that have been fighting to make sure that some of these consents come to an end. They have opposed grandfathering. It is deeply, widely rejected by iwi, by communities, many who have experienced raupatu, because it rolls over rights of existing consent holders where they would usually have been required to reapply. Why are they being denied the community input, the iwi rights, that have been acknowledged here in Treaty settlements. Why is that now being denied? This has an impact on future generations. It is absolutely deplorable that it is being done through urgency, and many, as I said, are going to be so unfairly locked out of opportunities.
Let’s think about what those consenting entities look like, let’s name what kind of things they do. We have some of the worst, worst quality water in Aotearoa that has ever been seen in modern communities—the worst. We have polluting dischargers that are now being told, “You’re going to rollover.” There’s no accountability. “We’re so worried about you, you’re going to rollover because your transition is more important than the community’s transition, who deserve to be well. We’re going to have industrial emissions rolled over—industrial emissions rolled over. We’re going to see stormwater run-off rolled over; land use, poor land use, rolled over; coastal permits rolled over; marine and cultural structure rolled over without any accountability; and we’ve got infrastructure projects—because we know this is the Government of infrastructure—rolled over meaninglessly, despite the communities fighting for years and generations to make sure they’re accountable.
One of the things that we’ve talked about, and we saw this with—and I don’t know who this Minister is speaking to, but Waikato awa have been sitting there and talking about the protection of their awa. Auckland Council, we’ve got Fonterra, AFFCO—all their consents rolled over to extract and take out whatever they want. Til when? Til 2031. This Government has absolutely declared war on iwi and all of those communities who care about their—
Grant McCallum: What a load of rubbish.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Then go and ask them why they are all having to take this Government to court, because you refuse to listen and honour Te Tiriti and honour their settlements. This Government is doing nothing but shamelessly declaring war on all of those who care about their taiao. Kia ora rā.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, it's a real shame to hear, on the other side of the House, the Opposition members saying no, no, no, because on this side of the House, we say yes, yes, yes. The new Resource Management Act reforms are going to create a culture of “yes”, where we get things built in this country—infrastructure, housing, renewable energy. Look, we’re about backing rural New Zealand, backing our farmers, going for growth, and creating jobs and opportunities. I commend this bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s interesting, we’ve just heard a contribution from a Government member saying it’s all about “no, no, no, no, no”. And perhaps I’ll, just for the benefit of the member, indicate what that relates to in a moment. But I’m not surprised that she probably actually hasn’t had time to read the departmental disclosure statement herself because it’s only landed on the Table within the last half hour or so. So I think we can forgive the member for referring in that way because she probably hasn’t read the information herself.
For the benefit of the member, the “no, no, no, no, no, no, no” is in relation to part 2 of the departmental disclosure statement. And I won’t go through all of it, but I’ll just identify some of these questions to which the answer was no. The first one was: “Are there any publicly available inquiry review or evaluation reports that have been formed or relevant to the policy to the given effect by this bill?” No. A further one: “Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this bill?” No.
Now, there’s a little bit of a caveat with this and it talks about the fact that the urgency within which this legislation was prepared did not allow time for a regulatory impact statement (RIS) to be developed. Now, that might be OK in circumstances where there perhaps was not a lot of time, but these Resource Management Act reforms have been something that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and the Government have been working on for quite some time. So why is it now suddenly at this last moment towards the end of the year that the Minister has, under urgency, introduced this massive change?
Now, we all accept that there needs to be some consideration around transition provisions, but why is it that the Minister and Mr Court didn’t even foreshadow or think about the implications that the changes—that they are telling us are coming next week now—would actually lead to? And it’s because of the fact that, you know, the regulatory impact—we’ve just had a bill that preceded this that had a RIS. That’s fantastic. We are starting to see a common thread here from this Government when it comes to urgency, that a number of bills don’t have regulatory impact statements. But in this circumstance, where this has been in the pipeline for quite some time, why the Government is not prepared to actually have a RIS for this piece of legislation—going through all stages—is baffling. It really, really is.
When it talks about the impact analysis becoming available for any other aspects that the policy might be given effect to by this bill, there again is a no. Why? It talks about there being several thousands of consents that would have recently expired or are likely to expire in the next year or so based on the limited data that’s available. Now, it might be around half of those consents that would be captured as being due to expire. That’s what is contained in the departmental disclosure statement. But I would have thought, and I join with the Hon Rachel Brooking, that the Minister should be able to indicate how many numbers we’re talking about here. How many consents are we actually referring to? Yes, there are thousands of consents around the country that are active or are through a reconsideration or replication process, but how many are we talking about here?
Because the Minister also says that there isn’t going to be any cost associated with this apart from Parliament’s cost, but there will be costs associated with this. The reality is that the Minister needs to be able to provide to this House an understanding of the context and what that looks like, because it is pretty important.
When we are talking about consents, they are an ability to permit a particular course of action or activity, and so that does confer a special set of rights and responsibilities on those that hold those resource consents. What this bill will do, in haste, is actually extend the applicability of those consents for quite a period of time. Now, as I’ve said, I can understand why there might be, you know, an ability to turn one’s mind to the need for strong transitional provisions; I think anyone would accept that. What they actually look like, I think would be an important consideration. But I also think it would be helpful for transitional arrangements to actually be available to the public so that we can hear around what would work for them and what wouldn’t work for them.
The fact that this is a bill that is being rammed through Parliament, all stages under urgency, actually denies the opportunity for the Parliament and members of this House to hear from those that hold consents, those that don’t; those that administer the consenting process; those that might observe—whatever. So I think there are a number of questions that the Minister has an obligation to respond to. One that’s top of mind is actually: what is the total number of consents that would be impacted by this move? And we’ll continue to explore that.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recently attended a meeting in mid-Canterbury at the Lagmhor Westerfield Hall full of farming families who are facing an uncertain future, burdened down with cost and stress. The reason was the Resource Management Act and the consent process they were engaged in. We have a new bill that will be read next week which will help make this process a lot easier for them. This bill here actually allows them to get into that new process and remove some of that stress and uncertainty. I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill be now read a first 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 first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Second Reading
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity) on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: It gives me unexpected pleasure to be able to—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That is not an acceptable way of actually getting the attention.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I move, That the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me unexpected pleasure to be able to start the speaking for this. Look, this bill is a very urgent, time critical measure to support businesses and communities while we transition to a new, modern resource management system. The new system will deliver a more efficient consenting process. Until then, this bill provides certainty and avoids unnecessary cost for consent holders.
The bill makes two key changes. First, it extends resource consents set to expire before the new system is in place. Second, it reinstates and extends recently expired consents where a replacement application has already been lodged. This bill extends these consents until December 2027, aligning with the transition provisions for the new resource management legislation.
We’ve heard some talk around what is the proof. I have visited many farmers up and down this country over the last year and a bit. As Simon Court mentioned, myself and David Seymour visited with the Clarks. But it wasn’t just the Clarks I’ve visited. There have been numerous farmers who are under absolute stress and pressure—sitting around people’s kitchen tables with them nearly in tears over the cost that they’re expected to somehow manage to pay. We’re talking about, in some cases, over $200,000 for lawyers, for ecologists, for planners, for all of this sort of stuff to carry on farming. These are not intensive farming operations; these are often some of our most iconic extensive farming operations.
I recall one in Ashburton Lakes.
Hon Damien O’Connor: Rubbish.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, if you got off your motorbike and actually stopped occasionally, you might talk to some of these people. So Ashburton Lakes, the farms I visited there, very extensive properties. They are facing massive costs in terms of being able to re-consent their farms. They have a challenge where they’re expected to somehow reduce water that is coming out of the hills at 0.3 parts per million of nitrogen down to 1.6. As it goes through their farms, it’s going down to 0.22. These are very, very extensive operations, the stuff you see in Country Calendar. But these people are in absolute despair over the cost that they are facing. How on earth can they get the money off their bank manager to pay for this when, in fact, you know, this adds nothing to their profitability?
Also, another farmer, previous winner of the Balanced Farm Environment Awards, is going through exactly the same process—again, the costs potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is what we’re trying to avoid. As Simon said, these are “zombie laws” and these farmers are facing having to go through this incredibly expensive process for what? When they won’t need to do this in the new system most likely.
So this is why it is so important to give these farmers and people all up and down this country who do stuff some certainty about—they don’t need to waste money on a process that isn’t going to be around and they can just get on with producing stuff for this country and making us move forward. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I just want to pick up on a few things that that Minister said—noting, of course, that the many questions I asked in my first speech were not given any answer to in the Minister’s second reading speech. But I will comment on the “zombie laws”; that, somehow, the Resource Management Act is a zombie law, when it is a law that this Government brought back. There are many plans that many councils have been implementing for a long time that relate to these resource consents that Minister Hoggard was just talking about. Of course, that Minister—Minister Hoggard—has been very involved in changing aspects of the Resource Management Act to suit some of his constituents. Some of those changes have been made without advice, without regulatory impact statements, without some groups being able to submit on them.
This is consistent with that kind of lawmaking, and it is very poor lawmaking. But what he said— what I think is really interesting—is we're being told: “Oh, we need these transitional provisions because the new system is going to be so different. It's going to be so different that the farmers”—that that Minister was just talking about in terms of nitrate pollution—“are not going to have to worry any more.” He said: “most likely”. That is the quote: “most likely”. Of course, that Minister can provide no analysis on whether or not something is going to be most likely or not, and what it is that he is talking about—what are these consents?—because there has been no analysis.
We see that this little “no, no, no report” from this Government was dated 23 October 2025. It seems that some of this legislation was rushed—I'd like to give the other Minister, Chris Bishop, the benefit of the doubt on that, but, given that it's 25 October, it's not that rushed. There was certainly time to consult with other parties. There was certainly time to do more analysis and talk about the types of consents that would apply here, but that has not happened, so we are going to have to spend some time traversing those issues when we get to the committee stage.
But going back to this: what Minister Hoggard says is “most likely”. This is the real concern, now, that I have about this piece of legislation, and I've had no comfort for my concern from the speeches of the Government members, whereby many of them have referred to a man called John—
Grant McCallum: David.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —David Clark, rather. I have to say I know many David Clarks, but the point here is that the farmers are most likely not going to need consents under the new regime. That is not something that we've heard loudly from the Ministers who have been developing their new regime, which, they've said, in all their press releases, is going to improve the environment. So what is it: are we improving the environment or not? That is my very simple question that I would like the Minister to address in his contributions.
Now, we also heard from Minister Chris Bishop when he was doing the all-stages urgency motion that it was outrageous that Sir Geoffrey Palmer could condemn this Government for using urgency an awful lot. I want to point out to that Minister and anyone who happens to be listening that what this Government is doing is using all-stages urgency. That is, we walk up to this table to get the bill when the Minister starts speaking on it, we get the other documents that have not been made available on the internet, and then we have to go through reading after reading, committee stage, and then the third reading all at once. That is a very bad way to make law, whatever you think of the policy.
That is a huge problem with this bill. We do not know exactly what it will mean, because there has not been the analysis. We are not getting any clues from the other side of the House, except that they seem to think that it will “most likely” mean that people who currently need resource consents will not need them in the future as it relates to pollution of our waterways. That is the specific conversation that we've been listening to—
Grant McCallum: They’ll move in to the new Act, you know that.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Will there be environmental bottom lines in the new legislation? We've been told that there are going to be environmental bottom lines. Surely, then, if there is going to be pollution to waterways, that will still need some sort of consenting—so there is not the need for this transitional provision, and this bill that is coming before we've even discussed the new pieces of legislation. It's very unusual to be talking about the transition provisions for an Act that Labour repealed, that this Government brought back, and now this Government says it's going to repeal and replace with two other pieces of legislation, but we haven't debated those two other pieces of legislation yet. They have not even been sent to select committee; they were only made available this afternoon, but, somehow, we are talking about the transitional provisions of them already. It seems a very strange way to be doing things.
Of course, I don't know yet about the ability of councils to review these resource consents that will be rolled over. Again, we need to know how big some of these consents are, because whilst the members on the other side talk about a “family farmer”—I think it's what they were talking about—who is having some expense with the Resource Management Act, what about the big irrigators? What about the factories that still—some of them—discharge into rivers? What about our waste-water treatment plants that often have discharges into water bodies, as well? These are all important factors, and they do go to human health. We know that our rivers are polluted.
In the 2017 election, Labour campaigned very strongly on the ability to swim in rivers again, because, unfortunately, one of the problems with the Resource Management Act and why it hasn't worked is that those rivers have got more polluted, and that is a great stain on our country and all of us here. The last Government tried to address that with the essential freshwater package that included regulations and national direction, both in policy statement and environmental standards relating to water quality. The regional plans were to implement this, but what happened the day before the Otago Regional Council was going to implement it is that this Government, by an amendment at committee stage, put a stop to it. Then this Government, again, in an amendment to a different bill, put a stop to any councils getting ahead on any plans.
Then we have some muddled statements about what might happen to regional councils and the roles of mayors in them. But all of this goes back to the point that this Government does not have any aim of rivers that we can swim in. What this Government is interested in is enabling further pollution of those rivers so not only are they not swimmable but they will be unusable for many other uses. We know that this is a resource that people are interested in, because you can choose: are you going to use your water to pollute or are you going to use it to provide for mahinga kai?
Grant McCallum: Solutions are on the table, you know that.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: What is it that you’re going to do? Is it going to be used for a town drinking supply?
These are all arguments which mean that the resource consents around water, whilst they have a limit of being able to go for 35 years, many of them do not because of all the uncertainty in everything that goes into water. We know that with a changing climate, this only gets more pertinent. So I do not understand why it is that we want to roll over these issues if, as Grant McCallum was just saying on the other side, that Government does care about the quality of our water.
LAN PHAM (Green): It was very naive, actually—very naive. I really thought that Governments of any stripe had a duty of care to the environment. I think what is most disappointing about this bill is it can be easy—and I get it because I see this area around us and there’s lots of papers and artificial lights—to forget about the actual outcomes on the ground and the impact that decisions like this have on those places and those people. Particularly, having had some time as a regional councillor on Environment Canterbury, I know from first-hand experience that it’s those places like that tiny remaining dry land patch of vegetation and kōwhai that’s littered with indigenous species, that no one actually might know was that important. It’s processes like consent renewals that allow council or community or the landowners that are involved to actually understand the values that they hold on their own properties or in their communities. It’s those little patches of wetland where, yes, we absolutely have issues with identifying and delineating what can be grazed or not grazed and everything like that, but it’s blanket bills like this that make them valueless. It means, on the ground, the message is that these places don’t have value and that, actually, you can do whatever you need to get rid of them for a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and it’s that constant degradation and decline that is exactly how we’ve gotten into the situation where we have such isolated remnant pockets of biodiversity instead of mountains to sea corridors and where we have water quality that is so pervasively polluted across every environment that we have. Those are the realities that this bill completely misunderstands and just doesn’t seem to have any awareness of.
I really want Kiwis to know that this bill is so clearly demonstrating what the Government’s priorities are. Really, that’s about this big drum-up and this constant war on farming and all this kind of rhetoric to avoid any form of environmental improvement, no matter how small. A lot of these improvements that would have materialised if these consents were actually going through the processes that they would have, where they were needing to be renewed and new planning instruments and where the community has actually deliberated—over months, over years, and sometimes decades—to get better environmental improvements, better environmental laws, and better environmental standards and practices just suddenly don’t apply, and we’re going to just kick it down the road for another half decade. In the meantime, things will get worse. We will be losing more of these remnant patches of biodiversity, and our water quality will be declining because there’s not that direction and drive to actually improve the environment, and the actual direction and drive, which would mean the very investment in innovation and improvement that we so desperately need in this country, is not there. It’s about more delay and more kicking the can down the road, and that is hugely disappointing.
I wanted also to pick up on the realities of just some of the environmental aspects which will be affected by this bill being rushed through under urgency tonight. We have a network of over a thousand groundwater monitoring sites, and we know that 12 percent of those failed to meet the New Zealand drinking water standard for nitrates on at least one occasion over the last five years. Now, what that tells us is that these issues are pervasive and we actually need tangible solutions to address them. We also know that over 45 percent of our nation’s total river length was not suitable for swimming between 2016 and 2020. You hear these stats, and it’s like, “Oh, yeah”, but we know, every summer, that the places where we used to swim and enjoy safely—people can’t take their families there anymore, and they don’t, and it’s really, really sad. It’s exactly because of bills like this, which is how we’ve got there. I think the disappointing thing is this next phase of this resource management changes, and these two new bills, in theory, could change that. Yet, here, we’re locking in these consents again—blanket extensions out to 2027 or even, like the press release says, “Based on current expectations, this means most consents will be extended to 2031.” Where is that going to get the country? It’s going to take us backwards.
It’s really extremely disappointing, particularly as someone who has been involved in this area for a long time and has seen a whole heap of delay. I’ll tell you what, as well: there’s a lot of fantastic landowners, particularly farmers, who are doing the right thing, and I want to acknowledge them, and I want to acknowledge the councils, particularly the council staff, who know their communities and their environments like the back of their hand. They know the disappointing and hugely damaging impact that this will have. We’re talking about consents that could be coming up for renewal that haven’t had, ever, environmental standards or conditions put on them, and, now, we’re pushing it out another half decade. That is completely unacceptable. I think what this Government has really misread with this is that Kiwis care, especially going into summer when we are so much more connected to our natural environment, we’re out there with our picnics, we’re camping, we’re swimming, and we’re fishing, much more than earlier in the year. I hope Kiwis understand what this Government is doing tonight and are absolutely preparing themselves to send a very clear message that this is not the country that they want for our future, because it’s exactly what the Green Party feels about this.
I think the really unjust part of this, as well, is the fact that particularly iwi and hapū are often invited in when these consent renewals come up—these aren’t necessarily just your minor consents; these are serious consents with actual implications—and they will no longer be able to feed into this reconsenting process. Just like many other things that this Government are doing, it just means less community voice and less great outcomes. When it comes to the environment, that’s just, particularly, disappointing. It’s taking decision-making power away from communities when they’ve spent so much time and so much money on these. The Government go on about how they hate wasteful spending and all that, and yet they’re scrapping all the things that communities have put in place. This was the outcome of it; the plans and the rules and the processes were the outcome of it. This is terrible. We don’t like it.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Well, there’s been quite a lot of, I would say, unwarranted anger, particularly from the member Lan Pham, who just resumed her seat. The reality is that, in any new system, there has to be a transition. What we’re doing is going from the Resource Management Act (RMA), which has been the law of the land since 1991, through to a new system. Clearly, that is going to be challenging. There’s no way of sugar-coating that. We have an existing regime, and there’s going to be a new regime, and the new regime will be better, but in the meantime there’s going to be quite a process. It’s going to result in the fundamental change to plans, to national direction, to district plans, to environmental plans—we’re going to have spatial plans. There’s an enormous amount of work to do. Frankly, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, the bills we’ve just introduced are the start. It has been stressful enough getting the bills ready, but in the next three years there is an enormous amount of work to do.
In the meantime, as many of my colleagues have said, there’s a whole bunch of people out there saying, “Well, hang on, what does this all mean for me?” One thing Parliament can do in those circumstances is say, “You’re all good for the next two years”, which is what this bill does. There’s quite a lot of stuff from the other side about consents and the environment. We get all that and acknowledge concerns around that, and there’s an ability through the actual bills—the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—to have a debate about that and make sure the transition is effective and done in a smooth and sequenced way. We’re happy to have a debate about that, because it is difficult to get the exact sequence right and get the transitions right. We’re very happy to engage and have a debate about that, but in the meantime, as colleagues have said, there is a bunch of people who have applied for consent renewals and have had consents that have recently expired. Frankly, there’s a bunch of people being farted around by regional councils, who are putting them through hell.
Grant McCallum: Is that a technical term?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s not a technical term, but it’s certainly accurate, and the Government does not wish that to happen.
It’s not a long list; it’s not a 50-year extension or out to 2030, or anything like that, as others have said. It’s a two-year consent extension for a narrow class of consents, and Rachel Brooking said before, “How many?” Well, the honest answer is that we don’t know, because, again, that’s part of the problem with the RMA: we don’t actually know, because there’s no centralised, accurate monitor or level of information around all this stuff. It’s all done at a devolved, regional level. That’s, again, part of the problem. In the new system, we’ll have a digital e-plan for the entire country and a digital backend, where everyone uses the same kinds of standards and the same technology to port into. We’re going to know far more in central government around what’s happening at a local level. Decisions will be made locally, but we’ll know far more in central government. That’s a good thing, but that’s all coming. That’s one of the reasons why we need to move to the new system. We don’t know exactly how many consents it’ll be. It’ll be, probably, a couple of thousand, roughly, I’m advised.
It’s a two-year extension, from now through to December 2027. Literally, that’s it; that’s all the bill does. Despite all the heat and noise, that’s it. It’s a two-year extension. It’s a five-clause bill. That’s all it is. It’s a temporary transitional measure as part of the Government’s resource management reforms. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill. This is like putting the presents under the Christmas tree: we are setting up New Zealand with this new Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement legislation, but, first, we’ve got to put this in place. It’s a two-year extension, out to 31 December 2027. It gives some certainty, to people that are in the process under the old RMA that we know is broken, that this Government is going to fix up. We also know the costs to those people are overwhelming. Why go through a process when the Government is going to change the legislation, change the RMA for something better? I commend this bill to the House.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you. I rise to oppose this bill, and it’s a pattern: it’s imposing things, without discussion, on local government.
I want to say a few things about e-plans and the Resource Management Act (RMA). Plenty of councils, including the Wellington City Council, already have an e-plan; this isn’t some brave new world that this Government’s bringing in. In fact, if this Government hadn’t wasted everybody’s time repealing the two bills that the last Government put in place, urban planning and environment, maybe they could have modified them, maybe we could have had some intelligent discussion with Local Government New Zealand, with Taituarā, with iwi. But, no, bang! Out of the blue—just how this Government wants to centralise decision making about resources.
One of the things that I would like to highlight in our opposition to this bill is the idea that consents would necessarily go for 35 years after the date the consent commenced. If that relates to water, some of our aquifers are changing very rapidly. Many of our awa are terribly over-allocated, and quite often that has not been allocated either on good environmental grounds or on what is the best and highest economic use. Is it going for dairying? Is it going for manufacturing? Is it going for orchards? Are they as efficient as they could be, or did they just happen to be the ones that got in first? So I don’t agree with just rolling over for 35 years. I understand that there has to be some transition.
I would like to say that in the new or maybe rehashed resource management planning—that, as I say, the previous Government actually made some significant improvements to the RMA. But oh no! You couldn’t say anything that the previous Government had done was OK. You just had to throw that out and bring the changes in, rather than working with the people that are most concerned. Going from—there are possibly too many plans, but going to 17 plans is going to be quite hard for local councils and local people, local iwi, local environmental groups to deal with. For example, in the Wairarapa, the reforms mean going from a perfectly good combined plan—so you’ve got three councils covering a huge geographic area, but not many people. The Wairarapa combined district plan was three councils working together. Now what’s going to happen? It’s going to be thrown out in favour of a whole-of-Wellington-region plan. That will mean that Mayors Little, Baker, Zee, and Laban will have more power over what happens in the Wairarapa than Mayors Cretney, Johnson, and Wilde. That is not fair on the Wairarapa people.
This very short notice bill, with its reinstatements and extensions, is bad lawmaking. It’s brought in under urgency—again—without offering the opportunity for people to say, “Should it be a 15 years extension? Should it be 35 years extension?” Why are you so scared of listening to what people think? Or is it because the last few bills you put out have had anywhere between 80 percent against them and 95 percent against them in the submissions. So I don’t think that this is going to help our resource management one little bit. The Green Party opposes this rushed legislation.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the call, can I just remind the member not to bring the Speaker into your debate as much as you do.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a challenge for the members opposite who are wondering about the “why”: why we are doing this. I challenge them to go down and talk and meet with the farming communities and the farming families—for example, in Canterbury, who are stressed out in dealing with this expensive, elongated consenting process. They’ve got no idea where their future may lie. That is why we’re doing this. Go down and actually talk to them and see what they have to say. I commend this bill.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you, and I’d like to follow on from that speaker as to why this is happening. This is a desperate bill under urgency, which would suggest that perhaps it's not the smartest piece of legislation and it may not be the most well thought through.
The reality is that this Government—the farmer’s Government, to refer to the member’s speech—has mucked around for over two years, or two years thereabouts, saying they're going to promise Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms, and they've taken too long, and this piece of legislation is necessary because, yes, there are consents that are up for renewal under the normal process.
There's no regulatory impact statement, there's no select committee scrutiny, and indeed, as I read through this piece of legislation, it seems quite confusing—quite confusing. So I'm not sure that the Minister has actually clarified anything in this area. I go to the Associate Minister of Agriculture, Mark Patterson, who got up and spoke about this, and said that this is going to give farmers certainty. Well, it's not, not at all, particularly if he misleads the House by saying that Clark’s farm is not intensive. It's one of the best—I'd suggest—cropping farms that I have ever visited. A highly intensive, probably—hopefully profitable, although the industry is going through some challenges at the moment, and one that does require a consent. Now I'm not aware of the details or the costs other than in the area of mid-Canterbury where that farm is located, there are a number of environmental issues. Lake Hood is toxic or goes through periods of high toxicity and people haven't quite worked out why that is the case. If you go further down into South Canterbury, we have the Waimate water supply, which is toxic as well, and so people are scratching their heads.
The Associate Minister also misled the House in saying that the Ashburton Lakes were not affected by any level of intensification. I've been up there a number of times. Some of the properties have been through 10-year review. What has happened is some of the high country has been retired and the farmers have concentrated on the lower, flatter areas, and most of them are very good farmers, but they have intensified, and these are shallow lakes that unfortunately are seeing high levels—
Joseph Mooney: Point of order.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just give me a chance. I’m not taking the point of order.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: So these lakes are shallow and the nitrate levels and some of the turbidity issues and that are increasing, and the council, because the lakes belong to everyone is forced to take a look at this.
What is most important in this whole discussion and debate is that we are honest and we face up to the challenges that we have as a country. We hear from the Ministers and from the Government and coalition partners that they have resource management reform focused on property rights. While property rights are interesting, they are not just a piece of land. In fact, they are rights that accrue to each and every New Zealander. And so when we talk about protecting property rights, the members on that side of the House have to appreciate the fact that that is also protecting the rights of New Zealanders, not just those who are lucky enough to own land. And while we have, of course, committed to reform of RMA, in fact, we had a process that arguably will probably mirror much of what the Government's going to table in the next couple of days from what we see, we have to acknowledge that if the Government's reforms are focused on property rights, it's going to create a lot of tension, a lot of debate, and a lot of dispute. And if we think that it's going to magically remove the costs of continuing to operate in an evolving environment, then we're kidding ourselves.
I'd suggest that the council costs might be reduced temporarily, but the cost of lawyers is going to go up as we move through a judicial process to work out whose property rights are more important, a landowners or their adjoining neighbour or the wider public or the property rights that accrue to environmental protection or environmental integrity.
There's a lot to work through and what concerns me with this particular piece of legislation is it's hastily put together, it's not got any regulatory impact statement, it's not had any proper assessment. I guarantee that there'll be provisions in this bill that will be faulty. In the absence of any proper select committee process, even if it'd been a short one, means that we'll pass a faulty piece of legislation that the Government will have to hastily change during or after it brings in its major reforms.
It is the reality, thankfully, that as time progresses, so too does knowledge. So our information and our analysis of some of the impacts of what we do as humans on the environment evolves. And as we learn more, we must—we hope—implement better practice. And most farmers in this country have done so over the last 150 years. But we were doing a lot of things even 20 years ago that we now consider abhorrent—bobby calves, cow's tails. We're working through a practice on tailing for lambs, protection of waterways, protection of biodiversity. All of these things now are more important, and successive Governments have altered legislation to take on board that knowledge. But if we just bury our heads in the sand like a bunch of Neanderthals and think that we know it all now and what we do today, these consents—which is what we're referring to in this piece of legislation—are appropriate for another 35 years; let's just roll them over and not take on board or take into account the impacts.
Can I say that it is important that we take on board the knowledge that we have and the assumption that just rolling over consents and moving into another regime of property rights or where property rights are paramount, I suggest will result in a terrible outcome down the track. I am perhaps looking ahead, making some assumptions about the changes to the Resource Management Act that we'll see, I'm not sure, maybe next year or not. But the rollover of these consents without any possible adjustment to take on board the impacts of what we're doing is irresponsible—is irresponsible.
Some of these consents are going through a process of renewal. There'll be quite a bit of money spent on them already—
Grant McCallum: Wasted.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Not wasted at all. Say you're in the Waimate area where you get water from that area, you may be stuck—say, Glenavy; I was down there quite a bit because that was where the outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis was. We moved to protect the people who were farming in Glenavy. The reality is that actually we have seen a lot of dairy investment, and that's great. We've seen some impact on water quality to the point where people sourcing their water from the Waimate water supply are being advised not to drink it.
It is essential that we move as quickly as possible to adjust consents and if there are any consents going through the process at the moment, just to roll them over and not take on board that wisdom is irresponsible. That's why we have concerns about the passage of this legislation and that the direction of this Government is taking won't offer certainty to farmers because the reality of some of this we cannot ignore—we cannot ignore.
So what we would like to do, and would have done through a select committee process, is make sure that the changes here are sustainable and enduring. This bill is a short term, desperate piece of legislation under urgency that is not being scrutinised by this Parliament in the way that it should be. And if farmers are thinking this offers certainty, then they should just take some careful advice from people around them because there's emerging knowledge and practice that must be adjusted to move into tomorrow's world of sustainable farming to ensure that their investments are indeed protected.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just before I take the next call, can I give some careful advice to the member who's just resumed his seat about claims of members deliberately misleading the House. I draw your attention to Speakers’ Ruling 47/4.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Point of order. Look, I appreciate the point you made. I didn't say deliberately at all. I said it was misleading because it wasn't actually true to facts, but I take your advice.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): This bill is about supporting our farmers to farm and our growers to grow. Horticulture exports and red meat exports have hit record levels in Hawke’s Bay, and this happened through reducing bureaucracy, enabling our growers to grow, and enabling our farmers to farm. We need certainty for those consents for our growers, and that is what this bill is about. I commend it to the House.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. From the heckles from members opposite, one would think that their view is that this is a transitional bill and a short-term bill and that therefore it is OK to pass it under all stages in urgency, with us not having seen the bill until it was almost meant to be debated at first reading. This is a second reading debate. We would generally be talking about what the submitters had said through a select committee process, but, of course, we’re here under urgency for all stages of this bill, and so we can’t really discuss what submitters have said.
This is a bill that isn’t going to a select committee process, not even a short one, and, as Sir Geoffrey Palmer has said quite recently, in fact, this is a pattern. This is a Government that is passing way too many bills in a way that circumvents public scrutiny. It is allowing the bills to skip multiple stages and public consultation, and I don’t really see the necessity for this level of secrecy with this bill—I mean, to the point that we didn’t even know what the bill was that we were going to be debating in the House today. The link to the departmental disclosure statement in the bill wasn’t even working until we started discussing or debating this bill in the House. This is incredibly shambolic. This is a shambolic Government—and I’ll get to that point in a minute—because they didn’t need to put in place this transitional bill in the first place.
This is bad lawmaking. It was very clear in the departmental disclosure statement, once we got hold of it, that the lack of analysis is because this is a rushed piece of legislation. Minister Bishop has said previously that the fact that the Government doesn’t know how many consents this will refer to is because of the lack of information that is available in the system, but the disclosure statement is very clear that there is no analysis on the size of the potential costs or benefits of this piece of legislation, and that’s because of the urgent time frame for preparing this legislation. It has been constrained, and broader analysis of this bill is therefore constrained, as well.
It’s just really shoddy lawmaking again from this Government, and the fact is that they had two years to actually come up with their resource management reform. The fact is that they repealed Labour’s Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act back in December 2023—a good two years ago—and they have spent that time up to now to come up with two separate bills of their own where, largely, the difference is their ideological emphasis on property rights. Because they’ve taken all that time to come up with this, now they have to push through this rushed piece of legislation in order to provide transition—
Hon Member: Rushed, or too much?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —and, as they say, some sort of certainty. Yes, it’s rushed because you wasted all that time that you’ve had in Government, and therefore now you’re going to have to rush through with this piece of legislation.
As environmental NGOs have pointed out, there are concerns. There are concerns when it comes to having blanket consent extensions, and so as much as members opposite want to say until they’re blue in the face that there is really nothing to see here, that it is just short term, that it is just transitional, and that it is just about certainty, it is not, because having blanket consent extensions could raise a number of issues. It could pose serious risks to water quality, to biodiversity, and to marine biodiversity.
What they’re really doing is locking in outdated conditions where they have the opportunity to make progressive change, but of course they have chosen not to do that. By putting in place blanket extensions, what they are doing is preventing updates that could reflect progress when it comes to new science, when it comes to the impact of climate change on biodiversity, and when it comes to changing environmental conditions.
There were options that this Government had. Instead of having blanket extensions, they could have looked at, for example, having a risk-based review. They could have looked at progressing low-risk consents very quickly. They could have looked at accelerating even those that had significant concerns by still putting in place some sort of a review period. They could have looked at having shorter extension periods, as well. But they have chosen to do none of that. They have chosen instead to go with the blanket extensions, which will continue the war that they have been waging on the environment.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. Katie Nimon—welcome back to the House.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a day to come back to the House—it’s Resource Management Act (RMA) day. I’m thrilled to be here. It’s almost as if the Opposition is opposed to a productive economy, because that is what we are hearing from their mouths. Actually, it’s almost as if they want councils to have more work because, ultimately, this is all about reducing the workload for councils, giving them certainty, giving landowners certainty, and consent rollovers that are giving us the necessary time and the necessary certainty to get the very important RMA and planning reform under way and across the line. That is what this is about; let us not forget. I commend this bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you. I didn’t expect to get to second reading on this bill so quickly, but, then again, many of us didn’t expect we’d be in urgency for this bill. I want to also acknowledge the member who’s just returned to her seat and welcome her back to the House. It was a great opportunity where she could have actually sort of elaborated a wee bit on some of the issues that she thought were being expressed in the Parliament.
Grant McCallum: Couldn’t wait to hear your contribution.
TANGI UTIKERE: Sorry, what’s that?
Joseph Mooney: Two-year extension job done.
TANGI UTIKERE: Oh, right. OK, well, we’ll see about that.
Now, we’re still yet to hear from—the Minister talked about, yes, it’s still unknown as to how many consents we’d be talking about here. But the fundamental concern, of course, is that every consent does provide an opportunity for consent holders to undertake an activity—an activity that has been assessed and an activity that has been considered with conditions to be above board. What this is seeking to do is to basically roll over a significant number of consents, regardless of any change in the operating environment, regardless of any consideration to what might be in the immediate vicinity. As we know, in any sort of environmental aspect, there will be changes, and for consents that have been in place for a number of years, on face value you might say, “Oh, well, an extra two years or three years or four years or whatever it might be is a small percentage of the lifetime of the actual consent. But the receiving environment or the operating environment could be quite different.” That very much is a concern.
It is a light bill, but it has significant implications. This is the fundamental issue that we have a concern around in terms of the House or the Government utilising the House’s time and urgency to effectively ram these changes through. Again, it is a transitional measure, but why was the Government not prepared to have things in place? They’ve got two other bills that have already been introduced. They knew this change was coming. Why is it that the changes that this bill is seeking to effectively fast track was not foreshadowed as part of the Government’s consideration in that space?
The only information that we have in front of us, apart from the bill, is the departmental disclosure statement (DDS). There is no regulatory impact statement, and I’ve covered that, so I don’t intend to go through it. But there are a number of noes that are contained within the DDS, but there is actually one yes, and the yes pertains to retrospectivity and whether this bill affects the rights, freedoms, or imposes obligations retrospectively. It says yes, it does. So any moment that there is an imposition, whether it be retrospective or not, on the ability for someone to exercise their rights or their freedoms, does raise some questions. That’s exactly why the Resource Management Act—RMA—system, in terms of these consents that have been approved and will be rolled over, would have been at the time considered alongside the scope of different aspects, whether it’s in a regional district plan around what could or couldn’t be done. So that is a legitimate point that needs to be brought into this consideration as well.
The other thing of interest is that this—and the reason why I’m relying on the DDS is because, as my colleague the Hon Priyanka Radhakrishnan had said, at this point in the process, we would have actually been talking about what the community had to say about this, what the views were of consent holders about what this impact would mean for them, if anything. Now, they might have been quite happy with that. There might be others that think, actually, no, there was a chance to pursue this quite differently. Because we don’t have that in front of the Parliament or in front of the House, we can really only rely on what it is that Government members and the Minister himself have actually provided in terms of contributions, and they have been, to be fair, fairly sparse up to this point. There is an opportunity for them to change that and to change tact to provide a bit more information and context rather than saying, “Well, we’re here to roll this over and commend the bill.” Our job is to ensure that the legislation passing through this Parliament is consistent with some of the obligations and concerns that would be expressed by the communities that we all represent.
So when I look at page 6 of the DDS, there is a very clear indication around the consistency with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Of interest, it says that extending consents without engaging Māori raises Treaty implications as the Crown is generally obliged to consult on proposals affecting Māori interest. So, automatically, this is a Government that is not prepared to lend any weight in that particular space. However, it says, to address this, the Minister intends to inform Māori groups about the proposal.
Well, how rude is that? Not going to engage; going to inform Māori groups about the proposal. Well, he’ll be doing it within the next 24 hours, perhaps, as this has been introduced, first reading, currently on second reading. Who knows when this will end? But I just think this is just poor process. It is poor process when their own departmental disclosure statement indicates that, actually, don’t worry, we’ll get around that. The Minister will address it by informing Māori groups. I think that is a sham in terms of the way in which the partnership with Māori is being reflected in the context of this particular bill.
The other sort of aspect here is the fact that this is not being subject to the normal scrutiny, which means that it leaves the Parliament without a very clear or firm or deep understanding of the evidence that exists around the cost that this change would lead to. Now, it might be that the costs that would be borne, and the Minister believes that there is no costs associated with this, except the costs of the time of the Parliament—maybe we should rack that up to see how much that actually costs, how much, you know, the Government is prepared to spend our taxpayers’ money on urgency, because it’s a bit of a common theme at the moment. But where those costs actually fall—and with that I think there will be some unintended consequences.
But there needs to be analysis as to what this would cost and who would actually carry those costs. Because if it’s actually going to be that these consents are going to be rolled over for a period of time, I’m sure that everyone expects that there would still be a monitoring opportunity for councils and territorial authorities to still undertake. Or is it the Government’s expectation that they’re going to roll over these consents, and only for rolled-over consents, those consents and the operations would not be subject to any ongoing monitoring or evaluation? Because if there is monitoring and evaluation, there will be a cost associated with that. If it’s expected that local government as a sector and therefore councils and therefore households through rates are going to bear those costs, then that is something that the Government is quite happy to do. Now, that might be the position, but simply saying that there are no costs associated with this change I think is a little bit far from the bullseye in terms of where things need to land.
The lack of consultation with iwi, with local government, with stakeholders in the environmental and in the development space—I mean, this would be an opportunity for them to feed into this process. Alongside the fact that these are significant changes in terms of time, we are talking about thousands upon thousands of consents that would be an authorisation to continue activities, with conditions or without, where there has been no analysis as to what the future implications might be. If a receiving environment has changed to the extent where, actually, the nature of that activity is significantly compromised or the impact or the effect on the environment of the receiving environment is going to be so different, surely that should be subject to some form of assessment. What this bill is doing is basically preventing that opportunity by doing a blanket rollover opportunity.
I support the comments that have been expressed by the Hon Priyanka Radhakrishnan, in saying that there are other options here. The transition period could be for a shorter period of time. There could be some other ways in which transition could be given effect to. I think that these transitional provisions could be dealt with in a way where councils would be able to engage with consent holders or they’d be able to approach the renewal of consents effectively on a case by case basis. There might be, actually, a suite of consents that would fall within some form of identifying feature where that was not so much of an issue. But simply saying, “Well, we’re just going to roll all of them over”, without any consideration as to changes in the environment or operations over that period of time, I think is a very, very dangerous thing. It’s not to say that it shouldn’t happen in terms of the extension of a consent, because I think we accept that there needs to be some form of transitional phasing, but this sort of blanket approach that the Government seems to want to take under urgency is one that I think is dangerous and not the way to go.
Again, I think it’s difficult given that we haven’t had an opportunity to engage with the public over this. I don’t think many members in this House will think that this is a good use of urgency given this has been well signalled by the Government. We will continue to oppose it.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill. Whilst I, obviously, strongly disagree with the previous speaker, this is simply a pragmatic bill while the most significant piece of legislation in a generation rolls through the House. It offers a patch-up that enables smooth continuity for our farming community and those consent holders. I’m pleased to commend it to the House.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make the final speech on this bill. This is a simple bill which extends consents up to two years. I would invite other members who don’t understand the point to get reading-comprehension lessons. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) 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 (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill.
In Committee
Clause 1 Title
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill. We come to clause 1, which is the debate on the “Title” clause. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s unusual in the committee to go with the title first, but it is all in one part, so I understand that. The title is: “This Act is the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act”. What I’m interested in, and will ask the Minister questions about as we go through this bill, is the limitation of the duration of the consents. Because, on first look, you look at this bill and you see “35 years” is mentioned at one point but then we see this date of “31 December 2027” throughout the clauses of the bill on the next page. So if he could confirm that the duration of the consents is just for those two years and if, in fact, it would be clearer for the title to be something along the lines of: “This Act is the Resource Management”—rather than “(Duration of Consents)” it would probably be better to be: “(Extension of Consents for a Maximum of Two Years)” or “(Extension of Consents to 31 December 2027)”.
If you could comment on that, because this issue of that time frame and it being limited to the two years—we’ll get to it when we’re on to clause 5, but it is relevant for the title. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I think the title of the bill is reasonably reflective of its content, and if it was as long as the member is suggesting, it would be the same length as the entire rest of the bill.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to ask the Minister for Land Information some questions about clause 1. I note that it is the tradition in this committee that clause 1 is a wide-ranging debate for members—especially in this context, where we are debating this in all-stages urgency, it is right that we would be able to ask some questions about the purpose of this bill in this part. But can I start with some amendments to the title. I have proposed to the Minister four or five, which will be coming to him soon, I hope we can debate each of those and that he’ll have a chance to see them. Broadly, they relate to the idea that this is a transitional and savings set of provisions in this bill. Government members have had that in their speech notes today; I would agree with them, but not for the reasons they suggest.
My questions to the Minister are around including in the title of this bill that this is specifically around transitions and savings that are related to the Government’s ministerial directions that relate to planning changes. Madam Chair, if you’ll allow me, when I’m making these points, I’m thinking about, for example, the changes that are allowed by clause 5 of the Minister’s changes, new section 123C. The purpose of those is to save those resource consents that existed before ministerial directions changed planning changes, as they were in effect, and we will debate those later, but for the Minister’s information, I’ll be asking him about the interplay between Plan Change (PC) 78 and PC 120.
Given that we think that there is a reason why these transition and savings provisions are useful, they provide natural justice to those people who were impacted when PC120 came into effect, it is right that they might have some transitional and savings provisions. But why, then, weren’t the transitional and savings provisions provided for in legislation before those rights were extinguished? Why are we back in this committee looking at transitional and savings provisions, once those right holders that did have rights—in this case, resource consents for activities that were relying on the medium density residential standards and have now been distinguished or otherwise, and we’ll debate that in that part. But why are we now creating transitional and savings provisions? This was something that the Government members themselves pointed to consistently. They said, “Well, these are sort of transitional arrangements anyway.” So doesn’t it follow that this bill should all be seen in the context of transitional and savings provisions that should have existed in other legislation, and isn’t this what we are here for, in urgency, at a time when the Opposition hasn’t been taken through what these changes are intended to fix? If it was simply about extending the two years that Government members repeated to us ad nauseam, then surely that would have been included in another one of the resource management bills that were working their way through the House.
I would suggest that the title should reflect exactly what this is, which is a fix up of provisions that were missed. And now the Government has created a situation where there are people who had resource consents that they can no longer rely upon, and the Government knows that and they are then creating transitional savings provisions for future situations to avoid that.
But this isn’t just what this bill does; it is also retroactive and retrospective in effect. And why is that? Because if every Government member was correct that this is about the farmers, giving them a good go—I think the quote from Joseph Mooney was, “two-year extension, job done”. If that was what this bill was, then it would have been included in another one of the bills that this House has debated around resource management. If it was purely about the future impact on resource consent holders, then that would have been a different discussion. But Government members know, because they have been told to say it, that this is about the transitional and savings provisions that should apply. So the Minister responsible for RMA Reform should be clear about that, he should put it up front in the title, and he should address at the outset why it isn’t clearer to everyone in the House that this is a fix up about the transitional and savings provisions that should have existed in legislation before this. Or he should clarify that the other sections in this bill which are retrospective and retroactive in impact do not apply.
We should be clear about what we’re doing in this House, especially under all-stages urgency where we cannot ask the experts who are advising Government, and experts from local councils, what this actually means, because there is still a lack of clarity around whether this is intended to be retroactive, and we need answers for that. If it is retroactive, it should say it in the title: “(Fix up with Retroactive Transitional and Savings Provisions) Amendment Bill”.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to come straight to the title, because it says a lot about this bill, in that it’s simply referring to the duration of consents, but we know, and what is really clear from the time frames associated with the actual commencement date—and we’ve heard a lot about 2027—is that the real implication of this is more like 2031. The Government made it clear in their press release when they announced this bill. They said existing consent expiry dates will be extended to two years after the end of the transition period for the new system. Based on current expectations, this means most consents will be extended till 2031. That’s quite different to 2027, and it’s misleading with this commencement and title that that’s not actually accurately captured.
I would suggest a more accurate reflection would be “Resource Management (Delay of Environmental Improvement) Amendment Bill”. That’s not just throwing that around; the very unfortunate implications of this bill mean that the planning rules and regulations that would have otherwise applied—that sit in district plans, in unitary plans, in regional plans, and in policy statements—no longer apply. What is very concerning about that, and why I think it should be very accurately reflected in the title, is that we know a lot of these consents that will now be delayed for another two to five to six years are ones that were granted before these planning rules that the community put time, effort, consultation, and money into. They will no longer apply.
Now, the insult with that is absolutely that these communities will not have a voice when it comes to the reconsenting of these at this stage, because they’re just going to be rolled over. Particularly for iwi and hapū, that is incredibly unjust—particularly when a lot of these consents have very serious implications for sites of significance, for wāhi tapu, for wai Māori, and they just simply will not have a voice. Whether it says this bill is the “Resource Management (Delay of Environmental Improvement) Amendment Bill”, it could say this bill is the “Resource Management (Delayed Application of Planning Rules) Amendment bill, because, again, these are the rules that communities have actually put in place that, all things equal, if we did not have this bill, would be enacted on the consent renewal of these consents. That is a huge concern, and it’s unclear, not only from the bill itself but certainly from the bill title, that this is the case.
I think, across so many of our environmental domains, whether we’re talking about water, air, even some of our highly productive land rules, this is a huge concern and an accurate reflection of the fact that they do not apply and there will be continued delay. We’re as yet unclear about the actual time frame that this bill extends to the reconsenting or automatic, blanket reconsenting of these consents. It would be, I think, pragmatic and do some justice to the transparency of the implications of this bill if the Minister and the Government did reconsider the title so that people actually had awareness and visibility. As I’ve already stated in the previous readings, this was part of an eight-part press release, and this is just one aspect of it. It’s very hard for communities to actually know what’s going on.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, in my last contribution, I was asking about the two-year time frame, and I acknowledge that that comes later in the bill and the Minister answered, “Well, that comes later in the bill”. But I was also talking about this word “duration” versus the word “extension”. I would like an answer from the Minister on that point because, in fact, this is all about extending consents. As we heard, there is a retrospective element to this bill as well, which is very worrying and I know we'll come to that later.
That’s one question. The other one is that I'd like the Minister’s comment and thoughts on the sequencing of this bill—and the relevance goes to the title as well, how you sequence different pieces of legislation—and its relationship with two other bills that have been introduced but have not yet had their first reading or gone to select committee. It seems very unusual to me that you have a transitional provision in a separate bill that comes before two other bills that have not yet been considered. That could be reflected in the title as well. It could be something like the “Resource Management (Extension of Consents to Align with Some Future Bills That Have Not Yet Been Passed)” or the “Resource Management (Extension of Consents) (the Wrong Way Around Transitional Provisions) Bill”.
This is very unusual that a Government says, “We are going to make some laws in the future and those laws will have their own transitional provisions and we need these laws because we brought back a piece of legislation that the previous Government had repealed and now we're saying that even though we haven't debated and passed those new laws yet, we want this bill in all stages urgency to deal with some transitional provisions that relate to those future bills.” Like that does seem a very wrong way around way of making laws. I'm very interested in the Minister's comments on that and how that could be reflected adequately in this title.
As we heard from Arena Williams before, in her contribution she was saying: “Well, why is it that we need this piece of legislation to look at these transitional provisions, this extension of consents, when we've just had in this House a number of pieces of legislation amending the Resource Management Act? If this bill was truly about the Resource Management Act rather than those other two bills that we're going to discuss at some other point, why wasn't it in those amendments that were amending the Resource Management Act?”
We had, in front of the Environment Committee, the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill and that dealt with a range of issues. We've also had, in front of the Primary Production Committee, the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We've also had legislation in front of us around extending marine farms. So there's been ample opportunities for this sort of legislation, if it is really about the Resource Management Act and extensions in the Resource Management Act, to come before this House. But in fact, it seems—I'm interested if the Minister can clarify it for us—that this legislation is to do with pieces of these other bills that are still in their infancy and have yet to progress through this House.
Two questions: one is about swapping out duration for extension and, of course, I would like that to specify the two years. And then the other question is about being clear in the title about how this change does or does not relate to the other two bills that the House is going to debate at some point in the future.
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to members for their contributions. I've made a number of notes that I think reflect points that deserve reply. In terms of the Hon Rachel Brooking’s point around extension, yes, the effect is to extend existing or expired consents, but, of course, it's an extension of their duration, so I don't think it's fair to say that we're not talking about or concerned with the duration of consents—notwithstanding that the thing that we might be doing to the duration is extending them.
In terms of other legislation that's contemplated, as the member notes, to come into this House, yes, there's a complex interplay. The member herself will know as well as anyone that replacing a Resource Management Act (RMA) regime is a complex endeavour; indeed, she has experience in exactly that. But I don't think it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that the title of this legislation should reflect all that complexity in the interplay between those other items of intended legislation.
As for the particular point under the heading that the RMA is not the sole focus of this bill and therefore, I presume, the title of the bill shouldn't be the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill: of course, to the extent that the other items of legislation will be repealing and replacing the RMA, they too, and therefore this legislation, are intimately connected with the fact of the RMA being as of now the law of the land. So I think it's entirely fair and right that the title of this legislation, being an amendment bill of the RMA, be named as such.
In terms of the points made by Arena Williams, it may be, and of course it is true, that there's retrospectivity and/or retroactivity in the nature of the bill. But that is not a reason that we need to spell that out in the title, to my way of thinking. I think, in general terms regarding retrospectivity and/or retroactivity, the fact that there is, overall, very clearly a benefit in the extension going back in time to expired and soon-to-be-expired consents doesn't raise the alarm bells that we’d ordinarily feel, in a constitutional context—for example, introducing retrospective legislation in the criminal realm, which, of course, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has things to say about. As for other bills’ content: again, I think, with all due respect, it's something of a red herring to suggest that the title of this bill—which is of course the clause we're engaged in now—should refer to that in this section.
The points made by Lan Pham—I'm not entirely clear on the meaning that she's taken from the press release, in terms of 2031 rather than 2027 being the date that's relevant for the extension of the duration of the consents. But I would say, of course, within this committee of the whole House, we're interested in the legislation as opposed to whatever the PR might rightly or incorrectly say. I'm not suggesting or conceding that it's not correct, by the way, but I'm saying it's properly the subject of this debate—what's in the actual legislation. It's very clear within that, that the date 2027 is the relevant one, besides which it wouldn't be appropriate to get into the detail of that within the title of the bill.
As for her characterisation of this as delaying environmental improvement, or another way of framing what she considers to be the effect of the bill, again, she might wish to propose that to the House and the committee will have a view on that, I suppose, in terms of voting on that amendment. But we don't see that as necessary to describe the content of the bill, which, as I emphasize again, is around amending the Resource Management Act. Hence it's a Resource Management Act amendment bill, and duration of consents is the way in which that is being conducted.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take a short call on the title of the bill. Points have been raised by my colleagues on the title per se, and obviously, looking at it myself, I’d read it to be “Resource Management (Consent Extension) Amendment Act 2025”.
The questions I have of the Minister are around, I guess, the passage of this bill. It’s in 2025, but it does relate to extending consents out until 2028, effectively—31 December 2027 being, effectively, on the doorstep of 2028. The question is around the extension period. I know we have two bills about to come before us, and the assumption will be, I guess, that those bills will pass. If there is to be proper process for those bills, it might take a lot longer than the Minister thinks. The question is: does he consider that this is sufficient time to deal with all the complexities of the consents?
I’m less familiar with, and indeed we haven’t had much reference to, any consents beyond agriculture, actually, from the other side of the House. The assumption is that this is being done for farmers who will need to renew their consents—indeed, a lot of them through Environment Canterbury—and that there was a big panic there, so the Government stepped in to do this, which may or may not be positive; I’ve raised those points before in my other speech. One of the questions, in terms of the timing—and the title relates to the timing; it could be extended out—and I’ll ask this maybe later in discussion on the committee stage of the bill. It is really important to know whether the title or the timing of the bill would have been changed, and why it has been determined for the periods that we have within it—therefore, reference to consent extensions or duration of consents, which the Minister and his colleagues have put before the House.
One of the questions I have to ask is: are there any members of the House who may be affected by the extension of any of these consents? It is actually a really critical question. I raise it now in the title of the bill because it might affect the timing and, therefore, the title of what the bill could be in its format, even through this brief passage in the House—what it could, or should, end up looking like. I think the Minister will have to answer that question at some point. It may be asked again: is there any member of the coalition Government who might be affected in any way by the timing, by the renewal or extension or duration of the consents that we’re talking about here? It’s a critical point, I think, and one worthy of some consideration by the Minister.
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I can’t speak for all members of the coalition in Government, but I would hope and expect that the rules in the Cabinet Manual around conflicts of interest would be observed, and I’ve got no reason to believe that that wouldn’t be the case in relation to how a consent’s duration might affect them personally.
As for the title of the bill including the date “2025” in clause 1—which is, of course, the “Title” clause—that’s in bold to indicate that the reasonable expectation is that it will pass and be assented to by the Governor-General in this year. But, if it’s not, that then automatically becomes the date on which that actually does take place. It could, feasibly, be the case—and let us all hope it’s not the case—that this committee of the whole House stage takes place for the next 19 days—
Hon Rachel Brooking: We’re hoping—we’re hoping.
Hon CHRIS PENK: I know, right? I’m with you! If that’s the case, that wouldn’t be a problem in terms of what is recorded here.
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 Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting the words “(Addition of Savings and Transitional Arrangements)” 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 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): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Rachel Boyack’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
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): Members, it’s now time for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7.30.
Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Clause 2 Commencement
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is resumed on the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill. We were last debating the bill before the dinner break; we’d completed the debate on clause 1. We now come to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement of the bill. The question is that clause 2 stand part.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the commencement date. There are a few amendments on the Table that I will invite the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to consider. I know he has not had them for long, given that we’re in all-stages urgency, but I welcome his feedback on those.
The main contention here is that given it is Christmas-time and we’re missing key people in the process of Royal assent, would it not be more sensible for the Minister to amend this clause to include a power to set the date by Order in Council? That’s something which is quite ordinary for this Government to do. In fact, the pieces of resource management legislation that we have considered have had parts or the entire bill with dates which are relatively flexible in them. Given that this is a bill that introduces transitional and savings provisions that have a time impact, would it not be more sensible to be able to have this debate, and to then allow the executive to set a time that was later?
Some of the amendments that I have proposed to the Minister set a date for the executive to consider an Order in Council date-setting provision after a certain time, and then some of them provide for the executive to be able to set that date after a certain date but to consider it at any time. Those are different. It is useful here that we are able to traverse with the Minister when he intends for this to come into effect, because, as the Minister who was in the chair before him noted, some of these provisions have retrospective effect.
So to be able to give us the most flexibility here would be useful to then be able to have an Order in Council provision in the commencement date clause but also for the Minister to then discuss, as this is his only chance to do so—we don’t have a select committee stage to be able to ask these questions—what the timing provisions that are on his mind are. If this was to come into effect tomorrow, would there be any material difference to it coming into effect at, say, the end of January next year? That will be on the minds of some of the groups that are affected here.
From the departmental disclosure statement that we’ve been provided with today, we also note Māori groups have not been consulted about the implications of this bill, but instead the Minister intends to tell them about it, which is a bit different from consultation. Nevertheless, would it not be more sensible for the executive to have a power to set the date so that these provisions would come into effect to allow the Minister to do that—to inform the groups which he proposes to work with?
It notes here that “the Crown is generally obliged to consult on proposals affecting Māori interests. To address this, the Minister intends to inform Māori groups about the proposal.” If that is a mere sort of information-sharing exercise, it should be short, but perhaps the Minister can give us a time frame in which he would expect that he would be able to inform these Māori groups. Be it by letter or by face-to-face meetings, either one of those shouldn’t take too long. I’ll bet that a number of people out there are keen to engage with him on this, and so surely it would be useful for the House to allow a number of weeks for that informing process to happen.
Mind you, colleagues, we are in slightly unusual territory here, where consultation like this would often take the Government anywhere between six weeks and six months. That’s not what we are proposing here in the time it might take to change the commencement date clause. We’re simply saying that if consultation is not to occur, it’s not what we would choose; we would choose to do the consultation that we think is an obligation of the Government under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But if a Government was so minded to skip that consultation requirement, then would it not be reasonable for the executive to have some flexibility to allow that informing process to happen in a way which was respectful of the rights and interests that are at play here?
It would also allow for officials to be able to gather the information about what consents are impacted. Officials have provided advice around the 35-year water consents being about the length that you might have an extension for, and more than that might impact very unfairly on Māori rights. So it would allow them more time to actually work out what consents those were, and to engage with the impacted hapū and iwi for whom those consents are within a catchment area that they are kaitiaki of. That would allow the Minister to do this important work, which officials have noted is already under way anyway.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): This is a relatively simple question with a relatively simple answer: the Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. The Government is not proposing to change that. For the reasons outlined in the first and second reading debates, the Government wants to provide certainty as quickly as possible, so as soon as we can get the Royal assent done, we will, and it comes into effect the day after Royal assent.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for that response. I do support the member Arena Williams’ amendment, because I have exactly the same amendment as well, which is to consider, rather than a specific date, a date set by Order in Council. Now, I hear what the Minister’s saying, in terms of the first and second reading, but contrary to what the Minister said, based on what we have in terms of the departmental disclosure statement, and the lack of any other form of information, this is anything but clear.
In terms of confidence, I would be curious to know exactly to whom this confidence that the Minister is speaking of or referring to supposed be—because it certainly isn’t for collective groups that the member Arena Williams has just stated. So I do think it is important for the Minister to consider such amendments when we are looking at it, as we are going through the bill, because there definitely a number of things in other areas I will speak to at the later clauseson—well, on clarifications, not necessarily concerns, but clarifications that we're seeking from the Minister.
But just on the date itself, in terms of “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.”, I do want to check with the Minister if other things have been considered—you know, for example, was a date set by Order in Council considered as part of that?
As we see in a number of other things, including within the Resource Management Act itself, a lot of the dates that are specified are not specified per se but specified in the context of either by Order in Council or certain discretions or based on the kind of consent that is being applied for. Indeed, that's some of the things that we're seeing later on, in both the Natural Environment Bill and also in terms of the Planning Bill.
With that in mind, I did want to check with the Minister before, and also just ask the Minister to consider the amendment, again, on how is this bill supposed to give confidence to people, when the fact that the departmental disclosure statement says that no consultation was done, and there's, basically, very, very little information that has been related to this?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question about the commencement is just slightly related, I think, to that last contribution—that is, the relationship of this through those other bills that have not yet had any debate in this House and have not been sent to select committee.
So I was wondering if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform would consider—and he might want to comment, given that he is now in the chair, on the unusualness of the situation whereby there is a transitional provision coming for legislation that’s not yet had a first reading that is in a separate piece of legislation. I mean, that just seems like an incredibly unusual thing to be doing. So I would be interested in the Minister’s comment on how that works and how that sequencing of the bills—because, I don’t know, it could be that the commencement comes into force the day after those other bills are reported back or some other trigger that is actually related to those other bills. At the moment, this just seems like a random extension to consents for perhaps two years—and we’ll get into the two years soon, but I’m wondering what other considerations have gone into that commencement and also what the urgency is here.
Now, the Minister said before in a speech or in a motion that they want to get on and do the resource management reforming, but why is this urgent now? There was the comment made that “Well, this will provide some relief for different consent holders.”; why does it matter today? It’s come in all stages of urgency today and will commence as soon as it has had its Royal assent, and there’s no post-enactment review or anything like that. Those things don’t make very much sense to me, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I don’t have a lot more to add to what has already been traversed. The Government's laid out, I think, a pretty clear transition plan. As I said during the second reading debate, any transition to a new regime is going to be relatively complex. There are a range of things in the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill that are not subject to this bill, but the member did ask about them.
The intention of this bill, in the short term, is to provide some immediate certainty for those people who are stuck in the current consenting framework. Some of my colleagues, during the first and second reading debates, have made mention of some of those difficult situations that people have found themselves in. If this bill passes, there'll be an immediate two-year extension transition while the bills work their way through the select committee—the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. Then those bills have a consent extension provision in there as well, which is, essentially, a two-year extension beyond when the system turns on.
We don't know exactly when the system will turn on; we roughly estimate around 2029—that's certainly what we'll be aiming for. There's a whole lot of work to do, between the special plans and the regional combined plans and the natural direction underneath the new bills. There's quite a lot of work to do in the next three years, and so it's a layered approach. You've got the bill that we’re debating currently, and you've got the consent extensions in the transitional phase of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. Then some bits of it—and this is where it does get a little bit complicated—some bits of the new regime will turn on straight away. Things around proportionality and some of the procedural principles, for example, will turn on straight away, so people will be able to get the benefits of that straight away. It's complicated in one sense but, on the other hand, it's also not that complicated—whereas this bill is actually, as I say, a simple bill.
Members are interested as to whether or not the Government will consider a change to the commencement date. The answer to that is no, for the reasons that I've said twice now, which is that we want immediate certainty.
Ms Brooking asks around, why now? Well, don't take this the wrong way, but—why not? This is the day we've announced our Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms, and, clearly, the RMA reforms have—well, even the anticipation and the lead up to them have made people say, “Well, hang on a minute, I'm in the consenting queue right now. What's going on? Am I going to get a consent? You know, my council's buggerising around. I need some certainty.”
The intention is to do that, but, also, is cognisant of the fact that we do need to move to a new system. We're not leaving the RMA stuck in formaldehyde; that would be a very bad idea. We think we've created a better and new system, but we need to get to that system and getting there is not an immediate thing. It's not like you just pass a new piece of legislation and then everything turns on straight away. That's not the reality. It wasn't the reality under the Natural and Built Environment Act of the previous Government. It's not the reality under this Government, either. That will never be the reality. That would cause absolute chaos. So I think this is an elegant way through. Members are entitled to disagree, but that's the rationale for the Government's actions.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t intend to take up any more time than necessary. I would like to ask for a clarification of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s comments just now, particularly around those time frames. We heard earlier a real downplaying of what was, at least, in the press release about the time frames, which said that “Existing consent expiry dates will be extended to two years after the end of the transition period for the new system.” As I hear it, the Minister is confirming that there are going to be various stages, but we’re expecting, roughly, for it to be 2029, and then you’re saying that then that it could be a two-year period after that, to 2031. So why does it say, “Based on current expectations, this means most consents will extend to 2031.”?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, it’s just maths, right? So if we turn the system on in 2029, two years after 2029 is—the last time I looked—2031. That’s just maths.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you. So why were you downplaying it previously, when you’re saying that it is actually 2031? It’s not just two years; it’s actually 2031, which is five to six years.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): This bill is two years, and so it’s December 2027, OK? That’s what this bill does. The Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which we’re not currently debating—we will next week, and you’ll get a chance to have a thrash next week on that, too.
Those bills, which we introduced today, but they won’t get their first reading until next week—that sets up quite an elaborate, quite complicated transition regime. Elements of that regime are things that the member has picked up on, which is the two years after the system turns on—which, as I say, we expect to be around 2029, but between now and 2029, there are a whole lot of things that have to happen: (1) we’ve got to pass the bills to start with, and then there’s going to be a whole select committee process; and (2) there are two tranches of national direction to bring into effect. One is called the national policy direction, and the other layer is national standards or national instruments. Those will happen in two tranches.
Now, we’re not starting from a blank sheet of paper on that, because some of the work that we’ve done over the last 24 months in relation to national direction will port into the new system. For example, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation, which has been strengthened, have picked up on some of the work of the last Government. A new policy statement on infrastructure and national environmental standards on granny flats, for example, which the Government has been working on—there’s a whole range of different things. There’s papakāinga, as well. Those things will port into the new system, and so that’s got to happen—that’s No. 2.
Three, there are plans that have got to be developed—new spatial plans—and then land-use chapters as part of the combined regional plans. So there’s a lot of work to be done there.
Basically, once all of that stuff has happened—which, to be honest, is quite a lot to do in three years. I think that with a fair wind behind us, we can do it, but it’s quite a bit of work. Once that happens, the new system will, essentially, turn on. It’s brought in by Order in Council, by the Government. Arena Williams was making a point before about how the Government likes Orders in Council. It’s not that we like it; it’s just that it’s an effective device for turning systems on—
Arena Williams: Put one in here.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —no, I’m not doing that—and then it’s two years after that.
Now, is there a debate to be had about two years versus one year? Absolutely, there’s a debate to be had around that. We’ll send it to a select committee and have a look at it, but you’ve got to give people time for the new system to get in, right? So once the new system is in place with the plans and the national direction, there still needs to be a bit of time after that for people to transition into that new system.
Is two years the right length of time? That’s what the Government’s current proposition is. We could have a debate about that. Reasonable people can disagree around it, but that’s actually nothing to do with this bill.
This bill provides immediate certainty for people right now, but don’t get confused by the 2031 thing. This bill just does a two-year extension for things that are currently in the system to provide certainty before Christmas for those people and their consents.
LAN PHAM (Green): So, taking that and noting everything that you’ve just said—which was my understanding—the implication of exactly what you were describing of that process is that the date is not 2027; the effective date is 2031. The Minister can point to the bill as much as he wants, and the previous Minister in the chair was doing the same “Oh, don’t worry about the press release.”, when you’re just saying that the implications of your own process, the material impact, is 2031. Now, that should matter—
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): No—no, sorry. The press release is really clear: it’s about the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. The press release also says that there will be urgent legislation. This bill, which does the two-year consent extensions—there’s no secret about this. It’s all in the public domain.
This bill does not extend consents until 2031—it does not. It does not do that. It does not say that in this bill. It does it until December 2027.
I know that the member is worked up about the other stuff, but, to be honest, that bill is like next week, and we can have a debate about that then and at select committee. This bill is a really simple, very short bill—that’s all it is.
LAN PHAM (Green): So is it the case, then, that the press release about the transition to the new system is completely wrong?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. I’ve heard the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform talk about the transitional provisions in the new system, and the complexity of turning that system on, and that you’ll have elements that are immediate and elements that come later, and that we will discuss that in select committee because that bill is going to go to a select committee.
What I don’t understand, and I haven’t heard from the Minister apart from it being near Christmas, is why we have this bill in front of us now with the two-year extension—and he’s confirmed that it’s a two-year extension; and whether he expects that, if something happens with the other set of legislation, the two-year extension in this bill will have to be amended in the future. Are we expecting to come back to this bill?—is my question there.
Related to that, again, putting it: why, what justification is there, for this coming through all-stages urgency with no regulatory impact statement and with the department disclosure assessment just saying no, no, no to everything—that there’s really no analysis? The Minister, I think referred to this in his second reading speech, as well—that we don’t know how many consents are affected.
So, on the commencement clause, it’s: why this need for haste when we don’t have the information? We could, as a Parliament, take some time to work through what the consequences are, and whether or not, then, there is a good reason for doing an extension to some consents; if the right consents are covered; if two years is the right time frame, given what’s going to come in the other legislation; and whether or not there should be any risk assessments on the type of consents that are being affected.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In terms of the justification, I’ve answered that three or four times now. The member makes a good point around “are we expected to come back?”. The answer is no, because once the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill pass at some point next year, they will take effect, they’ll get Royal assent, they’ll come into effect, and then the new transition regime kicks in. And the Resource Management Act at that point will be repealed. And so this extent consent transition thing will fall away at that point.
So the December 2027 backstop, if you like, is essentially a belts and braces approach, but the intention is for Parliament to pass the bills next year. That’s certainly my aim. You know, there’s a chance that they won’t, I suppose, who knows what will happen, but that’s certainly the aim. But this is a belts and braces approach to provide certainty. And that’s literally all there is to it. It’s not actually that complicated to be honest.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the questions I have is the size of the problem here. Because we don’t have a RIS—a regulatory impact statement—we’re really kind of working in the dark a bit. Like, how big is this problem? If the commencement date doesn’t happen this year, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform implies, if for some reason—and I’d like to think I’m an optimist, but having been in Government through a period of many interventions from left field, or right field for some of it, the fact is that things can intervene. So if this commencement date wasn’t after Royal assent and it wasn’t this year, it was pushed out, then could the Minister answer what’s the size of the problem? How many consents would be affected, and in what particular sectors? Because, I guess, if the Minister says this is a transitional arrangement to allow his two pieces of legislation to roll through, then if it doesn’t happen this year, if the Royal assent doesn’t happen in a smooth passage over the next week or so, then what will happen and to who? That is, how many consents will be affected? How many people will be operating outside of the law, and whether that is significant if this was to perhaps commence at the end of January or some other period that the Governor-General gets to sign this off. So maybe the Minister can take a call and answer those things.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his helpful answer to my questions about the amendments. I take on board that he’s not going to change the date, so I just want to ask him, in light of his comments around proving certainty as his justification for not changing the commencement date—it is important that the law should be certain—and, really, the question is: when does he expect Royal assent to be given?
My question to him was about, it is Christmas time; we have key people in the process of Royal assent who must be involved. Are those people available should this bill pass three days hence, because we’ll be continuing on with this committee of the whole House stage until then. When does he expect Royal assent to be given? Is it this side of Christmas? What certainty is there, when Royal assent isn’t part of that—you know, it’s not a date. He could pick a date; he hasn’t done that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I think we’re into the realm of the absurd now. I have great respect for the Governor-General, but I do not pick her timetable, and so whenever the bill has passed its third reading, it will get sent at some point to Her Excellency, and I’ve no doubt she will sign on the dotted line.
Arena Williams: That’s not very certain, is it?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it doesn’t—like, who knows? Who knows? She runs her own diary; I don’t. I have many powers, but I don’t have that, so let’s wait and see. The point is that it’s the day after whenever that happens. My expectation would be in the next week or so. We are—what are we? December 9. Christmas is 16 days away. You guys might clock off early, but certainly we will be working hard. There’s no doubt the Governor-General will be as well.
In relation to Mr O’Connor’s question, how many? I answered this in the—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Because we don’t live in Wellington.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?
Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s rude. We might pop off; that’s because we don’t live in Wellington. Not all of us can live here.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, not all of us can live in the greatest city on planet Earth, Rachel. Some of us have to—
Tom Rutherford: Some live on Waiheke.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, ha, ha! In relation to Mr O’Connor’s question, how many? It’s a good question. I answered this in the second reading debate. We don’t know exactly how many, partly because the Resource Management Act is such a dog in terms of the digital systems. We don’t actually know. We roughly estimate between 2,000 and 2,500 consents, but that’s a back of the envelope number, so it’s about that many.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “1 January 2026” 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “6 February 2026” 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “1 March 2026” 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “1 April 2026” 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): There are a number of amendments to clause 2 from Arena Williams that provide for the bill to commence on a day set by Order in Council after a specified period. Because they are very similar in nature, I will select three of them for the committee to consider.
The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “a day set by Order in Council that is at least 6 weeks after Royal assent” 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “a day set by Order in Council that is at least 6 months after Royal assent” 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “a day set by Order in Council that is after 12 December 2026” 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 (Teanau Tuiono): Arena Williams’ remaining tabled amendments to clause 2 are ruled out of order as being the same in substance as amendments that have already been put to the committee.
The question is that clause 2 stand part.
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.
Clause 3 Principal Act
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to clause 3. Clause 3 is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think clause 3 is one of the more substantial parts of this bill, because, again, although we’ve touched on some of the other bills that are being introduced, in terms of the Natural Environment Bill but, also, the Planning Bill, I think the idea that this bill amends the Resource Management Act (RMA) is significant in lieu of a select committee stage and any advice from officials. This particular clause allows us to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform maybe some broader questions in terms of the policy intent of this bill and the magnitude that it affects the Resource Management Act.
In terms of the remainder of this section, we do see that this is supposed to be limited to consent and duration of consent. But I guess my first question to the Minister—and I’m sure that my colleagues will have other questions on the implications that this will have to the broader understanding of the Resource Management Act—is whether there are other aspects that were considered as also being amended as part of this bill, or whether this is the only part? That’s the first question.
The second part of this question would be: is, then, section 123, in terms of the duration of consent, the only section within the Resource Management Act that the Minister considered in terms of increasing the duration of consent, or are there other sections within the Resource Management Act that are also relevant to the duration of consent that aren’t captured as a part of this bill? So those are my first two questions.
I guess another question is, you know, as we’re looking at some of the clauses that will be covered a little bit later, just even looking at the Resource Management Act, and, of course, I’m no expert when it comes to the RMA, but it is interwoven and interlocking in terms of various subclauses within the entirety of that Act; and I just—again, under urgency, considering we have not seen this bill and it hasn’t gone to the select committee stage—want reassurance from Ministers that all potential fish-hooks within different subsections that are affected by the changes that are being made in this legislation to the Resource Management Act are also well captured within this piece of the bill.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): This is the most narrow clause on the planet. It is about the principal Act, and the purpose of these clauses is to indicate to the Parliament what the amendment bill is amending. This is the resource management duration of consents. The amendment bill is amending the Resource Management Act (RMA) because we are dealing with resource management consents. So that’s literally all the clause says. The clause says the Act is amending the Resource Management Act 1991 because it is. It doesn’t affect other Acts, and the reason it doesn’t affect any other Act is because the intention is not to amend any other Act; it deals with the RMA. That’s literally all it is, and we don’t need to spend any time considering whether or not we should amend any other Acts because the bill’s purpose is in the name. It is an amendment to the Resource Management Act. It’s not an omnibus bill; that’s all it is. So the principal Act—in clause 3, it says it amends the RMA; it’s that simple.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I take the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s point that this is about the Resource Management Act (RMA) only and it’s not about the future bills that we’re yet to debate, even though they’re related. I’d just like to get the Minister’s confirmation about that. In some of the material I saw today, there was discussion around these various different transitional and extension provisions. It read as if some of the changes were to those other pieces of legislation, rather than this principal Act. My point is, can he confirm that this bill is just about the Resource Management Act, the future legislation will repeal the RMA, and they will have their own transitional provisions that will be separate?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes, I can confirm that. This just deals with the Resource Management Act (RMA). We’ve traversed the two years and how long and all the rest of it. It’s that simple. The RMA planning bill will come into effect at some point next year. It’s a whole other bespoke regime which will pull over consents issued under the RMA into the new system, obviously, and the RMA will wither away on the vine, back into the dustbin of history where many people wished it were until now.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Just like it was in August 2023.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think it was later than August 2023, wasn’t it? But anyway, I take your point. I know what you’re referring to. We’ll finally do away with it in the spirit of bipartisanship, and Christmas bonhomie will break out across all the land.
Tangi Utikere: No.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No? Apparently not. OK. Well, one can only hope.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Show us the bill first!
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The bill’s—I’ve introduced it! It’s on the floor of the House—oh, you’re talking about this one?
Hon Rachel Brooking: Yeah.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, it’s available now too. It’s literally a five-clause bill. It’s not that complicated. Anyway, it just affects the RMA.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Just a very small follow-up question for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. I understand that this clause just amends the Resource Management Act, but I want to check with the Minister: does it need amending in the first place? Again, I don’t know the Resource Management Act myself, but I’m checking with the Minister if there is any other regulatory-making power that would have achieved the same goal and the outcomes as expected—as the Minister wanted to do with this particular bill? I don’t know. Is there any other regulatory-making power that would have avoided a bill being introduced in the House in the first place, in urgency?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take another call, if I can ask members to focus on this very narrow clause. The Minister has addressed a number of the issues—probably not to the satisfaction of some members—but it is a narrow clause, and if I could ask members to focus on the narrowness of it and not to step outside that, that would be very helpful.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I will say, I won’t take unnecessary time, but I think it is important, given the absence of a select committee, to ask a few questions. Because if you go further down in the bill—and it relates back to this clause—of course, we’re talking about resource consents relating to water. So the questions around the Act it should be amending—and the Minister responsible for RMA reform’s got in the bill here, of course, the Resource Management Act. My questions are: did he consider looking at the valuation Act? Because if this bill didn’t go through, will that have affected the valuation of any of the land, and, indeed, if that had been considered, perhaps it should have been in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), but I know we don’t have a RIS. So that’s why I’m raising the question.
The other one is the Local Government Act. There may be implications through this because of the change to water, or, actually, the securing of the permits to continue, but given the different circumstances that the councils might find themselves in now in addressing these applications for resource consents, then maybe the Local Government Act should have been amended and should have been one of the principal Acts referred to in clause 3 alongside the Resource Management Act. So maybe the Minister can say had he considered or was there any advice or would the RIS have included any reference to the effect on the evaluation of the property of all sorts—the property that is being reconsented, although consents are being extended—and, indeed, is there any impact on local government for the management of this and was there a need to look at amendments to the Local Government Act?
STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): I move, 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 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.
Clause 3 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,That clause 3 be agreed to.
Clause 4 Section 123 amended (Duration of Consent)
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to clause 4. Clause 4 is the debate on the amendment to section 123, the duration of consent. The question is that clause 4 stand part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): This is really a clarification question and explanation—and the Minister can tell me if I'm correct or not—about what this clause is doing. Section 123—it's a good number, isn't it? The duration of consent at section 123(1) gives the different time frames for different types of consents and how long they can last for. So, for example, in section 123(1)(aa) of the principal Act: “the period for which a resource consent for an activity that meets the requirements of a wastewater environmental performance standard or a stormwater environmental performance standard is granted is 35 years:”. Then, at subsection (2): “Despite anything in subsection (1), the period of an extant wastewater consent (as defined in section 139B) may be extended as specified in section 139C.” Beautiful RMA-amended drafting there.
But what we're looking at here is, section 123 stays, but then we've got this addition—“Despite anything in subsection (1)”—which is those different time frames for the different types of consents that the period of a resource consent to which new section 123C applies is the periods specified in that section.
We will come to new section 123C in a minute, because that is what is inserted by clause 5. So my question is really very simple and it's just for the Minister to confirm and I guess to give us some comfort that the only amendment really to section 123 is what is then later described in clause 5, which is the new section 123C inserted.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Madam—sorry, Mr. My apologies.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Apology accepted.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s been quite a long day.
Tangi Utikere: It’s going to get longer.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes—well, I understand we’re going through until 10 p.m., so, yes, that is definitely true. Time marches on. It’s an amazing thing.
I’ve got an answer, which is, basically, that this is a tidy-up to ensure that new section 123C is not limited by section 123, so as to ensure that new section 123C—which, as the member notes, is, essentially, the chunk of the bill, the operative part of the bill in clause 5—takes precedence for affected consents. It’s just the drafting that’s complicated.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to check something with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and also ask the Minister to consider one of my amendments to this section. Now, the wording for this section is, “(3) Despite anything … the period … to which section 123C applies is the period specified in that section.” The use of the verb “is” makes it absolute, so you have to follow. However, if we’re looking at the original section 123, and we’re looking at section 123(2), which is also an exception to subsection (1), it says in there, “Despite anything in subsection (1), the period of an extant wastewater consent … may be extended as specified in [a different section].”
My Amendment Paper replaces the word “is” with “maybe”, on the one hand to be consistent with also what’s in section 123(2), and on the other hand to allow for flexibility to the practicality of the extension to the duration of a consent. It allows for the flexibility that, while what we see in clause 5 is there, is not absolute and is not mandated. So I just want to check with the Minister if the Minister would consider that. I do think that consistency between subsection (2) and subsection (3), which is in this bill, is an important one.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The short answer is no. The clause is really clear, as I’ve just read out literally to the member’s colleague exactly what it does.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I also want to clarify the provisions that apply to section 123(2) of the principal Act, just in light of what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform said, that it stops new section 123C, inserted by clause 5, being read down from what exists in section 123(1) now. I just want to clarify for the Minister that section 123(1) is the section which sets out the standard durations for consent, but section 123(2), which this amends, is just about waste water. Is the Minister suggesting that the provisions do or don’t apply to the waste-water provision set out at section 123(2)? Those are the provisions which have special rules that allow for ongoing waste-water consents to be extended under the special rules under section 139C.
Or does this apply to everything that’s set out in section 123(1), which is, you know, venues, consents, coastal payments—like, that’s everything. Because then I would have some different questions about his amendments at clause 5 which creates new section 123C.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I guess just a very small follow-up to the question I had to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, before. I understand what the Minister is saying, but, again, what we don’t know is if other alternatives have been considered. So when we’re looking at this clause, what is the rationale—I get it: it’s clear; I can read that—of using an absolute “is” as opposed to a subjunctive “may” as you see with subsection (2) of section 123, which has a similar provision. That’s my main question to the Minister because, I mean, I don’t mind if that is an active consideration by the Minister between the two variations, but I would like to know that that is a genuinely considered decision that was made, not simply because that would have been logical or whether or not, you know, this is just how it was drafted or it was drafted in haste. So it would be good to know from the Minister if this was an active intent, to make it absolute.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I don’t have anything much more to add, other than I’m not going to get into a debate tonight about the meaning of the word “is”. OK, I’ll just say that one for the record.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Literally, that’s what we are doing.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member can yell into the void about the word “is” if he would like, but I’m not going to entertain a debate about it.
Clause 4 is relatively simple. It says, “Despite anything in subsection (1), [a] period of a resource consent to which 123C applies is [this] period specified in that section”, and then new clause 5 inserts new section 123C, which goes through a schema of various different consents that are then extended for two years. And the member has rightly noted the various different things about wastewater; we can have a debate around that in the next section, but this is just almost like a prefatory clause to get to the actual operative clause. That’s all there is to it.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Helen White’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.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4 is ruled out of order as being a direct negation of the question.
Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 123(3), inserting “in future” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 4, section 123(3), inserting “in future and not in any way retrospectively” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 4, section 123(3), inserting “from the date of commencement” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, section 123(3), replacing “is” with “maybe” is ruled out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 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 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 New section 123C inserted (Duration of certain current and continued consents)
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to clause 5. Clause 5 is the debate on the new section 123C, “Duration of certain current and continued consents”. The question is that clause 5 stand part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a number of questions on this clause, it being the big one in the bill, but I will start at the start—although other members may have questions that jump around a bit.
What I want to start with is at new section 123C(1)(b). It says there that “a resource consent that expired before the commencement date, but only if,— (i) immediately before the commencement date, the holder was eligible to operate under the consent in reliance on section 124; and (ii) the holder’s application for a new consent had not been determined by the consent authority before the commencement date.” The questions about this clause are the retrospective element that comes here and how that then relates to the two years that the Minister has been talking about.
Resource consents are binary—you either have a resource consent or you don’t have a resource consent. If a resource consent has expired, that means you don’t have a resource consent, yet what this provision seems to be doing is saying despite the fact that your resource consent has expired and you don’t have a resource consent before the commencement date, we’re still going to give you an extension.
I’m wondering if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform can comment on that and how it will work, and the justification for it as well, noting that there are two requirements—there is an “if”, and then there is a (i) and a (ii) with an “and” in between. The first one is that they were eligible to operate under the consent in reliance on section 124, and that consent hadn’t been determined. If they were, immediately before the commencement date, eligible to operate under the consent in reliance on section 124, do they not then still have a consent, and why is it referred to as expired in paragraph (b)? If the Minister could take us through that, that would be very useful, and also if he can comment on whether or not there is supposed to be any retrospective element of this legislation.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I mean, I think people could have a debate about if it’s retrospective or not—and even if it is, that’s not the worst thing in the world. Retrospective legislation that confers a benefit is not constitutionally objectionable—
Ingrid Leary: Great! Retirement villages, fairer repayments—brilliant.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I know your views on that.
Ingrid Leary: Thank you. I’m glad you do.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Strong lobbying from Waiheke Island. Reasonable people can have a disagreement around whether or not—I mean, constitutional objection is when there is a penalty imposed retrospectively, which is obviously abhorrent.
But I think it’s relatively straightforward, which is consents that have expired before the commencement date are extended if, before the commencement date, “the holder was eligible to operate under the consent in reliance on section 124;”, which, as the member knows, is when consent has expired but the re-consent has not yet been processed, so they can carry on: “the holder’s application for a new consent had not been determined by the consent authority before the commencement date.” So the bill reinstates and extends expired consents where an application for a replacement consent has been made but not yet determined. This doesn’t impose any obligations on consent holders; it simply gives certainty to them during transition to the new resource management system.
So is it retrospective? I mean, it’s forward-looking in the sense that it extends things by a couple of years and helps people out who are in the midst of a re-consenting battle or, at least, the process. Some people would say that’s retrospective; I probably wouldn’t. But, actually, it’s kind of neither here nor there, to be honest.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I think it is relevant, because this legislation—this short bill—will give people entitlements that they don’t otherwise have and, if they come to rely on it, they are going to want to know what it means. So the Hansard on this, with no select committee process, is very important.
“So has the consent expired?” is one question. Because if they’re relying on section 124—sorry, I spilt my water over before, it’s in front of me over there—is it not expired? Because 124 is the “Exercise of resource consent while applying for [a] new consent”. So it “applies when—(a) a resource consent is due to expire;”. So it’s not that it’s expired; it’s that it’s due to expire “and (b) the holder of the consent applies for a new consent for the same activity; and (c) the application is made to the appropriate consent authority; and”—this is very important to my question about whether or not it is expired—(d) is “the application is made at least 6 months before the expiry of the existing consent.”
So the point is that if you are in the section 124 process, your consent hasn’t expired. Like, it can’t have expired—because once you’re in, you’re in. Yet the words in this bill are: “a resource consent that expired before the commencement date,”. And then it’s like, well, immediately before you are in that section 124 process but it’s only eligible to operate—but presumably you’re not eligible unless you’ve done all those requirements that I just read out—and that “the holder’s application for a new consent [has] not been determined”.
So is, in fact, all that is meant here that if you are already in that 124 process—so you’ve done it six months before and you’ve met those other criteria—then your consent won’t expire whilst you’re in that process, or is it supposed to mean something else on top of what happens in section 124, and it is supposed to be retrospective to something that has expired, in that binary sense, or is it that it’s already in the 124 process? I think your words are going to be important here, Minister.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, respectfully, the courts ignore Hansard—whether or not they should is a slightly different matter. The courts focus on what the words say in the statute, and to be honest, given the nonsense talked in this place, that’s probably for the better. Having said that, I’m prepared to mount a strong defence of words mattering or words being important, as Mr Peters would say. I do intend to lay down a marker for how the Government intends things to work in the new system in the first reading, but that’s all for another day. Whether or not the courts pay any attention is a different issue.
To actually address the point, I think it’s important to read new subsection (1)(a) and (b) together, right? So (1)(a) says, “a resource consent that is current on the commencement date [of this bill] but due to expire before the close [is extended]”, right? And (b) says that if you’ve got a resource consent that’s expired before the commencement date, that’s also extended, but only if you’re in the section 124 process.
Hon Rachel Brooking: So it hasn’t really expired?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you’ve got to read it in the light of the next phrase, which is “expired before the commencement date”. If you’re in the section 124 process, then that gets extended too. It’s a belts and braces approach. It’s either expired or it hasn’t. The point is that as long as you’re in the process or your consent is going to expire during that time frame before the commencement date, you get an extension. It’s a belts and braces approach, but (1)(a) and (b) should be read together.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. That is helpful. So to summarise there, the point is it’s not supposed to be a retrospective bonus for expired consents that aren’t actively in that section 124 process.
Then my next question on this aspect is: if a resource consent is due to expire before 2027—and we’ve talked about and we’ll talk about this once we get to 3 about this two-year extension—does it matter where that expiry date is of the consent in relation to the extension? So can you ever go beyond two years, is my question? And will some be a lot shorter than two years? So if you had a consent that was due to expire on 30 December 2027, this is my question: does this bill give you, then, a one-day extension?
Hon Chris Bishop: Yes.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes? Well, thank you. That’s useful.
Hon Chris Bishop: It’s a great benefit.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Great benefit.
Well, then I might jump around then a bit and go down to clause 7. And that is that a consent authority must, no later than six months, update a resource consent to which this section applies to record its new expiry date and, if applicable, continue to process and determine the application for the new consent unless it is withdrawn. So my question here is around the consultation that has happened with those consent authorities. And presumably most of the consents and questions here are going to be ones with regional councils or unitaries because they’re going to relate to water or air and discharges. Most of them won’t be land-use consents.
So a number of questions on this: has there been any consultation with councils? What is the requirement on the councils going to be in terms of this administrative task? And has there been any sort of cost-benefit analysis whereby a consent that is due to expire on 1 December 2027 getting a one-day extension, how much resource is going to be required to meet the requirements of clause 7?
Then the next question is if he could tell us about the consents that he expects—and there will be further questions on this particularly in relation to subsection 10, but what are the types of consents that he is expecting will benefit from this extension, given that very few land-use consents have expiry dates unless they’re going to lapse, and what analysis has there been into that, and what sorts of different councils are going to be burdened with these additional administrative tasks?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I don’t know about administrative tasks—I mean, this is reducing the burden on councils massively, or at least for a while, because they don’t have to process consents any more. But Parliament is legislating for their extension, and so they don’t have to. This will reduce the burden on councils, and I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.
In terms of the types of consents, there’ll be a range, as I think the member herself adverts to in her remarks.
In terms of the consultation with councils, there hasn’t been any. This has been done quickly, as the member knows, and so we haven’t engaged with councils on it, but I don’t anything particularly turns on that, to be honest.
The point about 30 December 2027—I mean, yes, there will be one or two consents which will be in the slightly odd situation of getting a one-day extension, but there will be a bunch that expire quite soon that will no longer have to go through that process. So that is the nature of time—it is what it is.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I want to start by addressing quite a big concern in the departmental disclosure statement (DDS), and that is about some of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and also external obligations. As is mentioned in the DDS, there are broader implications in terms of “Post-settlement governance entities, Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, groups yet to settle their historical Treaty claims, Pou Taiao and Te Tai Kaha”. They’re all being mentioned in here, but I guess the concern is that over here, it says that “Extending consents without engaging Māori raises Treaty implications, as the Crown is generally obliged to consult on proposals affecting Māori interests.” But instead of consulting, it just says that the Minister will “inform”, which is different from “consult”. On top of that, it says that “the Minister intends to inform”—i.e., it hasn’t happened yet—and, on the next page, it says that “Post-settlement governance entities, Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, … Pou Taiao and Te Tai Kaha are being informed”.
Are they being informed as we speak, as this bill is going through? I do find that of concern, and I’m hoping that it is of concern for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, as well, in terms of our general Treaty obligations with our Treaty partner. Not only have they not been consulted; they haven’t even been informed yet, according to the DDS, of what has been happening here. So I just wanted to check with the Minister: have they been informed, and, if they have, is the Minister intending to consult with them at any stage on the policy proposal of this particular legislation?
The second thing that I wanted to address is the date. Now, this is question that I held back on asking the Minister about in the earlier clauses, particularly on the commencement date, but the date that is being used here of 31 December 2027. Where did that date come from, and what other considerations did the Minister, in consultation with officials, etc., have for that date?
Now, I understand that we have talked about the fact that this bill is a transitional measure for the other two bills. But if we’re going through the other two bills, both of the other two bills refer to commencement being the day of the Royal assent. I am assuming that the Minister has indicated that the bill will be passed next year—in which case, it will at some point be the day after the day on which it passes next year. In that case, why does the consent need to be extended by two years and not, for example, by a year up until 31 December 2026, if the other two bills are going to be in effect?
Those are my two questions to start off with. They are on our Treaty obligations, and also the arbitrariness of the date.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): To deal with the second question first, which I think has been well canvassed, to be honest, for quite a degree of time, it’s a belts and braces approach. The intention of the Government is to legislate for the planning bill and the Natural Environment Bill next year, at which point the new consenting regime will kick in and this bill—this Act—and the Resource Management Act (RMA) itself will wither away, but it just gives a bit of extra flex, just in case. So that, I think, deals with that. We’ve well canvassed that issue; people are entitled to disagree.
In relation to the member’s point around consultation, I wrote, as Minister responsible for RMA Reform, to Post Settlement Governance Entities and Te Tai Kaha and a range of other groups on Friday, so they’ve had not extensive consultation or engagement but—
Tangi Utikere: Friday—how many days is that?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you can do the math. I know you’re not very good at it, but you can figure it out. In relation to—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Would the letters have been received yet? Were they sent by NZ Post?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: They were emailed. We do have emails, you know. I would note—and I suspect members will raise this anyway because it’s relevant to the point the members are making—I would note at new section 123C(3), inserted by clause 5, the limitation of the extension of water-related consents to a maximum of 35 years. You can’t go beyond the 35 years for water-related consents. As I think some members will know, this was the maximum consent duration for freshwater agreed to by the Crown when the Crown settled the litigation in the “Lands” case, New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, a famous case back in 1987. The bill aligns with that case and aligns with that long-settled matter of policy across successive Governments. So you can’t go beyond a 35-year extension for water-related consents.
New section 123C(4) introduces a specific cut-off for certain historical water consents that were grandfathered into the RMA to avoid unintended long extensions—in other words, past the 35 years mark. It’s the same point. So both those two things have been written in specifically and, you know, that’s been done with post-settlement Government entities and other Māori groups in mind.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me this call to examine what I believe is quite a substantial aspect of the bill. This is particularly about the implications for council, and this clause makes it really clear, across the many parts of it, that there will be—like the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has said multiple times—less work for councils. With the very, very limited analysis that we have in the departmental disclosure statement—and this is on page 5—it’s talking about the potential costs and benefits; they make it really clear that they haven’t been able to undertake a broad analysis on those.
But my question is, specifically, then—it basically sums it up that this is a continuation of business as usual, and with respect to, particularly, “the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth”, it says that this is not expected. My question is: what are the actual implications for council staff? Because we know that a lot of council functions are user-pays, and we also know that, in the system ahead of us, councils will be under increasing resource strain because they will be undertaking the implementation of the Resource Management Act’s—the replacement bills that will come into effect. What is expected to happen to council staff jobs, particularly in the consent and compliance space, with the enaction of this?
Now, the Minister, I think, in his earlier comment, mentioned, “Oh, they’re expecting, like, a few thousand.” I’d like clarification of what the number was that the Minister says about how many consents they’re actually—you know, if they have any take on the magnitude of this, because if it is a great amount, then it could actually have significant impacts on those council staff and result in potential joblessness, presumably, for them. I’d really like to hear whether that has been considered, and to what magnitude.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): There is expected to be a light implementation requirement. Councils just simply have to update their records. Parliament is, essentially, legislating extensions for these consents. Councils have to update their records. That’s not burdensome. It probably takes longer than five minutes because we don’t have e-plans and digital records, but it shouldn’t, theoretically, take that much longer.
In relation to the member’s other question around how many consents, we’ve canvassed this at least two or three times now. We don’t know exactly, but we think, roughly, between, maybe, 2,000 and 2,500—about that many.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for taking us through some of the logic in new subsections 123C(3) and (4). I was going to ask about new subsection (4) and the bit right at the end of (4), which is “granted under this Act”, but it does seem clear that this is the Resource Management Act that that applies to.
Looking at new subsection (5), then, is that “Any conditions applying to a resource consent … before it expired … continue to apply unless a change to a condition is required as a consequence of extending the consent under this section.”. Can the Minister explain what type of change to a condition might be required as a consequence of extending the consent under the section? Is he thinking it's just about timing—temporal factors—or are there other factors, as well? For instance, if you had a consent that was trying to reduce, say, nitrates in to the river by a certain time and you got it extended, do you think there'd be some circumstance where you would—I'm just going to ask you another question, too.
Hon Chris Bishop: OK.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you [Knocks microphone]—oh, sorry microphone—thank you in anticipation of you answering that one.
But, also, related to this point is whether or not those conditions on that consent that are getting the two-year extension—can they be reviewed? Do the normal review provisions apply? I'm seeing a nod there, so I'll let you answer.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m advised it's really just to make clear that it doesn't change any consent conditions; it's just for clarity. It’s to make clear. If you’re talking about new section 123C(5), consent conditions continue to apply; and yes, there can be reviews. So it is just a time frame extension for a couple of years; everything else carries on.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Are there any examples, though? It does say, “unless a change to a condition is required as a consequence of extending [that] consent under this section.” Has he got any examples of what that might apply to, other than a temporal requirement in a consent condition?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham—you can ask your question in the meantime while the Minister—
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you. Mine is an extension of just that, because it implies that there is some sort of assessment or review, whereas this is talking about blanket extensions given set criteria, so I'm really keen to hear the Minister expand specifically on that.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, something’s occurred to me because I know that members of the coalition Government have indicated—and I haven’t seen the legislation; my colleagues may have read through it—in the two substantive pieces of legislation that we’re about to see, the implication is that if there is any imposition on property rights, then there will be some access to compensation.
So my question in relation to this is that if we indeed are having an extension, and it’s for two years, on consents that were processed and approved, fees paid for, and there may have been some payment for that right—so it’s a property right; we accept that—then the extension of that automatically may incur a liability—that is, that someone gets a free property right. The Minister responsible for RMA Reform said that it’s a certainty. So if we’re going to see the principles of compensation as applied in the legislation that we’re about to see, then should these people who have applied for, and have probably paid some money, to get that consent extended, if it’s automatic, then is there going to be a fee automatically paid for the extension of a property right?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The answer is no, although good question; and also, there will be no refunds for people that are in the midst of consent processing, either. This is just Parliament taking the problem away for everyone. So no compensation and no refunds.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): I mean, property rights accrue to not just a private landowner; property rights accrue to taxpayers, to the Crown, to iwi, and we may be foregoing property rights, and so what about us getting compensation? The Minister responsible for RMA Reform chortles away there, but I’d suggest to him that very soon after the implementation of his new Resource Management Act regime, the country will be tied up in huge litigation over whose property rights are paramount and who should be paid compensation. If we are to establish property rights in the hands of private individuals, then we must assess property rights across the collective, across the Crown, across iwi, and where’s that going to end up?
The Minister smiles. I’m glad that I’ve kind of tickled his fancy. I really am, because if he can’t see this coming down the track, then he should wake up. It’s an inevitable outcome of what he will be setting up. But for this piece of legislation here, the automatic rollover, did he—and he’s indicated no. Well, why not consider compensation to those who are passing on the additional property rights as a way of a reasonable commercial deal?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I refer the member to section 122 of the Resource Management Act (RMA): consents are not a property right—although sometimes people think they should be. I think the reason I was sort of chortling away and smiling is that, I mean, the member’s right and makes good points around—and we are going to have a debate in the next little while around the appropriate role of Government in regulating for the national good and the public good in the commons and on private property. We live in a mixed economy, and the Government’s view is that we have got the balance wrong when it comes to the ability of councils and Government to impose significant restrictions on private property for the public good, and that there needs to be a greater delineation between the public and the private realms. Now, that’s quite a big debate; it actually happened when the RMA 1991 was passed, and we’re going to have the same debate again.
I am not someone who thinks, for example, that you can’t have zoning. I mean, there’s a school of thought, in the hardcore anarcho-libertarian world, which suggests that zoning is a violation of property—I mean, sort of by definition, it’s true. I live in a residential zone; I can’t set up an industrial effluent discharge factory. That’s outrageous on one level. Clearly, there needs to be zoning. There’s a debate around the extent of it and the rules and how clear it is and the consistency, and we’re going to make some changes in that direction, but zoning is not offensive as a concept. Actually, it’s a legitimate planning role in order to separate out incompatible land uses so that you don’t rely on the tort of nuisance, which would be completely inefficient from a property rights point of view—you know, it’s got its place, but it would be inefficient, so that’s partly why we have planning. I’m not an extremist like that.
On the other hand, when councils or Governments can turn around and say, “Hey, by the way, you own that piece of land, 90 percent of it’s now a significant natural area.”, such that you can’t do anything with that land, that has an impact on your land. If I own a house and the Government turns around, or the council turns around, and says, “We’ve decided that it’s a heritage house.”, and I can’t add a second storey or subdivide or paint it a different colour, that has an impact. I think most people reasonably understand that, and the debate is in the middle rather than on the extremes. The debate in the middle is around what the appropriate kind of regulatory response to that is. We’re proposing a series of changes that force harder decisions around those choices. Well, I’m happy to have a debate about it, and no doubt we will; it’s not the focus of this, but, anyway, I just thought I’d take that opportunity to lay it out of it. I’m looking forward to the actual debate in due course.
Hon Damien O’Connor: Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a subsequent question?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): It is a subsequent question, absolutely, because I—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Related to here or the upcoming legislation?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes, it does go to this, because it goes to the heart of the automatic transfer of rights, which you’re talking about, because these consents are being extended. These consents are being extended with no compensation, the Minister has said, and the question is a legitimate one for us given there’s no select committee process. In select committee, I’m sure this would be kicked around. There’s no select committee process and it’s the only opportunity we have to quiz the Minister, and it’s a legitimate one: are there precedents being set here? That is that the compensation is only going to be one way under the Resource Management Act (RMA), and I think that is totally unjust.
The Minister refers to property rights of the commons versus private, except that we’ve started to touch on what is a critical issue. The Minister may talk about the middle, but his coalition partner in ACT talks about the extreme; that is, that private property rights trump everything else—trump being the right word. I am concerned that what we’re doing here, by automatically extending a consent, and people thought it was “just to offer certainty”, sets the precedent for free property-right extension for private property owners with no payment of compensation—call it what you like—for the commons or for the taxpayer.
That’s why I asked the Minister, because, while I respect his view that we’re trying to work in the middle, all the rhetoric that we hear around the RMA reforms is at the extreme end of property rights and upholding them. The Minister refers to one of a house; there are always restrictions on what you can do in and out and around your house—always. There will be, we hope, because to have completely laissez-faire, and a private property owner able to do whatever he or she or they want, is outrageous because we live in a community. We live in a society, and we have to have some guidelines, and the Minister accepts that. The question here is: are we setting a precedent here that automatically extends property rights for private landowners—that is, the person who’s got a consent—but doesn’t require any payment or compensation or consideration for that?
I’m no lawyer, but I know that deep in the heart of law and law journals and learnings, there are some key principles there. I’ll leave that question with the Minister and maybe he’d like to come back and answer it.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Lan Pham. We’re seriously running out of clauses on this Part, but before, when the Minister was taking advice, Lan Pham, you asked a question about assessment or review, and I don’t know that we actually got to the point where the Minister heard it and was able to answer. If you want to, perhaps, repeat that question as part of what you’re going to ask.
LAN PHAM (Green): Sure.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think you were asking whether there was going to be an assessment or review while this process was happening.
: LAN PHAMLan Pham: Yeah. Was there assessment? I’m just trying to find the clause that I followed up Rachel Brooking on—
Hon Members: Five.
: LAN PHAMLan Pham: Yes, it is clause 5.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s actually said he can deal with it.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I mean, this point was raised by Ms Pham and also Rachel Brooking. I’m advised it’s a “belts and braces” approach, just to make sure that conditions applying to resource consent continue, before it expired, and they continue to apply unless there’s a change applied as a consequence of extended resource consent. We don’t know if that would be the case, necessarily. I think the member asked for examples. We don’t know of any examples, but it’s just a “belts and braces” approach to say that, if there needs to be a change in conditions as a result of the two-year extension—frankly, I think it’s unlikely, but if there was—there’s the ability for that to happen, and that’s all there is to it, really.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams, you’ve been seeking a call for a little while, so we’ll take one from you, thank you.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some specific questions for the Minister around new section 123C(1)(b), and I was waiting for the opportunity to ask him because it is specifically about Auckland and different subject matter to what my colleagues have dealt with. I flagged for the Minister, in the earlier stages—I think it was the clause 1 debate—that I’d be asking about Plan Change (PC) 78 and PC 120, so I’ll turn to that now.
The question I have for the Minister is: he’s helpfully explained the word “expired” here, so I want to clarify with him what he means about consents which had inoperative effect before PC 120 came into effect, which followed his amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) previously passed in this House in this year. Auckland Council responded to that by introducing PC 120 from 3 November 2025.
It will help, Madam Chair, if you’ll allow me to set out an example for the Minister here. What I’m asking about is those developers—in many cases we’re talking about small developers—who were building three-storey townhouses and were relying on the medium density residential standards (MDRS) because the underlying zone in Auckland allowed for two-storey-high developments. They had a resource consent in those cases which didn’t cover permitted activities, because that was permitted by the MDRS, but they would have had consent for other things, like the civil works. Then, they would have either had a building consent or been in the process of having a building consent. When the MDRS became inoperative, and when PC 120 then applied, from 3 November, those developers were, effectively, in the situation where they no longer were able to develop their land. I’m asking him very straight whether new section 123C(1)(b) fixes the problem for those developers?
Given that he’s used the word “expired”, you’d have to read that up. He might improve the situation by talking about resource consents that were operative before the commencement date. That would be a simple change that would make sure that the situation that I’m talking about would clean that up. There’s a real need here for natural justice, especially because, in that situation, there were developers who were doing everything right and progressing their developments under the rules as they applied then and were hearing policy intentions from political parties of both colours that the intention was to continue with intensification, so those three-storey townhouses were not only encouraged at the time but they were developing them but were also something that they probably should have been able to rely on being allowed for in the future. That is, in fact, the case with PC 120, but they can’t rely on PC 120. I think the Minister gets the gist. I have some other questions about the natural justice questions.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m very familiar with that issue. It’s not for me to give legal advice. It’s not the intention of this bill, in the clause the member refers to, to assist. I am familiar with the examples that the member raises, and there it would be fair to say that there is dialogue between the Government and council.
Arena Williams: But you can fix it now.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s slightly more complicated than that, because these were consents that had, largely, permitted activities. I’m getting away from the bill now, but they had permitted activity standards, which, because of the immediate withdrawal of Plan Change 78 and the replacement by Plan Change 120, they no longer have any form of consent. The 124 carry-over doesn’t apply, sort of fall within this lacuna, which is, frankly, pretty frustrating for everyone. I think the member is nodding. I can talk to her offline about it, but there is dialogue between council and the Government in relation to that issue. It’s not the intention of this section to help that particular situation.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Tangi Utikere, but I am looking for new clauses now, because I think we have pretty much canvassed the main part of this and there’s very little left in this piece.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia ora, thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Madam Chair. I actually just want to seek your guidance on something, and this is something I’ve been observing. Madam Chair, you were the Chair that was in the seat at the stage when we were going through the committee stage for the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act, which was a member’s bill by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. That was a bill that went through select committee stage and it was a member’s bill and it was four pages long, and in those processes, the Chair has allowed for a four-hour debate on those bills. I just want to seek the—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, no, I think where you’re conflating the two issues is that—that was a member’s bill, and you will have observed in your time in the House, because you’re very perceptive, that members’ day bills run quite differently, because of the dynamics of the House and the numbers on each side of the House, it almost goes in reverse. In this situation, what I’m actually wanting to do is to get the best out of each clause. It’s a very specific bill that’s setting a time frame. The questions have been relevant, but I think we’re getting to the end of new questions.
TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Madam Chair, it’s a pleasure to put some questions to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform on what is the most significant part of this bill.
Earlier in a contribution, the Minister talked about how the courts would perhaps not be looking at the Hansard, but would be more interested in what’s actually contained in the bill. There are a couple of questions around this. The first one, for me, is whether or not the Minister has looked at a shorter period of time. For example, what’s proposed currently is that it would be a two-year period, through to 31 December, but the Minister hasn’t indicated in committee as to why a shorter period of time, perhaps, would not be more appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I wasn’t in the Chair, but I believe that may have been traversed during the commencement clause.
TANGI UTIKERE: The commencement clause.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.
TANGI UTIKERE: OK, thank you. But not related—it might have been in the commencement clause, but not in relation to this particular clause—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But it has been discussed.
TANGI UTIKERE: Clause 5 outlines the particular dates that things come into effect. The question I have for the Minister is—it’s curious, when one looks at new section 123C(1)(a), the language that is used throughout this clause when it comes to the date is actually around “before the close of 31 December 2027:”, and then further down that’s repeated, I think, at least on two other occasions, and then there is “expires on the close of 1 October 2026” in subsection (4). The curious nature of that, of course, is that often when we talk about the close of something, it could be the close of business—one assumes that it is midnight, here. Why does it not just say 1 January 2028? I mean, effectively, it’s the same aspect, right? I mean, consistency with other legislation in terms of when a particular date comes into effect—that is my first question.
My other question is around new section 123C(8), and this relies on the issues that have been raised previously in contributions, and certainly in the second reading and first reading, around the lack of information that is available. The Minister has talked about thousands of consents being impacted in this particular space, but when we look at subsection (8), this is talking about the extant waste-water consents which relate to constructing or operating a waste-water network—there are not huge numbers of those. When that’s broken down, this is, effectively, a caveat that doesn’t apply—it’s an exemption, basically—but it applies in two particular quarters or two areas: the first is section 139C, and the second one is 139D, the “D” one is about the Minister making an extension.
My question for the Minister is: does he have any information on the numbers of consents that fall into this particular provision? It’s not about, you know, there are thousands out there; I accept the Minister has said that we don’t have the information specifically in front of us. But, when we are talking about, effectively, carving out the applicability to certain types of consents, when it comes to extant waste-water consents that have already been extended either by application or, indeed, by the Minister, I think it is still important to understand how many we are talking about in that particular space.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Good questions from the member. In relation to new section 123C(4), as I talked to Ms Brooking about around this, it introduces a specific cut-off with certain historic water consents that were grandfathered into the Resource Management Act (RMA), hence the 1 October 2026 time frame. Subsection (8) is important; waste-water consents were extended to allow for new waste-water standards to now, which have now been introduced. They are extended beyond 31 December 2027, to August 2028, as I think the member knows. The purpose of subsection (8) is to avoid overriding that, so we’re not shortening their extension via this bill.
Just for clarity, the waste-water consents have already been extended by the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2025. That’s already happened through to August 2028 and everyone’s—well, there seems to be broad agreement that that’s OK. That’s the law, anyway. It is what it is. The purpose of new section 123C(8) is to avoid overriding recently legislated arrangements for waste-water network consents. The bill excludes waste-water consents from the general consent transition provision. For maximum clarity: waste water, August 2028. Everything else, two years through to December 2027. But it’s to avoid overriding that.
TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, replacing “31 December 2027” with “31 December 2026” in all instances, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, replacing “31 December 2027” with “1 December 2026 at 5 p.m.” in all instances, is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, inserting new subsection (1A), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, replacing subsection (2), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(2), amending paragraph (a), is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, inserting new subsection (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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting section 123C(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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(3)(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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(3)(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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(3)(b), to replace “35” with “30”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(3)(b), to replace “35 years” with “20 years”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(3)(b), replacing “35 years” with “12 years with a right to renewal of another 12 years”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ remaining tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(3)(b), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(3)(b), is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, inserting new subsection (3A), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, inserting new subsection (3A), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(4), replacing “1 October 2026” with “1 September 2026”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, inserting new subsection (5A), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(7), replacing “6” with “9”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(7), replacing “6” with “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 (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(7), is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(7), replacing “6” with “12”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C, inserting new subsection (7A), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting 123C(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 (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting section 123C(8), is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as previous amendment.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(9), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(9), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 123C(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.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5 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 5 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Third Reading
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I move, That the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
The issues have been well canvassed in the first and second readings and the committee of the whole House, and I want to thank members of the Opposition for their good engagement during the committee of the whole House stage. I think we had a good, robust interrogation of the various clauses—including the first, and I’m sure not the last, time we had a debate over what the word “is” means from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. He’s fast gaining a reputation as the master of—oh, here he is—niche questioning. Some would call it esoteric, others would call it pointless, but reasonable people can disagree on all of these issues, and, anyway, we enjoy it.
The intention of this bill has been well canvassed. It’s a short bill, six clauses only—five, maybe—to provide certainty as we go through that consent transition process laid out in the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which were laid on the floor of the House today. They will get a first reading next week, and we will have a chance to have debate about those next week and send them to select committee. In the interim, it is clear that the Parliament needs to send a clear signal to people with that uncertainty around what happens to their consents as we approach the onset of the new planning system, so the consent extensions are through to 31 December 2027. That’s a belts and braces approach—a bit of a backstop. The new regime will take effect at some point mid next year, which will kick into the whole regime.
I think the issues with that have been well canvassed, but it’s a really short and sharp bill. It is a temporary bill; it is a temporary transition measure. I think it will be widely welcomed by many people around New Zealand.
Grant McCallum: Absolutely.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Absolutely, says Grant McCallum; farming communities, says Grant McCallum. The others as well. I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to remind everybody who’s watching that this bill was introduced today—Tuesday—in the afternoon, and we did not see any of the accompanying documents until the Minister stood up and started speaking. We’re now coming to the third reading, and tomorrow morning—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which will still be today.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —which will still be today in parliamentary time. You’re right—you’re right, Madam Speaker. But we will still be on this bill and then it will be sent off for Royal assent. This is a terrible way to make law, and that is why Labour has been opposing this bill. It was not signalled to us at all. To give the Minister some credit, he has engaged on the other two pieces of legislation, but not this. This came as a total surprise today, and here we are, already on the third reading.
There’s just been no analysis with this bill, so we do not know what the consequences of it will be. We’ve heard the Minister say, “Well, it’s a Christmas present to people.” We’ve heard other members say, “This is going to be great for farmers.”—but why is it going to be great for those people, and what are the implications for other resource users? Because most resource consents that have an expiry date on them are for water takes and discharges; that is, if there is some pollution of a waterway or if water is being taken, it could be taken for all sorts of wonderful reasons. But if you take water, then that will often have an implication for other users of that resource, because there is not all the water that everybody wants in all of the places, and so different consents will go for different periods of time and they will impact on other people’s uses, as well. They might be future users; it might be a new farmer who wants to get a consent to do something with water and they might not be able to, as a consequence of somebody else having their consent go for another two years without having to apply for it; it might be that the water continues to be polluted when it wouldn’t have been otherwise.
There’s a whole lot of “mights” here—and this is my point. I don’t know what the consequences of this bill will be, because we were presented with zero analysis. All that we heard was that there would be some thousands of consents affected. That was it: not the types of consents, not the implications on other consents—none of that analysis was there. We heard from other speakers around this side of the House, as well, about how communities very much care about waterways and how they’re relevant to Treaty settlements. They’re very important to iwi; they’re mahinga kai areas. If someone continues to have a consent that is polluting or is taking water, that might have—when I say it “might”, again—that might have an impact on the amount of tuna in the river. It might not—I don’t know, because nobody has told us.
So this legislation, whilst the Minister can wave it about and say “Well, it’s only five clauses, it doesn’t really matter.”, it does matter. We don’t know how much it matters, though, and had we been able to take this to a select committee, I could have asked those questions. I could have asked those questions of officials: “What are the implications of this? Where is your analysis on who is going to be impacted by these changes?”—but I’ve not had the opportunity to do so. It seems that it’s just for some sort of political joking-around about the importance of Christmas, which I just really think undermines our parliamentary democracy and is not a reason for using all-stages urgency.
Now, I say whenever we do these bills under all-stages urgency—when there is no emergency, but even if there was an emergency, I would still say it—there needs to be a post-enactment review of what we’re doing here today. But yet again, we have another piece of legislation that has no post-enactment review. If there was a compelling argument for why this Christmas gift of certainty was needed, then at least we could come back in the new year and ask those questions of officials: “Well, how many people is that going to affect?” That would be difficult, of course, to do that. We would do that, but it would be very unlikely that this Government would then want to undermine those rights that they’d just given. I do acknowledge that, but I think it goes to the wider point that we should not be passing legislation in this way.
We should have had time to ask the select committee what it meant—who will be affected by it. We heard the Minister say, “Oh, there’s been good debate.” We’ve heard very little from the Government side in their contributions—maybe we will hear some more from them in the third reading—because almost every contribution, except from the Ministers, has been about farmers and how this is going to help farmers.
Suze Redmayne: The engine room of the economy.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, and I’m hearing it’s the “engine room of the economy.” Well, farmers often have arguments with other farmers about these resources. But, also, not all of these consents relate to farmers. There are giant other parts of our economy that this bill relates to, and they might be totally benign users; there might be very good things that we all want to continue on with for two years—but we don’t know, because there has been no analysis. That is very poor, and it’s incredibly annoying to just listen to the people across there go on about how it’s all going to be great for farmers, without turning their minds to what this piece of legislation might mean and who might be affected by it. I have not heard one speech address that issue, so I’m very hopeful that the future third reading speeches will address that.
Now, another way to approach this bill could have been “OK, we want to give people some certainty as a new regime is coming, but we know that some consents are more proportionally”—and the Minister is talking about proportionality in his new legislation a lot—you might say, “Well, we know that some consents have much bigger environmental impacts than other consents.” If you’ve got a little take of water for your household, or you have to feed your cats or something, then you might not need very much water; but if you are taking for a massive hydro scheme, then that is going to have—or could have; depends how long the consent has been around for—some very big environmental effects, and those are the effects that that I’m concerned about here. If the Minister wanted to do this, there could be legislation that said, “We are going to extend consents that are below some threshold.”
Of course, that would require some thought to work out what the threshold is, and to work out what that threshold is, you’d have to be more explicit in the thinking and the analysis of the type of consents that are affected by this piece of legislation. Of course, that hasn’t happened. But that would be a way of saying “No, no, we realise that a small family farmer who’s got some consents that may not trouble the river that much.”—that might be entirely appropriate for them to have a two-year extension in this, whereas a very large project that perhaps the consent conditions were made a long time ago—perhaps it’s one of those consents that was made 25 years ago, when conditions were of quite a different form than they are now—with that resource consent, it might not be appropriate that those conditions remain for another two years now.
Simon Court: It’s going to be fine for two years.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: We don’t know it’s going to be fine, Mr Court. That is the problem.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption tomorrow morning. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
TUESDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2025
(continued on Wednesday, 10 December 2025)
Bills
Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Good morning. When the House rose last night, we were on the third reading of the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill.
LAN PHAM (Green): Mōrena, and a holly, jolly merry Christmas morning we have this morning, although we are in yesterday in this urgency, and so it makes it a little bit weird. I wish I could say I was feeling the Christmas spirit today—I really wish I could—but the unfortunate thing is that we’re starting this long day of urgency with nothing but a lump of democratic override, delayed environmental protections, and more pollution for Kiwis for Christmas.
I think the really disappointing thing that we heard throughout the committee stage was this constant denial and downplaying of the actual impacts of this bill. We heard from Minister Bishop that “It’s just a bill. It’s only five clauses. It’s not that complicated.”, and yet it was so clear throughout that the understanding of the very real implications is just completely absent. We don’t know the actual implications when it comes to exactly how many consents, exactly what the environmental impacts will be of this delay. There was a real incoherence and total lack of understanding within that about our existing resource management system and the people and the resources that go into actually making it work. We haven’t seen that or heard that at all or an acknowledgement of that. I really want to take the time in the wrap-up of this third reading to acknowledge those people, particularly those council staff but also those fantastic landowners and farmers who know and understand the importance of environmental protections and are actually getting on with the job despite anything that this Government is doing.
We also heard from Minister Bishop that we’re, effectively, doing to consents what we’ve already done with plans through the plan stop, relieving everyone of the burden of going through the motions with a major overhaul looming. But what that Government is actually doing is leaving everyone else to continue to live with the burden of the impacts from the activities that happen in their communities, and a lot of these perhaps never should have been consented in the first place, or were finally getting to the position where they would be renewed, where actual rules and regulations that exist within our district and our regional and our unitary plans would actually have some effect. That’s not just for a bureaucratic exercise; that’s actually because we know we’re losing biodiversity and we continue to lose it.
We know we’re losing these last remaining dry land pockets of minute indigenous vegetation and kōwhai. These are the unseen impacts of this bill, and communities will now have to live with those impacts for another five or maybe six years, or longer.
What we find extremely disappointing with this Government’s pushing through the urgency of this bill is the power that is taken away from communities where, in many instances—and particularly with iwi and hapū—were finally about to be able to have a say, be able to contribute, whether that be through their own voice or through the voice of the democratically landed plans that actually wrote those rules and regulations that would have had impact.
Instead, we have this complete and utter overreach from this Government, and it actually says everything it needs to say about the Government. They seemingly have zero understanding of a duty of care that New Zealanders actually expect from Government—no matter their stripes—of actually protecting te taiao, our environment, and the value of local voice. The Government waxes lyrical about localism and then takes all the power away from those local communities.
Stuart Smith: Come on, say something positive.
LAN PHAM: What’s really damaging—and I’m hearing from the Government that they want to hear something positive. Well, I think the positive thing that’s going to come of this is that the communities across Aotearoa are seeing exactly what this Government is about in terms of destruction of te taiao, continued exploitation, and they’re going to take the opportunity that the next year brings to vote this Government out.
That’s the positive that I’m taking from this, because no matter what this Government does, for people, for farmers and for landowners who actually understand the world, the environment, and their markets—they know that where we’re going and where we’re ultimately evolving as humanity on this planet is towards increased environmental protection and connection and understanding, not less. This is a rallying call for everyone out there who rejects what this Government are doing to get involved. That’s the positive that I want to take from today.
They also say that this will give certainty to consent holders, councils, and communities while the Resource Management Act (RMA) is being replaced, and that is bang on because it will certainly be the status quo continuing. It means certainty for those many communities across our country—places like Waimate, like Selwyn, like Kāeo up in the North—that their water supply will continue to be undrinkable because of pollution, primarily from intensive agriculture, waste-water systems, stormwater systems. It’s all one bundle. It will mean certainty this summer for New Zealanders who go out and think they can safely swim in their rivers and lakes and they either get sick or—if they’re on to it enough to actually check—find that their local river, lake, or beach is actually unswimmable, and it will certainly mean certainty for the declining trends that we know exist, with more species at risk of extinction, more communities struggling to pay for clean drinking water, and more valuable soil being washed off our hillsides.
Ultimately, this bill and the next steps that it provides for in this replacement of the RMA based on private property rights will give New Zealanders certainty that soon enough, what someone wants to do with the land that they have the influence to make decisions on, whether they’re the overpaid CEO of large milk-processing companies, a mining executive or industrial farmer, or simply a neighbour—those private property rights will be more important than the activity that might have and the degradation and the exploitation that it will have on the communities and people downstream or in proximity to them. That is absolutely not acceptable.
If farming operators want to intensively farm, the nutrient pollution that leaches into the groundwater doesn’t just remain there; it impacts everyone around them and it pollutes the groundwater. We know this. We know that if someone strips the native forest on the hills of their property, the soil that washes down in the storms doesn’t stop at the property boundary. It carries on downstream. It carries on to communities, with sometimes devastating impacts. We know that if landowners plant pine trees on steep land and clear-fell them in one harvest, the logs and the soil don’t respect property rights; they impact all of us.
This bill is just one of the many Government’s short-sighted, ill-thought-out, destructive attacks on even the most basic protections that we have remaining. It can be really hard within this to remember that a better future is possible, but we’re staying focused, and New Zealand should know that it is.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Well, some good news: the previous speaker mentioned about whether people can swim. I just did a quick check—it was 28 degrees on the farm yesterday, I was told, and I had a quick check of the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa site, and, yep, the daughters are free to go swimming in the river, it’s all good, and it looked like the rest of the Manawatū was as well. So it’s not all doom and gloom.
In terms of this bill, it’s a very simple bill. We’ve got a fundamental change coming up with the resource management system. We are completely changing it on its head. We are moving to a new system. It makes absolute sense that we take the current consent holders and transition them through into this new system. I don’t know whether the members have seen the various accounts of how much it is costing people to get a simple consent renewal, but it’s tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, to go through this process—all for what? It’s not making the environment any better; it’s making lawyers richer, but it ain’t doing much for the environment.
So this just makes complete and utter sense. The member also mentioned about the fantastic farmers that are out there. Well, these are the people I’ve been meeting. These are the people that are facing these huge costs. If you don’t believe me, feel free to send me an email and I’ll give you the names and addresses—you can go and visit them yourselves and see the absolute wrenching process they’ve had to go through, with the absolute farms they’re running, just to try and get a consent renewal to keep on doing exactly what they’ve been doing, and, in many cases, getting awards for it, getting A grade reports. This bill just makes absolute sense, and I commend it to the House.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill. In the first reading, the Hon Mark Patterson mentioned what a big week this is for New Zealand’s future, and it is a big week, and this is a part of that legislation that will make such a difference going into 2026. It is a turning point in this environmental legislation in renewing the law as we go forward. It’s also taking a blowtorch to the red and green tape that we see that is holding up business and development within the country.
As we heard from the last speaker, it is a simple bill in the fact that it’s a two-year extension; it gives to 31 December 2027 till the Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement legislation comes in. What that does is give some certainty. It also helps around costs, so people aren’t spending unforeseeable amounts of costs on the old, broken RMA. Both sides of this House get up constantly and say how the RMA 1991 is broken, so why would we want to force people to go through that system if it’s a broken system when we’ve got something better just on the horizon? That is the reason we give this extension here today.
The other thing we hear too often from the Opposition, from the other side of the House, is that everyone in New Zealand that’s got a resource consent for some reason is a villain. They’re not; they are genuine people trying to get this economy moving and trying to grow the economy. This side of the House is getting behind those businesses and supporting them. That side of the House is being unhelpful. They’re adding cost and uncertainty by making them go through a broken system. They actually sound like the bureaucracy we’re trying to get rid of. That’s the reason they’ll still be in Opposition in 2026, going into 2027. This Opposition doesn’t care. We do care on this side of the House. We will grow the economy. This is a good piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, e te Pika. You know, the hardest thing is not just having this whole debate under urgency but is also reconciling the myth plus the legend and the whole lot of Disney kōrero that’s been going on in the last 12 hours.
What it is, is that the biggest discussion here—the fundamental principle of what’s going on—is that there is an assumption that everyone that has a consent is best practicing; that they have best-practicing environmental aspects to their business, to their thinking, to their culture, to their way of being. But that is not the case for many. For many, this bill has interrupted those who have survived muru raupatu and were expecting to have consents concluding and justice served. That is not what is happening here.
In many situations, we have people who have been absolute great citizens of Aotearoa, who have honoured Te Tiriti, who have honoured settlements, and awa, the Waikato awa, who are concerned with the extraction that consents are doing. In many situations, these are great partnerships and great examples for Aotearoa, to show those iwi, those hapū, those leaders of community, community Māori, that have gone and worked with their councils, that have gone and agreed on what can be the next movement within these consents, but they’re no longer going to end.
That is the fundamental here: not that there are some good farmers, not that there are some good practicing companies; the fact that the law was meant to protect us all. By extending this, that has been taken off every other citizen who has absolute right to be able to conclude some poor-practicing companies with really bad consents. That is what’s at stake here.
I think we need to go back and remind our whānau out there what consents look like. So, what this Government has said is that those who are not best practicing in polluting discharges, those who are not best practicing in industrial emissions, those who are not best practicing in stormwater runoffs, in land use, in coastal permits, in marine and coastal structures, those who are not best practicing and how they have applied their way into infrastructure projects are now given an extension. That’s the debate, and we should all be applauding those who are best practising; I certainly do, and there are some great farming practices. We’re all shareholders in Parininihi ki Waitōtara—great farming practices, great land use—but not everyone is in that situation.
That’s where this bill has desperately let down those communities. They have spent years, generations, protecting and expecting justice, and this Government—in the interests, which we continuously hear, of economic development—has told those iwi, those hapū, those communities to go and forget what we had said we would do, which is treat all of Aotearoa equally, all of Aotearoa well, and with justice. And that is not what this bill’s doing. You can sit there and say it’s complex—well, the Government can sit there and say it’s complex—but it actually isn’t.
Why is everything that has to be about justice and economic development involve removing Treaty relationships, involve removing the goodness and goodwill of iwi, involve taking out hapū? Why? Why can’t we sit here and be a Government and be a country and be a Parliament that actually sits here and says, “You’re right, we honour Te Tiriti, we honour the great partnerships and the leadership that’s happening out in the regions, that’s happening out locally.”? No, why is it that everything that involves economic development, everything that involves cleaning things out in this Government also means moving and sidelining Māori? Why?
That is the problem here: this Government has told all those waiting for generations, across consecutive Governments, that “You do not matter, your consent issues do not matter, your pollution issues do not matter; the fact that your wahi tapu and your ability to want to develop does not matter. But, by goodness, Māori, you matter when we want economic solutions, you matter when we want to make sure we have great partnerships with your dollars. But your principles and your values are thrown and sidelined by this Government.”
That’s what this bill is doing and only this Government will be able to confront the wrath of iwi and many who are unnecessarily having to spend their time in courts, undoing the damage that this has done. This was about honouring, and this Government has honoured and sat there and agreed to every Treaty settlement that has come through this House—every Treaty settlement—but in one swipe, under urgency, without even allowing them the dignity of a kōrero or a conversation, you have decided to sideline their interests, sideline their intergenerational fights, sideline the fact that they have rights to be able to respect this taiao, and you have sidelined every other New Zealander that cares about the future of their mokopuna. Shame on this Government. Kia ora rā.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to remind the House and the member Jamie Arbuckle that it was his Government that reinstated the Resource Management Act (RMA) at the beginning of this term after the previous Government had created a whole new piece of environmental legislation, the Natural and Built Environment Act. What was announced yesterday, which is the reason for this piece of legislation before us today, was a radical inversion of the principle and the purpose of our primary legislative structure around the environment, which is the protection of the environment. This Government has now created a situation where public officials will be spending the best part of six years rewriting environmental law because of the time spent by the previous Government and the time spent by this Government. How does that give certainty to the public or to industry? Minister Hoggard said, just now in his speech, that the new RMA completely turns it on its head. It does—it does—because it says that private capital should be the primary focus of our environmental regulatory system, not the environment.
This bill before us, which extends the consents, has had, like so many things that come to this House under this Government, exceedingly little evaluation and scrutiny. There is no accompanying regulatory impact statement. The Ministry for Regulation has not exempted the proposal. The urgency with which this legislation was prepared did not allow time for a regulatory impact statement to be developed. Several thousand consents have recently expired or are likely to expire next year, based on the limited data available—well, we don’t have exact data. The urgent time frames for preparing this legislation have constrained the ability to undertake a broader analysis of the magnitude of the costs and the benefits—this is all in the departmental disclosure statement—and the cost to the environment has certainly not been evaluated. This Government fundamentally does not care about that cost. It is imposing on us new, radically right-wing, property rights above the commons, above the public good, above the founding principle on which our nation is based, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is imposing a new form of—actually, Mr Bishop, in his responses to questions last night used a term, “anarcho-libertarianism”. In fact, the correct term for it is anarcho-capitalism, whereby you place private property at the centre of all considerations, and you enforce the rights of private property.
What’s the problem with that? I’ll tell you what the big problem with it is: the commons don’t belong to anybody. The atmosphere doesn’t belong to anybody. From the mountains to the sea, the rivers, the lakes, the aquifers, the oceans—they’re not the possession of anybody. How can you protect them through upholding private capital and property rights? You simply can’t. The only thing you can do through that is allow the greater destruction and exploitation of them. If you’ve got the loot, you’ve got the right to pollute. If you say that private property, which is capital, is a basis for a right, then the simple fact is that, if you’ve got more money, you’ve got more rights. When Mr Bishop gives the example of somebody putting a garage on the front of their house, that makes it sound like it’s not actually about giving extraordinary extra rights to major corporations in this country—tio say that if I’m going to tell Fonterra they can’t put so many nitrates into our rivers, I better compensate them for it. I better compensate them for the regulator and the legislator doing their duty—which is protecting the commons from those who would destroy it—for the good of this generation and future generations. That is what environmental law should be based on. This extension is just a pathway to Ozymandian hubris.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Look, the third reading of this bill—it’s been great to traverse everything over the last wee while. I think what is very important to say here is that there is nothing more local than individuals in a community getting jobs done, doing things that are very important for them. I think that what has been said opposite is an insult to the council planners, consent planners, that have put a huge deal of work into what’s been done in the first place. This is making sure that every single one—and I said this last night—has certainty to keep going over the next two years, while we go through the upcoming process. It is important, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Quite a few things to traverse in the third reading of the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill today, and I want to make mention of some of the comments that members opposite have made, particularly Jamie Arbuckle, who said—proclaimed—that those of us on this side who are speaking in opposition to this bill hold a view that those who hold resource consents are villains, and that is absolute nonsense. There is nothing that is further from the truth, and I will lay out, in my contribution to the third reading of this bill, why that is so.
Firstly, I will make the point, though, about the process that we’ve debated this bill under. It’s been under urgency—all stages urgency. While this may be a transitional bill, it provides, according to Government members, some certainty for those who hold resource consent. But there was actually no need, firstly, for this bill at all, if the Government had got their act together and done a better job with the resource management reform that they campaigned on. Secondly, I still don’t understand, although we’ve gone through pretty much all stages of this bill, including a committee of the whole House stage of this bill, why the secrecy for this bill. Is it just that the Government couldn’t get their act in order? Did they not foresee that this was going to happen? I mean, the bill was introduced to the House very—well, a very short time frame before we actually debated this bill for the first time, to the point that when we read the bill and we clicked on the link to the departmental disclosure statement (DDS), the link was broken, and we couldn’t actually get the DDS till we were in this House and we picked it up off the table.
I mean, why this level of secrecy? We didn’t know what the first bill was that they were going to introduce under urgency, and it was this one—a transitional bill that, apparently, just provides some certainty for resource consent holders. Did they not see that this was coming? To my other point that I sort of laid out at the start, that there is actually no need for this bill at all: we spent a fair bit of time and we understand the need for faster consenting processes. We understood the fact that the Resource Management Act (RMA) wasn’t working in terms of consenting or protections for the environment; in fact, we repealed it, and we replaced the RMA with two bills, which were the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act.
Now, this Government took office in 2023, and one of the first things they did was to repeal, in December 2023, those two bills. They have now taken two years to come up with two bills of their own, which, to an extent, mirror the legislation that Labour in Government brought into play, that we had worked on over a considerable number of years. The main difference between their two bills and the ones that we introduced to replace the Resource Management Act is the emphasis on property rights, and that is the bit that is going to be problematic. But, you know, members can judge—members of the public can judge—whether it warranted taking two years to repeal something and to replace it with legislation that is purely ideologically driven by that side of the House.
Now, if they hadn’t taken all that time to replace those two bills, they wouldn’t have needed a transition bill, which is what we are debating under all-stages urgency in this House today. What is the problem with all-stages urgency? Firstly, the lack of analysis. It is just bad lawmaking, and it is becoming a trend of this Government to push through legislation—
Grant McCallum: Did you never do that? Did Labour never do that?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Members opposite heckle, “Oh, Labour did it, too.” Not as much as this Government is doing; and secondly, you do it when there’s an absolute need to do it. That is why urgency is allowed in this House—not to push through things because a Government is shambolic and couldn’t get their act in order, which is what we are seeing now. So it’s bad lawmaking to keep pushing through bills that circumvent proper scrutiny and don’t allow public consultation or public input here. It’s clearly stated in the departmental disclosure statement—once we got our hands on that—it says, quite clearly, here that there is no regulatory impact statement (RIS) because “The urgency with which this legislation was prepared did not allow time for a RIS to be developed.”.
Also, under the section around the extent of impact analysis that is available, it clearly states here that “Several thousand consents have recently expired or are likely to expire next year, based on the limited data available.” That, the Minister did lay out during the committee of the whole House stage: that that information is just not available, apparently. But it goes on to say that the analysis around the size of the potential costs and benefits of this legislation: no analysis around that. Again, it says here, quite clearly, that it’s because of “the urgent timeframes for preparing this legislation [that] have constrained the ability to undertake a broader analysis of the magnitude of costs and benefits.”, with regard to this piece of legislation.
I want to also lay out comments that have been made by environmental NGOs, most notably Forest & Bird. Given that all of their voices were shut out of this process because there was no select committee stage to this—not even a short one, which the Government could have could have done—their concerns are around the blanket consent extensions that this bill provides for. It’s predicated on a few different things: one, of course, the environmental risk that it could pose. When consents are extended without proper environmental assessments, it could pose a serious risk to biodiversity, to marine biodiversity, to water quality, and taonga species.
The other thing that it does is that it circumvents community and iwi or hapū input as well. Blanket extensions without thorough re-consenting or local review will bypass meaningful public input into this, and that undermines our democratic rights as a whole.
Finally, what it also does when you don’t have a review process is you lock in outdated conditions as well. Things move on, you know, things change—
Arena Williams: That’s right—stuck in time.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: This Government is, indeed, stuck in time because science advances and progresses; environmental conditions change. Climate impacts also mean that there will be, potentially, an impact on the environment, and if you have a review process for these resource consents baked-in, it allows you to take those changes into account and then decide whether a consent should be reviewed or not.
Forest & Bird also laid out some options for this Government, which I was hoping to traverse in the committee of the whole House stage but, unfortunately, I didn’t get a call, and so I’ll lay them out here—
Ryan Hamilton: It’s because you weren’t here.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: What this Government could have chosen to do is to apply a risk-based review when it comes to consents. They could have chosen to enable low-risk consents to be progressed very quickly. They could have even allowed for higher-risk consent to be accelerated, but to bake-in a review process with an allowance for community input there as well. They could have chosen to provide shorter extensions—a six-year extension seems incredibly long. Given new consents can be issued from mid-2026, they could have, actually, picked a shorter time frame, and, basically, what the Minister said during committee of the whole House stage was, “Oh, well, you know, we kind of had to pick a time frame, and that’s it.” They could have also ensured that Treaty obligations were met. Instead of just informing Treaty partners, they could have consulted with Treaty partners and not, therefore, potentially breached their Treaty obligations.
There are a number of things that this Government could have done better, but, unfortunately, they don’t seem to be able to get their matters in hand. They could have foreseen that this was coming. They could have just stuck with the two bills that Labour worked on—that was, actually, essentially, where they’re getting to as well, because we did recognise the need for faster consents; however, we on the side of the House also prioritise protecting the environment. This Government doesn’t seem to feel the need to do that. We’ve seen numerous examples of how they continue to wage a war on the environment. This seems to be the next step.
They’ve framed it as something that is transitional, something that is really “nothing to see here”, but they could have used this opportunity to do things better, and they chose not to. For all of those reasons that I’ve laid out, we do not support this bill.
Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Catherine—point of order—
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Arena Williams. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just want to draw your attention to the comment of Ryan Hamilton. He said during the speech of the conservation spokesperson of the Labour Party that she was not here. His exact quote was “Because you weren’t here.” That is untrue and misleading. The reason why she didn’t get a call was because the person in the chair at the time took a closure motion, and I’d like him to apologise.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, could you run that by me again.
ARENA WILLIAMS: No problem. It’s both prohibited under the Standing Orders to comment on whether someone is in the House or not and to say something which is untrue, whether that’s in a speech or in a heckle. During the speech of my colleague, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Ryan Hamilton called out “Because you weren’t here.” in response to her comment, “I didn’t get a call in the committee stage and so I will lay my argument out here.” That is untrue and it is unbecoming of a parliamentarian to comment in that way, and I’m asking you to ask him to withdraw and apologise.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): All right. Mr Hamilton, that is actually correct. So I won’t ask you to withdraw and apologise. I’ll put that as a warning broadly that we don’t comment on people not being in the House, but I don’t think it reached the threshold of withdraw and apologise.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I’d like to give the Opposition a little wake-up call. When you run a business, you need certainty. When you export apples to the world, when you export red meat to the world, you need certainty. This bill is about giving certainty to those consent holders, to those business owners so they can create jobs and so they can grow our economy. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Five-minute split call.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): I’d suggest to that previous speaker, Catherine Wedd, that she wakes up and comes into the real world. There is not much certainty, and those people who survive will be the ones who adapt to the changing circumstances internationally. This is a desperate bill, rushed through the House under urgency, and I’d suggest that it will be shown in history to be faulty. That’s what usually happens.
What we have here is rhetoric overtaking reality. We have a piece of legislation being passed through the House to deal with about possibly 2,500 to 7,000—no one knows, because there was no regulatory impact statement done; no idea of what is the issue here that is at stake—of 200,000 consents being managed by councils across the nation. This Parliament often passes legislation to deal with a very small minority of consent holders or people who break the law. This is the case now. But be careful what you ask for: the Resource Management Act was an Act passed by the National Government. It’s been amended, it’s been chopped and changed, mainly added to, and all would agree that it’s not perfect. But the rhetoric that we have from the people in the House here: blowtorch to red and green tape; turning it on its head. This is what we hear from the coalition partners.
Well, go to the World Bank and ask: what is the reality for New Zealand businesses in this country? What are the hurdles to operating—the so-called certainty that the previous speaker referred to? Well, actually, we’ve been judged number one year after year to operate business internationally. It’s easier in this country than just about every other country in the world. Now, can I say that of course some of the regulations are not perfect, and we should continue to improve them. But if you get into the rhetoric that we hear from the other side of the House, they’re going to throw it all out. We are already a laughing stock internationally for turning our back on our international obligations around climate change and around biodiversity. This will further add to the declining reputation that our ancestors have built up.
The vast majority, as I said before, of regulation and legislation that we pass here is for the minority of people. Deregulation is rhetoric that we’ve heard from that side of the House time and time again. They, in Government, deregulated the building industry. We ended up with leaky homes. They, in Government, deregulated health and safety. We ended up with Pike River and too many people killed at work.
They think they’re going to deregulate the resource management process.
Ryan Hamilton: Back to the bill.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I’ll tell you what’s going to happen: we will have a trail of lawyers up and down this country working out whose property rights are paramount—whose property rights are more important—when one versus the other, when the council versus the private property owner—[Interruption] Oh, they’re asking how this is relevant to the bill. What this bill is doing is rolling over consents on the basis that it will offer certainty—you’re kidding yourselves; you’re absolutely kidding yourselves. This will not offer certainty, at all. What is certain is that we all collectively have some challenges moving forward. Indeed, unless we address those, the rhetoric coming from that side of the House will give people false hope that they can get on and do what they like without any regard for environmental impact or the neighbour’s property rights. Your individual rights as a property owner will be paramount. That’s what we have heard from speakers on that side of the House, time and time again.
Let’s be honest as a Parliament: let’s say that the original Resource Management Act, passed by the National Government, amended many times and now under new proposals, is designed to balance property rights versus environmental responsibility. We in Labour support that approach, but the idea that property rights will roll right through environmental responsibility is ridiculous, it will undermine our international reputation, and it should not be supported.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The previous speaker talked about reality. Well, I’d like to give the Opposition a lesson in reality. The reality is simply this: I want to commend the Clark family, David and Jayne, for having been brave enough to stand up and highlight the challenges that the previous regime was delivering for them—costing thousands of dollars and creating huge uncertainty for their family. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk in this final reading of the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill, a bill that was introduced yesterday to the House. Here we are, it will soon be law in mere minutes—that is the way our legislature has been designed. Many people, much smarter than me, have commented on it, but it does seem relevant to reflect on it at this point in the year, when we’re at the end of the year where the Government has used urgency over and over again. It is less common for all-stages urgency to progress like this, and in a bill which itself removes public participation rights. There is both the removal of public participation rights at the primary legislative stage and then the ability of anyone who wants to comment on the resource consent extensions is also curtailed—there’s some poetry in that.
Let me turn to this bill and what it does. It was actually really helpful to have, and I want to thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for, engagement in a committee stage that did bring much of that to light. When the Opposition finds on the Table the only information that is provided to us is in a regulatory impact statement that is two pages long and generally answers all questions with a simple “No”, we are reliant on the Minister to talk through some of the policy choices that he has made, and his intentions behind those choices. None of those has been echoed in the speeches by Government members in the first, second, or third readings, and so it’s useful for us to continue to record them here.
If the policy intention of the Minister is to be taken at face value, it’s about getting the balance right; it’s not about continuing consents that have existed for two years, because that is the fix in and of itself. The idea that two-year extensions on consents have no impact isn’t, in fact, what the Minister was contending at all—that a two-year extension is a valuable property right bestowed on these people simply because they have stacked up first is something that he was trying to achieve—but it’s important that we know what we’re doing here, because that has an impact financially on the neighbours, on the people down the street, on the people downriver, on the people in a community, if it is an air discharge.
I want to say to the electorate MPs on the other side who are frustrated with Opposition MPs raising these questions and pointing these things out: if any of you are electorate MPs who have been involved with communities who have brought to you petitions about the local dump discharging its odours next to the school, if any of you have been an electorate MP who has talked to a business owner who is worried about the business that is opening up down the street with a water take or a discharge, this is that. This is about those business owners, those neighbours, those people who come to you and they say genuinely, “I’m trying to do absolutely everything right under the law, and I’m really worried about the person down the road who I think is taking too much—in the 1980s was granted these rights, and it doesn’t fit with the character of the neighbourhood anymore. I want to live here undisturbed. I want my kids to be able to go to school down the road without air pollution in the community because now this community has grown and there are more people here.” This is that, right? We know that—that this is an extension of those rights for two years, without any visibility.
That mum who sat in your office and raised with you this issue of the kids going to school next to the air discharge at the plant which was built in the 1970s, this is about her, and this is the legislative answer to her which says, “You have no say.” You know that, right? And when she comes to you, and you say, as her electorate MP, “I would love to help you, this is a legitimate concern. Good on you for going around your neighbours and getting a petition of 20 people. This is engaging with democracy. Good on you. As your electorate MP, that is my role, I will take this to Parliament. I don’t necessarily agree with you, but I will raise it with Ministers.”, this is that. This is “No” to that mum. This is “No” to those community groups that want to go to council and have a say on the water takes. This is “No” to the business owner downstream from those people who have water takes that were granted in the 1980s and that are no longer appropriate, because the environmental science has moved on and we know more about their uses. This bill does that, and there are trade-offs to be made here, but shouting down concerns that are being raised here about public participation is saying “No” to those people.
The choice that has been made here, from a policy perspective, is about whether the balance is right, and that comes down to what resource consents are for. The resource consents that have a time on them are not land consents. We’re not talking about the owners of most blocks of land, because those consents don’t end. The consents that do end, Andy Foster, are water takes, they’re irrigation takes, they’re air discharges—they’re the ones which do have a community impact, and the reason they have a timing on them is because people want to have a say on those. These are the ones we are talking about. When we’re talking about the extensions for farmers, we are talking about the ones where there are legitimate community concerns, where we want to engage in a community dialogue about those, so there is a trade-off to be made here.
It was useful, in the committee stage, to tease out some of these issues—issues like, when you make planning rules changes in Auckland, you have a complicated web of different planning changes; they’re called PC “number number”. In the case that occurred in November last year, council adopted some new rules that were essentially given effect by planning changes that we made in this House. All of a sudden, developers who were wanting to build three-storey houses, because they were relying on the MDRS—the medium density residential standards rules—couldn’t build those anymore. We haven’t solved that problem for them, and this bill could have done that—I put that to the Minister. He is working through that, but this is another missed opportunity, and a reason why a rushed legislative process where people can’t come along and have their say, they can’t come to their local MP and say, “Hey, I’m a mum and dad developer. Because I’ve had this land for 10 years, it’s now the right time in the market for me. I can get a builder cheaply, you know, husband can do some of it himself. We’re really excited to build this three-bedroom townhouse.”—
Ryan Hamilton: It’s the next bill, Arena.
ARENA WILLIAMS: No, it’s this bill, Ryan Hamilton. Perhaps you could have been listening in the committee stage, which you were clearly in the entire time. The issue here is that when those developers weren’t able to develop their land, they—this is not solving it for them, and this is not solving it for everyone who has issues with the timing involved in introducing this kind of reform. It’s only dealing with those sorts of consents like water discharges, like air issues, that have public participation in them, and it’s just a blanket extension which creates an extended property right with no protections for community.
In the least to say that this bill also absolutely limits the right of Māori participation in the extension of these, that we have moved on so far from the 1980s, and that should be progress we can all be proud of as New Zealanders, where the ability of iwi and hapū to make their views heard about the use of water, about the use of air, has changed, and that is generally—I think everyone in this House would agree that that is a good thing. They are not able to do that. In some cases, they have been waiting 25 years, 30 years, 35 years to be able to have their say about these water takes which were granted many years ago, before they were settled, before they had an office, before they were able to collectivise and have a say in the environmental planning regime. They will not be able to do that now, not just for two years but, effectively, until 2031.
That was an issue that we played out at the committee stage, we got to the bottom of. It was useful to really understand what this Government is doing here, that those rights will be curtailed, that there has not been consultation with iwi, with hapū, with affected Māori landowners at all, before the introduction of this bill. One can only assume that the quick introduction, the lack of consultation with the Opposition, and the way that now iwi, it is said, will be informed of this rather than consulted is because the Government feared the litigation risk because of this. Why is there litigation risk? It’s because iwi want to have a say, they want to be at the table when it comes to matters of water and air, because they want to be alongside Government and local government and make those decisions as kaitiaki of their whenua. That’s something we should all be able to agree with, but that is not what’s happening here.
Finally, I want to reflect on the difference between making a decision like this under all-stages urgency and having it go to select committee. We won’t know how this affects people or who it affects or how many it affects until this law takes effect, but we all should. All of us who are electorate MPs who have water takes in our area, who have pollution discharges into our air—when you look up and you’re an Auckland MP and you see the smoke in the columns going up, you should know that that has been extended, and you should find out what your community thinks, because that’s your job and that’s the decision we have made today.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Can I just—touché, Ms Williams.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I won’t take too long. We were criticised for being rushed with this process and taking two years to build the RMA. In that process, we’ve created this hybrid bill to, I guess, grandfather or piggyback or support those that are caught in between the legislation process; to carry them over and give them some security. We’ve heard all the scaremongering from the other side about Treaty and rushed and all this stuff. But this is pragmatic. New Zealand is watching, and I’m proud to be part of this once in a generation change. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill 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.
Bills
Emergency Management Bill (No 2)
First Reading
Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery): I move that the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Was there a legislative statement there, Mr Mitchell?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: The bill will replace the Civil Defence—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Mitchell, was there a legislative statement?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: I present the legislative statement, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: This bill will replace the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (CDEM) and make a number of changes which respond to the Government inquiry into the response—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): It’s alright, Mr Mitchell, you narrow it to finish moving to bill; sorry, just to—
Hon MARK MITCHELL: I move, That the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.
The bill will replace the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 with a number of changes which respond to the Government inquiry into the response to the North Island severe weather events of early 2023. I want to acknowledge the work done by colleagues across Parliament who also recognise the need to strengthen our emergency management system.
There are two areas that I feel are really important for us as a Parliament to work together on: one is national security and the other is emergency management. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the outstanding National Emergency Management (NEMA) team, right from the leadership through to our policy team, who have worked very long hours burning the midnight oil to work on this bill and bring an outstanding bill to the House; right through to our people that deploy, that provide advice, that work on education, and man our information centre 24 hours a day, keeping us updated with information as it unfolds around our country. We are a country that will continue to be hit with weather events.
I want to acknowledge the mayors, the chief executives, and our civil defence controllers, and all the stakeholders who have been engaged with us on the development of this bill. I want to acknowledge them and their hard work and their engagement. I want to acknowledge Camilla Belich and Francisco Hernandez for the work that they have done with us on this bill, in a very bipartisan way. Camilla, I want to make a special mention to you: not only has she worked very closely with me on this bill; she is on the ground at several of the events that I’ve been to that have been local states of emergency. I appreciate your engagement because I think that in terms of emergency management, we all need to be working together on that, and I know that’s appreciated when you’re on the ground, also.
I want to acknowledge the previous Ministers: the Hon Kieran McAnulty provided me with a seamless handover/takeover when I took over from him; Kiri Allan, who continues to work in emergency management through the Iwi Chairs Forum, and has worked very well with us; and Marama Royal. I want to acknowledge them. The Hon Peeni Henare, as the previous Minister; Chris Faafoi, who I’ve done a lot of work with, who now has a leadership role with our insurance companies and has done a lot of work with me; Nathan Guy; the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee. Can I acknowledge the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee, who has given me a lot of extremely useful advice, especially around recovery. I don’t know if there’s another Minister that has been in this House, in our recent history, that has had to deal and do the heavy lifting around recovery. I want to thank him and acknowledge his outstanding guidance advice for me in this role.
Finally, I want to acknowledge Nikki Kaye—and I’ll finish there—but I wanted to mention Nikki Kaye because I think the whole House would agree that you would not have found a more passionate Minister of Civil Defence than Nikki Kaye, and the astounding amount of work that she got through in the three years that she was Minister.
The previous emergency management Bill proposed a range of sensible changes that we’ve taken forward but it pre-dated the inquiry’s final report, so it didn’t go far enough to address lessons from Cyclone Gabriel and the Auckland Anniversary floods. The frequency, complexity, and consequences of recent emergencies have highlighted the importance of updating the legislation to improve how we manage risks; prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies; and empower and support communities.
New Zealand’s approach to emergency management is based on three key principles: first, we need to pay attention to all hazards, natural, and man-made; second, we need an end-to-end approach to managing the risks from those hazards—that means taking action across the 4Rs of risk reduction, readiness, response, and recovery—and third, all parts of society have a role to play in emergency management. Risks should be managed by those who are best placed to manage them.
This was an intent of the CDEM Act, and this bill follows the same philosophy but the inquiry and other reviews have made it clear that New Zealand has not achieved what Parliament envisaged when the Act was passed in 2002. The inquiry, as well as submissions on the previous bill, informed our reform objectives and proposals which were publicly consulted on earlier this year. That consultation has led to over 20 substantive changes being made through this bill, in addition to a general overhaul to modernise the Act.
The majority of submitters agree to our reform objectives which are to strengthen the role of the communities in iwi Māori emergency management; provide for clear responsibilities and accountabilities at the national, regional, and local levels; enable a higher minimum standard of emergency management; minimise disruption to essential services; and ensure agencies have the tools to do their jobs effectively when an emergency happens.
I’d like to touch on some of the most significant changes the bill will make to deliver on those objectives and make a real difference on the ground. To strengthen the role of communications and iwi Māori in emergency management, the bill provides membership roles for iwi Māori, rural communities, and the wider community on coordinating executive groups. These groups are currently made up of local authority chief executives and senior representatives from emergency services in each area. They are responsible for advising the local political level of emergency management. Having a seat at the table will give iwi Māori, rural communities, and the wider community a direct role in informing what their emergency management committee does to reduce risk, get ready for emergencies, and respond and recover when they happen.
The bill also requires an engagement with iwi Māori and the wider community, particularly those who may be disproportionately affected by emergencies, whether they have existing vulnerabilities or different needs that don’t suit a one-size-fits-all approach. Emergency management committees and the Director-General of Emergency Management will be required to identify these groups—such as disabled people, seniors, and our culturally and linguistically diverse communities—and engage with their representatives when developing regional and national emergency management plans.
The bill also provides for more clarity about roles and responsibilities at the national, regional, and local levels of emergency management, to ensure faster decisions are made by the right people. The need for role clarity has come up in the inquiry and other reviews, and I’ve seen it first hand at emergency events over the past two years. It is absolutely critical that responsibilities and accountabilities are clear. Any confusion about who is making decisions causes unacceptable delays during a response.
Local government has key roles in emergency management. The vast majority of emergencies play out at a local level, and other legislation gives local authorities many of the levers to manage hazard risks. Councils know their own communities best when an emergency cuts communication and knocks roads out of action. Local resources may be all that’s available to respond, for the first few hours. The bill retains committees of the councils in each region. Each exists to provide economies of scale and enable regional coordination of emergency management. However, it puts more emphasis on councils’ individual responsibilities by creating specific roles for regional emergency committees and their local authority members; making mayors primarily responsible for declaring states of local emergency and recovery transition periods within their own districts; and requiring every territorial authority to have a district controller and district recovery manager with a clear line of accountability to the council’s chief executive. Giving territorial authority chief executives an explicit mandate to coordinate resources provided by other agencies in the lead up to an emergency and over the long-term recovery is essential.
The bill also addresses current ambiguity around who is in charge during an emergency by formalising and clarifying the concept of lead agencies as the central government agencies responsible for responding to emergencies caused by specific hazards. Lead agencies will be required to keep the Director-General of Emergency Management informed of situations where there is or may be an imminent threat of an emergency. In turn, the bill places a duty on the director-general to inform the Minister about such situations. Timely and reliable information is a key part to determining whether a situation may meet the threshold for a response under the bill, and provides a better chance of addressing the situation before it escalates.
Regional emergency management plans are key instruments for driving action across the 4Rs at the local government level that identify the hazards and risks to be managed by each emergency management committee, and set out the policies, projects, and other necessary measures to manage them. These measures could include things like identify bylaw changes, setting requirements on each of the committees’ councils to build their response capability, or agreeing to progress joint risk reduction initiatives.
I wanted to finish my speech today in an acknowledgment to an outstanding NEMA manager in the Christchurch area, Rochelle Faimalo. Rochelle passed away peacefully on 13 August this year. Wife to Joe, mother to Azure, Zyon, Quest, and stepmom to Jeorgia. She quite simply was—she typified the quality of the people, the qualities that our emergency management people right across the country bring to that role. I met her during the Port Hills fires where she played a critical leadership role. This will be the first Christmas that their kids don’t have their mum. She was 40 years old; she was a much-loved member of the NEMA team, and she was very passionate about this bill coming to the House, which she was briefing mayors on right up until June. So I wanted to acknowledge her and I wanted to let the family know that we’re thinking of them during the Christmas break. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to acknowledge the contribution of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, and also echo our condolences to Rochelle’s family. I know that the work on the Port Hills fire was really exceptional, and, as the Minister and anyone who has worked in this area will know, the people who are involved in emergency management around New Zealand are really exceptional people. Often, it’s a career that they end up being in for most of their lives, and it’s not because of anything that they personally gain from it. It’s from, really, a feeling of service and contribution to New Zealand, and we’re very grateful to them, and it’s always sad to hear of one of our colleagues who has departed. So I want to acknowledge that family. I also want to acknowledge and reiterate the acknowledgment that the Minister made of people who have been involved in this bill.
This bill is something that has gone over a series of Governments, and that is the nature of emergency management. Emergency management is something that is exceptionally important to New Zealand and exceptionally important to our communities. We never know who’s going to be in Government when an emergency strikes and all that we can hope on either side of the House is that we can do everything that we can and that we have the best processes in place.
This is something that is a genuine era, I think, of bipartisanship. It is something that we on this side of the House in the Labour Party take very seriously and have done when we’ve been lucky enough to hold those ministerial portfolios as well, and I know that many of those former Ministers hold a lot of interest still in this portfolio because of the importance that it has to New Zealand and to their communities.
I want to acknowledge you, Minister, for your work here, as well, and also your team, especially Bailey in your office, who works very hard to make sure that we’re all aware across the House of emergencies when they happen. I think that that kind of approach is really what this bill is meant to legislate for. It’s a much more of an all-of Government approach, rather than having little sectors working on their own. So this is an important bill, and it’s kind of the antithesis, really, of the previous bill we were discussing.
This bill has really had its genesis in changes that were seen to be needed in the 2002 Act. There’s a consensus, I think, from everyone that that piece of legislation is no longer fit for purpose any more in New Zealand and there have been so many reviews, and various Governments have looked into trying to amend this. I suppose the issue that we have is that we keep having emergencies and we keep realising that there are issues in our system. I think it’s important to acknowledge that we will never have a perfect emergency management system and we will never be able to do everything, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do everything that we can and that we shouldn’t learn every lesson that we can in order to be better prepared.
When Labour was in Government, we did introduce a bill, and we’re happy to see that a lot of the sensible, pragmatic suggestions that were in that bill have been carried through into this new piece of legislation, as well. The big thing that happened in between the introduction of that bill and now was the North Island weather events, which was a significant event for New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the 15 people who lost their lives in those very sad events, including children. I think it couldn’t be more serious that we get this system right. Certainly we will not stand in the way of making sure that these changes are implemented as soon as they can be, and so it’s timely to see this bill introduced.
We had a slightly different approach, it’s fair to say, at the select committee when we saw the report into the Government inquiry into the North Island weather events. We thought that maybe we could amend the existing bill and that that would be faster, but the Government took a different view. That’s their call. It’s not something we agreed with at the time, but I think, as you’ve heard through the Minister’s reflections, we tried to work very constructively with that decision, and as chair of the select committee where this bill will go, we will definitely be taking the scrutiny of this bill very seriously and making sure that we put forward the best possible bill to the House in order for this to be enacted, hopefully, as soon as possible.
I don’t think we will ever have a perfect piece of legislation, but we certainly must implement the lessons that we learnt from that Government inquiry. That Government inquiry included at least six separate reviews, and also several other studies into what was happening in our emergency management system. So it’s really imperative now that we do implement this.
This has been well-thought-through. We were talking about regulatory impact statements. This is the regulatory impact statement on this bill: it is extremely long, extremely thorough, and extremely well-thought-through. This has had a previous select committee process, on the last bill. It’s had an initial consultation process from when the roadmap was set up by this Government. It’s had significant amounts of submissions from the public already, and I understand it will go through a full select committee process, as well. So it will have the full democratic parliamentary process and all the tools we have in relation to looking at the quality of our legislation have been utilised. I want to commend the Government for that. It really should mean that, hopefully, there won’t be any barriers to this bill being passed and being legislated for.
I wanted to mention an important area which I think is reflected still in this bill, but is a bit of a difference from the previous bill brought in under the Labour Government, and that’s the role of iwi Māori in emergency management. We have seen it again and again, and one of the key findings from the Government inquiry into the North Island weather events was that every time there is an emergency situation in New Zealand, iwi Māori and marae—whether they are asked to or not; whether they are at the table or not—step up in emergency situations. They take care of the people. They house people. They feed people. They have been taking on this role for generations, and whatever the legislation says that’s not going to change. The manaakitanga in emergencies that iwi Māori have is not going to change, and my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel took me out to Tairāwhiti and I met some of those very people who took on that role during Cyclone Gabrielle.
So it’s really important that that is acknowledged. The current legislation does not acknowledge that at all. This legislation does have a seat for iwi Māori at the committee on emergency management group—the CDEM group. That is something that we very much support, and I should note that it’s not just one seat. It’s one or more seats, and so it depends on the differing area as to whether more people should be involved. There are also another couple of areas where iwi Māori can participate through being consulted, as well.
We had a suggested having a national Māori emergency management advisory group. That hasn’t been taken forward in this piece of legislation. From our perspective, that’s regrettable, but at the same time we see that there has been a concerted effort to improve the status quo, which is nothing at all at the moment, by the Government and the Minister. I want to acknowledge that and also the significant Treaty analysis that’s been involved in the regulatory impact statement, and the intention of recognising what was in the Government’s report into the North Island weather events and making sure that there is recognition for that key role that iwi Māori play in our emergencies in New Zealand and the fact that they have a right to have a seat at the table when decisions are made. So this bill is an improvement, and we do support that, so thank you to the Minister for taking that forward.
There are other things in this bill that are significant changes. There are changes to ministerial powers. There are changes in relation to information sharing. I should acknowledge as well one of the benefits, although we didn’t support the bill being discharged at the time, has been that issues that we’ve seen in very recent events have been incorporated into this bill, and I think that is a benefit. One of those things is information sharing. There have been issues in recent events where information hasn’t been shared in a way that it could most usefully be shared in order to assist the emergency management response. So I think that is a very good change as well.
There are also, as the Minister said, changes around decision making. We know that there should be a really clear decision-making process in emergencies. That hasn’t been as clear as it should be under the current legislation. I think this legislation will improve that as well. So that is something that we definitely support.
The situation in emergency management in New Zealand is that we need to take seriously the fact that, as the Minister often says—and it’s recorded in the Government’s report, which this bill is really based on—we are the second most at-risk country in the world and we are one of the developed countries with the most at-risk profile in the world. That means that we should be, in theory, the best in the world at emergency management, and I’m sure that it is a shared desire across the House that we need to do whatever it takes to ensure that emergencies, when they do occur, are run with the best available information and the best systems. We know we have the best people, so it’s just about utilising that collective information to do the things we know will assist in the response.
I thank the House, this Government, and previous Governments for the work on this bill. I commend it to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, I acknowledge that we did have an error with the clocks. First reading speeches after the Minister speaks are five-minute calls, so from now on there will be five-minute calls.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill, and I wanted to thank the Minister for his leadership and engagement on this. We know that, in this portfolio, he’s been willing to make some hard but not so popular calls, so we do think that is a mark of leadership. We also wanted to echo the condolences you’ve expressed to the family of Rochelle and the thanks that you’ve expressed to the emergency management workers all around the country.
The Greens are always uncomfortable supporting any legislation under urgency, but I’ve been assured by the Minister that it will go through the full select committee process, so that’s assured us. I also appreciate my colleagues across the House, and the cross-party nature of the way that we engage in emergency management. I always appreciate everyone’s passion and engagement at the Governance and Administration Committee, ably chaired by Camilla Belich, when the topic of emergency management comes through. Everyone’s passion for emergency management, and a genuine desire to serve the country, really comes through in those discussions. I think, sometimes, when we scream at each other across the Chamber like animals, we lose sight of the fact that everyone here is an intelligent adult that is doing their best to serve the country, and that does come through in those select committee discussions. It does show what we can do when we work in a cross-party way; we can make good law, and we can go through the full select committee process.
While legislation like this is really welcome, we do need to actually address some of the drivers of the emergency management events that are increasingly occurring. Since 2023, New Zealand has been, either nationally or locally, in some state of emergency for 224 days. Every single one of these days has been due to a fire, coastal hazard, or severe weather or flooding. Most of these events are exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. Every single greenhouse gas we emit contributes to heating up our atmosphere, and every single fraction of a degree exacerbates and amplifies the impacts. In the same urgency block that we are passing this needed and necessary legislation with cross-party support, this Government has also introduced a bill that would gut the Climate Change Response Act by weakening our emissions reduction targets, watering down the independent Climate Change Commission, and gutting our emissions trading scheme. It’s a little bit like increasing the funding to the fire service—something that’s urgent and necessary, by the way—at the same time you’re handing our fire starters.
We do support this bill; it is a good and necessary bill. We support, in particular, the increased coordination between local and central government that this bill enables; the requirements for lifeline services to contribute to emergency management plans; the increased protection for animals in emergency management situations; the increased oversight for emergency management powers; and increasing the role at the table for iwi Māori. But there are things that we think this bill could go further on, and these are the things that we will push during the select committee stage, and we do know, as my colleague Camilla Belich has said, that the original emergency management bill that was introduced by the then-Labour Government had stronger provisions for working with iwi Māori. We also want to ensure that disabled people are included in the emergency management planning, and we will continue to push for greater integration with climate change adaptation frameworks, because the risk-reduction aspect is really complemented by efforts to ensure that they’re being aligned with climate adaptation efforts.
Outside of the legislative process, we will continue to fight for what we have always fought for: fair funding for workers at the climate emergency management front line, like firefighters, so they can have fair pay and conditions and safe equipment. I wanted to close by thanking the emergency management workers, not only at the National Emergency Management Agency, and not only the people working across the different councils, but also the people at the front line of emergency management response, whether they be police, ambulance workers, nurses—people who are really dealing with the actual front-line impacts of emergency management events. I really wanted to thank, in particular, the firefighters who came to talk to us on the Parliament forecourt last night: we do stand with you and all the other emergency management workers around this country, and I hope that you can see, with the cross-party support that this bill is getting, that we do support emergency management in this country across the House. Kia ora.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this piece of legislation. I also want to acknowledge the Minister and his work and the Opposition members for their work in this reform that we greatly need. I also want to acknowledge Rochelle and her family. Being from Christchurch I did not know her personally, but I do have quite a few friends and family that had worked with her.
Some of you may know, or may not know, that before I became an MP I actually worked in this space for the last 15 to 20 years I’d been doing emergency response planning, mostly in the evacuation side of things. But I’d been working quite a lot out there with our communities, with our councils, with our iwi around improving the systems that we have. Time and time after we would often hear that when disaster strikes there was a lot of confusion, a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of red tape around what could and could not be done.
What I’m really happy to see is that this is enabling more of a community-led approach. I think that’s a really important thing, because we all know that communities know the person to get on the phone and call up when they need a generator. We know that central government rolling in to do that job is not going to have the same effect. I think that this bill’s a really great start and it’s heading in the right direction to empower those communities.
We also know that failure to prepare for a disaster means that we prepare to fail ourselves. That is something that I’ve always said to people and it’s highly important that we actually go into the preparation a lot more. I hope to see that these established groups really do get into the preparation and actually go through some of the scenarios. I know that the member across the other side of the House talked about how we could have any system and it would never be perfect, and that is actually true, because you can never prepare for some things. But what you can do is you can make sure that people know their roles and they know who to call and they know where to go. That has to be led from the community.
I do have concerns with the bill that the community part of it doesn’t include our NGOs, our other community organisations, and our other groups that are actually on the ground as well. I think that we need to consider that and I really look to those, particularly to the councils that are going to be setting up these groups, to think about the other people that are often involved in a disaster and also that recovery phase as well, because we want to decentralise this process as much as possible to empower those communities to do the right things.
We also have a bit of a concern about the mātauranga Māori and the tikanga into the committees. I think, while we definitely need local voices and local iwi, we have to have that; it’s really important. But we don’t want, you know, someone coming in from central government just saying, “Oh, I know the tikanga. This is how it’s going to be.” So I really want to make sure that when the select committee goes through this that they actually consider that; that these are locals, these are people from the marae that are involved, because that’s how we’re going to derive the best outcomes.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House, and I’d like to see where it goes in the future.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and also as a member of the Government’s Governance and Administration Committee. I’m looking forward to considering this bill later on.
I just want to start by saying thank you to Minister Mark Mitchell, both for the work that’s gone into this but also for the way in which you’ve engaged with the select committee every time you’ve come along. It’s been a very open conversation and I think that’s great, and so I really, really appreciate that.
It was Sir Humphrey Appleby who said that “Civil defence is a joke; everyone knows that civil defence is a joke.” I don’t think he’d have given that advice if he’d been living in New Zealand. I look at the information—which many of you will have seen—that National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) has given us. In New Zealand since 2016, there have been 87 local and two national states of emergencies declared for a total 559 days, at least at the time that this was published. That’s equivalent to one day every week for 10 years that somewhere in the country or the whole country was under a state of emergency.
So it is a big deal in New Zealand, and, looking forward, NEMA talk about the likelihood of serious and significant events. You can look at this and say that there are some certainties in life: there’s death, there’s taxes, and, I’ll tell you what, in New Zealand there is emergency, because there will be some. I mean, even if you look at one particular one, which is the Alpine Fault magnitude 8 (AF8) situation, in the next 50 years, there’s a 75 percent chance of that happening. That’s not quite certain, but it’s getting right up there. So being prepared and being able to respond to an emergency is absolutely essential.
The Emergency Management Bill (No 2) has been long awaited. It’s been great to see a lot of engagement. If we did lots of engagement before all pieces of legislation, that’d be a really good thing because there’d be much better legislation for it, and I’m sure that this will improve the legislation that we’ve got in front of us at the moment with the level of public input. It’s important, I think, that this bill delivers all that we need in terms of emergency management. I don’t know how hard it is to get a legislative slot, but I don’t imagine it’s easy, so this is the shot that we have to get emergency management right in this country.
The bill talks about three things: taking an end-to-end approach—I’ll come back to that in just a second—considering all hazards, and having all parts of society playing a role, and we’ve had a lot of discussion already about the importance of community and the importance of iwi being involved in emergency management and emergency response. We also talk about the four Rs: reduction, readiness—we can’t avoid risk, but we can consistently work to reduce that risk—and there’s also response and recovery. The danger, I think, in these things is that we focus too much on the response and recovery and not necessarily enough on making sure that we don’t have a problem in the first place.
There are three quick lessons that we’ve had with the engagement, particularly, with you, Minister, and our engagement with NEMA. The first one of them is that we need to stop reinventing the wheel with every single different event. With every event we have, it’s “Who do we need to get involved in this event to try and respond to it?” We’ve got to do better than that and be switched on right from the start. That’s the kind of bureaucracy, I think, that we’ve just heard about from the previous speaker.
Secondly, we’ve got to stop building dumb things in dumb places. I just want to think about the Auckland situation. We’ve had to change the planning laws so that we didn’t put 3,000-plus homes in a place which was subject to flooding. So we stopped building dumb things in dumb places, and you get a lot of support from that from the insurance industry and our Natural Hazards Commission. But also the question is: what is the role of NEMA in saying to stop building dumb things in dumb places, because I think that they should have a role in doing that.
The third one is adaptation. We’ve already heard a little bit about adaptation, but I just want to call out one particular thing. We were at a meeting in Hamilton not that long ago, in the middle of the year, I think it was, and Shane Jones was talking to that meeting. He was talking about investment in the regions, and somebody stood up unprompted and said, “Thank you very much for the work that was done under the Provincial Growth Fund in protecting Taradale.” What that man said was that the floodwaters under Cyclone Gabrielle got within a few feet of the top of that flood bank. If they’d got over that flood bank or had that flood bank not been there, just think of the loss of property and, worse, the loss of life that would have happened. So preparedness is really, really important.
Just to finish off, there are a lot of aspects to emergency management. At a recent visit to the West Coast, they said that they’re very anxious about emergency management. I mentioned the AF8 situation, the availability of Bailey bridges, fuel, and equipment, and how we manage events in tunnels. We visited the Mines Rescue Service and they raised issues not only of those tunnels that they have there but also of road and rail tunnels, and so there’s a lot that goes into preparing for emergencies and then to responding to them.
I’m looking forward to the Governance and Administration Committee hearing submissions and considering the bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā, tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Te Pāti Māori supports this bill, and I just want to extend our mihi to the Minister, Mark, and also the condolences to the whānau who have lost a great wahine and also acknowledging all the kaimahi within the emergency response team throughout the country.
This bill implements parts of the Government's response to the 2023 inquiry into North Island severe weather events, finding that the current emergency management system was not fit for purpose and lacks the capacity or capability to deal with the significant emergencies affecting many regions at once. The inquiry also underscored the fact that Aotearoa has not achieved the whole of society approach to emergency management that Parliament envisioned when the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act was passed in 2002—I was born that year—a point strongly understood by marae throughout the country.
Iwi and Māori communities may be offered seats on committees and involvement in emergency responses that they would have led out anyway, because iwi and Māori don't sit around waiting for somebody else during and after a disaster. Rather, iwi and Māori choose to lead together where no one else will and can. Iwi, hapū, and marae often place themselves forward as bastions of protection and manaakitanga to all communities affected. Tikanga steps forward where Government legislation is inadequate. Iwi and hapū step forward where Government agencies and authorities do not know where to look, who to speak to, or how to help. These acts of manaakitanga and rangatiratanga rang true during the Christchurch earthquakes and, later, the Kaikōura earthquake. More recently, the profound role of iwi Māori was demonstrated further during the Edgecombe floods and the Whakaari / White Island disaster and Cyclone Gabrielle.
It was the late Dr Ranginui Walker who said this: “The marae is the focal point of Māori culture and communal activities, but the contemporary history lesson here is that the marae are often the focal point of emergency management and communal uplift.” The marae is not only, as Dr Ranginui puts it, a place to stand for Māori people; it is often a place of refuge and aroha for all people who enter its gates, and deeply held notions of mana and good faith towards all people who make up the diverse communities. Maraes are not businesses and most don't have regular income and resources to support their functioning, so at times I must acknowledge the Provincial Growth Fund that many marae have had across the country, and yet they are relied upon heavily by both Government and the public to provide support and relief, despite the taxpayer-funded role and obligations of authorities.
While I've got the last minute, I also just want to shed light on some of the young rangatahi Māori who have used their studies to contribute to te taiao, climate resilience, and also their maraes. I want to acknowledge one person, Haukapuanui Vercoe, who has used his PhD for future planning for all maraes across the country in how we can better use our infrastructure of maraes, because the majority of our maraes are actually close to wetlands and are predominantly exposed to flooding. That would be a great person to have on the future Māori advisory committee. Nō reira, tēnā rā tātou e te Pīka.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. Our philosophy for civil defence emergency management in New Zealand has always been one of everyone in the community having a role to play. As a small nation, we rely on each other, and this bill formalises that. Whether it’s in bringing in iwi, our rural communities—these groups that have people. They have manpower, they have infrastructure—not just marae—and they have machinery, and I think that’s a great thing. I commend the bill to the House.
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Emergency Management Bill (No 2), and in particular, I would like to acknowledge the Minister but also my colleague Camilla Belich, who is the chair of the Governance Administration Committee. I’m really pleased that I’m a member of the Governance Administration Committee because we will be scrutinising and looking at the bill when it gets to select committee.
I do want to just mention that Labour did have an Emergency Management Bill. The bill had been—our version—through extensive policy development and a select committee process. Progress could have been faster; however, we are now at this point. I want to acknowledge, as the Minister highlighted, a family who have lost their loved one. We want to pass on our condolences, but also too, in terms of the weather events that have happened for quite a while, it is important to remember it wasn’t just the people that we lost through those tragedies but also all the communities that have been affected by these weather events. This bill represents a very important step for New Zealanders throughout Aotearoa in terms of strengthening and understanding the pivotal points where, when you’re designing a framework, it’s important to understand the differences of a community but also the strengths that can be represented through an updated emergency management system.
I have a personal story because, in the Auckland anniversary events, we were in a car and the whole motorway got flooded. There was chaos. It was a Friday evening, and people just did not know what to do. In my local community, in Māngere, it was absolute chaos because the floodwaters were rising on the roads and many families were affected. It was before 6 p.m. that evening. People were coming home and picking up children; it was just absolutely chaos. In that specific Friday event, we had just left a tangi at Hoani Waititi Marae. It was a scary time for many citizens who were going about a Friday evening and then bang—there were torrential rains. It was a very scary time. If I reflect back at that time, my immediate thoughts were: what is our emergency management system? Cellphones were not going; the flood waters were rising. It was a very scary time, and I was thinking about our elderly, our non - able bodied community members. It was a very, very scary time. I do want to acknowledge all the first responders. People were checking their phones. We were trying to reach family members. It is really important that citizens in our community understand the readiness and the response. I want to acknowledge everyone that has been through it. We actually lost 15 New Zealanders through those events. And so, through those difficult times, what are the lessons and who is responsible in providing specific leadership either in a central government capacity or a local government capacity?
When we’re thinking about emergency management, one of the things and, tulou, respectfully, we immediately think that everyone speaks English. We don’t think about our mātua, we don’t think about our citizens, where English is the second or third or fourth language. When we are interpreting and when we are designing frameworks, it is important that those who are contributing keep different nationalities and ethnicities in mind but also the ages. Not everyone and not all of our citizens are going to understand the instructions that come out either on your device or on paper, which is important.
I’ll just move to the last point that I wanted to make: it’s important that we reflect back on personal stories but that we get this right. I really appreciate the bipartisan approach in terms of acknowledging those. Lastly, I want to focus on the role of iwi Māori. In every tragedy or circumstance that has happened, specifically in Māngere, specifically in South Auckland, iwi Māori have always been there. They don’t come to, or reflect on, “We want this.” They just say, “Here we are. This is what we need to do.” I want to emphasise and focus the importance of their role in every, or any, planning committee in a community. I also want to make sure that the leadership and clarity for iwi Māori is understood in the framework. I commend the bill to the House.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Many people today have traversed the content of the legislation, so I actually want to spend just a brief moment acknowledging the leadership of the Minister himself—the Hon Mark Mitchell—a really humble, diligent, hardworking Minister who won’t want people to point out what he does in his role. But the first thing he does in states of emergency is get there on the ground, be with the people, hear them, listen to them, spend time with them. I think it’s 19 states of emergency this term, and he has been there for all of them. He has provided exceptional leadership on the ground—relatability, understanding them, understanding the situation—and he has used that to be reflective in this legislation. I think he has done a superb job, so I’m going to put on record our thanks to him for his incredible work. I commend it to the House.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
I want to support the mihi to you, e te Minita, for your proactivity during these times, and I have had the pleasure of being on the ground with you. “Pleasure” might be the wrong word, but I appreciate you and your staff, as our wonderful spokesperson for this kaupapa, Camilla, has acknowledged, for including us and keeping us informed. I don’t know if you’re trying to make sure our emergency responders are so well prepared by creating all these disasters, but tēnei te mihi atu ka ki a koe.
There’s so much I could say on this, so I will try to encapsulate it in one focus, and that is the value of local. When Gabrielle hit us in Te Tairāwhiti, we were ready to go because, through not only our nature but through COVID, hapū had gathered, hapū had organised, so we had teams on the ground in every community, ready to go—ready to work with whichever organisation we had to and, indeed, lead them, because of the local knowledge.
I want to acknowledge everyone here who appreciates the value of iwi and marae, but I want to talk about what that really, actually means on the ground. Recently, Camilla and I went to Ūawa, and, like all our communities, they had opened their doors. I must acknowledge Pene Brown, who described to the then-Minister, Grant Robertson, their response in Te Karaka. He said, “Our response was threefold: our people, other Māori, and everyone else.” When people open their marae, their impact is not just, “Hey, we’re providing four walls and a roof.” The impact is that these people—also volunteers—have to go to work in the morning. They’re still worried about whether the waters are going to breach. Where do we go to? There’s no roads. The impact is we’re taking a resource out of the community. That marae is no longer available for 21sts, for weddings—for tangihanga, even. I think we need to take a deeper look when we talk about iwi and marae responsibility.
On that note, there’s so many acknowledgments I could make, and one of course is Māhaki Tiaki Tangata. Te Karaka was so badly impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle, and one of the things we’ve learnt from that is that while councils, etc., who do a great job, have monitoring devices, have technology, the reality is sometimes those cameras are about half an hour behind the local monitoring. We’ve got people who actually stand by and go and man their rivers, monitor the levels, and then inform the councils and Civil Defence Emergency Management (CEDM). This is the true depth of iwi and marae input, so while I acknowledge, I think we have to go beyond advising and embrace more leading. It was my work on this that really made me determined that Māori have to go from being the response to being the decision makers. Thank you, Minister, for the advance we’re making, and we can certainly go further.
I want to thank Mr Foster for acknowledging the investment that Labour made in the response through the Provincial Growth Fund—tēnā koe e hoa—and acknowledge that that’s another positive thing that’s come out of this: the level of resource in our communities. I’ve talked about Te Karaka; I want to talk about Tokomaru Bay and all our communities—Hauiti—who now have fantastic resources beyond the people. At the end of the day, the best resources we have in our communities are our people, but now they have physical tools in our communities. I want to thank Ben Green and all the other amazing CEDM workers across New Zealand who are going into our communities and upskilling our people even further.
We support this bill because, at its heart, it’s about manaaki—it’s about looking after people. The investment that’s being made, and that will continue to be made, will make sure we have resources and even more skills and resilience to continue to care for our communities. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to, first of all, start off with my acknowledgment to my learned colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell, who has done an amazing job in this portfolio. I thank him for this bill that’s come to the House. Apart from everything else that other members have actually said, this bill formalises and clarifies the concept of lead agency. I think that’s a wonderful thing. It reduces the ambiguity and clarifies who is actually making the decisions so everybody knows who to follow.
This actually takes me back about 11 years ago. It didn’t happen in New Zealand; it happened in South Korea, where a ship called Sewol sank. I think it was 304 people that died as a result, and 250 of the dead were students who were actually on a school excursion. That’s 82 percent of the total who actually died. Out of the 172 who actually survived, more than half were rescued only by fishing boats that were nearby. The coast guards were 40 minutes behind them. The reason why that happened was that no one actually knew who was in charge. There was no leadership. They did not know if the national guards were in charge or the coast guards were in charge or if the military could actually go and help. Even a foreign vessel, an American naval ship, was nearby and wanting to provide help, but they weren’t allowed, because they were a foreign ship, and they could not actually help those children. That is an utter disaster that I hope never, ever happens in any other country. I commend this bill, which will make sure that it doesn’t happen.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) be referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Bills
Arms Bill
First Reading
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Arms 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 NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Arms Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.
Over 40 years ago, Parliament enacted the Arms Act 1983. Since then, politicians have spent 40 years amending and rejigging the Arms Act 1983. Each change made was stacked on top of the next, rushed through in moments of political panic or patch-ups, until what’s left is a law that is confusing for licensed firearm owners, inefficient for police, and ineffective at stopping criminals. New Zealand deserves better.
Public safety and respect for licensed firearm owners are not in conflict. They actually depend on each other. This bill starts with that simple premise. It rewrites the Arms Act in plain English, with logical structure and practical improvements. The result is stronger firearm laws that better protect the public and a simpler regulatory system that supports compliance. The tragedy of 15 March 2019 was a day of unimaginable horror for this entire country, and none of us wants to see that again. But the arms laws that followed were rushed, confused, and unfair, and they punished the wrong people. They targeted the responsible, law-abiding New Zealanders instead of checking the systems and processes that led to this country’s worst atrocity. They even negated really targeting criminals and gangs when they made their changes. Good law is not made in a panic. It’s made with clear heads, sound evidence, and respect for those who already do the right thing. That is what this bill does.
A core lesson from the past decade is that trust matters. For law to work, the public must have confidence in the system administering it. This bill creates a new independent firearms regulator to replace the Police Firearms Safety Authority. Its job will be to regulate clearly, consistently, and transparently so that licensed firearm owners can comply without unnecessary burdens. It will operate independently of New Zealand Police with an independent chief executive, and no sworn police officers will work within it. Police will retain all the information that they need for enforcement, but their focus can shift to where it should be, pursuing the gangs and criminals who put the public at risk. The regulator will be empowered to provide clear guidance, in consultation with the firearms community, so licensed firearm owners understand their requirements and can comply with their obligations. This bill also sets clear limits on what information can and cannot be recorded in the firearms registry, promoting transparency and building public confidence.
I’ve heard the concerns about licensing delays, and this bill helps them. When New Zealand moved from lifetime firearm licences to 10-year licences, tens of thousands of people moved into the 10-year system all at once. Every decade since, the same surge and bottleneck has repeated for the same people. To put this into context, in a normal year there are around 9,000 firearms licence renewals. This year, we are expecting around 55,000, and next year, there will be around 50,000 renewals. To smooth this out, the regulator will have the discretion to be able to extend firearm licences for up to three years for some licensed owners whose renewals fall during the peak periods. Over time, this will end the bottleneck cycles each decade and create a steadier, more manageable flow of renewals. The regulator will also be able to issue infringement notices and educate licence holders for lower-level offences, rather than revoking a licence as the only option. This keeps people in the system and learning instead of pushing them out for behaviour that does not pose significant risk. Health-related suspensions are introduced and could last up to 12 months. Under the current law, many people lose their licence permanently simply because they needed more time to get help. That is neither fair nor proportionate. If a licence applicant disagrees with the regulator’s licensing decision, a new, independent Firearms Licensing Review Committee will hear their appeal. It replaces the current internal Police-run process with a truly independent panel consisting of a lawyer, a representative from the firearms community, and an appointee of the regulator. Between October 2021 and March 2025, a third of appeals in the District Court resulted in a different outcome—showing exactly why this change is needed.
The current Act is not fit for purpose for people whose work or expertise requires specialised use of firearms. Pest controllers and biosecurity organisations perform essential work, protecting our environment and agricultural community and economy. Their endorsements will be extended from 2½ years to five years with a mid-term check-in. Multi-user agreements will allow restricted firearms to be temporarily transferred among approved pest control employees for up to seven days without triggering unnecessary paperwork. Dealer licences will be renamed “business licences” to reflect the variety of modern firearms-related businesses we have. Compliant holders will have their licence duration extended from one year to five years—directly addressing one of the most frequent complaints that I have heard. Business employees will no longer require endorsements on their personal licences, subject to controls being in place, and gunsmiths will be able to conduct short-term repairs on restricted firearms without a permit to possess. Import permits will be extended from 30 days to 12 months, reducing administrative burden for both businesses and the regulator. New licence classes have been introduced for museum curators and their employees to reflect their unique circumstances, ensuring their rules are not disproportionate or so costly that they have to shut down. Collectors will also have greater flexibility around where the vital parts of a prohibited firearm must be stored.
If we want to improve public safety, we must ask who is driving the offending in New Zealand. The answer, overwhelmingly, is criminal gangs. Gang members represent less than 1 percent of New Zealand’s population but are linked to around a quarter of all firearms offending. This bill deals with that directly. It introduces automatic disqualification for gang members from holding a firearms licence, new offences for straw purchasing and diversion, offences to tackle 3D-printed firearms made by unlicensed individuals in possession of digital files used for illegal manufacture, and it significantly increases penalties for over 60 offences—many have been untouched since 1983.
This bill also clarifies product definitions and rules around manufacturing, and closes loopholes relating to large-capacity pistol magazines and blank firing guns. For individuals who inadvertently find themselves in unlawful possession of a firearm, there are clear pathways now back into lawful ownership. One of the simplest and most important improvements is allowing secure storage at any regulator-approved location, not just a primary residence. Students that live in halls, renters, and many other people who were simply unable to meet the secure storage requirements will now have a safer choice for security.
This bill balances safety, fairness, and practicality. It strengthens the law where criminals exploit it, and it simplifies it where licensed firearm owners have been burdened by it. It’s not a bill that scapegoats legitimate firearm owners; it’s a bill that fixes what matters. I encourage all New Zealanders to participate in the select committee process, especially those who will be impacted by this law. Consultation informed this law, showing that more voices make better law. This Government values the vital role that farmers, hunters, sport shooters, pest controllers, dealers, museums, collectors, gunsmiths, and all licensed firearm owners play in our economy, in our environment, and in our heritage. This bill is for them.
I’d just like to acknowledge that one of my staffers that has been working on this bill with me for the last two years is having his birthday today. Happy birthday, Matthew O’Connor. I now commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Arms Bill. This bill is a major retreat by Nicole McKee from what was originally threatened or promised. But this is a major win for public safety in New Zealand.
What was initially meant to be in this bill was enabling military-style semi-automatic weapons to be used on a gun range, that the Firearm Safety Authority (FSA) would be taken out of New Zealand Police, and the Firearms Registry would be changed to exclude weapons such as A category firearms. None of those things are in this bill and that makes New Zealand a safer place.
The fact that we held—I held—public meetings in Auckland, Wellington, and in Christchurch on the risks of deregulating military-style semi-automatic weapons, that we ran a petition that got numerous signatures, that media engaged, that New Zealanders made it very clear that we did not want prohibited weapons, military-style semi-automatic weapons that were used in the Christchurch massacre made more readily available in New Zealand. It is heartening that that protest, that those voices were heard loud and clear, and that this bill does not make that dangerous change. I know there are many members of the Muslim community in New Zealand who will be grateful to see that that change has not been made.
The Firearms Safety Authority also will remain in Police. That was promised to be taken out of Police. When we looked at the costs associated with that early on, we asked those questions and did not get answers. But it is now clear that the cost would be over $500 million to take the Firearms Safety Authority out of Police. Also, what it does is it stops potentially that real-time access of intelligence; when someone has had their weapons removed that that is up front when police officers are attending a callout. That information is vital for the safety of our front line and for the safety of our communities. So we are heartened to see that the Firearms Safety Authority is staying where it is.
The Firearms Registry also remains intact. The Firearms Registry commemorated a big goal just recently in November, with over 50 percent of those people who are licenced now using the registry for their weapons to be licenced through that. That is a huge testimony to the fact that people do not have a concern with trusting confidence and that they are making sure that they use Te Tari Pūreke, the Firearms Safety Authority, and making sure that licences are now included in that registry. That is an intelligence map for our police to be able to use to know where the legal firearms are. When we know where the legal firearms are, that makes it a lot easier to trace where those ones who have been diverted are going.
So we still have some concerns with this bill, and I think it’s important we point those out. The provision in this bill that no police will have involvement in the Firearms Safety Authority—or “blue shirts” as referred to be Nicole McKee in her press release. We’ve had no real reason as why we would not draw upon the institutional knowledge of New Zealand Police and firearms when making these changes to our Act. They are the ones that have the most experience and the most insights. It does seem somewhat of an ideological move to remove police from having involvement. I’d be really interested to know that the Minister of Police has to say about police not having involvement in the FSA under its new restructured form.
The second one we would like to know about is the funding. There’s no clear indication of who is paying for this restructure, potentially up of $50 million or $60 million for a full restructure of the Firearms Registry, but unclear whether that’s coming out of a Police budget and impacting on front line services or whether it’s a Ministry of Justice budget. It seems like it will be a separate Budget bid, so we would be very interested to know who’s paying.
Finally, we want to know the implementation dates; these changes will take time, we want to make sure they’re imbedded properly. For this reason, we want to make sure these changes are made appropriately. We’ll be supporting this bill to select committee on the clear reason that we want to make New Zealand safer and that we are heartened by the fact that those initial threats made by Nicole McKee of military-style semi-automatic weapons, Firearms Safety Authority out of Police, and changing the Firearms Registry; all of those do not change. We think that this is a win for public safety in New Zealand and it shows that even though we have a firearms lobbyist as the Minister, she’s been unsuccessful in achieving her goals.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill, the Arms Bill, which repeals and replaces the Arms Act 1983, has the laudable goals of aiming to provide for greater protection of the public, simplifying regulatory requirements, and improving compliance. So those are all really laudable goals, and the bill, as it stands, could well achieve some of these things.
On public safety, as we’ve heard, there are good changes, such as recognising that multiple people within the system share responsibility for safety; regulating blank-firing guns, which, we know, have the potential to be transformed into live conventional firearms; restricting high-capacity pistol magazines to endorsed licence holders; requiring firearm businesses to notify the police of all surrendered firearms, that will enable checks on those firearms, to see if they have been involved in criminal activity or stolen; and requiring the regulatory approval for commercial and munitions sales.
Now, these are all really good things, and there’s a range of new offences as well which will address real risk and help futureproof things, with new offences like failing to notify the loss or theft of a firearms licence; the unsafe storage of firearms; possession of firearms without a serial number; possession of firearms that would enable 3D printing, as we heard; or intentional diversion. As a parent, I really do support the change allowing licence holders to have secure storage facilities at any location approved by the regulator, such as in my gun safe rather than in a flat somewhere in Wellington that may not be as secure and may not be desired by the landlord. This, certainly, will reduce risk, and it is part of the really positive changes that we see in this bill.
I am particularly pleased that the Associate Minister did not succeed in allowing greater access to military-style semi-automatic firearms—that’s a rare moment of spine shown by National to stand up for something. We know the Minister wanted to, and still wants to, give public access to military-style semi-automatic firearms, and we’re concerned that some changes have been made more from spite than from any rational concern for public safety. So while this bill, as it stands today, does offer a number of improvements, it makes one big change that we believe will create more risk and reduce oversight and transparency. For this reason, we will not be supporting this bill in its current form.
Removing the regulator from the police seems more like a petty, vindictive act based on some vibes from some small group of firearms owners than any responsible act. The police have a unique and valuable perspective, because they’re on the front line of gun violence; they’re often exposed to gun violence, and they’re at the greatest risk of gun violence. That free-flowing information flow is valuable in reducing risk, but their expertise is not included in the regulator, and that is extremely problematic. Instead of repairing the relationship and rebuilding trust between firearms owners, businesses, and the Government, the Minister has stripped the police of responsibility as some kind of weird punishment. The police should be involved in the regulator, and in addressing violent crime, rather than being tasked with responding to mental health issues.
So we understand that this bill will proceed without our support, and we’ll move on to select committee. However, I would encourage the public listening and my Labour colleagues here to seek the retention of the regulator within the police, reporting to the Police Commissioner, because we can’t allow some petty punishment for some imagined slight to reduce public safety by removing police oversight—the police who deal with violent crime and gun violence. Removing the police just increases the risk to the public, and for this reason, we oppose the bill in its current form.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is designed to ensure that we promote the safe possession and use of arms. There’s a couple of things within the bill that I thought I would highlight as part of that objective. The first is the clarification of the 60 offences down into 8 offences; I think that really ensures that we are clear that there are offences for doing things wrong, but we make them easy to understand. Secondly, the independence of the Firearms Licencing Review Committee. Therefore, I commend it to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call the Hon Dr David Wilson. Sorry, not the honourable—just the Dr David Wilson. Thank you.
Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry, not the honourable; just Dr David Wilson. Thank you.
Dr DAVID WILSON: I respond to both. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in this first reading of the Arms Bill. We’d like to commend the Hon Nicole McKee for her work on this bill. Relevant, practical, balanced, this bill is not about ensuring New Zealand’s firearms laws are fit for purpose in the 21st century, or, should I say, it is about that.
The Arms Act 1983 has served us for decades, but recent events and reviews have shown gaps in licensing, compliance, and enforcement—for example, responding to the emerging technology in firearms, such as 3D printing. The Arms Bill strengthens oversight of firearms ownership, dealers, and clubs while ensuring legitimate users can continue their activities under clear and fair rules. New Zealand First has always stood for balance—protecting public safety while respecting the rights of responsible firearms owners. Our party policies have consistently emphasised the need for strong licensing, secure storage, and tough penalties for criminals, while ensuring that hunters, farmers, and sporting shooters are not unfairly penalised. We believe in practical, enforceable laws that target misuse, not tradition.
We support this bill because it delivers exactly that balance. It strengthens police powers to deal with unlawful possession and trafficking, ensures dealers and clubs meet modern standards, and introduces tougher penalties for those who misuse firearms. At the same time, it provides certainty for responsible owners, recognising their role in rural life, food production, and sport. For New Zealand First, this bill is about fairness, ensuring criminals face consequences while law-abiding citizens retain their rights. We commend this bill to the House.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, thank you, Madam Speaker. Before setting out Te Pāti Māori’s position on this bill, I want to acknowledge the wider context in which we’re debating it. Across Aotearoa, many communities are confronting rising violence, deepening inequality, and ongoing pressures that disproportionately affect those with the fewest resources. Those communities, as we very well know, are tangata whenua. Firearms legislation sits at the crossroads of public safety, political influence, and community wellbeing. How this House chooses to regulate firearms is not just a technical exercise; it reveals whose safety is valued, whose voices are centred, and whose interests are given priority.
It is in that context that I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose the Arms Bill 2025. Our position is clear: this bill shifts power away from community safety and toward political interests, including powerful firearm lobby interests, while failing to address the real drivers of harm in our communities. This bill includes over 50 separate policy changes. It rewrites more than 60 existing offences and creates eight new offences. It loosens rules for firearms users, pest controllers, collectors, and dealers, and it establishes an entirely new firearms regulator deliberately distanced from sworn police oversight. We must be honest about where this direction is coming from: this Government’s decisions appear aligned with the interests of lobby groups rather than with the people most affected by gun violence. The move to hand all regulatory powers to a new independent regulator is not necessarily about improving safety. It risks politicising gun control and weakening safeguards that were strengthened after the 2019 Christchurch terrorist attacks. Recent data suggests that gun crime in Tāmaki-makau-rau is rising and that the majority of these offences involve illegally owned firearms, not licensed holders. This trend shows that loosening regulation doesn’t necessarily help people like our hunters, who use firearms responsibly, but, rather, may benefit those who obtain guns illegally or misuse them.
From a Māori world view, whānau who use firearms responsibly for hunting, pest control, or mahi on their whenua contribute to the oranga, or the wellbeing, of their whānau and whenua. Our concern is not with them; our concern is with protecting life, whakapapa, and mana, which demands strong and culturally informed regulation. If this Government was truly serious about reducing gun harm, it would invest in whānau support, violence prevention, housing security, mental health services, kaupapa Māori responses, and action against illegal firearms, not deliver a bill shaped by lobbyists with weakened oversight that sidelines the voices of people living with the consequences of gun violence. Therefore, Te Pāti Māori cannot support a bill that, under the guide of reform, shifts power away from community safety, risks public safety, and ignores the real issues facing our people—not just Māori but all New Zealanders. The responsibility of this House and of this Government is to protect our communities, our whakapapa, and our mokopuna, not to appease political pressure groups.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Let’s clarify two things for the previous speaker. The purpose of the bill is to promote the safe possession and use of arms; and, secondly, to impose controls to prevent the possession and use of arms for criminal activity. It’s a good thing, it’s a really good thing for New Zealand, and, therefore, I commend the bill to the House.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): For many people in Aotearoa today, this is actually a moment of relief. The strange thing is that it’s a moment of relief, not because of what’s in the bill but because of what’s not in the bill. So many people have been concerned that the shift we’d be discussing today would be a shift to change our position on semi-automatic weapons, and that is not the case. That has been a failed attempt today because of the work on this side of the House but also because of the work of many people in the Muslim community and many people in the community who’ve been lobbying against that. I did want to just acknowledge Philippa Yasbek from Gun Control and the important work that she’s done, but also the Federation of Islamic Associations chairperson, Abdur Razzaq, who said, “One of the key legacies of the 51 shahada was to make New Zealand safe, particularly from the menace of the semi-automatic killing machines.” This is an important moment to mark what grassroots campaigners, what our ethnic communities, can do when they have their voices heard by this House, and I think it’s extremely powerful.
We will be supporting the bill through to select committee, but as the Hon Ginny Andersen has said, there are concerns that we have and things that we will be raising. The bill’s a significant one—232 pages to go through—and I’m looking forward to really robust submissions from those in the community about the detail of the bill. I do want to acknowledge the officials who produced this great document called Arms Bill: Explanation of proposals. It has an excellent spreadsheet that goes, change by change, through what the law is now and what the changes will be. It will be a huge aid in terms of making those submissions.
I wanted just to speak to some other choices that have been made in the body of the bill, which I’ll certainly be questioning at the select committee stage. The first one is in relation to the health-related licence suspension. Right now, if people are deemed not to be in a sufficient state to hold a licence, those licences can be suspended for three months. If the licence is not reinstated in that three-month period, then it expires. The person cannot apply for another licence for a 10-year period. Now, there’s a change in this bill that extends that to a 12-month suspension. On the one hand, it feels like that would mean a potentially safer community because those licences can be suspended for longer. However, it also gives the person the opportunity to remediate whatever the issue is, which then avoids the 10-year problem. It’s a choice that’s been made that strikes a particular balance. The question is: is that balance the correct one?
Another interesting one is around the definition of “penalties” and what constitutes premises or not. The current law assumes that you must keep the licensed firearm in a secure place within your premises where you normally reside. Now, for many people, that’s not going to be the place where they normally reside. The example used in the document provided by officials was students who may be flatting elsewhere but may need to keep their firearm in a location that’s separate from where they live. There are some extremely sensible changes made, including changes around the printing of parts for what could be used as a firearm, acknowledging that technologies have developed in a way that means we now need to accommodate for that.
There is section 7 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advice to the committee on this as well that says that the bill is compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, there are a few matters to interrogate for the committee as we go through the select committee stage. One is around freedom to relay or not to relay information and the requirement that people have to disclose their personal details to the Police when asked. The current assessment is that that is a fair limitation on rights, but I do think that that is something that the committee will need to interrogate, and I certainly hope we receive submissions on that.
For the time being, I do commend this bill to the House but, again, urge submitters to come, having read the spreadsheet, and just give us their assessment on whether they believe that the ground struck between some of these difficult choices is the correct one. Thank you.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My favourite proposed change of the Arms Bill is that if someone chooses to be a member of a gang, then they will be automatically disqualified from holding a firearms licence. I commend this bill to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. First of all, I want to reiterate what Vanushi Walters just said about the great deal of relief that people will feel that we are no longer looking at semi-automatic firearms coming back into our community. That’s an incredibly important thing. I was very aware of the stress that that was causing and the way that people felt about it on the ground, that they felt that there was not sensitivity around what happened in this country. Like many other people, I remember exactly where I was on that day as the terrible event unfolded in our country.
But I wanted also to talk about my portfolio, because I have the sexual and family violence portfolio, and the implications for people of this law. I am very pleased to see this going forward in the form it is to the select committee, but I too am concerned about the police not being as involved as they were, and I don’t really understand why that is, and I would urge people who are submitting, who have had experiences, particularly experiences of domestic violence or fear of domestic violence or family harm, to come forward and to tell those stories, and for the select committee to be sensitive about how they get to tell those stories, because they’re often very fearful of doing that.
I wanted to talk about an incident the other day that happened when we were in scrutiny week. The Justice Committee moved to the part of scrutiny week which was about the sexual and family violence centre. We spoke about a particularly serious and very worrying new development, which is a lot of promotion of rough sex on the internet and people being involved in situations where they were simply confused about whether they had a right to be confused about what had happened to them or to claim that was abusive behaviour, because things have just moved so far. As we talked about that subject, a police officer who I’d actually given a pretty hard time to about the call-out changes from police—and I thought that she probably didn’t necessarily like my questioning—came to the front of the room and she said it made her heckles rise: she was seeing on the front line the very behaviour that I was discussing, over and over again, and we needed to do something about it.
And I thought about the value of her role as a police officer in that situation. Our police are absolutely on the front line, and people like the woman who came into that situation, they have a very grounded, realistic view of complicated issues. They get to see things I wish I never saw, and they do carry that experience and that responsibility. If you look at this bill and you think about that experience and responsibility in the context of people who may harm their family members with guns, maybe subject to mental distress, maybe angry, it’s really important that our police, who see that, participate in this process.
So I have a strong belief that the police should be involved in this process, and I would really like it looked at as an issue at the select committee. And I take my friend Vanushi Walters’ point that the 12-month suspension probably has arguments for and against it, and I’d really like that looked at at that time, and with an open mind, because these bills, they make a difference to whether people live or die, and it’s a really responsible thing to do to listen to our submitters and think through these things with an open mind. I commend this bill to the House.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a good bill because it clarifies the law and closes some loopholes. As my good friend Rima Nakhle said, it also makes gang membership an automatic disqualifying factor for holding a firearms licence, and that’s a good thing. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Arms Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Bills
Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I present a legislative statement on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): 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 Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
It’s a privilege to be back before the House to present the bill for the second reading. When the bill was introduced on 3 November, I said, and repeat again, that the bill has two complementary priorities. The first is promoting competition in the grocery retail sector, advancing a core part of the Government’s Going for Growth agenda, which will have flow-on effects for productivity and living standards. The second is to make changes to improve the fast-track regime’s workability and efficiency. Fast-track is working pretty well, actually, and we’ve had a number of projects that have already been consented and received approval. In fact, some of those projects are under way, like the Port of Auckland expansion or extension and the new cruise ship terminal, and Maitahi, which I’m visiting tomorrow, which is a housing development down in Nelson. Fast-track is working pretty well, but all regimes—particularly ones as complicated as fast track—benefit from fine-tuning. Over the course of this year, there has been feedback sought from targeted engagement with applicants, with agencies, and the panel convenors themselves, actually, who are doing a good job of processing all these applications, to try to find operational and procedural efficiencies.
The bill includes a range of amendments to speed up the application process, reduce time frames in key areas, improve flexibility, and to clarify a range of operational matters. I do want to acknowledge the Environment Committee, who have a had a short but thorough look at the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, hearing submissions and considering the bill. There were many submissions during that process. There were quite a few themes that came through from submissions, including if proposed changes would allow for consideration of environmental issues; how they would accommodate Treaty and other arrangements with Māori; concerns about Government input in the decision-making process; representation for local communities, the Government policy statement (GPS) process; and time frames, including for panel decisions.
Some submissions concerned changes to the current clause 42 of the bill, under which parts of an application can be withdrawn after an application has been lodged. Some submitters expressed concern that this change could lead to project scope being expanded mid-process. The legislative process has led to a clarification: modifications cannot be made that result in the application expanding the scope of the project beyond its original description in the referral application or as it was listed in Schedule 2 of the Fast-Track Approvals Act 2024. Ministerial direction in this area is intended as a backstop in the event that expert panels are uncertain if a project, if modified, will continue to have significant regional or national benefits. This makes it clear that expert panels can continue processing applications as modified without seeking a direction from a Minister.
Several submissions referenced previous mining cases or applications under the RMA, or concerns regarding long-term environmental risks or considerations. The bill does not seek to change the expert panel’s role in determining whether identified adverse impacts are out of proportion to the project’s benefits and to impose appropriate conditions on approvals. The bill introduces a new requirement for applicants to provide information on effects in their referral application, which will help inform ministerial referral decisions. The Minister for Infrastructure has the discretion to decline a referral application if it would have significant adverse environmental effects—and I note that I have declined some referral applications already through the fast-track process.
Changes will be made to several key time frames for decisions in the fast-track process. Decision time frames to date have varied due to the complexity of individual applications. However, in line with the Act’s requirement for efficient processes, clear statutory time frames give applicants and investors greater certainty about process and cost. Having heard submissions, it is sensible to increase the maximum time limit for an expert panel’s decision from 60 working days to 90 working days, which can still be extended with agreement from the applicant. The time frame for parties to provide comments on referral applications is reduced from 20 to 15 working days. Regional councils must respond to requests for information about existing resource consents within 10 working days; previously, there was no statutory time frame. The intention is to achieve a balance between the requirement for timely information and the need to maintain accuracy and avoid placing unreasonable burdens on councils.
The panel convenors and others provided informative submissions on how reducing the time taken to establish panels may not be workable in practice, and the Government has established that it is preferable to maintain the status quo and have no statutory time frame for panel appointments. Efficiencies will be realised when certain steps in the substantive process, such as completeness checks and competing application checks, happen concurrently. Applicants invest significant time and resources, and it doesn’t make sense that they should be penalised if application circumstances change and they want to pause their application. The maximum time that an applicant can request a suspension of their application is proposed to be increased from 50 to 100 working days. This is to allow applicants more time to provide information to address concerns raised by parties invited to comment on applications.
In relation to Government policy statements, these were proposed so that projects’ regional or national benefits were more easily related to Government policies and priorities for development or growth across a range of sectors. They will be issued by the Minster for Infrastructure. GPSs set out the Government’s policies on the regional or national benefits of certain types of infrastructure or development projects. The Minister for Infrastructure will consider any relevant GPSs during the referral process. The expert panels will do the same when deciding whether to approve a project and set conditions or decline them. Some submitters were supportive of the GPS mechanism as drafted and thought it would provide greater clarity and certainty for nationally significant issues. Others considered the grocery retail GPS a good template for future development in other areas, such as urban development and to enable infrastructure. Developing GPSs will not happen in a vacuum; Section 10A of the amendments outlines how they will be issued and who may be consulted.
The bill amends a number of project descriptions and updates the respective project descriptions, locations, and authorised persons, including for the Stella Passage project. There are also transitional provisions to ensure fairness and clarity for applications in progress. Any changes that do not require system or IT updates will take effect immediately, but some changes that require system updates will take effect on 31 March 2026. The bill’s legislative process has delivered a range of sensible outcomes that, if adopted by the House, will balance the need to improve fast track’s efficiency and workability while still preserving the ability to facilitate regionally and nationally significant infrastructure and development projects and deliver robust decisions.
As I say, fast track is working well. We have listened to some of the feedback that’s come through the select committee process, who, I think, did a good job of hearing the submissions. Members will note that the Government has lodged an Amendment Paper—yesterday, actually—which is available for everybody to see. As we get into the committee of the whole House, we can work our way through that, which picks up on some of the submissions. My understanding is that the select committee did not do a revision-tracked version, so, essentially, the committee of the whole House stage is the ability for the House to make amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, and I’m looking forward to considering that in the committee of the whole House.
As I say, there are twin objectives to the bill: one is around grocery sector competition, which I think is broadly supported across the Parliament—I think I’m right in saying that—and the second is some efficiency and workability improvements to the original fast-track regime. Having decided to do the grocery sector competition, the Government thought it was worthwhile making these sensible finesses and tweaks to the approvals Act. As I say, it's working well, but everything can be better, and that’s the aim of this bill. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m interested in one of those last remarks from the Minister—that he acknowledges that there is general support from around the House for increased grocery competition; and if he will remove his Facebook post that he made immediately after the first reading of this bill saying that Labour didn’t support supermarket competition—that Labour had voted against it. Then noting his further comments that he made, whereby he said, “Oh yes, yes”—and I’m paraphrasing somewhat—“Labour has some fair points about the fact of the supermarket competition being entwined with a whole lot of other issues, but they can vote on that clause by clause when we go through the committee stage of the bill.” I hope the Minister holds to that.
My main point, of course, is this bill is not about supermarket competition. If it was about supermarket competition, we would not have been rushing this through the select committee in the way that we did, and there may be general agreement about all of the changes. But there is not, because what this bill is about is enabling Ministers to delve down into the substantive decision making on these decisions. These are decisions that already have normal environmental protections degraded. That is the problem with the Fast-track Approvals Act—the principal Act—and what this bill does is make it even worse. It’s not about speed; it’s not about a one-stop shop. It’s about Ministers making decisions.
We saw, when the fast-track bill, which is now the principal Act—when that first came out some time ago—there was talk of Muldoonism. The Minister says he doesn’t like Muldoonism and that, in fact, he has Fitzgerald and Muldoon on his wall. We had protests down Queen Street, and Glen Bennett was at that protest, and it was all the way down Queen Street, because people were particularly worried about Ministers making decisions on important issues that need to be considered with evidence in front of a robust decision-making process. That seems like something that the Attorney-General would want, and the change was made. Sorry, the Ministers in the Fast-track Approvals Act do not have that ability to make the decisions, but what this bill does is introduce a new mechanism, a Government policy statement—a Government policy statement that is made on the whim of the Minister. There are no criteria. There’s a little amendment that’s just been made that, “Oh, they can consult other people if they want to.” Whoop-de-do! That is not a robust process, that is not criteria, and it is different from other pieces of legislation—apart from, of course, the recent amendments to the Crown Minerals Act—whereby there are criteria for anything that is called a Government policy statement, or words to that effect.
I have suggested an amendment, which I hope the Minister will consider, that provides some criteria for that Government policy statement. Now, if the Minister was committed to this bill being about supermarket competition, then the provisions in the bill could specifically refer to supermarket competition—that the Government policy statement is to be about grocery competition—but it does not do that. No, no: it is much wider, and that is the concern that we have and that many submitters, many very thoughtful submitters, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, amongst others—even the New Zealand Institute—have about how this is ministerial overreach, and it is very serious. That is one issue.
Another issue is the process this bill has gone through to this point. Normally, if we’re reporting back from the select committee that has a report-back period of under four months, there would have been a debate in this Chamber from members across the Chamber about that shortened time frame. This did not happen for this bill. Instead, the chairperson decided to have a very short submission period and then the majority of that select committee agreed to report back early. That is not a good process. The select committee did work very hard and the officials all worked very hard, as well, and I, of course, commend their dedication to doing their job and being good public servants, but it did mean that we did not have a long time for submissions and, of course, we haven’t got an revision-tracked version with the select committee report back.
The Minister just referred to the amendments coming in yesterday. When I was looking for his amendments yesterday, I could not find them. I note that they have been tabled now, for at least an hour or so, and I have been going through those diligently and will refer to them at some length in the committee stage. That is not a good way of making laws, and it also has meant that a whole lot of submitters brought to us good points.
Now, the Minister has described this bill as “supermarkets” and “rats and mice.” There are some rats and mice in this bill, and, being from Dunedin, I’m careful when I talk about supermarkets and rats!
Hon Andrew Hoggard: Don’t go there!
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I note that the Minister for Food Safety is in the House. That’s just outside my electorate, on the other side of the road.
Hon Andrew Hoggard: I’ve got a spare cat for you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you for the offer of cats. Whilst there are some small issues, there are also these bigger issues that I’ve been talking about. If you’re doing a tidy-up of a bill that you’ve only passed a year or so ago—and I’m all for reviewing bills and all for having good regulatory systems—then we could have had a good robust process.
For instance, Queenstown has an awful lot of listed projects that relate to Queenstown. Queenstown’s population is not giant, and the council has limited ratepayers and limited resource. Queenstown is a beautiful place and it is growing, and the council has been trying to plan for its infrastructure and where that additional housing growth should go for a long time. It’s very important that there are more houses in Queenstown; nobody is debating that point, but the councils from both Queenstown and Central Otago District Council—so that includes Cromwell, where there’s a lot of commuters living who go and work in Queenstown—came to the select committee and said, “Look, Queenstown has the most unaffordable housing in the country.”
Queenstown has had special legislation about housing before. Nick Smith did a special housing accords piece of legislation and, as a result, there was a requirement for affordable housing. Now, they made a submission to the select committee: “Look, we’re the ones with the most unaffordable housing in the country. We are the ones with the most per capita fast-track applications happening here. Surely, there is an argument for a specific requirement for those developers who will be getting huge uplift from rurally zoned land that will now be developed with housing. Surely, there is an argument for a special requirement for, say, 5 percent affordable housing in those projects.”—and that seems, to me, like a very legitimate argument.
I, of course, don’t want to make a decision on it, because we haven’t heard any analysis from officials about that, because, of course, there was no time to do so. That is a missed opportunity, and that is because this Government continues to want to just rush things through and not have some good thought to what is actually happening. We’re going to have many questions about the Amendment Paper that the Minister has put up about what the consequences of the changes are, because, again, we have not had that analysis.
There are many other changes in this bill that are not to do with supermarkets or rats and mice, and some of them are to do with limiting participation of other groups. There are some changes in the amendments that we’ll talk to in the committee stage. Particularly, we heard from iwi groups that the time frames in the fast track at the moment are already near impossible, so any further reductions of those time frames will mean that their participation is mere rubber-stamping. They cannot do substantive, thoughtful contributions—and that is what we want, because we are concerned here about our environment and protecting it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker—
Simon Court: General Treaty protection, Steve—tell us.
STEVE ABEL: Are you doing it? General Treaty protection—I’m happy to talk about that because 100 years hence, anthropologists will take a bird’s-eye view of this particular moment in history and this particular Government and this suite of bills that have been rushed through the House without democratic process or proper consultation or consideration, or any respect whatsoever of the constitutional foundation of this country in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga. They will go, “That was the point when Aotearoa set itself on ecological ruin under the manic ideology of corporate power, anarcho-capitalism, whereby our view of the world is shaped entirely by the idea that private property rights and the accumulation of money is the most important human value there is.”
You only have to look at some of those ancient books of old that tell you that the accumulation of wealth is not good for anybody—it is not good for the planet, it is not good for people, it is not good for communities, and it’s not even good for the people who accumulate the wealth, at the end of the day. There is no version of a life on this planet that is not centred around protection of the basis of that life, which is the health of our ecology.
The bill before us today is a worsening of what was one of the worst pieces of legislation this Government passed—the fast-track legislation—and what is more, as my colleague just pointed out, they've just dropped a stack of amendments on this bill. So we haven't even had half a minute to read through what those amendments are, but we will certainly be debating them over the course of the next few hours.
One of the most egregious parts of the fast-track legislation—and this bill makes it worse—is that it takes community out of decision making; it takes local iwi out of decision making; it takes the environment out of consideration, in so far as it dismisses the upholding of our existing environment laws; and it certainly has no regard for climate change, the existential challenge that threatens us all.
We made a commitment, as the Green Party, that we would correct this extreme legislation and the things that it has committed to make happen. The basis of that commitment is a recognition that there is an appropriate place for development. There is an appropriate pathway for people to get a consent and a permission to undertake certain activities—business activities or whatever they are or farming or whatever you like—but it must be with the consent of the people, it must be consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it must be consistent with protecting the common good, which is the health of our rivers, the health of our atmosphere, the health of our oceans, and our biodiversity, because those are the things that are the first duty and responsibility of the regulator and the legislator to protect. It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to protect the public good and the commons from those who would exploit it and harm it and destroy it. That's our job. This fast-track bill seeks to bypass that responsibility.
One of the more egregious things that it does is it allows projects that have been through a substantive and an extensive process, such as the Taranaki seabed mining project, which has been rejected and resisted by community and iwi in Taranaki for more than a decade. It was opposed by even the commercial fishing industry. It was opposed by the offshore wind industry, who have been put off the prospects of building offshore wind in Taranaki because of the prospects of seabed mining by Trans-Tasman Resources—[Member sneezes] Bless you.
It is a zombie project. It has been rejected by all of the courts and tribunals in this land, including the very Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent it back. It is dead, buried in the ground, and this Luxon Government resurrect it through the fast-track process. It is it is shameful. It is so disdainful of the inordinate hours and time that communities have spent to say, “This is not what we want for our country.” Oh, but no, this Government's first duty is to some Australian speculator, Trans-Tasman Resources, who want to destroy the seabed off Taranaki for 35 years straight.
So we, as Te Pāti Kākāriki, wanted to make it clear to industry that this sort of a process by which consents are achieved will not stand under a Green Government. We set a line in the sand that stretches from Bream Bay to the sandstone cap of the Denniston Plateau, and that line in the sand is a commitment that any consents issued by this Government through the fast-track process for coalmining, hard-rock goldmining, or seabed mining will be revoked. That is because of how inappropriate this process is. It is a significant act to take and to commit, but that is because this is such an egregious piece of legislation that does not respect biodiversity, does not respect democracy.
The message to the mining industry, today, is that you should not take any heart from this Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. It does not give you security of tenure. It does not give you a certainty in the future, because there is not political support for it across the House, and when there is a change of Government, you can be certain this bill will be either entirely thrown out or substantially amended.
What is more, it is a high priority for the Green Party, if we are in coalition negotiations with any other party, that we will stand on what our commitment is: that we will revoke the consents for the destruction of the spectacular 40-million-year-old ecology of the Denniston Plateau for Aussie goldminers—that ain't happening. We will stop Trans-Tasman Resources’ seabed mining. We will stop the mining of Bream Bay for sand—
Simon Court: Where are we going to get our sand from, Steve?
STEVE ABEL: You should have a look at the fast-track applications, Simon. There are about seven other sand-mining applications—there's plenty of places to get sand without dredging the seafloor.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Back to speaking to the bill, not across the House in a conversation, please.
STEVE ABEL: Sure. We will revoke the hard-rock goldmining in Otago, Bendigo, in Macraes, and Waihi. Why? Because those forms of mining use cyanide to extract the gold. They leave a toxic legacy of arsenide, arsenic, and cyanide tailings dams that are there intergenerationally. Long after any jobs have dried up and the profits have been repatriated to Australia, that legacy is there. The acid mine drainage that we saw in the Hinewai River down in Coromandel was from a mine that was a hundred years old. Anyone who had worked in that mine was long dead and probably their grandchildren were dead. This is why this form of extractive, destructive industry is not the future for our country.
We need a future based on renewable industries, and we have made a commitment, as the Greens, as an alternative to this—just to be clear—that we can create 40,000-plus jobs through renewable industries and backing central North Island timber processing, among other things, but also by keeping the mills open that this Government is letting close—
Simon Court: They can’t afford the bloody energy, Steve.
STEVE ABEL: They can’t afford the energy because they won't reform the electricity market and break up the generator retailers. Get on with it—fix the problem.
We will certainly be opposing this bill. This sort of reckless disrespect for people and planet and Te Tiriti has no future. Thank you.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, wasn’t it an eye-opening speech from the Green Party member Steve Abel, who I do have a lot of respect for, for his commitment to the environment. I mean, he spent over 240 days in a tree in West Auckland to stop a property development. I’m not sure if those houses have ever been built, so there are probably 240 people who don’t have a warm, dry home. But I do respect his commitment to the environment, even when he starts to mix up Kiwis’ care and appreciation for our natural environment with “Oh, and therefore everything must be collectivised. We must nationalise the energy system.” What did he say? That development requires the consent of the community. Well, of course communities must have an input into development. The fast-track process allows for views to be gathered, but we can’t allow a right of veto to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who turns up at a hearing and gives their reckons and vibes as to why something like a housing development or a mine shouldn’t go ahead.
Now, what does this bill do? It’s quite simple. It provides for grocery businesses—supermarkets—to demonstrate that there’s a national and regional significance test that they pass so they can use the fast-track system. What else does it do? It establishes a more efficient process for fast-track approvals, which means that, instead of applicants having to spend tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars stacking up technical reports to demonstrate why every risk is managed down to the nth degree, why things you can’t even see, touch, or feel are managed in a way that the collectivists over there on that side of the House approve of—
Rawiri Waititi: That’s the story of your life.
SIMON COURT: —we are providing a much more efficient pathway. I want to tell that member Rawiri Waititi that the story of New Zealand has been people on the other side of the House objecting to development, threatening to nationalise successful businesses that deliver electricity and food to consumers, and that’s not going to work for New Zealand. Everywhere that collectivisation and collectivism has been tried, it’s led to famine, poverty, destruction of institutions, the collapse of civil society. You think of Cambodia under Pol Pot. You think of Russia under Stalin. That is what you’re advocating, Steve Abel, and that is what you are riding shotgun on, Rawiri Waititi.
Now, why is fast track an important part of the development approvals process? Well, firstly, it recognises that under the Resource Management Act (RMA), the Wildlife Act, the Conservation Act, and the Public Works Act, their approval is needed for many different aspects of a development. What fast track does is simply bring them all into one place so that all the evidence can be considered at one place at one time by one group of planning commissioners. Now, if you think about viewing the world in a holistic way and balancing human needs with nature, you’d say that actually the fast-track approvals process pulls all these things together in a really coherent way, which is why it’s such a struggle to understand, as a civil engineer, the incoherence and, frankly, the lack of rationale behind the arguments that we’ve heard from the left and hard-left Green wing of politics in New Zealand.
I can’t understand why someone would bother, like Glen Bennett marching down Queen Street, to protest against a bit of legislation that makes housing development and getting vital minerals out of the ground easier. I mean, if you honestly think, Steve Abel—you mentioned that there are a whole bunch of other places we could mine sand, on land instead of the ocean. Would you turn up and write a positive letter saying the Green Party would love you to do more sand mining on land? Like, would you turn up at the hearing and say, “The Green Party loves land sand-mining”? I don’t think you would. I don’t think that that’s a fair reflection of the Green Party’s views. In fact, I think they’re 100 percent anti-mining anywhere, ever. If you really, really believed in that, you’d hand over your cell phones, you’d hand over your laptops, you’d refuse to fly anywhere, you’d be as sound as Greta Thunberg and you’d only come and go from Parliament by boat.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask the member not to bring the Speaker into your debate.
SIMON COURT: Madam Speaker, I do apologise for bringing you into the debate, but I will reflect that Greta Thunburg, even though she’s completely wrong about everything, at least has the courage of her convictions to travel to and from the places she wishes to protest and speak at by sailing boat. She’s only ever flown on a plane when other people have said, “Greta Thunberg, you must sit next to the toilets at the back of the plane.” I don’t know; maybe that’s the kind of sacrifice even the Greens would be prepared to make, but I doubt it, because they don’t have the courage of their convictions to say, “Actually, there should be some mining somewhere, and we will say where it is because we know it’s important to New Zealand.”
Now, this bill is important. We must have a one-stop shop to consider complex development applications. For far too long, the Resource Management Act has made it almost impossible to consent the things we need in a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable cost. It doesn’t mean that these projects won’t proceed; of course they will. But why would we hold applicants, developers, and even the Crown to an impossibly high standard where every single risk must be managed down to the nth degree until you can’t see it, or even if you can see it, you know it’s there. It’s still a risk. That’s what the RMA does. Fast track cuts through this.
But what’s coming next? What’s coming next is going to be even better. We’re going to replace the Resource Management Act that has caused all these problems with two new bits of legislation—a Planning Act and a Natural Environment Act—based on property rights in the Planning Act, being able to use your land without having every Tom, Dick, and Harry turn up to object to the colour of your front door, and a piece of legislation to establish environmental limits.
Now, the Opposition doesn’t disagree with that. They love environmental limits and they also love living in houses. Some of these problems we’re trying to deal with with the fast track are actually to deal with this legacy—this kind of 1980s, cool kids vibes, sustainable management crap—that we’ve had to accept holding us back for over 30 years. Fast track is going to help, but replacing the resource management system with a new system based on property rights is the new game in town. New Zealand’s going to have the best planning system in the world. Green parties, I predict, from other countries, will come to New Zealand to ask, “How did you do it? How did you protect the environment and build homes that people want to live in and have mines?” Well, New Zealand’s going to show them how. This Government’s going to show them how. ACT is proud to support this amendment to the Fast-track Approvals Act.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill in its second reading. As I did mention in the first reading of this bill, this is a core part of the National - New Zealand First Coalition agreement. Yes, I remember back to that time around those coalition discussions, and this piece of legislation was something New Zealand First had developed and popped on to the table at those coalition agreement talks. It’s a proud moment to actually see this piece of legislation in the House being refined and actually working the way we want it to work.
It’s about letting the investment flow. We need to let the investment flow, and we need to let the activity flow. There is too much in New Zealand with stopping activity. This bill will actually get the wheels moving and get the economy moving. As I mentioned, it’s about fine-tuning. It’s about getting the legislation working in the way that we want it to work. Obviously, when the first part of the legislation came through, there has been the need to bring it back to fine-tune it. One of the great things with the fine-tuning here is we’re going to see in the supermarket industry what we’re all shouting out for, which is we want to see more competition. In the supermarket industry, if we don’t get competition and if we don’t get new players into the market, we aren’t going to see prices come down. We want to see the competition. We want to see new players coming into the country.
Rawiri Waititi: You can do that without this legislation.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE: It’s fantastic that the Māori Party’s actually agreeing with me. We want to see some competition. We want to see more dollars in everyone’s pockets so we can see competition in the supermarket industry. We’re talking of a six-week reduction—six weeks of red tape cut out. If we can cut out six weeks of red tape of having to go through processes that aren’t required, it will save costs, it will get shovels into the ground—
Hon Rachel Brooking: And pollution into the waterways!
JAMIE ARBUCKLE: —and we can get projects under way. I can’t believe that the Labour Party spokesperson is disagreeing with me, but we’ll carry on and have a little bit of a discussion about that a little bit later.
The other thing about this piece of legislation is it will create jobs now. In regional New Zealand and across New Zealand, we want to see jobs being created. We want people to be in jobs, and by getting activity in a pipeline of work—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Resources are limited.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE: Again, the Labour people just can’t agree that we actually want to see people in real work and we actually want to see people out actually developing these supermarkets and getting shovels in the ground, and that is it going to create jobs and activity across New Zealand.
A big thing with this piece of legislation is the pipeline. The Government has said that we want to create a pipeline of infrastructure work where when one job finishes, you go to another job. If we can get a pipeline of infrastructure work in the country, across the country, contractors can have confidence to go from one job to another job.
Rawiri Waititi: Shame about the 10 percent unemployment for Māori.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE: Again, we’re hearing from the Opposition about employment. If we can get that pipeline, we can actually get people into work and working across the country. We want to promote a strong infrastructure development pipeline that promotes productivity so that if we, actually, can get these projects up and under way, we will see more work come from it, we can see contractors having the confidence to invest, and then we can have more confidence and businesses to invest more and to actually want to develop more work throughout New Zealand.
What I can’t understand—and we’re hearing it through the Opposition as I’m speaking today—is the “no” to everything. I got up earlier on today and was talking about consenting, and it is anti - people that actually want to do things in this country. On this side of the House, we actually want to see people invest, we want to see people have confidence, and we are actually backing the people that will get New Zealand moving. We don’t want to hear a “no” attitude to everything. I’ve just heard from Mr Abel. He he’s saying no to housing developments; saying no to mining; they’re saying no to supermarkets; they’re saying no to energy projects; they said no to fast-track. They can’t say no to everything. We actually need to have productivity, we actually need to have businesses working, and we need to actually have the ability to actually employ people. If we’re going to keep having a “no” attitude and be so negative, the economy is not going to turn around. This side of the House, this Government, will turn the economy around. We’ll have a pipeline of work that will lead into the future, and people will have the ability to invest, and they will have confidence. On that, it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five-minute split call—Rawiri Waititi.
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I find it difficult to listen to some of the speakers in this House today. We saw with the last speaker, he banged his mic, he thought this was going to be his mic drop moment of a speech in this House. The only anti in this House is a Government that is anti - Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that is anti-environment, that is anti - workers’ rights. All I have to say to Jamie Arbuckle, through this speech, is “Ah, buckle up.”
What we have in this Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill is—the public have spoken: 95 percent of submissions opposed this amendment bill. Every opposing submitter raised the same alarm, that the bill sidelines Te Tiriti o Waitangi and hands unprecedented power to Ministers Tom, Dick, and Harry. The Government are not fast tracking progress; they are fast tracking cronyism. The core issue—and what this Government is obsessed with removing, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is the red flag. The bill replaces Te Tiriti partnerships with ministerial discretion. It is vehemently opposed to Te Tiriti, and we have seen that across many bills that have passed through this House. Now, under urgency, you are urgently moving bills in this House that remove the fundamental constitutional agreement that protects Aotearoa—that protects Aotearoa—from corporate exploitation.
This is what this bill does: it reduces Māori to optional consultees, deepening Crown dominance, meaning Ministers can approve or decline projects without recognising iwi, hapū, or honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This reverses decades of legal precedents, including the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, the Resource Management Act, and the 2021 Supreme Court decision on seabed mining in Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd.
Iwi feedback and all iwi submitters oppose the fast-track amendment bill: Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Toa, Waikato-Tainui, Muaūpoko, Ngāti Kuku, Ngāti Whakaue ki Maketu, Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Hauā hapū, Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust, Ngaa Rauru, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Tahu, Taranaki iwi, Te Atiawa, Te Nehenehenui, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Kuia, Te Tōpuni Ngārahu Trust. The Government cannot erase Māori from the law just because we are inconvenient to your investors.
This is what this bill does: it sidelines Māori from decisions about whenua and moana; reopens extractive industries already rejected by courts and by iwi; it ignores tikanga, customary rights, and Treaty settlements; loss of Māori voice and participation. The bill restricts who can submit, it limits hearings rights, it compresses time frames, reduces opportunities for appeal. Hapū and whānau directly affected are locked out of decisions, where Māori once exercised kaitiakitanga—this bill silences them. The process now privileges corporate applicants over communities defending taiao and heritage. Māori ward council wards are warned: Manawatū has 10 hapū still unsettled and lacking Treaty settlement protections. Te Whānau a Apanui are the same. Te Tai Tokerau are the same. The bill leaves them exposed to decisions made without consent or involvement.
What we have is a constitutional overreach that concentrates power in Ministers, removes Māori from decision making, dismantles Te Tiriti protections, sacrifices whenua and moana for short-term corporate gain. We stand firmly with iwi, hapū, whānau, communities across Aotearoa opposing this bill, and we’ll repeal this bill and entrench Te Tiriti. This is not fast track; it is a fast trick—a trick that hands power to Ministers and corporations while stripping power from Māori communities. The Government can silence us in this legislation, but they cannot silence us in this House or across Aotearoa. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder what kind of new misery this is, because we have been in this situation in Aotearoa New Zealand for decades of governance where some duty of care was owed to the environment. Again and again, we are reaching new levels of dismissal.
I want to make it really clear that the original Fast-track Approvals Bill was already completely unacceptable in its overreach. It was already completely undermining communities’ democratic participation. It was overriding the Crown’s very clear obligations to iwi and hapū under Te Tiriti. It’s weakening environmental laws and protections. That’s already unacceptable. But now, if that wasn’t enough for this Government that want to push things out so far, these processes that we’ve been accustomed to in this country that have some form of legitimacy and legal standing no longer apply with this. This has pushed it out so far. It gives more weight and more strength to our very clear position as Te Pāti Kākāriki that we will revoke consents when it comes to coal mining, seabed mining, and gold mining in particular, because of how egregious it is that they sidestep these environmental protections.
I want to also touch on some comments that we heard earlier from the ACT member about a lack of an argument from the hard-left for being against this bill. I want to start with a submitter that we heard—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Hard-left.
LAN PHAM: —in the select committee process that is not from the hard-left. They’re an independent fast-track panel convener, who is independent of the Environmental Protection Authority, who actually appoints experts to these panels. What they said was they warned the committee to “be alert for unintended policy outcomes and to proceed with caution here.” “Impractical, unworkable changes will simply concentrate pressure on panels. Were this to happen, the quality of some decisions will be very vulnerable to appeal and judicial review.”
Now, why that is so critical that this Government actually listened to those conveners is because they hold up the integrity of the very process that these decisions are made under. What they said this bill does is it threatens the reputation of these independent panel members that sit on these panels to make these decisions. This is how extreme this bill is. Unfortunately, from the little we’ve been able to make of the short time we’ve had to look at this Amendment Paper, it doesn’t look like the Government’s listened. What that means is this process is going to be somewhat, if not completely, illegitimate when it comes to these decisions having to stand up to appeals, having to stand up in the courts. I think that should be of serious concern to this Government, and yet they’re not listening. So be it; let’s push this through today, like they’re going to.
Any Government that pushes through a bill that departs so significantly and irresponsibly from these long held democratic legal safeguards and threatens political influence in independent decision making under urgency needs to be challenged; it needs to be called out. Ninety-five percent of New Zealanders who submitted on this bill called it out. They said we do not want this bill, and surprise, surprise, it’s going through, because the applicants, past and present, have gotten in the Minister’s ear. It’s completely unacceptable, and we oppose it.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, it is really sad to hear, on that side of the House, the culture of no, no, no, slow, slow, slow, when on this side of the House we are wanting development, we’re wanting the housing developments, the renewable energy that we so desperately need, powering up our growers and our farmers so that we can strengthen this economy and create jobs and opportunities. When it comes to supermarkets, we need to create more supermarket competition so that we can reduce the cost of living for hard-working New Zealanders out there. This is what this bill is all about.
I would just like to take this opportunity as chair of the Environment Committee to just thank our members for the fast process that we took with this bill to obviously get it through to its second reading here today, because it is about getting more competition into our supermarket sector. We know that we need to get things built faster in this country; we need to get the consenting regime and our planning regime a lot more streamlined and effective. This is what this bill is about, as well as, obviously, making some technical changes to the fast-track process, just to make it more effective and more streamlined.
It was actually very good to hear from the fast-track panel during the select committee process, whereby they said it was running very smoothly, it was going well, and they did actually mention some of those great projects that have already been passed, which of course is the Port of Auckland, Bledisloe North Wharf, and the Fergusson berth extension, as well as the Maitahi Village developments in Nelson, and of course the Milldale development. These are all positive, and we want to see more of these fast-track projects being approved.
Of course, during the process we heard from the Port of Tauranga, and this bill, of course, will ensure that we can get that stellar passage and that wharf at Tauranga built and constructed. Why is this important? Well, this is important because, at the moment, the Port of Tauranga is turning away ships, turning away our New Zealand exports, our kiwifruit, our apples, and our red meat, when actually we can be welcoming those ships and getting that produce off to market, getting the value for the New Zealand economy and strengthening our economy. It was good to hear the reality of the situation that we’re in with the Port of Tauranga. I visited them, actually, recently and I could see the potential from our largest port, which obviously needs to get a wharf built, expand that wharf, and welcome the ships in so that we can get more exports and grow our economy.
We also heard from the Tukituki water storage scheme, which, of course, is very, very important for my own region of Hawke’s Bay, where we’re actually seeing 37 degree days at the moment in Hawke’s Bay; it is so hot. We’ve got drought on the back door, we’ve got drier summers, and we don’t have water storage yet. We are one of the most productive regions in the country. The Tukituki water storage scheme is very, very important to growing our economy in Hawke’s Bay, but actually growing what we already have there and, of course, supporting many jobs and opportunities in the region. Of course, that project is on the fast track at the moment, so this will be very important for Hawke’s Bay, because it’s going to unleash economic potential in our region. It’s going to diversify the land use that we have at the moment across the Heretaunga Plains, across the Ruataniwha Plains; this is a very, very important project. With climate change on our door, with droughts on our door and drier summers, we need water storage, so that is very important.
Of course, during the process we also heard from the energy companies, and it was very interesting to hear from the energy companies, because they said one of the most restrictive barriers to bringing renewable energy online at the moment is the consenting process, because they cannot get it online fast enough. I’ll give an example. Recently I was up at Tepahui with my wonderful colleague, Napier MP Katie Nimon—welcome back to the House, Katie; it’s great to have you back—and we were up there opening this wind farm. It took 20 years to get this wind farm constructed; it was two years to build it. This balance is absolutely out of whack. We need to bring renewable energy on a lot faster and more efficiently, and this is what fast track is all about. It’s about getting renewable energy projects built faster and more efficiently.
The last element that I just want to talk about was the retirement villages, who we heard about through the select committee process, because we’ve got an aging population and we are wanting to encourage more development in our retirement village sector. They said that one of the biggest barriers to getting retirement villages built in New Zealand was the consenting process. When you see large investment like this, you need certainty when we’re going to get that capital investment into the country, and we’re going to get these retirement villages built, which, of course, is very important to addressing our aging population. Having fast track provides the fast lane to getting these projects built, and they are so important for strengthening our economy, creating jobs and opportunities across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is so incredibly frustrating to sit here and listen to speeches from members on the Government benches who wax lyrical about how their Government wants to strengthen the economy, create more jobs, and build a whole bunch of things. The reality is that they’ve built absolutely nothing, and, because of their decisions, 20,000 jobs in the construction sector alone have been lost in New Zealand.
It is incredibly frustrating to listen to members who talk about wanting to build things and wanting to support the construction industry, when everything that they’ve done goes against even that. They also talk about the need for a faster consenting process; no one’s denying that—no one’s denying that we need to build things better and faster, and that we need a strong economy. What is frustrating is the idea presented by members on the Government benches that the economy and the environment are in opposition, because that is a false dichotomy. We absolutely need a healthy environment if we’re going to build a sustainable and strong economy, and that is the point that members opposite fail to understand. The chair of the Environment Committee stands up and talks about development, not once mentioning how this bill will absolutely ruin and put in decline the environmental protections that we need in this country.
The original Fast-track Approvals Bill was described as an assault on the environment and on environmental protections: that was absolutely correct, and 20,000 people marched down Queen Street in opposition to that bill because they felt it was ministerial overreach; it was a Government that would dictate what happens when it comes to development, to the detriment of the environment. Then this Government made a couple of changes—OK, so three Ministers would no longer be able to veto the decisions of the panel that they themselves put in place, but, instead, the panel would have the ultimate decision. Now what happens? They have a piece of legislation that they claim is all about increasing supermarket competition—but it’s not. There are about 100 other changes in this piece of legislation that they describe as technical, small changes—“rats and mice”, nothing to see here, because it’s all about supermarket competition. If that were the case, we would be supporting this bill, but it’s not the case, is it? This bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to be about supermarket competition. The word “supermarket” is mentioned once, maybe twice. “Groceries” is mentioned once, maybe twice, in this bill.
What does this bill actually do? I’m going to quote the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, because I think he puts it very clearly when he says that “the effect [of the bill] will almost certainly undermine the legitimacy of the Fast-track process and the robustness of its decisions because it seeks to make the approval of applications almost inevitable, by providing the Minister with a mechanism to insert tailor-made Government policy statements to which weight must be given by panels.” I want to touch on that. We have laid it out very clearly in the Labour Party differing view in the select committee report. It is a shame that the chair of the Environment Committee didn’t bother to mention this point that was raised by so many submitters in the very short period of time, given the unilateral decision by the chair to shorten the submissions process. Parliament did not have the opportunity to debate that as we usually would. Labour members on the select committee put up quite the fight over the process, because it is so undemocratic, and yet, unfortunately, the Environment Committee chose to go with the chair’s unilateral decision.
Despite that, there were a number of submissions on this very point. The bill introduces a new type of document that is relevant for decision makers, and it is the undefined “Government policy statement”, or the “GPS”. Now, this GPS is discretionary. There are absolutely no criteria laid out for what the Government policy statement should entail. There is no specified process for the development of the GPS. There is just the requirement for the Minister to come up with this GPS; it can be whatever the Minister decides to put in it and as wide as the Minister wants to go, and the only requirement is to consult with other Ministers and then to publish it. This means that the GPS could be anything, and if that had been confined to supermarket competition, as this Government claims the bill is about, then we would have had no problems with supporting that, because on this side of the House, we do want to see progress. We do want to see development. We want to see a strong economy as well—but not at the expense of a healthy environment—and we struck that balance with our fast-track bill.
Unfortunately, we’ve got a Government that doesn’t care about the environment—that runs roughshod over it and brings in a bill that was egregious and that tens of thousands of people marched in the streets against. They changed it in response, and now they want to change it back by stealth. That’s what this bill does. It moves towards concentrating power in the hands of the Minister through the GPS; it severely limits the participation of third parties—we’ve heard that through a number of submissions from environmental NGOs and conservation groups who submitted to the Environment Committee. Many of them also pointed out what the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said: it “speeds up the process that already makes heroic claims on the ability of parties to assemble material to the point that proper scrutiny cannot be reliably undertaken.”
I want to point, at this juncture, to a couple of projects that have initially applied through the fast-track approvals process—things like the open-cast mine on Denniston Plateau. The Denniston Plateau is a unique ecosystem in New Zealand; it’s a hotbed of plant biodiversity and birdlife as well. There is a project for open-cast mining on Denniston Plateau. The Te Kuha coal mine out on Westport—rejected by the Environment Court in 2020, brought back, taken to the Supreme Court, and rejected by the Supreme Court in 2023—reapplied under the fast-track approvals process, and it was returned by the panel because it raised serious concerns there. The fast-track panel and its ability to be able to invite commentary by the likes of conservation groups like Forest and Bird adds rigour to the process, and that is the process that this Government seeks to undermine through this bill, which is ostensibly about supermarket competition—and it’s not. It restricts the discretion to invite comment; it brings in a whole number of steps. For a Government that seems to hate regulation, when it’s convenient to them, and they want to bring in red tape to slow down the processes of the fast-track panel and the rigour with which the panel can operate, it does that. No problem, we’ll bring in a whole bunch of extra steps there, and we’ll reduce their ability to make robust decisions.
The panel convenor submitted on this very point. We heard that the time frame is too short. It was interesting: even the applicants of fast-track projects—many of them who submitted to the select committee—made this point, that the required time frames that are now reduced within this piece of legislation are too short. It’s egregious from the point of view of environmental protections; it’s not good enough even from the point of view of applicants. It’s a pretty bad piece of lawmaking that this Government is bringing in.
The final point that I want to make is that Shane Jones has waxed lyrical and has been very public in his criticism of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). He’s called the fresh limitations on appeal rights and the ability of the Government to give a general direction to the EPA as of particular importance in this piece of legislation—and that’s what this bill does. It inserts a new section that allows the Minister to give general direction to the EPA in relation to its performance and its exercise of its functions, duties, and powers under the Act. We are concerned that the administrative role of the EPA is not being respected and that the Minister could very well interfere in the decision-making process.
And so I end where I began: 20,000 people marched on Queen Street because of the ministerial overreach in the original bill. That was changed, and it is now being brought back by stealth through this very bill that the Government claims is about supermarket competition. It is absolutely not, and, for that reason, we don’t commend this bill to the House.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier this year, our Prime Minister, in his state of the nation address, talked about the culture of “no” that was encompassing this country. It’s what we have become known for. In fact, I’ll give you an example of how that culture of “no” has made it international. Recently, the CEO of Port of Auckland, Roger Gray, was overseas on a cruise ship at a cruise industry conference, and he said, “Why will you not come to New Zealand?” He was asking the cruise lines people—the owners and so forth. And they said, “Well, actually, we don’t call you ‘New Zealand’. We call you ‘No Zealand’ ”. That was the quote and that is an absolute disgrace. It’s a sad reflection of where we have got to as a country. [Interruption] Clearly, the Opposition aren’t interested in tourism. They don’t want tourism. They don’t want tourists. They don’t want things happening. Listen to them—they are quite happy to live in a bubble that exists in a special place that no one else wants to live. What a lot of nonsense coming from the other side—as normal. That was a really sad story.
Now, about supermarkets—it’s interesting. They say, “We support the supermarkets bit.” Well, really? It’s interesting that when we were in the select committee, I asked the the Mayor of the Far North, Moko Tepania, this question: “Is it important for the Far North—the reduction of restrictions for opening a supermarket?” He said, “Absolutely.” You know why? It was about grocery prices and it was about the town of Kaitāia. It was about the town of Kaitāia, where, as he highlighted, there is one supermarket and the council, the Far North District Council, is very, very keen to see some competition, so that people of the Far North get the opportunity to choose and have better grocery prices. It’s a really, really important thing.
Now, there is something I’d really like to address in my call, and that is the disgraceful stand of the Greens in terms of wanting to cancel consents. It’s an absolute disgrace. They are saying to people who come and invest in this country and build and create jobs, “We’re just going to take that consent away and stop it.” That is a disgrace. It’s a sad reflection on the Green Party. The Green Party of Rod Donald would never have done that. The Green Party of the past would never have done that.
It is a disgrace. We as a country need to be responsible players in the global sector if we are to be taken seriously and attract the investment to create jobs. The Greens are a disgrace and a sad reflection of party support. I commend this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a five-minute split call. I call Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. My, how the mood has changed since the Emergency Management Bill.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
We received 2,518 written submissions on this in the small window of 10 days, and 95 percent of you oppose this bill and this Government don’t care. They don’t care about your voice, and they are taking us backwards. If they’re going to give you 10 days to consult on this, imagine what they’re going to do when the bulldozers come into your town. Will you be there? Will you know about it? Perhaps—perhaps, because you will be notified.
This is one of the bills that sends shivers down the spines of constituents throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and especially the East Coast. When considering this, my mind went back to the early 2000s when the East Cape rose and activated against seabed mining—drilling. That’s going to happen again, but it shouldn’t have to if in fact this Government takes heed and actually takes the collaborative approach they are espousing to take.
One of the main issues here is kaitiakitanga; one of the members opposite has said, “Oh, they’re talking about things we can’t see, touch, and feel.”
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Those are all things we can see, touch, and feel. But what you can’t see, touch, and feel is the connection as kaitiaki that, in fact, is invisible. And that’s why this is so important, because we get one go at this. Our whenua, our awa, and our moana have to endure forever, for ngā uri whakaheke [our descendants].
There’s been a lot of talk about property rights, and I’m sure everyone understands, here, that most general land can be bought, sold, developed at will, but whenua Māori and ture whenua Māori is often multiply owned, has all sorts of different interests, according to whakapapa. Now, these are going to be voluntarily considered under this bill. Don’t just take my word for it. I took the opportunity to read some of the submissions from Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and the submission of Te Hunga Roia Māori o Aotearoa, who absolutely support the whakaaro of my colleagues on this side of the House. Te Hunga Roia Māori warn that this bill materially reduces the practical ability of Māori to exercise rangatiratanga. Well, we know that doesn’t matter to this Government, the exercising of rangatiratanga, that’s why they’re trying to delete it from every legislation in this country. It diminishes the Te Tiriti partnership, it curtails natural justice, and it permits executive overreach. I’m having a bit of an internal giggle ‘cause there’s someone on that side trying to say my speech.
But furthermore, local and regional councils have concerns about this. Greater Wellington Regional Council stated in their submission that this will erode the ability of iwi and hapū like Te Awa Kairangi, Te Whanganui a Tara, which, for those of you who don’t know, is where we are, Te Awarua o Porirua, Wairarapa Moana, and Kāpiti Coast wetlands. The Upper Hutt City Council is deeply troubled by the removal of meaningful consultation. They state that meaningful consultation is replaced with “ ‘notice in writing’ and only 20 working days notification.” That’s despicable.
I know that one of the claimed intentions is that this will bring all the voices together: iwi, councils, hapū, landowners, but, in fact, as my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan said, this is actually a Trojan horse. This is trickery in disguise. The genuine intention will not be honoured.
We can move forward in a collaborative way if every voice is counted as genuine and people are not treated as Tom, Dick, and Harry. When 95 percent of submitters make a statement, surely that is valid to be listened to. We do not commend this bill to the House.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Oh, it’s good to be back. Look, I appreciate all the acknowledgment, especially from my East Coast colleagues, who are all lined up here in good order.
Look, I just want to talk about supermarkets. We’ve talked about them a little bit. I think that it’s actually really important to make this point. We love a good pun, right? While in this particular bill supermarkets can’t take themselves through self-checkout, they can go through the express lane.
I just need to take you back to Hawke’s Bay and the farcical situation that we’ve had in Hawke’s Bay that does not help one single person get a more affordable grocery basket. Now, you want to build a new supermarket in Hawke’s Bay, do you think that you could do it in the middle of Napier? No, because Countdown has two Countdowns across the road from each other; in fact, right by my office. It’s actually a real tourist attraction. You can’t build a new supermarket anywhere else in the area, because, of course, all the plans disallow it.
There’s another little story, in Catherine’s electorate no less, where my family used to have a bus company; got sold to a supermarket. They couldn’t get consent to build a supermarket. So, of course, because they couldn’t, they didn’t want to sell the land to another supermarket because, heaven forbid they could get the consent, there might be some competition. They divided it up into four different titles so that nobody could ever build a supermarket. They had to do some different trades around and potentially trade the land with someone else so that they could build a supermarket where there was consent to be able to operate a supermarket. Oh my goodness! The lengths we go to to build a supermarket to bring in competition.
Now, I don’t think that it’s going to work if the same people just expand and build a bigger supermarket. We need new people. We need to be able to build something new where we don’t already have it. Do you think that we could do that any faster than we build wind farms, as my colleague Catherine Wedd mentioned earlier? No. We can’t expect the existing operators to decide between themselves that they’re going to make groceries more affordable. We need new people to come in. Yes, we’re getting a second, bigger Costco. Do you know how long that took them? It’s absolutely unreasonable. This bill is a very, very necessary amendment.
We need to add things to the fast-track bill. We see it working. When it’s working, we need to expand it to make sure that every single competitor that needs to be in this market is able to operate. If we can make sure that the consent is available, we can fast-track it, by up to six weeks in some cases, to get the very necessary building to happen. We’ve just opened IKEA. You can go and get meatballs in Auckland, furniture that was far less affordable. We’re talking about the grocery prices, but this goes far beyond that, and my colleagues have talked about it as well. It’s a very, very important amendment to make.
I think members opposite are far dramatising some of the very, very practical decisions that are being made here. Bring on the Resource Management Act reform that has been introduced. It is going to make a massive, big difference to our economic recovery, to our economic growth, growing the pie in New Zealand, because that is what this is all about. We are absolutely supportive of economic growth, and that is what we are here to do, make no mistake. I commend this bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s interesting to listen to what has been said across the House this morning, and the previous speaker, Katie Nimon, talking about her two Woolworths in Napier. Lovely. Wonderful. But the thing is: where are supermarkets mentioned in this bill? If I look through, not once do I see supermarkets actually mentioned in the bill—not once.
Katie Nimon: What about groceries?
GLEN BENNETT: Yes, groceries. Oh, yes. They were mentioned one time. Once. Just once. That was the only time groceries were mentioned in this bill.
As we look at some of the rhetoric that’s come out this morning, we’ve actually got to look at what it actually is. I think this is a fast track to, yet again, undermining our environment; it’s a fast track to, yet again, undermining democracy. We look at the process we went through, and it was a challenging process. Therefore, we cannot support this bill. In fact, we need to stand up and we need to oppose it. We do not commend this bill to the House.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to speak to this bill, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. There was some resistance to the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill when we brought it in and we actually got to hear from the Environmental Protection Agency during the select committee process. I think it was the CEO who said that she had some reservations, she had some concerns.
Hon Rachel Brooking: The CEO of the EPA is not a she.
RYAN HAMILTON: In fact, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—do you remember that, Rachel Brooking? You were there. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, he said he also had some concerns, but he was actually pleasantly surprised by the way the process has been going. I think we’ve had five approvals so far, but quite a few more in the pipeline are yet to come, which is really a good indication that it’s actually working quite well.
I guess the intention of this bill was to enhance those aspects where, well, it wasn’t working so well, to streamline some of that process. That’s really the intent of this bill, but also, of course, the supermarket aspect of it as well was really important. There’s been a little bit of talk from the Opposition that we haven’t talked much about the supermarkets, but it’s actually a really integral part of it. A previous speaker, Katie Nimon, actually just mentioned Costco and IKEA, which we’ve been talking about in New Zealand for a long, long time. Those things are really important not only for the economic benefit of New Zealand in terms of the employment they bring but, of course, also the wider impact they bring to the competition sector in offering a cheaper deal for New Zealanders. We’re really excited about that.
In fact, recently, I had the privilege of going on a parliamentary trip to Canada. I got to go with some of my colleagues: David MacLeod and, in fact, Dr Tracey McLellan from Labour as well, and a Green Party member, Hūhana Lyndon. The reason why I tell that story related to this particular amendment bill is we sat down in Manitoba and talked to some of the First Nations chiefs because, as you’d appreciate, they have challenges similar to us or parallel to us with their First Nations people and for us, obviously Māori iwi. They were very interested in our Treaty settlements, particularly with this fast-track bill and how the implications play out legally and, of course, the intricacies of Treaty settlements and Te Tiriti, which the Green Party members spoke about earlier, as did Rawiri Waititi.
David McLeod asked them how long it takes them to consent a project in Canada. Of course, the First Nations chief said, “Well, it depends on the project. Obviously there’s different complexity and nuance with every project that we come across.” But David said, “As an example, just a general big project to consent?” and the First Nations chief said, “About two years.” That was quite an eye opener for us because, with our fast track, we will be doing well if we approve things within two years.
Ingrid Leary: What? They’ve got a completely different system. You can’t even compare them. They’ve got indigenous safeguards in their legislation.
RYAN HAMILTON: But that was an example of just how slow we take to do things. We have got safeguards too, Ingrid Leary.
Catherine Wedd: Read the bill.
RYAN HAMILTON: That’s right. Our chair, Catherine Wedd, was referring earlier to a wind farm in Hawke’s Bay, which took about two or three years to build but 20 years to consent. It’s just not sustainable any more for us to do that. That’s why we’re making some big changes. Of course, the macro changes around the Resource Management Act are key to that and key to this in terms of streamlining the process, but this amendment bill specifically is around improving that fast-track process.
We have looked at truncating some of the turnaround time for the submitters when they approach to make a consent. We tried to maybe fast track the fast track and there was a bit of push-back from the EPA, from the Parliamentary Commissioner, and from some submitters. I believe that the Minister is considering an amendment in the committee of the whole House where we will actually adjust that. We had some comments from the Opposition that we weren’t listening, but the Minister is listening. That select committee process, although it was quite quick, still enabled a good—
Grant McCallum: Efficient.
RYAN HAMILTON: —yeah, efficient. We had submitters present to us here in Wellington, and of course, during the recess week, we also held Zoom meetings and heard from some other submitters as well, which is really important.
Just on the supermarkets, one of the, I guess, precedents we’ve seen is—for example, many of you will know about Halswell in Christchurch. Did I say that right, Vanessa?
Dr Vanessa Weenink: No, it’s “Halls-wall”.
RYAN HAMILTON: Halswell, where Woolworths took four years to get a resource consent. They effectively said that it’s a multi-year, multimillion-dollar barrier. Of course, those costs—when we’re talking about the price of butter and the price of cheese—to set up the infrastructure to house the very thing that we’re trying to increase competition with has to be passed on. For that $4 million of resource consenting, you can imagine how many percentile increments on 500 grams of butter are going to be passed out. Again, that’s a really good example.
Another example is the Wairau Rd Pak ’N Save that some commentators say took nearly two decades to consent because the resource consent actually got declined twice, such was the process. That was a really quite a drawn out example, but what this tells us is that New Zealand is just not attractive for these big supermarket players. In fact, there was another one in Rolleston on Levi Rd, Selwyn Pak ’N Save, where the re-zoning and the resource consent just took too long. Consent was eventually granted, but the project needed to proceed to construction, but only after a very lengthy consenting plan change interaction with the council. In fact, there was another one: Pioneer Highway Countdown in Palmerston North. Timeline again. It was a proposed $16 million new supermarket, but the application was refused by independent commissioners for failing to meet urban design integration rules. That’s right, a supermarket in Palmerston North—Palmerston North—not necessarily known for its urban design, potentially; I don’t want to speak out of turn.
Grant McCallum: Certainly not the MP for Palmerston North.
RYAN HAMILTON: Yeah, I don’t think there are any MPs from Palmerston North here. Failing to meet urban design and integration rules, the consent was refused. What about Central Otago and Otago? Anyone here from Alexandra? A proposed Countdown in 2020: the planner recommended a decline of a new Countdown because of adverse effects on urban traffic and amenity. Again, “amenity”. This is a supermarket. They’re not designed to look particularly sexy; they’re designed to sell baked beans, butter, milk, and bread—and it was declined. The outcome recommendation was against consent.
Catherine Wedd: What about Hamilton?
RYAN HAMILTON: Hamilton’s got some new supermarkets, but actually—thank you for mentioning Hamilton—if you will indulge me, it is the city of the future. It is the fastest-growing city. We have got international flights. We have got a Pak ’N Save being built, but the council made them do significant traffic management, which Pak ’N Save to pay for—which is fair enough from the ratepayer perspective—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Should they not have paid for it?
RYAN HAMILTON: —but at so much cost that the Pak ’N Save has to incur, and that cost is going to be passed on. Rachel Brooking, when you come through on the 110kph expressway from Auckland listening to cruise control, if you want to stop in to that Pak ’N Save, unfortunately, the price of butter just went up because they need to pass on that cost. This is really the intent—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Should they not? Is that what the bill does? Is that what you’re telling us: the bill is going to change the costs?
RYAN HAMILTON: Yes, that’s what I’m saying, Rachel Brooking. Because, if the capital cost is reduced because the resource consent is more streamlined and easier—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, so supermarkets don’t have to pay for traffic controls any more?
RYAN HAMILTON: They don’t have to pay for what, sorry?
Hon Rachel Brooking: They don’t have to pay for traffic controls any more. That’s what the bill says, does it?
RYAN HAMILTON: It’s going to be much more—
Dr Vanessa Weenink: You can sit down.
RYAN HAMILTON: OK—it’s going to be much more streamlined and therefore that cost saving and cost efficiency will be able to be passed on. I commend the bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fast-track Approvals 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 (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee at the conclusion of question time, so the House will now break for lunch and we will be in committee at the end of question time.
Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Visitors
Australia—Australian Political Exchange
SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I’m sure that members would wish to welcome the visiting delegates on the Australian Political Exchange, who are present in the gallery.
Papers
Papers
SPEAKER: I’ve received a report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled Reviewing the land use capability system in a regulatory complex. That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): A fortnight ago, the Reserve Bank released its latest Monetary Policy Statement. This contained the bank's decision to reduce the official cash rate (OCR) to 2.25 percent, making it the ninth OCR reduction since August last year. The Reserve Bank's forward track for the OCR indicated that this was likely to be the last reduction; certainly, that is how markets are now appearing to see it, but monetary stimulus will continue to flow through the economy as more and more homeowners roll off fixed-term mortgages and refix at lower rates, particularly if they're prepared to shop around and hold their banks to account for giving them the lowest rate possible.
Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the performance of the economy this year?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank points out that New Zealand's economic recovery was disrupted in the June quarter as greater uncertainty, particularly around tariffs, led to increased precautionary behaviour by households and businesses, dampening consumption and investment. Since then, the indicators of economic activity have improved, and the Reserve Bank is expecting the economy to recover in the September and December quarters of this year. Its forecast is for GDP growth of 0.4 percent in the September quarter just gone, and we'll see what that number really is next Thursday when Stats NZ release the latest figures.
Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the outlook for the economy next year?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank's outlook for 2026 is very positive. Its forecasts support the widespread consensus that the economy is strengthening. The bank expects growth to build next year, and this is driven by the stimulus from lower interest rates continuing to transmit to higher domestic demand and as the effects of global economic uncertainty wane. As the economy picks up, unemployment falls. The Reserve Bank is expecting unemployment to start falling early in the first half of the year and to steadily drop after that. This is not me expecting higher growth and lower unemployment; this is the independent Reserve Bank.
Nancy Lu: What did the Reserve Bank say about the outlook for inflation?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank expects annual Consumers Price Index inflation to return to near the 2 percent target midpoint by the middle of 2026. It says that inflation for food, household energy, and local rates is currently well above historical averages, which is why headline inflation is currently at the top of the 1 to 3 percent target range. However, it expects these particular pressures to reduce in the near future, alongside a continued broad-based easing in underlying inflation. This is obviously good news for Kiwi households, and while current inflation pressures are higher than most people would like, it is a far cry from inflation of 7.3 percent under the previous Government.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Nicola Willis that his Government has “delivered more social homes in our first two years in office than the last Government did in three.”, and, if so, how is the 197 homes his Government has actually funded and built greater than the 7,228 additional homes that the previous Government built over three years?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is 197 a bigger number than 7,228, or is his ability to count even worse than Chris Bishop’s?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have built 7,000 homes in the last two years.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can he claim that they've built nearly 7,000 additional houses under his Government when all but 197 of those were already funded and already under way when he became the Prime Minister, and his Government has, in fact, cut funding for thousands of additional house builds that could have been under way, with some even finished by now?
Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance: if that question can stand with reference to a previous Government, does that mean answers can make similar references?
SPEAKER: No. I think the reference in any of these things is the answers given by Ministers, which did reference previous Government, so brings it immediately into context. But thank you for your inquiry.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No disrespect, but I won't take lectures from that member on social or community housing because he came to Government and he had a fourfold increase—a fourfold increase—in people on the social housing wait-list; and, already, in two years, this Government is taking 5,000 to 6,000 people off the social housing wait-list, because, actually, what matters is outcomes, getting things done, getting people into houses. That's what we're doing.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won't he take lectures from the Government that delivered 14,000 additional social homes to his Government’s 197, and doesn't that say everything about his Government's priorities: all talk, no action?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, let's talk the record, shall we? Why don't we do that? Because that would be fun. What we've got is a previous Government that ran up housing and made housing so unaffordable. House prices went up 30 percent in one single year. Rents went up $180 per week. You inherited a wait-list of 6,000, you turned it into 24,000, and we've already taken it down 5,000 in two years. You had 3,200 people in households sitting in motel accommodation, and we've put people into warm, dry houses. I'd stack our record on housing any day of the week. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough, from both sides. The noise level for that answer was ridiculous. The Prime Minister doesn't need the assistance of his back bench or fellow Ministers to answer questions.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many of the 3,000 additional social houses across Auckland that Nicola Willis signed a pledge to deliver will be delivered by the next election, given that, so far, they've only delivered 197 across the entire country. Or was that pledge, like all of the pledges that they made pre-election, a promise they never intended to keep?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, if the member would like to put the question in writing, I'm sure we can get a detailed answer.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no—you don’t know the answer. Sit down. Answer the question or sit down.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: But the big point I want to highlight here, and this is the difference between Labour and our side of the Government: house prices went up 30 percent in a year, rents went up $180 a week, and you had a quadrupling of the social housing wait-list.
SPEAKER: Hold on—hold on. There needs to be a lot more restraint from that side of the House. I know that one member there is very eager to end her week and has made a request that I assist her in doing so, but I'm not impressed by the efforts that are currently being made.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he begins an answer with “What I would say to you is:”, will he ever follow that with an actual answer to the question that's being asked?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'll follow it up with is [Interruption]—what I'll follow it up with is: outcomes, outcomes, outcomes. I mean, it's unbelievable to me that a Labour Party supposedly caring about housing as a core equity did it so badly. You managed it so badly; you made it more unaffordable for people to get into a house. You made rents go up $180 a week. You put a fourfold increase in people on the social housing wait-list. Your record is abysmal; you should be ashamed of it.
SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Bishop, when the House is giving you the respect of asking a question in silence, go ahead.
Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, between 2018 and 2021, the then Government was very fond of claiming houses were built under that Government that were, indeed, funded between the 2014 and 2017 period?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, thank you, the member, for his question, but what's important is actually getting houses built, getting people into houses, and making sure housing is more affordable. I want to say a big thank you to that Minister, because he's done a very good job in two short years compared to six years under Labour, where it was a debacle.
SPEAKER: I'll tell you what: the whole week could end early if I were to take drastic steps, pleaded on her behalf by a member on the front bench of the Labour Party, for the entire party.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are you keeping a list?
SPEAKER: It’s all on the naughty side, believe me.
Question No. 3—RMA Reform
3. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What feedback has he seen on the Government’s new proposed planning system?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yesterday, the Government announced its new planning system to make it easier to build the homes and infrastructure New Zealand needs, give farmers and growers the freedom to get on with producing world-class food and fibre, and strengthen our primary sector. Some of the responses to the reforms have been quite remarkable. Business New Zealand said that they were “transformational and should result in fewer consents”. It’s critical that this new system is enduring and has broad support. There are clearly areas of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government. However, it is pleasing to see some generally positive remarks coming from the Leader of the Opposition, and I’m sure that as we get into the debate, there will potentially be more remarks like that.
Grant McCallum: What feedback has he seen from developers and businesses?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Our development community and our business community has been tied down in red tape for so long. The Employers and Manufacturers Association said that the proposed reforms “will provide impetus to economic, business and infrastructure development”, and Civil Contractors lauded the approach as “clear, sensible, and pragmatic.” Infrastructure New Zealand said that the proposals “will provide certainty and drive infrastructure development.” The Property Council said, “A clearer, more consistent planning framework means more land uses will no longer require consent, saving time [and] reducing cost,”. It’s great to see these positive remarks.
Grant McCallum: What feedback has he seen from the primary sector?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A key theme of the reforms announced yesterday is to make sure that farmers and growers spend less time burdened with paperwork and more time actually farming. Federated Farmers called this “a huge win for common sense”, and I thank them for their advocacy on this issue. DairyNZ welcomed the new proposed legislation, saying it would lead to “[reduced] complexity, fewer consents, greater consistency, better use of farm plans,”. The primary sector’s success is critical to New Zealand’s prosperity, and we are unshackling them from burdensome and unnecessary regulation through these reforms.
Grant McCallum: What feedback has he seen from other important stakeholders?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The New Zealand Planning Institute, who I have previously had remarks to say about, welcomed yesterday’s changes, saying, “We agree the system should get back to basics and focus on what’s important”—I welcome that—as well as “The results the Government is seeking will only eventuate if all actors involved … make changes to their approach to resource management”, and I agree. Driving a culture change through planners, councils, and resource management practitioners is critical, and I thank the Planning Institute for their leadership on this issue. I also want to highlight the comments made by the Environmental Defence Society, who, again, are not a group that I have necessarily been complimentary about in the past, and I do want to caveat by saying that they have concerns about certain aspects of the bill, but they’ve also said, “There are bright spots … for example, existing water conservation orders are preserved … and new ones are still possible.” I think it would be fair to say yesterday that the feedback coming through is that basically everyone wants a better system. People acknowledge the Resource Management Act has failed. This is the biggest economic reform in a generation, and I’m proud to be getting on with it on behalf of the Government.
Question No. 4—Finance
4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement about the Government’s ownership interests in State-owned assets that “all advice will be taken to Cabinet and Cabinet collectively will make decisions”; if so, has she directed Treasury to start work on this Cabinet paper?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, in the full context of my quote, which was “all advice will be taken to Cabinet and Cabinet collectively will make decisions about the ownership statements;”. As I said yesterday, Treasury advised in its briefing to incoming Ministers that most OECD countries already have ownership statements. New Zealand does not, and we should close that gap. Ministers have already agreed at Cabinet that that work should progress, and Treasury is preparing that advice for both the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and relevant Associate Ministers of Finance, or the Minister of Finance. We will then take that advice to Cabinet at some time in the new year, and, therefore, drafting has not yet commenced.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why would she even consider taking a paper to Cabinet—a paper she describes as “basic financial stewardship”—if not for further discussion on asset sales?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because we like to keep our Cabinet informed of the work that we are doing on financial stewardship, and we intend to update them on the work that we are doing, including any priorities for further work to enhance the performance of assets which we own.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she expect feedback on her Cabinet paper from the Rt Hon Winston Peters like his public statement: “Well, actually, just getting rid of assets built up by our forefathers to try and balance the books—that is an admission of potential failure before you even start”?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I expect a lot more feedback from Mr Peters between now and the election, but I think some of his best feedback will be for that member and her leader, who, I believe, he is on the record for having some very, very strong feedback for.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister imagine being part of a Government—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did you ask the Minister about what they are imagining?
Hon David Seymour: —where people were afraid to even—
SPEAKER: Just a moment—sorry, just a moment. We don’t call out, or anything else, while questions are being asked. That was a pretty egregious sort of intervention—just keep it quiet. Thank you. The Hon David Seymour will start again.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister imagine being part of a Government where people were afraid to even have a discussion about the purpose of owning assets?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, I’m tempted to repeat a quote that got me into trouble last week, which is “Those who are conspiracy theorists see conspiracy theory everywhere”.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she taking asset sales to Cabinet when the Rt Hon Winston Peters has described it as a “failed economic strategy that Treasury has pushed for a long long time.”?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am doing no such thing, and it is beneath the credibility of that member to repeat false claims.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she taking this matter to Cabinet just so she can get the Treasury to work on National Party policy to sell State assets in the next term?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I appreciate that the member prepared her questions in advance, but I have answered that question and addressed it directly, which is that the purpose is to inform members of the Cabinet on the work we have done to define ownership purposes and to see what further work may be required to enhance the performance of these commercial assets. So the member should stop mischaracterising our intention.
Question No. 5—Prime Minister
5. 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: How can his climate Minister stand on the world stage and say that we are committed to keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees after his Cabinet had signed off on changes months ago to emissions targets that are consistent with Aotearoa New Zealand contributing to 2.7 degrees of warming, which the UN Secretary-General has described as “catastrophic”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what we are committed to doing is delivering on net zero 2050. We look at our emissions reduction plans, we look at our emissions reduction budgets, and it looks like we’re on track to do that. We may even do that a bit earlier.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he accept the official advice given to his Cabinet that his weakened methane target will double the emissions shortfall in emissions budget three, requiring other sectors of the economy and households to significantly increase their contributions and, therefore, costs to meet our targets?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I acknowledge is that we have the very best farmers in the world and we have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world, and shutting down production in New Zealand, as the Labour-Greens Government plan to do, and shifting that production to somewhere else in the world only makes global greenhouse gas emissions worse.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with the official advice that his Cabinet received that his decision to enable more super-heating methane emissions will increase the costs for all New Zealanders, who have to pick up the slack?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What will increase the cost is shutting down farming in New Zealand and actually shifting that offshore and making every single man, woman, and child in this country poorer. We are not punishing our farmers, and we are not punishing New Zealanders. We’re proud of our farmers, who are the most carbon-efficient in the world, and, therefore, moving that production anywhere else other than New Zealand only makes greenhouse emissions worse, not better.
Chlöe Swarbrick: So does the Prime Minister intend to either miss the emissions budget out to 2035 by over 18 million tonnes as a result of the official advice that his Cabinet received on reducing methane emissions, or create additional costs of hundreds of millions of dollars for everyday New Zealanders through higher emissions trading scheme prices if we are not to miss that target?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member, what we look for is delivery of our net zero 2050 goal. We take it budget by budget and emissions reductions plan by plan. There’s often more work to do in the outer years, obviously, but that’s coming into shape, and we’ve got efforts to do that. But we’re on track to deliver net zero 2050. We’re doing our part to make sure we’re doing it. I’m sorry to the member: we are not going to shut down farming in New Zealand. We are not sending that production overseas. That was the plan from Labour-Greens in the previous administration. It’s not this Government’s plan. We’re proud of the farmers. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a minute.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why would his Government reduce the methane target in line with contributing up to 2.7 degrees in global warming when the independent expert Climate Change Commission made clear, in their advice to Governments, that we could actually increase the ambitions of our climate targets, which would not only be completely compatible with his stated aims of economic growth but also reduce the risk of a far harsher and more costly transition in the future?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Quite simply, as I’ve said in my previous answers, we have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. We are not shutting down food production in New Zealand and shifting it to one of any of the other 195 countries in the world only to make global greenhouse gas emissions worse. We are proud of our farmers. They are the best in the world. They’re the most carbon efficient in the world. They’re embracing technology and innovation. We might be able to increase production and lower emissions at the same time, going forward.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Not one of my questions asked about food production. In fact, all of them were about the mathematics of the Government meeting its emissions budgets, and the Prime Minister did not even address any of those questions.
SPEAKER: No. I’m sorry, I can’t agree with that. I think the questions—and Hansard will show—made assertions about what is likely to happen in the member’s opinion, and some advice that has been provided to the Government. The Government doesn’t have to accept that, and by putting the answers as the Prime Minister has, he’s explaining why they don’t accept it.
Question No. 6—Māori Development
6. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he agree with Reikura Kahi, chairwoman of Te Māngai Pāho, that funding cuts to Te Māngai Pāho will be “catastrophic” for te reo Māori and the media sector; if not, why not?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Tuatahi me mihi ka tika ki a Reikura me tōna momo e hāpai nei i tō tātou reo māhorahora.
[First it is appropriate to acknowledge Reikura and those like her who are promoting our monumental language.]
No, I do not agree with that statement. There are no funding cuts to Te Māngai Pāho. It is actually facing a fiscal cliff birthed by the previous Government who provided time-limited funding for Māori media. This Government has retained baseline funding for Māori media through Budget 2024 and Budget 2025 as part of our continued support for te reo Māori.
E mihi ana ki te Minita Pūtea.
[I acknowledge the Minister of Finance.]
Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister—
SPEAKER: Just wait.
Hon Willie Jackson: How many jobs will be lost across Māori media as a result of a 25 percent funding cut to Te Māngai Pāho?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I repeat my statement. There has been no funding cut. We have retained the baseline funding. The number of jobs is a matter for operational decisions across various Māori media organisations.
Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with Whakaata Māori that “Whakaata Māori has proven it delivers unmatched cultural, social, and economic returns, yet we continue to be resourced at levels disproportionate to our proven impact.”; and if so, why won't he fund Whakaata Māori accordingly and prevent further job losses in the sector?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Whakaata Māori has produced some amazing talent and some amazing programmes like Hunting Aotearoa and Homai te Pakipaki, a great sing-song programme, and they continue to provide serious value for te reo Māori and across the identity of New Zealand. What I can say is this: a number of broadcasting entities that have been funded by Governments over time are facing very, very strong challenges by people on Facebook and Instagram and a whole range of content subscribers and producers, and I encourage Whakaata and others to maintain the agility and the nimbleness that they are well known for.
Hon Willie Jackson: Has he met with long-time supporters of iwi radio and Māori media, the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Hon Shane Jones, to discuss funding options of iwi radio and Māori media in the regions particularly, and if not, why not?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a range of kōrero and conversations that I have with various Ministers, stakeholders, and others to ensure that we continue to support te reo Māori, but make no mistake: the survival and the health of te reo Māori is not dependent on the taxpayer or the Government. It is more dependent on whānau speaking, singing, doing haka, and making assertions in te reo Māori. Kia ora tātou.
Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with the comments from associate finance Minister David Seymour that if he had it his way, “there would be even less funding for te Māngai Pāho.”; and if not, what advice, if any, did he give to Mr Seymour about the Government's responsibilities under the Maori Language Act 2016?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am unaware of the quote that is attributed to the Deputy Prime Minister, but what I am aware of is the huge effort that the Deputy Prime Minister made at Waitangi last year to say his entire kōrero in te reo Māori, and I hope to see that again. Tēnā tātou katoa.
Question No. 7—Justice
7. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards reforming New Zealand’s firearms laws?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): This morning, the Arms Bill passed its first reading unanimously in this House and it’s on its way to the Justice Committee for public submissions. This bill has been five years in the making and responds to the rushed, knee-jerk laws passed in 2019. Those changes damaged the relationship between licensed firearm owners and Government. The Arms Bill will begin to rebuild that trust by removing impractical regulations, making compliance simpler, and focusing on broad public safety.
Cameron Luxton: What input has the community had in shaping the Arms Bill?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: The community has had extensive input into shaping the Arms Bill. Public consultation earlier this year received over 8,500 submissions containing more than 700,000 points of individual feedback. This input has been critical to ensuring that the bill is fit for purpose, reflects community expectations, and helps rebuild trust and confidence in our firearms network. The community will have an additional chance to provide input during the select committee process.
Cameron Luxton: What are the next steps for the Arms Bill?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Arms Bill has been referred to the Justice Committee for a full six-month process. After witnessing the consequences of a rushed three-day select committee in 2019, it is important that the bill receives proper scrutiny through a full select committee process. During this period, New Zealanders will again have the opportunity to make submissions and propose improvements, and I encourage everyone to have their say.
Cameron Luxton: Will there be opportunities for changes to be made to the bill?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Absolutely. A bill is by no means fixed once introduced. The Justice Committee will consider all public submissions and make recommendations, if needed. If we want an Arms Act that can endure for the next 40 years, it is essential that New Zealanders take the time to read the bill and make informed submissions over upcoming months.
Cameron Luxton: Has input from the hunting community shaped the Arms Bill?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Most certainly. The hunting sector plays a vital role in managing introduced species and providing kai for New Zealanders. Hunters formed the largest group of submitters in this year’s consultation, representing 84 percent of all submissions. This reflects how important the bill is to those who rely on firearms for food gathering and sport. I encourage hunters across the country to engage through the select committee process and help shape how the tools of their trade are regulated.
Question No. 8—Education
8. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “what is not at question here is the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi”; if so, why did she remove the obligation for school boards to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, I stand by my statement that the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi is not in question. The Treaty was signed between Crown and iwi Māori, and the obligation for the Crown to uphold the Treaty in education is firmly established in section 32 and section 4 of the Education and Training Act. It was Cabinet’s view that the school boards are not part of the core Crown, and should not be delegated a legal requirement to give effect to the Treaty that rightly sits with the Crown. The obligations I rightly hold have driven a work programme that has been uncompromisingly ambitious for tamariki Māori and is now delivering results.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she accept that a petition signed by 24,000 people shows she got it wrong?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I was pleased to go out on the forecourt and meet with iwi chairs and Rahui Papa and accept the petition. The comments that I made there on the forecourt and also in a stand-up beside Rahui Papa afterwards on the tiles here in Parliament, were that—and he agreed—while sometimes we might disagree, we have exactly the same aspirations for tamariki Māori, and that is to raise achievement for all children across the country, especially tamariki Māori. I take that very seriously. Actually, I know that it hurts the Opposition that they couldn’t do it and that we are, but we are raising achievement for tamariki Māori for the first time in decades.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does 1,726 schools, 41 principals’ associations and collectives, and 725 early childhood centres saying they will uphold Te Tiriti show she got it wrong?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: No. We’re asking boards to be laser focused on getting kids to school, keeping them safe, and raising achievement. If those school boards, over and above those obligations—those legal obligations—wish to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi because they believe that it will improve student outcomes, then that is up to them; that is a choice that they can make. But having lists of schools that are put together by activists is not helpful.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she ignore her ministry when they told her to consult with Māori?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: It was Cabinet’s belief that we hold the Treaty obligations very clearly under the Education and Training Act, in section 32 and section 4; we hold those obligations. While I understand that the previous Government, in 2020, decided to delegate their obligation away to school boards, we do not believe that was the correct thing to do, and neither do the Crown. Unfortunately, if the previous Government had spent more time concerned about raising achievement and mathematics for tamariki Māori, rather than delegating away their core responsibility to school boards maybe, then, improvements would have been made for tamariki Māori. Unfortunately they weren’t, but they are under this Government because we take our obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi and the Education and Training Act very seriously.
Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister believe those improvements to the teaching of maths might avoid a situation where future generations of MPs think that 24,000 is a majority of 5.3 million?
SPEAKER: This needs to be a very brief answer.
Hon ERICA STANFORD:. Of course, raising achievement in mathematics across the country is vitally important which is why we are seeing results—for the first time in decades—in mathematics results under this Government.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why wasn’t Te Puni Kōkiri given enough time to meaningfully consult on these changes?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: It comes back to the answer I already gave: there is already a very important Treaty obligation—in the Education and Training Act—that sits with the Crown. That is not in question; we are upholding it. Cabinet did not believe that it was a proper thing to delegate that obligation away to a school board.
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: When his Government proposed to give a near-blanket extension to all consents through to 2031, was any analysis done as to whether Ministers or MPs would benefit from this; if not, why not?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first question, we haven't done that.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence, then, that no Ministers or Government members hold consents that will benefit from these blanket extensions; and if so, on what basis?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have confidence that we manage our conflicts appropriately.
Hon Marama Davidson: How will communities living with polluted rivers, polluted lakes, and polluted drinking water benefit from delayed environmental controls as a result of the blanket extensions of consents to 2031?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They'll be wealthier.
Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. So that's the second question the House has been required to endure that is absolutely not consistent with Standing Order 390. Not only was a wild allegation made about members of this side of the House but then further unproven, reckless statements were permitted.
SPEAKER: No—there was most certainly an inference in a question, but not a wild allegation, and I think it was adequately answered in relation to the Cabinet Manual. As for the second part of the question, well, that’s a question that can be asked in the House, and the Prime Minister can choose, if it’s in the public good, to answer it.
Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. “Questions must be concise and not contain … inferences,”.
SPEAKER: Yes, and so must answers, and if we had followed that dictum to the nth degree, then we'd have virtually no answers from the Government on anything.
Hon Marama Davidson: I'll repeat my third question, Mr Speaker—it wasn’t answered. How will—
SPEAKER: No, you won't. You won't repeat it, thank you. Have you got another supplementary?
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it's hypocritical to claim he cares about ratepayers when the near-blanket extensions of all consents make a mockery of the time, effort, and resources put in by communities and councils to better protect the environment?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, actually, since the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been in existence, you could argue we, actually, have seen some environmental degradation, so it, arguably, hasn't been working anyway. But what we are doing, on this side of the House, is we are disrupting the whole RMA process. We are not apologising for it; we want economic growth. We want New Zealanders to be wealthier. That's what they're going to get as a consequence of this RMA reform.
Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the consent extensions that Marama Davidson is referring to are part of a pragmatic and practical transition to the new planning system and making it easier for that transition to take place?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and I want to say to that member, thank you very much for actually making sure there are concession upgrades, because the new regime will be infinitely better. Imagine a world where 46 percent less consents are needed—that’s a beautiful thing.
Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that faster consenting of infrastructure projects, such as the forthcoming waste-water tunnel from Newmarket Park to Ōrākei, can actually help reduce pollution, such as the intolerable amounts of E. coli in the Hobson Bay, as just one example of how better infrastructure is actually good for the environment, but it has been held back by the Resource Management Act, which is broken?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree. I think we can get stronger environmental outcomes and better economic outcomes at the same time.
Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister agree that delivering faster consents for renewable energy projects, such as wind farms and solar farms, has the dual impact of not only reducing emissions but also enhancing economic growth?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and that’s why I would hope that the Green Party would support these fantastic reforms.
Question No. 10—Education
10. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding school property?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Today, I announced that we are continuing to supercharge school property. We’ve listened to the sector and as part of the first ever Ministry of Education tenure property plan, we are delivering a major increase to school capital funding so that our classrooms are well maintained. The Five Year Agreement (5YA), which covers upgrades, modernising or replacement works over a five-year period, will increase by 50 percent, and for our small schools, the minimum allocation will double from $45,000 to $90,000. This is the first increase in that FYA funding rate since 2010, and these changes are to give schools a greater certainty and flexibility to plan effectively and get on with more upgrades.
Katie Nimon: When can schools expect to benefit from this change?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: The first group of 450 schools will receive an increased funding from 1 July 2026. Each year, 20 percent of schools will receive their new 5YA budget. So over the next five years, all schools will receive the 50 percent uplift as their new budget lands. The investment will support planning and deliver larger essential upgrades and modernisations over the long term, and that doubling of the minimum allocation is particularly significant for the smallest schools, 24 of which will double their existing funding in the first year. I’d like to express my thanks to the Rural Schools Association for their ongoing advocacy for small rural schools.
Katie Nimon: What feedback has she received?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, it’s been overwhelmingly positive, as you would expect. A rural principal said, “Thank you for your understanding of the realities of the rural context.” One principal emailed me to say, “What an outstanding Christmas announcement. This will have significant impact on upgrading our older buildings. Many thanks indeed for all of the great work you and your team are doing in both curriculum and capital works. It will be a world-class education system in the next while if, as a nation, we can keep this aspirational vision and strong leadership up.”
Katie Nimon: What other feedback has been received?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, electorate MPs like Suze Redmayne for Rangitīkei who got in touch with their local schools also received great feedback which they’ve passed on to me. One principal said, “This is massive news and the timing is amazing for us with our next 5YA due to start next year. We save and contribute to our property project, so this extra funding means we’re going to be able to deliver even more property improvements for our students. Best news ever.” Another said, “It was great to open my emails this morning to the email from Erica. It will make a huge difference in what we’re able to do in our school.”
Question No. 11—Internal Affairs
11. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions regarding Fire and Emergency New Zealand?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes, especially my statement last night following a meet and greet event with firefighters on the Parliament lawn. I thanked the firefighters and all first responders who worked tirelessly to bring the Tongariro fire under control over the past couple of days. I also thanked them for their dedication and service and hoped that they’re able to find some well-deserved rest over the coming days.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Does she stand by her decision, in December 2024, requiring $60 million in cuts from the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) budget at a time when firefighters say they don’t have the staff or equipment they need?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes, I do stand by that because that $60 million is very important because we know that when there was an amalgamation of the urban fire service and the rural fire service, people expected to see some form of efficiency gain. No efficiency gain was found, and it’s important, in any amalgamation, to try and find an efficiency, so we’re focusing on efficiency within the back office, but I would also note that that $60 million that I’ve been asking FENZ to save is not going to be returned to the Crown. It will stay within Fire and Emergency and will be able to be reinvested in Fire and Emergency. In fact, the only money from Fire and Emergency that has returned to the Crown is the $70 million Crown loan that levy payers are still on the hook for from when the former Minister of Internal Affairs got involved in collective bargaining.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Does she stand by her decision to restrict Fire and Emergency New Zealand funding, given that professional firefighter Adam Wright estimates that there have been 800 fire truck breakdowns in Auckland alone over the past year?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: When it comes to the fleet and management and maintenance, I’ve been given assurances from Fire and Emergency that there have not been any deferments of maintenance this year or in previous years under my term. But I’d also note that when it does come to the fleet, I’m advised by Fire and Emergency that the term of the settlement of the collective employment agreement between Fire and Emergency and the Professional Firefighters Union in 2022 was the establishment of three working parties—one of which was fleet. This saw Fire and Emergency and the Professional Firefighters Union at the table in equal numbers, working on solutions for the future of the organisation’s fleet. Since then, we have had many trucks on order.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Why do members of Government boards deserve up to 80 percent pay rises while her offer to firefighters barely keeps up with inflation?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Those things are very, very different things. If you have governance of Crown boards, you need people who have good governance skills and strategic oversight who are in charge of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. New Zealand taxpayers expect that money to be used wisely and for there to be good strategy and oversight. When it comes to how Fire and Emergency is funded—and I would assume that the member should know this—it is not funded by taxpayers; it’s funded by levy payers. When we are setting the levy and when we are ensuring that Fire and Emergency can break even year on year, we need to ensure that people will reinsure their house content insurance, they will have reinsurance for cars, they will have content insurance, and that they will have commercial property insurance. That is what funds Fire and Emergency. If you set that too high, you have a higher likelihood of people not insuring and getting rid of the broad-based, low-rate component that funds the levy system. These are basic things, and they’re very different.
Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister care to answer the heckled question from Jan Tinetti as to why she is not inserting herself into the labour negotiations with the firefighters?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Well, one, Ministers should not be asking questions of their own which are clearly designed to have a crack at the Opposition; second of all, there’s a long-running convention that members cannot ask questions on behalf of other members.
SPEAKER: That’s very true, and the first point is that there is no prohibition on Ministers asking questions within their own party arrangements. The second point is that if you think about how the Hon David Seymour worded that question, he asked it in his own name, referencing where it had come from. That’s slightly different to what you’re asserting. The Minister responding can respond very, very briefly, given her very long answers so far.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can give a very brief answer as to why I won’t be inserting myself into collective bargaining in the same way that the previous Minister did, because the previous Minister appointed the former president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to oversee bargaining on her behalf during the process. She also appointed an independent facilitation mediator that made a recommendation for a settlement that Fire and Emergency didn’t have the necessary resources and financial requirements to settle. It required Fire and Emergency and the Minister to go to the Crown to ask for a loan that they’re still paying back.
SPEAKER: That was a new definition of brief. [Interruption] Hang on. Just a minute. Ask the question.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will she reconsider cuts to Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s specialist wildfire roles, given that since the cuts were announced, two major fires have broken out in Tongariro National Park?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There are no cuts to front-line firefighters.
Question No. 12—Housing
12. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcement has he made on retirement villages?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): I’ve recently announced proposed changes to the retirement villages framework that will improve transparency, clarity, and fairness for residents, including that when a resident moves out of a village, the operator will have to stop charging weekly fees and fixed deductions; clarity for the rules around chattels and fixtures; and an easy-to-access, independent dispute resolution scheme. For new residents, there will be a process to apply for early access to funds in hardship situations, interest being paid after six months if a unit remains unlicensed, and mandatory repayment of funds no later than 12 months after a unit is vacated.
Sam Uffindell: What changes are being made to improve fairness for existing and future residents?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: For existing and future residents, there will be increased transparency that will level the playing field, enhance trust, and strengthen consumer confidence, which will both encourage investment and innovation in the sector. It will also give operators greater clarity around reinvesting in places like The Pavilion at Pacific Lakes Village in Pāpāmoa.
Sam Uffindell: How will the change support the retirement sector to grow and innovate?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: There will be a greater degree of transparency and clarity for both residents and operators alike, and I want to acknowledge all those that have been involved in the process so far.
Sam Uffindell: What is happening next?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Parliamentary Counsel Office will draft an amendment bill. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a minute.
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I expect to be able to introduce the amendment bill this parliamentary term. The select committee process will provide another opportunity for residents, whānau, and operators alike to have their say. Again, I acknowledge the Retirement Commissioner, Jane Wrightson, and a number of other individuals who have been involved in the process today. I expect they will contribute further as we move through the parliamentary stages.
SPEAKER: Urgency is continued. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.
Bills
Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to Parts 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 54, amendments to Parts 1 and 2 of the principal Act. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to start by acknowledging that the Minister has put an Amendment Paper on the Table this morning, No. 473, and that rewrites the bill—in a way—in terms of it would be similar to, maybe, a revision-tracked (RT) version that would come out from the select committee.
However, the select committee didn’t have an RT version because of timing, and there are a number of amendments in my name, and also in Lan Pham’s name—there may be others, as well. I have gone through my version of the bill as introduced, and I’ve got different coloured markings all over it, including references to the Minister’s Amendment Paper. We might be going between those documents as we go through this committee stage; I’m basing most of what I’m doing off the version of the bill as it was introduced.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And it would be helpful for members to highlight the clause they’re speaking to.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, yes—no, I will do. I’m just starting by saying that we’re here under urgency, and this fast-track bill was at select committee, but not for long. We are in Part 1, and I will be going through—I’ve got a lot of questions and comments throughout the bill, and I would like to go through it fairly carefully.
Sam Uffindell: Chop, chop.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I see the Government members are already in a hurry. That doesn’t surprise me.
The first question—I’m on page 5 of the bill as introduced, and I note that the Government has an amendment to clause 4, and it is the deletion of subclauses (4) and (5), which regards priority projects and the processing of that. My first question is whether the Minister can explain why they are being deleted—what the rationale is for that.
Then my second question, and bigger question, is around Government policy statements. In clause 4(7), there is a definition of Government policy statement (GPS): it means “a Government policy statement issued under section 10A”. Now, there are some amendments, one in my name—and I’m sure the Greens will talk to their amendment, as well, which is in new section 10A—but my amendment was to suggest that, at new section 10A, we specify that these Government policy statements are about grocery competition. That is because the Minister has said on multiple occasions that this bill is about supermarkets. We heard a very long—surprisingly long—contribution in the second reading from Ryan Hamilton that went through the ins and outs of an awful lot of supermarkets around the motu. The Minister may be interested to know that it included Pak ’N Save in Hamilton, with a roundabout; apparently, if this bill has effect, then the Pak ’N Save’s roundabout will no longer be the responsibility of the Pak ’N Save, and so somebody else is going to have to pay for the traffic management. I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that and how it relates.
The question here is around the Government policy statement: if this bill is all about supermarkets and grocery competition, why is the Government policy statement so wide and why can it apply to a good number of issues? Further to that, if we jump ahead to clause 5—again, I’ve offered up an amendment to circumvent the policy statements to being related to grocery competition. There’s an amendment in the Minister’s name about enabling the Minister to consult any other person. Really, this does not provide any criteria that the Minister can consult other people as they think it’s appropriate. There’s no criteria here about how the GPS will be made, noting that it can be on a range of subjects outside of grocery competition. Would the Minister consider some more criteria in the development of the Government policy statement?
I note that in other legislation—in some health legislation—they do have criteria for the making of a GPS. I have provided an amendment taken off that legislation—but with some tweaks so it makes sense for resource management legislation—that would give some comfort to the Labour Party, who is concerned that, at the moment, the Government policy statement can be about anything. A Minister can have a whim and then, as a consequence, that Government policy statement, which does have to be published—and the Minister can talk to whoever the Minister wants to—but that’s it; that’s it in terms of process. Then the consequences of that Government policy statement is at new section 10A(6): it relates to the decision making on a substantive decision. That is a very important point.
I would like the Minister to—I think that’s four questions I’ve got here. One is if he can explain at clause 4 the deletions to subclauses (4) and (5), but that’s a little question. The bigger questions are: will he consider the changes in my name around limiting the Government policy statements to just groceries—because he said that this bill is about groceries, so make it just about groceries? If he will not do that, will he consider adding in some criteria about that Government policy statement—how it’s made, what the confines of the GPS are? And then, finally, if he can also comment on the role that the GPS has in decisions that are made and referred to in subsections (5) and (6) of that new section 10A.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In relation to the member’s first question around priority projects, it’s largely an administrative change that, essentially, means that the ability to classify something as a priority project is dealt with at the substantive stage rather than earlier, which is the appropriate juncture to deal with it. It’s largely an administrative change.
In relation to the Government policy statements (GPS), the member rightly highlights clause 5, which inserts new section 10A and inserts the ability to issue a Government policy statement. The member asked about the series of questions. The first GPS the Government intends to issue is, of course, the grocery competition. We’ve issued that already. We’ve publicised that. There may be others. The member asked why the Government is just not limiting it to grocery competition, and the answer is because there may be others. The ability for the Government to issue a Government policy statement, we think, will be a useful device in terms of signalling Government intention in relation to other areas. I’m not going to prejudge where Cabinet or the Government may get to in terms of other areas. Clearly, grocery competition is an area that the Government is interested in, but, for example, without prejudging anything, it may be that renewable energy generation is an area that the Government wishes to signal as a priority. I think many members would be interested in that.
In terms of how it works, it allows the Government to signal its position on what may be regional or national benefits in particular sectors. We’ve talked about grocery and retail competition, but I think the key point is this: it’s not determinative for particular projects. A GPS will be a factor for consideration by the Minister on referral applications and by an expert panel on substantive applications, alongside all the other information presented with an application and the comments. The underlying test in the Act is not changing, which requires panels to weigh up the regional and national benefits with adverse effects in making those decisions. That is not changing. It’s not determinative of outcomes. There’s been a bit of public commentary that it gives the Minister carte blanche to force things through. That’s not the reality. It’s not borne out by the facts and the law. It’s a signalling device, and there are legal requirements there around it to be a factor for consideration on referral applications.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you. I would like to begin on clause 4, Part 1, and particularly clause 4(3), “In section 4(1)”—and this is regarding the definition of “complex freshwater fisheries activity”, which has had a change from the original Fast-track Approvals Act. The first of the changes in the original Act were under complex freshwater fisheries activity in section 4(1)(c)—this was on page 9 of the original Act—and they deemed that, to constitute that activity, works are “within 500 metres of the coast and occur during the whitebaiting season” and then, thirdly, they are “in an area known to be used for trout, salmon, or native fish spawning and occur during the spawning season”.
Now, the changes that they have now in the amendment bill—that, again, was introduced this morning and we’re just making our way through—in subclause (3)(ii), amending section 4(1), it now says, “that require [the] disturbance of any duration during the whitebaiting season to a water body within 500 metres of the coast; or (iii) that require disturbance of any duration during the relevant spawning season to a water body that is known for the spawning of trout, salmon, or native fish”. Now, I’m interested specifically about this change. Why this change, particularly when it comes to just limiting it to whitebait species, and what is the intention with the disturbance aspect of it? Is it that there was not enough clarification in the earlier definition, or have there actually been instances or activities that have occurred that are now of concern to the Government and are why they are undertaking this change? I’d really like some clarity on that.
Then, further down—again, this is still clause 4—in subclause (7), it’s talking about the definition of the relevant portfolio Minister. It still retains the start of the definition about meaning “a Minister of the Crown who, under the authority”—etc., etc.—“is responsible for”, and then it says, in subclause (7), “(a) in relation to a proposed Government policy statement, a portfolio that is directly related to the subject of the proposed Government policy statement”. What my question is with this: is the subject of that statement simply the sector in which it sits, or is it about the potential impacts of that Government policy statement? Why I’m asking that is because I’m particularly interested in the Minister for the Environment’s role within the Act, because what we’ve seen in the actual operations of the Act is that, even though she has been legislated to be providing comment when it comes to applications, we know very clearly that she actually has not been undertaking that role and that legislative role.
I’m interested specifically in what the consideration has been about the Minister for the Environment’s role, specifically in the Government policy statements and whether she is considered to be a relevant portfolio Minister given that the entirety of the fast-track proposals that we have in the approvals process so far have, clearly, impacts on the environment. I would really like and appreciate some clarification on that.
Then, thirdly, just to move to where my colleague Rachel Brooking was in clause 5, where there is a number of very important questions to be answered on this—because, again, we have not had a very clear select committee process at all; it’s been very rushed, but we heard very clearly during that process particularly from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that he considered this provision of the Government policy statements offers no guardrails when it comes to environmental protection. He described it as an open-ended power to determine what national or regional benefits mean. Basically, there were many contributions within the Environment Committee stage that people considered this to be a return back down the track of the expansive ministerial power that the Government actually backtracked from when we went through the select committee process on the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
I’m really interested to hear the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s take on why those concerns weren’t paid more attention to when the Government actually landed on where they are for this area.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Good questions. I thank the member for them. In relation to the first one around complex freshwater fisheries and whitebait, I’m advised by officials that clarification was requested by the Department of Conservation in relation to that. It’s, I suspect, a largely administrative clarification.
In relation to her second question, it was, I think, about the Minister for the Environment. As I think the member knows, the Minister for the Environment is not the responsible Minister for the purposes of the Fast-Track Approvals Act. That’s not to say the Minister for the Environment is not a good person; it’s not to say the portfolio is not important. They both are, but they are not the responsible Minister. The Minister for Infrastructure is that person.
The issuing of the Government policy statement (GPS) is done by the Minister. Cleary, that’s a Government policy statement, so there’d be a Cabinet process; certainly the Government policy statement on grocery competition, for example, has been issued as a Government document by Cabinet. The proposal in clause 5 to insert new section 10A says that “the Minister must consult the relevant portfolio Ministers.”
For example, just to take the example I was using before, without prejudging where the Government might get to, if the Government issued a GPS on renewable generation, for example, the relevant portfolio Minister at that point would be the Minister for Energy. The proposal is that that is mandatorily required to take place, but they then also may consult any other person the Minister thinks appropriate.
In relation to the third point around the GPS, all I can do is repeat what I said before, which is I think there has been a degree of inaccurate commentary around the role of Government policy statements. The underlying test that the expert panels are required to give effect to through the Fast-Track Approvals Act is not changing. This idea that it’s unlimited, unconstrained, Muldoonist power without any guardrails is not actually borne out by the law.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Going back to the answers the Minister gave to my questions around clause 5, new section 10A, and this contribution he’s just made now. On that contribution, the Minister is saying the underlying tests do not change. Those underlying tests in the Fast-track Approvals Act are at section 81, and the ability to decline is at section 85; what we and what submitters are particularly concerned about is that, when making a decision under section 85—and this is from our differing view in the select committee report—most applications can only be declined if the adverse impacts in relation to the application are “sufficiently significant to be out of proportion to the project’s regional national benefits”. The concern that we have is that, with the addition of a Government policy statement (GPS), with no criteria, that will have a relationship to this test that I just read out about the impacts being “sufficiently significant to be out of proportion”. I would very much appreciate the Minister being clear, in his answers, that he does not see the GPS as being able to be part of that weighting in section 85 in the ability to decline and that, maybe, the GPS is only part of a weighting in the section 81 decision. That would be of some comfort. But if he can go through that relationship between sections 81 and 85 of the principal Act, that would be very useful.
He’s talked about how the underlying tests do not change. Is he referring to these tests in sections 81 and 85? Then he’s also said that, in terms of going back to the GPS generally, they might be about all sorts of things that he can’t think of at the moment but that, because they have to go through a Cabinet process, that’s enough. I really want to challenge the Minister on that assumption because, apart from the Crown Minerals Act, which was passed by this Government recently, other instruments, such as national policy statements and a GPS made under the Pae Ora (Health Futures) Act 2022, they have criteria, not just about who you consult, but some criteria, some guard rails, about what those GPSs are about and how they will influence the decisions made under this Act. I’m always asking for this Government to put sustainable management into the fast-track. It could be that there is some criteria around sustainable management, for instance. It does not give me any comfort if the Minister says, “Well, we can go back to the purpose of the fast-track Act.”, because that purpose is simply to facilitate projects and that purpose is not to facilitate projects in accordance with sustainable management. That is where all of our concerns come from and why we say, over and over again, that fast track does not protect our environment.
I’m happy to work studiously on more amendments, although I do have one up already about what those guard rails could be, and I note, as well, that Lan Pham has an amendment saying that GPSs must follow the same process as set out in section 46A of the Resource Management Act (RMA) for a national policy statement. That would also do the trick.
The questions there are: can he please think more about criteria, some guard rails? Also, it would be useful if he could think of any other examples rather than supermarkets. He’s said renewable energy, but, surely, there are other national direction documents for renewable energy and significance in the RMA that would already make them part of the section 81 determination process. Can he say what he is referring to when he says that the underlying test does not change, and the relationship between sections 81 and 85 in the principal Act, and what role the GPS, any type of GPS, will have in that decision making?
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up where my colleague Rachel Brooking has just left off, because this is a really substantial part of the Act. What my concern is is that we heard really clearly about concerns from submitters about this being, essentially, executive overreach—that, quite aside from speeding up the process and making it more efficient and effective, it actually could open it up to risking robust decision-making, and especially if it’s not evidence based, then the risk of judicial review.
There were a number of suggestions, made by a number of submitters, that could have quite clearly resulted in processes that these Government policy statements were much more robust and much more informed by expertise or community. These were things like criteria around the Government policy statements actually undergoing some form of cost-benefit analysis, or at least consultation, and this is particularly when it comes to iwi, hapū, mana whenua, and the public. If there was some form of consultation that could strengthen the rationale for these Government policy statements, and perhaps somewhat avoid the clear risks that have been set out not only by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment but a number of very influential legal minds—I think what I’m proposing, which I’d love Minister Bishop’s thoughts on, is very simple: it’s simply about section 46A of the Resource Management Act (RMA), where the same process that’s set out in there would actually apply to these.
Now, I’m obviously aware that the Government is getting rid of the RMA, and I’m absolutely not attached to that specific process. What I am encouraging, and would like the Minister’s consideration of, is, again, simply some semblance of safeguards and consultation that may give some opportunity for relevant expertise or community experience and iwi and hapū, particularly when it comes to Treaty obligations, to have their voices heard, to actually inform these Government policy statements. I’d really appreciate a response to that. Thank you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to move on now to clause 6, which is “Section 11 amended (Consultation requirements for referral application)”. Both Lan Pham and I have different amendments to delete this. The change is that we're moving from consultation to notification and we're worried—well, I'm worried; I'll speak for myself—that that is a reduction in the involvement of the iwi groups that are described later in that clause.
We did hear from iwi groups that already the time frames are very tight and any further tightening of them will just make it impossible to give any meaningful contribution. In the Minister's Amendment Paper, there is some change to the language around the 20 days and where the 20 days happens. My questions to the Minister are simply if he can explain what the change in the Amendment Paper is and why it's there, but also if he has given any consideration to the submissions that were made by iwi saying that 20 working days is not enough, and further, what his rationale is for this change in the title from “consultation” to “and notification” and the difference between simply being notified of something rather than being consulted on it.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that's a really important distinction, and before we get a response from the Minister, I would like to table and ask his consideration of my amendment to simply delete clause 6. We think this is a really inappropriate new consultation requirement, in that it actually reduces what one would think of as consultation literally to a one-way process. This could have really ill-thought-out impacts, particularly when it comes to a reduction or a disincentivising of applicants actually working proactively and productively with local authorities and with mana whenua to actually identify and resolve issues in advance of lodging an application.
We know, councils know, and we know from their submissions and experience that having some really basic stuff at the front end here can result in so much cost and time saving down the track. I think that because the bill, as we'll get to in later parts, so inappropriately narrows that ability for appeal, this upfront consultation, rather than simply one-way notification, would be a really valuable and wise track for the Government to actually go down to actually reduce that risk of appeals later down the track or potentially judicial review. I would really appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’ll deal with a range of issues in relation to these questions. Change has been made in relation to consultation to notification, and we think that’s a more objective test. Actually, in relation to Ms Pham’s comments around judicial review, it’s really clear that when someone’s been notified, there is a debate about what consultation requires, so we actually think this creates more clarity.
The Amendment Paper change is to clarify that an application can’t be lodged before the 20 - working day notification period ends. I understand there was a bit of debate at select committee about how people would just send them off and then lodge the next day. They can’t do that. Twenty working days is the minimum period applicants must allow. We think that’s appropriate.
In relation to the other questions that were raised—why not use a section 46A Resource Management Act process?—well, that’s quite a cumbersome process to issue what’s actually a relatively simple document. We’re not intending to take up the member’s suggested amendment around an national policy statement - style process. We think we’ve got the balance about right in the current form.
In relation to Ms Brooking’s questions, all I can do is repeat what I said quite a long time ago—or at least half an hour ago—which is that the underlying test is not changing. Clearly, the Government policy statement will be a factor that is weighted by the panels in saying yay or nay, but it is not a determinative factor, and my comments around that were in relation to some commentary that that is the case when it, in fact, is not.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Given the Minister’s answer then—he’s saying it is a factor, but not a determinative factor—he could be clearer in terms of section 85 and that balance that I was referring to in my earlier contribution. I won’t repeat it, but my interpretation of what he just said is that it is a factor, so presumably, if it is a factor, it could change that proportionate decision-making test under section 85, which is the opposite of him saying that the underlying test doesn’t change. It either does change or it doesn’t change, and he’s not being clear about where that sits, and I think it would be useful for everybody if he did.
I also note that, while he is rejecting Lan Pham’s section 46A of the Resource Management Act (RMA) process, I do have an amendment as well that’s copied from the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022, and that is that in doing one, the Minister must be satisfied that the GPS contributes to sustainable management, have regard to the relevant policy documents in the specified Acts that the fast-track refers to, consult the Secretary for the Environment, and engage with organisations as the Minister sees as reasonable—I’m paraphrasing somewhat there. I would like a response to that as well.
I will move on to clause 9, and this is a very important clause. It amends section 17, which is “Minister invites comments”. What we’re particularly interested in are the changes that are made here, because this is one place in the Act where there has been some discretion to invite comments from parties that are not local authorities and that are not adjoining landowners. What has happened—and this is relevant to the Minister’s amendment today. We have been worried that replacing subsection (3) with the new paragraph (b), which is included—it says, “Replace subsection (3) with: (3) A local authority—(a) must provide comments”, and there are some sections there, and “(b) may provide other comments, but only if those comments are relevant to the application and the decision on the application that the Minister is required to make under section 21.”
I see that there’s a small change that the Minister’s made—I’m sorry, I was getting ahead of myself with reference to his Amendment Paper; apologies for that. The issue here is that “Replace subsection (3)” is simply replaced with “section 17(3)”—so my check here is that that is just a typo being corrected, but also if the Minister can comment on why the local authority is being restricted at paragraph (b) to providing other comments only if they “are relevant to the application and the decision on the application that the Minister is required to make under section 21.”, and the new “(3A) Any comments made by the administering agency must be relevant”. I totally accept that any comments should be relevant, but is this change necessary because comments were not relevant? If the Minister can comment on that.
Then, also, I note that at subclause (4)—this is an important one, because it says, “In section 17(6), replace ‘20’ with ‘15’.”, and Lan Pham has an Amendment Paper to delete that subclause (4). I meant to, but I accidentally said clause 6. But that “‘20’ with ‘15’.”—we heard that that would be difficult for councils to decrease from 20 to 15, that being five working days in a week. I was wondering if the Minister has considered—and I don’t think there’s anything in his Amendment Paper about that time frame, and if he’s talked to local authorities about how that will work.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some questions on clause 7, still in Part 1, so this is page 7 of the bill. This is particularly around the amendment of section 13, which is actually to do with the referral application. Subclause (1) of clause 7 is about, in section 13, “after ’environment’, insert ’and the significance of those adverse effects’.”
Now, as I understand it, the intention of this change of this section is, actually, to strengthen the information that is given to the Minister so that they have more fulsome information to consider when they’re actually deciding the referral stage of the fast-track process. It’s clear, within the bill, that the Minister may decline an application for referral, even at that stage, if the project may have significant adverse effects. I understand the rationale: that this is trying to expand that.
Now, what my concern is, and what the concern of many submitters were on the fast-track amendment bill submissions—in the process—was that, you know, this shouldn’t be left to the applicant to actually decide the significance of those adverse effects. Is there a consideration about any additional scope where it could be more clearly spelt out—the obligations of the applicant to actually expand on their responsibilities?
Now, we’ve had some quite concerning submissions throughout the process, where submitters would talk about applicants who actually claimed things, whether that be in consultation or in assessment of environmental acts, that were actually proven to be untrue. So when the Government like to describe this as there still being some form of environmental safeguards, this could actually be one area that clarified the obligations of the applicant to provide a fulsome assessment of environmental impacts, ideally outside of their own companies or whatever consultants they may use. But that would actually help the Minister in their determination and, presumably, result in much better outcomes for the process. So I’m really interested to hear whether the Minister has any thoughts about that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In relation to Rachel Brooking’s amendment around clause 9, I think it was in relation to, may provide comments only if those comments are relevant to the application—this is really just a kind of clarificatory change to make sure that councils in particular are making sure that they provide comments that are genuinely relevant to the application. Some of the feedback coming through so far, as they’ve stuck in Resource Management Act, land, we’ve got chapter and verse about everything, which is not relevant to the application. I don’t think a lot turns on that. It’s kind of clarificatory.
In relation to Miss Pham’s suggestions around section 19 of adverse effects. This is actually something I would have thought she would support. It’s to make sure that the Minister has fuller information at the referral stage around information of adverse effects. Clearly, there’s an obligation through the actual panel decision-making for all of those things to be, you know, published—well, furnished, to the panel. But this is just a measure to make sure the Minister on referral has access to some of that information earlier on in the process.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to move on to clause 9 and particularly pick up on an area that we had very compelling submissions on, particularly from councils, but also some—it was actually the New Zealand Law Society who talked about the unworkability, particularly of clause 9(2). So this is about where the local authority must provide comments advising on any applications that have been lodged, any in relation to the proposed proposal, and may provide comments, but only if those comments are relevant to the application and the decision on the application that the Minister is required to make under section 21.
Now, what was concerning about this was—and this is throughout the bill, in numerous instances which we will be able to pick up on, but particularly this: we heard that local authorities are really concerned about the workability of these proposed changes, and my amendment proposes to delete clause 9(2) mainly because that will delete the actual limiting of the scope of local authorities’ comments on the applications. Because what we heard is that when they first get these applications and make an assessment, you know, even under the current framework they have so little time to actually comprehensively get a snapshot of what the application actually means for them and their community. And they considered it to be unworkable in that they have to so soon be providing these comments when they actually haven’t had the opportunity to more fulsomely assess the application and actually understand its implications.
So we know that decision makers are already constrained to specific considerations regardless of the comments made by local authorities or mana whenua under the bill. But these provisions, as they are now, would also limit that ability for local authorities to incorporate the views of mana whenua into their comments. So we don’t like the fact that that limits that. We think that local authorities should have more discretion, and I’m interested as to whether the Minister has given consideration to that, given the very clear risks that the rest of this bill are opening in terms of risk to the processes.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of questions around timings as well, so moving past clause 9 and into 10 and through into 14. Clause 10 is “Section 18 amended (Report on Treaty settlements and other obligations)”. The primary Act at the moment says, “(3) In preparing the report required by this section, the responsible agency must—(a) consult relevant departments; and (b) provide a draft of the report”. So what this bill does is get rid of that “and provide a draft of the report”. I note that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper 473 has some changes to this section 18, and I was wondering if he can tell us what those changes are doing, and why it is that—not in his Amendment Paper; in the bill as introduced—that requirement for providing a report has gone.
Then, related to that, clause 14 is “Section 29 amended (Pre-lodgement requirements for listed project)”, and there’s some amendments about 20 working days in his Amendment Paper, around clause 14. So if he could explain why those are in there, that would be useful as well.
So those are two timing questions, but the—
Hon Chris Bishop: Sorry, what was the second one?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: At clause 14. In the Minister’s Amendment Paper, there are, I think, given my—I’ve got different coloured pens on my copy here; sorry, I’ve copied them over in black pen, black for the Government, Mr Minister?
Sam Uffindell: Is that because we get the books in the black?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, it’s because of the influence of New Zealand First that I’ve used the black pen; red pen for Labour, obviously.
But the question is around the Minister’s amendments in terms of the 20 working days in clause 14. Also, going back to clause 10, the amendments that the Minister’s making, and why a draft report is not prepared in amended section 18.
Then, my last question on this little set of clauses is in relation to clause 13—this is not a timing question, despite it being called “(Timing of decision to decline referral application)”. Clause 13, amending section 25(1), deletes “on the application” in each place. I am wondering, Madam Chair—and to the Minister—if this is in fact a rats and mice provision.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’m just looking at clause 10 as well. Again, looking at clause 10 and the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s original clause 10; both of them amend section 18 of the underlying bill, the Fast-Track Approvals Amendment Bill. So it’s about preparing a report on Treaty settlements and, very roughly, “the responsible agency [has to] consult relevant departments.” Those relevant departments “must provide [the] report to the Minister not later than 20 days after the date for providing comments”. So it’s giving the responsible agency 20 working days to get their comments back or get the report back to the Minister.
In terms of consulting relevant departments though, I can’t see where there is an obligation—although I suppose it might be somewhere, because I’m not especially familiar with this—on the relevant departments to get their comments back so that the responsible agency can prepare its report. So we’ve got—it’s taken me a while to work this out—the responsible agency has to prepare a report which has to go to the Minister. It says to the agencies it’s consulting it requests comments from relevant agencies and then goes back to the Minister not later than 20 days after the date of getting those comments. That’s fine; that seems reasonable to give, you know, time for the relevant agencies to comment and then for the responsible agency to prepare the report.
But what I’m looking for is, given that this is supposed to be fast track, some obligation on the relevant agencies to give their comments to the responsible agency within a certain time frame as well. So I can just sort of see a situation where the relevant agencies, whatever they are, through no particular fault of their own maybe don’t get something done. I can see it running into problems, you know, they don’t get comments back in a timely fashion. Of course, that undermines the whole purpose of the fast track. The place where that might obviously happen is you know, over the Christmas break when, despite all the allegations in the paper, people do take time off, but not 10 weeks, but they do take time off, you know. So there’s a little bit just there. So I want to know how we make sure that those relevant agencies actually reply in a timely manner as well.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In relation to that, firstly, the Christmas break doesn’t count as working days; it’s the summer closedown period, so that deals with that issue. The changes here are actually relatively straightforward. There’s an update to reflect that the Minister for Māori Crown Relations and the Minister for Māori Development are now invited to comment under section 17, which is in clause 9. The 20-working-day time frame is for the Ministry for the Environment to provide the section 18 report to the Minister. After the closure of comments, I don’t think there’s any requirement to really dive down into time frames around reports flying around between the Public Service. The point is that the Minister needs the report, and the Amendment Paper creates a 20-working-day time frame for that. I think it’s all relatively straightforward, and I think it’s a good change.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving forward, then—thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for the answers to those questions. At clause 18, there’s “Section 35 amended (Director-General of Conservation’s report on land exchange)”, and what I’m interested in is subclause (2), and that replaces “sections 53(3), 54, and 55” with “sections 54 and 55”. What that means is that section 53(3) is removed, and 53(3) is the “Panel invites comments on substantive application” and they “may be invited from any other person the panel considers appropriate.”. We are going to get to that section later, but I think it does get amended in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, so just asking officials to consider whether or not—and apologies if it’s in the Amendment Paper and I’ve missed it—but whether or not that subclause (2) should also be deleted, so it still refers to 53(3)—that change coming up later that I’m very keen to talk about—so 53(3) doesn’t happen. That’s one small question.
Then moving on to clause 19, inserting new section 37A: this is about “Listed projects proceeding in stages”. I just note that the Minister, in his Amendment Paper, has changed “a written request” to an application and then also said that “An application must not be made unless [any relevant fees or levies have been paid].”—I think that will be reflected later on, when we get to the regulation-setting clauses. So really just inviting comment from the Minister that his changes are as simple as what I’ve explained there, but if he could, also, comment on that clause 18.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Clause 18 says that certain parties must be invited to comment on land exchange applications. The change enables the Director-General of Conservation to invite comments from other persons on a proposed land exchange as appropriate, to be used at the Director-General of Conservation’s discretion. So I think that’s pretty sensible.
Clause 19 is the change around listed projects, as the member says. I’m advised that the Amendment Paper has minor wording changes and the inclusion of a requirement for fees to be paid, which aligns with other similar clauses to bring it into line.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I think maybe the Minister responsible for RMA Reform misunderstood me. So if we look back at clause 18(2), what is happening there is that the reference to section 53(3) is being deleted. That is because the bill as introduced deleted section 53(3), but his Amendment Paper now undoes that deletion, I think, so should this subsection (2) now also be deleted?
Hon Chris Bishop: I’ll check.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It’s a checking question?
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Madam Chair—thank you. I’m keen to make a contribution and seek to understand further from the Minister in terms of the way in which this bill honours Treaty settlements to date for iwi Māori. I remember the strong submissions from Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu, who reiterated that they believe—and they can see within the legislation—they are not being seen, nor heard, nor honoured in the way this legislation is going to impact on their settlement.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask the member—sorry to interrupt—what clause?
HŪHANA LYNDON: Clause 10, “Section 18 amended (Report on Treaty settlements and other obligations).” I want to just canvass with the Minister, knowing that there are some significant changes being made in terms of both iwi Māori input in council and time frames, but, actually, it’s more around Treaty settlements and how the obligations and the signed settlements of those who are settled—how will the commitments made be honoured, and how will their views as rūnanga and trust boards of post-settlement governance entities be considered in the deliberations of panels?
Further, regarding Bridget Bell from the Manawatū, who shared that, in the Manawatū district, it’s different again. There are 10 hapū who are unsettled, and they don’t have the legal protections that Treaty settlements offer. So, you’ve got the settled, and we’ve heard strongly from groups like Ngāi Tahu, Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Toa Rangatira—a whole range of them with those concerns for the protection of their settlements and those obligations—but then we hear from those iwi Māori, like the hapū of Manawatū, who are unsettled and therefore they don’t have the legal protections that accompany Treaty settlements.
The original bill failed to provide the meaningful safeguards for these groups, let alone what this amendment bill could potentially do, which is to continue to expose unsettled hapū and iwi in the space where consents are being considered—and that’s if they even get in the door to offer comment and contribution. It’s unpacking both Treaty settlements and their obligations, but then also the unsettled, and how do hapū and iwi engage in this new system being proposed?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): On that, I find it interesting to be taking lectures on this from the member who abused that process as part of it. But, anyway, I’ll leave all that aside. She knows what I’m talking about. Both the Minister and the expert panel have to comply with section 7 obligations in relation to Treaty settlements and customary rights. It’s been quite interesting, actually, the number of projects that are coming through from iwi seeking to use fast track. One of the first projects that was actually consented—in fact, I’m visiting it tomorrow—is the Maitahi housing development in Nelson. This sort of rhetoric that it’s an abuse of iwi rights and things like that is, frankly, the opposite of the truth. They are as equally frustrated by the strictures of the Resource Management Act as everybody else is, which is partly why we’re changing it. There are participation rights, which I think have been well canvassed, and invitations to comment in the section 18 report that we’ve just been talking about with Ms Brooking. I think those concerns are well catered for.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will run through, though other people might have things to say about other clauses. I note that there are a number of changes in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper to the section around the fact that the Minister may determine that the project is a priority. So it might be useful for him to comment on what those changes are doing.
I move now to clause 24, “New section 45A inserted (EPA may provide substantive application to panel convener)”. This is a new section inserted and it has that word “may” in it. But now the Minister’s amendment is changing the word to “must”. Obviously, this is an important difference—between “may” and “must”—which I won’t relitigate in the committee. But my question is: why was it not “must” to start with? Is there some change of thinking that we should know about? The Minister looks interested in answering this question—thank you.
I will just go section 45A, where it says—and there are some changes here that his Amendment Paper 473 makes—“The EPA must, within 5 working days after a substantive application is lodged, provide the application to the panel convener.” So what analysis or conversations has he had about the five working days being the appropriate amount of time?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In relation to the member’s question, the Amendment Paper requires the Environmental Protection Authority to provide a substantive application to the panel convenor within five working days of receiving it. Rather than this being optional, I’m advised that this is in response to a submission from the panel convenors themselves, around that.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Priority projects?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, priority projects—I mean, I sort of dealt with that earlier when I said that the changes to give the ability for the Minister to issue a priority—or to say something is a priority project at the substantive application phase rather than earlier, because it’s only once you get to the substantive bit—like, it’s the appropriate juncture to make that determination rather than earlier, and, frankly, we probably should have picked that up in the original bill. But, you know, that’s part of the reason why we’ve got an amendment bill going through—just a bit of finessing and fine-tuning. You know, this is another example of it. Nothing’s perfect first go. So, you know, we’re an iterative Government.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Hūhana Lyndon—oh, sorry, you did stand up before, sorry. I had you in my head. I’ll reset.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora. I’m wanting to revisit what the Minster raised earlier, considering, particularly, those who are in the system and are respondents. The resource and funding available to hapū and iwi in the pipeline to responders is quite a small figure, and with the turn-around being changed within the legislation and with the truncation of the process to replace the sum “20 working days” with, I think, “15”, I’m wanting to understand whether there will be further support for hapū and iwi, settled or unsettled, to be able to respond in this much faster process. From my understanding, it’s like $10,000 for a group to engage consultants, legal advisers, technicians, and all of that to put forward responses, and there might be some $2,000 earlier when it’s first notified. That’s a small amount, particularly when the pool of technicians to support these matters might also be stretched as the fast-track starts to amp up further.
Settled iwi and, also, unsettled hapū and iwi might be impacted significantly by the pace and by the demand in their tribal rohe, and then, there’s a small amount of pūtea offered to them. How do we support those who are invited for comment to gear up so that the system can then support them better to be able to respond at pace?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The member makes a good point. I’m advised that there is the ability for groups that member’s referring to who comment to get a contribution through the cost recovery regulations, as per the Act. I’m also advised that there’s intention to review those cost recovery regulations next year to see whether or not they’ve been set at the appropriate amount. So that’s a next year thing. But my understanding is the process is working pretty well to date. People will always want more, but it’s cost recovery; it’s not a free for all.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Yeah, a small question now from me. I have moved on to clause 26 of the bill. The small question relates to section 47 and 47A of the principal Act; there’s a reference in both replacement section 47 and then down in replacement section 47A(1)(b) to consent authorities. I’m wondering why this is a reference to consent authorities and not regional councils, because there’s a change earlier in the bill—I think that is clause 15 to section 30—that consent authorities be replaced with regional councils.
These new sections 47 and 47A relate to competing applications or existing resource consents for the same activity. So I presume—and I’m happy for an explanation to tell me my presumption’s wrong, but I’m presuming that these will be applications that are about water resources or maybe airsheds for them to be competing.
So that is why my question is about whether the consent authority should be swapped out with the regional council or if it is in fact meant to be consent authority. If the Minister responsible for RMA Reform can explain to us if there are other sorts of competing applications that don’t relate to the types of consents that a regional council gives.
Again, I’ll just refer back to clause 15—I’ll go to it now—where there is a replacement where it says that “each consent authority that has jurisdiction over an area” is replaced with “each regional council that is the consent authority for an area”, and then other replacements of “consent authority” with “regional council”. So it’s just a consistency. Well, the first question is: is this a consistency issue? If it’s not a consistency issue, can the Minister explain the rationale for consent authorities that aren’t regional councils having competing applications? That would be helpful. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m advised that “consent authority”, the reference in replacement section 47A, inserted by clause 26, is not wrong; it arguably could be more correct to suggest regional council, as the member puts it.
Hon Rachel Brooking: I’ve got an amendment.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Have you got an amendment?
Hon Rachel Brooking: Tabled, yeah.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You’ve got one. Oh, well, I’ll have a good look at it. There may be arguments for that, so I’ll have a good look at that.
The reference is not wrong, because they are relevant consent authorities because we’re dealing with regional consents here. So it’s not wrong, but your amendment is probably more right, put it that way.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Good to hear.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Hang on, hang on—hold fire. It’s good to see you hear, though. Sorry, I shouldn’t have said that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In relation to replacement section 47B(2)(b), inserted by clause 26, I think it is, essentially—I’ll come back to you on that, but I think it is unnecessary, hence the deletion.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato):
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
My questions are just basically supplementing off Hūhana Lyndon’s—specifically on section 18 amended, “Report on Treaty settlements and other obligations”, in Part 1—and just getting into more detail around my electorate, Hauraki-Waikato. I’ve got two, maybe three questions within this pātai.
First of all, Waikato-Tainui’s response to the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill—and, I guess, the context behind this is our 1995 settlement, our 2008 river settlement, and then the 2010 Te Ture Whaimana. My first question is around our response and our submission on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, in section 23: “The absence of concrete provisions to uphold Tiriti settlements in the bill is a fundamental defect. It displaces established arrangements [and] legal commitments binding the Crown and WaikatoTainui, and risks inconsistency with Te Ture Whaimana.” My first question is around how the Minister sees Te Ture Whaimana being upheld. I know that, in my electorate, we’ve gone through many different councils and mayors across the electorate, and through their understanding of Te Ture Whaimana being upheld within a settled electorate like Hauraki-Waikato. That’s the first one—Te Ture Whaimana.
The second one is a local issue on the ground where, yes, like Hūhana said, there are settled iwi and non-settled iwi. Within our electorate, while we’ve got the Waikato-Tainui settlement, we also have hapū. Last time we ran this process in the first stages of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill—maybe the beginning of this year—I had on the Hansard asking one of the Ministers “Will you consult with hapū and iwi?” Hapū are the subtribes and the mana whenua who reside in these areas, as well as post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs). That’s a genuine question I’m wanting to know from the Minister, because that can be quite a challenging task even for us—making sure that there’s communications going from subtribes and tribes. It’s really important.
Some of the projects on this are the Rotowaro Bathurst mining area. The Rotowaro mining area is my hapū area of Ngāti Mahuta and our Lake Waahi. If that mine expands, that—I don’t know the English word for it, but—
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Hon Peeni Henare: Waste.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: —that waste will go into our close lake of Lake Waahi next to our marae, and that can be very dangerous because a lot of our local tamariki go there for waka ama training. That’s a huge issue, and we haven’t, as of yet, had any consultation between iwi and hapū—and my office is willing to do that mediation part. However, I’m just wanting to see from the Minister if he intends on doing that with any of these projects. That’s the first one—Rotowaro.
The next one is Taharoa Ironsands Ltd. I don’t want to get too much into the detail about it, however, whānau who reside there—Ngāti Mahuta ki te Hauāuru—are having conflicting issues with papa kāinga next to the mining that is in Taharoa. Basically, I’m wanting to know what the communication streams are that are happening between hapū and iwi. If those aren’t happening, I’m more than happy to follow those up and make sure that that communication line is happening, because that is, essentially, what my role is as the MP of that area.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the Minister’s call, individual projects are Part 2 of this bill, so—
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Oh, ka pai. The only reason I brought that up is because that is in relation to our Treaty settlements within my electorate.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand that, but getting into detailed discussions about individual projects is better in Part 2.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, Madam Chair, I’m not going to comment on individual projects. That would be, obviously, inappropriate. I won’t go there, and I won’t in Part 2 either, because there may be things I have to consider in relation to them and I don’t want to prejudge those applications. That will be the legally sound thing to do. All I can say to the member is that a core commitment of this Government is to uphold Treaty settlements and the existing settlements that are in law. The fast-track Act does not cut across those, and there’s a variety of provisions in the Act to give effect to that. That’s in relation to Te Ture Whaimana as well.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’m looking at clause 26 and, in particular, I’m looking at new section 47C in there, and that’s the “Delegation of decision by Minister”. The Minister can delegate her or his powers and duties under section 47A and 47B to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Then there’s a set of rules about, you know, that delegation is revocable and so on. If the Minister’s looking, it’s on page 17 of his Amendment Paper.
So 47A is about deciding if there are competing applications or existing resource consent for the same activity, and then there’ll be a set of decisions under there; and 47B is about setting up a panel for a substantive application and getting all these sorts of things set up. You can see that’s kind of a tricky situation for the Minister to be in, or for the EPA to be in, if there are competing applications sitting in there—and delegating those decisions to the EPA becomes tricky, as well.
I guess what I’m worried about is that, in some senses, deciding between competing applications is a pretty political thing to do. It’s something for which people really do have to make some judgment calls and, obviously, where political decisions are being made like that—and Ministers have to make them—it’s just wondering where accountability sits in that case. I’ve got another point on this, I’m sorry, Minister; you might want to take them both at once. So there’s that accountability issue: if it’s been delegated to the EPA, then where does that accountability sit? I know, ideally, the Minister takes responsibility—that’s what our system is supposed to function, but, in actual fact, oftentimes it doesn’t. I can just see a danger there around the inherently political nature of those decisions.
But then—and just something for the Minister’s amusement, I hope; hard to think of, really, when we’re sitting in a committee stage and doing this—but I just want to direct his attention to new section 47C(5): that if something has been delegated to the EPA, then it can comply with it without having to notify itself of complying. I just have this vision in my mind of this Spider-Man, the duplicate Spider-Man [The Hon Chris Bishop does Spider-Man pointing actions]—yeah, exactly so! I just wondered if the Minister had that in mind, too.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It’s the meme—it’s the Spider Man meme.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Yeah, it’s the meme—it’s the meme.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Chris Hipkins answered a blimmin question about it one day—forgot about that—the Spider Man meme.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: See, I knew I could amuse the Minister!
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, there you go. It’s good times, you know. It’s not even that late in the day.
I mean, the member’s right, it’s an interesting turn phrase. The law produces odd terminology. The status quo is that decisions around competing applications are delegated to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), but this is just an administrative mechanical machinery of legislation. I mean, there are vast waves of legislation where the Minister makes a decision, including the fast-track Act, or many other pieces of legislation. But in reality, the decision is not made by the Minister; it’s delegated under authority to the Secretary of the Environment or secretary of the relevant Government department, etc., etc. So, in practice, at the moment those decisions are made by the EPA.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to check with the Minister—and apologies if this question has been asked—whether he could just nod to say that “You know what? We’ve covered this.” More broadly, as we’re going through this, noting Amendment Paper 473, I just want to check, from a process perspective, what the process is for the Minister to introduce additional amendments that were not a part of the recommendations of the select committee. If the Minister could just nod his head to say, “You know what? We’ve covered that point.”, that is all good, because, I think, broadly, that is setting the tone of this quite substantial Amendment Paper that the Minister introduced last minute. If you want to answer that, I have further questions.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): As I said during the second reading debate, because there was no revision-tracked version, we’ve picked up some of the amendments suggested by the select committee and put it all into an Amendment Paper, which is on the floor. The best way is to say that the Amendment Paper is, essentially, the bill, and it’s sort of tidy to look at it in that context.
Hon Rachel Brooking: No.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: But it—what was that?
Hon Rachel Brooking: No, all my notes are on the other one.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, OK. Well, not all of us have the old colour-coded things out, Ms Brooking. The Amendment Paper picks up some of the suggested amendments from the select committee, some of which we—the Government—have agreed to, and some of which we haven’t, and we’ll just go forward from there.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I totally understand where the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is coming from, but I also want to point to the fact that there are a number of amendments the Minister has made, in Amendment Paper 473, that weren’t a part of the recommendation by the Environment Committee. Those are the ones I really want to get some guidance from the Minister on the rationale or the process to determine some of these.
To give an example to the Minister, the one I’m drawing to is clause 20, “Section 38 amended”, which according to the department report isn’t something that was recommended. But over here, rather than repealing section 38, it is replaced by a different section: “(Minister may determine that project is priority)”. So I’m using that as an example on what was the Minister’s rationale behind that.
Just focusing on this particular clause, clause 20(1) in the Amendment Paper. Obviously, this is the first time we are seeing it, and we’re seeing it in other parts that I’m sure that others have discussed. I’m curious to know, from the Minister’s perspective, how the Minister is expected to determine that the project is a priority, especially when you have section 38(1)(b) that says “on the Minister’s own initiative”. The Minister before mentioned that they’re not likely going to be asking questions on specific projects later on in Part 2, just because the Minister may need to make those kind of decisions.
In lieu of anything in this Amendment Paper, just on that reading, what does “the Minister’s own initiative” entail, what is the process for the Minister to determine that, and what are some of the checks and balances available to the Minister when it comes to making those decisions on priority projects?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): We’ve covered this issue a couple of times now. The change is to make clear that the priority projects are dealt with at the substantive stage rather than earlier because that’s when the appropriate juncture is. We’ve covered that a couple of time now.
In relation to the wider point around priority projects, this is really, I think, quite a pragmatic thing, regardless of your view about fast track. It’s really a pragmatic view that there may be a project that applicants or the Government want expedited, even ahead of other projects. That hasn’t proven to be an issue so far, because the fast track is actually working pretty well. There’s a steady stream of projects applying, either referred or substantive, and they’re working their way through the conga line of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ministry for the Environment and consultation. There’s a steady stream of projects, all of which are publicly available, by the way. They’re on the EPA website. It’s quite a sophisticated back end in which you can see all of that stuff. It hasn’t proven to be an issue so far, because there’s been no issue with the timely setting up of panels, but it’s possible to imagine a scenario in the future. Potentially, it’s a bit of a backstop. It’s possible to imagine a scenario in which there’s not the capacity in the system to cope with a project that everyone wants to have happen, either the Minister or the applicant. The applicant can apply; the Minister doesn’t have to agree. The member asked: what does “on the Minister’s own initiative” mean? Well it, literally, means on the Minister’s own initiative.
Hon Judith Collins: Using your brain.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, using your brain, as Judith Collins says. If there are no fetters on that and there is discretion around that, then they can do that.
Clause 20, which amends section 38, says that it has be “with the written agreement of the authorised person.”, which I think is appropriate; and then subclause (2) of clause 20 is in relation to whether or not “there is risk that the panel may not be set up within a period that reflects the urgency of the project;”, which is precisely what I was just talking about. I think it’s a pretty pragmatic section, and, so far, it hasn’t been used, but it may be in the future.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Not quite at the end of Part 1 yet, but looking to make some significant progress. Can I just point out to members that we are referring back to some clauses that have been debated two, three times. So we are looking for new material.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I’m going to refer to a clause that’s been touched on but in a very specific detail.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): After what I just said?
STEVE ABEL: Yes, I did hear that, but I’ve been waiting for some time to make a specific question about this clause. It’s around the land exchange requirement. I understand the director-general has to be notified on land exchange—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): What clause are you referring to, please?
STEVE ABEL: Pardon me?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): What clause are you referring to?
STEVE ABEL: I’m sorry; I’m referring to clauses 16 to 18, and there’s a very specific submission from Tureiti Keith requiring that applicants for land exchange should be required to consult with relevant iwi, hapū, and Treaty settlements. Now, this is not the broader question around Treaty and hapū-iwi engagement that my colleagues Hūhana Lyndon and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke have made; this is very specifically around land exchange, which is a significant component of some potential applications.
Further, there was the question from Tureiti Keith that that be a requirement of the lodgement. My question for the Minister is: why was it determined that that not be a requirement? It seems that it would potentially speed up processes if there was the requirement that where there’s a land exchange, the local iwi and hapū are consulted. On top of that, the Royal Forest and Bird Society of New Zealand requested clarification as to how land exchanges will apply to council reserves as this was not reflected in the amendment bill.
Thirdly, in regards to that very specific question of land exchanges, Fish & Game also suggested that they should be pre-consulted on land exchange so that they can be involved in articulating what the habitat is of Fish & Game birds prior to land exchange applications under section 33, so that the impacts on game bird hunting and angling and recreational impacts can be identified. So my question is very specifically: would the Minister consider those things, or why has the Minister ruled those things out?
Currently, the Department of Conservation are supposedly responsible for administering that part of the process, and the director-general has the power to invite others to participate, but there is no requirement that he or she invites iwi and hapū. I wonder if the Minister can expand or express the logic around that. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, there’s no requirement, but there’s the ability to, and so there’s just nothing more to it than that, really. I mean, there’s an argument that you could layer layers and layers of mandatory consultation and all the rest of it, but I think we’ve tried to strike the right balance. As an argument, you could include Fish & Game, and as an argument, you could include every everyone else. We haven’t done that. It’s meant to be an expeditious process. Reasonable people can disagree about some of these facts, but I think we’ve got the balance about right.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform a question about clause 54, which inserts new section 117A. That is the provision that allows the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to be able to amend the project description of a listed project or the description of the approximate geographical location of a listed project. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to submissions, particularly one off the top of my head by BusinessNZ, that has raised this as an issue. It is basically a “Henry VIII” clause that allows the Governor-General to amend something by Order in Council that is quite substantive. It “confers on the executive”—is what they’ve said—“the power to amend primary legislation without returning to Parliament”. They have raised, through their submission, a number of issues there and have pointed out that this raises a constitutional risk. They’ve also said, quite clearly, and I would completely agree, that “Parliament is the proper forum” for substantive changes to be made and that altering the scope of statutory regimes that affects the rights, the obligations, the distribution, or the allocation of public resources is just too big for it to be done through what this clause allows this legislation to do, basically.
It goes on to say, in new section 117 A, that the Minister shouldn’t be making this recommendation unless they’re “satisfied that the scope of the listed project will not be substantially different”. However, the scope of what is actually allowed through new section 117A, inserted by clause 54, is pretty wide and it is substantive change. I would agree with the suggestion by BusinessNZ that this particular clause be limited to technical corrections and allowing the Governor-General to make changes, for example, to something that’s a factual error rather than something that’s quite as substantive as this clause allows it to be.
So I would like the Minister to clarify why it is quite as broad as it is in clause 54 and whether there was any consideration that was made to limit this clause to what has been suggested around technical corrections, because that is more in line with what we would support as well.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I thank the member Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her question, which is a good one. I mean, the member is right that this is not ideal in the sense that it is technically a “Henry VIII” clause, but I would argue it’s at the lower end of the scale because I think it is relatively narrowly constrained in the way that the member talks about.
It does allow the Governor-General, by Order in Council, which is, essentially, Cabinet—“made on the recommendation”—to amend the “project description of a listed project” and “the description of the approximate geographical location”. But the Minister can’t do that “unless the Minister is satisfied that the scope of the listed project will not be substantially different as a result of the amendment, taking into account—(a) the … regional or national benefits of the project; and … the location, scale, and nature of the works involved”. There’s an argument that it could be more narrowly constrained, but I think it is relatively narrow, and the Minister can’t add to the Schedule 2 list.
The member said that Parliament should do this. Well, the proposal is that Parliament does that. There’s a range of clarificatory project descriptions and things like that in Part 2, which we’ll come to at some point. It would be fair to say—how do I put this politely? Some of the project descriptions could have been better put by applicants. It would also be fair to say that there has been a relatively pernickety approach taken—I’m just trying to keep—
Hon Rachel Brooking: “Pernickety”—how do you spell that?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m just trying to uphold comity because I see the Attorney-General is present in the Chamber. There has been—how shall I put this—an interesting approach taken by some people, some bodies, in relation to project descriptions, and so for the absolute avoidance of doubt, we are updating a variety of project descriptions. Somewhat embarrassingly for me, the New Zealand Transport Agency has had to have a number of projects updated—for example, the Hope Bypass, which doesn’t actually go near Hope, but that’s neither here nor there, and then there’s a range of other projects.
So, just for the absolute avoidance of doubt, we’ve updated those project descriptions, and this is a kind of catch-all where there will be, potentially, others. There was a High Court ruling in relation to the Stella Passage development, which I think took everyone a bit by surprise, frankly, and that’s OK—that’s OK. That’s the role of the court. But it was a bit of a—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Was it pernickety or interesting?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it was pernickety—I said “pernickety”.
Hon Judith Collins: It’s a very nice word.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is a very nice word. It was a surprising ruling and a surprising judgment. But the way our constitutional system works is that the courts rule and Parliament can change the law, and so that’s what we are doing.
The member has raised a really good point. I was pretty frustrated by the process, to be honest. I’ve taken quite a bit of time to make sure that we’ve got the project descriptions right, but for the avoidance of doubt if we haven’t, there’s the ability to update them. But there are some quite narrow guard rails around it.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. My first question was about—and this is the first time I’ve spoken in this debate—clause 42, because it looks like the Minister for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper, which was put down relatively recently, makes some changes to clause 42.
During the select committee process, the majority of submissions—and there were 93 submissions—specifically commented on clause 42 of the bill; 65 of them were expressly opposed to the proposal, and they were concerned that the nature of modification in the bill for clause 42 could allow expansion of the scope. Now, we did—and I did want to speak to our Amendment Paper—put forward the Green Party Amendment Paper that would delete clause 42, but I was wondering if the Minister could comment on the changes in the Amendment Paper, because it looks like clause 42 has been amended to say, basically, that the modification can only be a “reduction in scope”.
I’m curious about, like, the definition of “reduction in scope”—because, I mean, it could theoretically be put forward something that actually does mean that the project is going to have a greater impact on the environment—on the natural environment—but they’re able to claim that it’s a “reduction in scope”. I’m wondering about those changes that are in the Amendment Paper and whether reducing the scope is cleanly defined anywhere, and that it’s clear that the reduction in scope can’t increase emissions, for example, or increase harmful impacts on the natural environment. So that is my question to the Minister.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The member’s right. It’s picking up on the select committee’s submissions. They can only be reduced in scope. They can’t go up; they can only go down.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hūhana Lyndon. [Members calling] I’ve already called Hūhana Lyndon. She probably didn’t hear me because everyone was calling.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just wanting to address clauses 24, 25, 26, 28, and 43, in relation to requiring specific process steps to happen concurrently. So that is a change, and there were 88 submissions considered on this part of the bill enabling process steps to now happen concurrently.
The majority of submissions opposed these amendments and expressed that running multiple statutory steps in a parallel process could compress the already short time frames and reduce the ability of the panels and agencies to undertake the necessary preparatory work and increase the likelihood of administration or technical errors. I’d like to draw attention to a comment made from an independent panel convener for the fast track, who said to the select committee, “The proposed time frames are simply unworkable. Many process steps depend on outcomes of earlier steps and forcing these to occur concurrently will compromise both the quality and increase the risk of error.”
I draw the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to the submission of Patuharakeke Te Iwi, who are in southern Whangārei, who are being impacted by some five fast-track processes in the southern Whangārei rohe: Brynderwyns, the road realignment, the railway spur to Marsden Point, the dry dock, and also McCallum Bros sand mining. They came through and they said in their submission that they strongly object to the restrictions and the reductions in time, the 15 days for the invited persons to comment. But then with the concurrent multiple applications that they have in their district as it is—they have to cope with these five applications—having the concurrent approach that is being proposed is completely unworkable for them. They don’t have capacity and capability. How on earth are tangata whenua, let alone councils, to respond in such an environment?
So I’m really keen to understand the intentions and then how is the resource going to be supporting both the panels and those invited to comment when you’re going to be having to juggle many things within one project—so that’s the concurrent stuff that’s going to happen. Is the process going to be fuelled and resourced and have the adequate staffing to support the panels to not make the administrative and technical errors? But also how do we in hapū, iwi land or in council try and respond as well, knowing that like in an area of southern Whangārei, we’ve got five current fast-track projects listed? Kia ora.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The concurrent changes that the member refers to throughout the various different sections are it’s an efficiency thing. It’s consulted on with the panel convenors and there’s a lot of things that can happen contemporaneously or concurrently, as the member raises. In terms of resources, it’s a cost recovery regime, as I think the member knows. As I was saying to I think one of her colleagues earlier, there’s the ability for contributions to comments and participation in the process by iwi and hapū. So that’s all I have to say, really.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just confirming, related to the timing issues, that there’s just been some discussion about clause 29, replacing section 50, “Panel convener sets up panel”. There was this provision in the bill as introduced that “(2) The panel convener must set up the panel within 15 working days”. But I think that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper has deleted that subclause (2). So if we could have some confirmation—yes, he’s nodding. I’ve got other questions.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Just in relation to that—yes. That didn’t go down well with people, so we’ve backtracked on that one. The feedback was voluminously negative. We’re a listening Government, so that has been deleted.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good news, there, thank you for that clarification—or it’s not even clarification, is it? It’s confirmation—it’s a confirmation.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It was an answer.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It was an answer, that’s right. Thank you for the answer, Madam Chair! It’s great.
Now, maybe I will get a similar answer to this question. I want to move on now, although I invite the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to comment on—he’s made a number of changes, in his Amendment Paper (AP) 473, to new section 52A, inserted by clause 30. So clause 30 of the current bill is deleted, and then there’s a lot in the AP. I haven’t gone through a detailed reading of it and cross-checked it all, but if he can—[Minister rises to take call] Oh, he’s going to do that as well. And then I’ve got another question for him.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is a good way to operate.i
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I mean, it’s all pretty straightforward. So, look, we’re keen to get people to crack on with the work, so new section 52A says the panel must not later than five working days after the appointment of all panel members commence work on a substantive application. The panel has to tell the Environmental Protection Agency on what date is commences work. The reason for that is that we have had some panels established, which everyone got very excited about, and then there was not the requisite progress.
Hon Rachel Brooking: So, then, any time frame?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Not later than five working days they have to commence work on a substantive application. They’ve got to get on with it. The whole point of this is to crack into it. It’s what’s in the name. It’s in the name. So there you go.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking, working in the spirit of how this committee is supposed to work—question, answer, question, answer. It’s working quite well.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you—barrage. So, then, on to—I need to turn the page. I was getting to clause 33, which is an important one that many, many people submitted on, and this relates to “Section 53 amended (Panel invites comments on substantive application)”. The bill as introduced had a limit on subsection (3) of section 53. Subsection (3) of section 53 enables the panel to consult with whoever they thought was appropriate, but what the amendment in the bill as introduced did was said, “Well, they can still get there, but first they have to go through the local authorities to see if the local authorities are going to comment on that matter or not.” We heard a lot about how this would be unworkable and how it would be the end of many participation rights in this process.
But I note that, in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper, subclause (2), which was the “Replace section 53(3)”, has been deleted. So that means—and I’d like confirmation of this, as well—that we revert to section 53(3) of the Act, which does allow the discretion for the panel to invite comments from whoever they think is appropriate.
Hon Chris Bishop: Yes.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, yes—he said yes. OK, thank you. That is a good change. That’s good to know, because we did talk about that a lot in our differing view, as well. Given that there’s a few other changes in the sections in clauses 34, 35, and 46, with some deletions, it would be useful for the Minister to say if there’s anything substantive in them, but I’ll run right through to clause 40—no, he’s shaking his head; nothing substantive, it’s all tidy-up. Rats and mice? OK.
Now we get to clause 40, “Section 66 amended”. This is the “Return of substantive application”. There’s a lot of sixes in this clause. It was that there was a minor change, but now there’s a change in section 66, subsection (6)—66(6); I don’t see that very often—to “replace ‘50’ with ‘100’ ”. If the Minister could tell us what the “50” and “100” relate to, that would be useful, as well.
I’ll end my questions here: I note that we’ve already covered, to some extent, clause 42 with new section 68A—that was the question that the Hon Julie Anne Genter was just asking, about the reduction of scope.
Hon Chris Bishop: That’s the suspension of applications. You can suspend it for up to 100 working days.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: So under section 66, subsection (6), something can be suspended for up to 100 days—I’m hearing from the Minister.
Hon Chris Bishop: Correct.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Minister. Moving on to clause 42, the “reduction of scope”: we’ve already discussed the change of wording, and I think that is a good one. I do just want to go to the criteria. At (3), the reduced project still has to have “significant regional or national benefits”, even though it’s reduced. I guess, because it is reduced—I do have a tabled amendment up that says, at 68B(1), at the end of it, “and does not increase adverse environmental effects”, but because this has to be a reduction, there’s no need for that criteria? The Minister is nodding—thank you.
Now, if I move forward, then, to section 79. This is clause 44, I’m on to now.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking, I’m giving you another call. The member is operating in the spirit of efficiency, so she has another call.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Are you telling me I’m doing the Government members a favour? That doesn’t sound very good.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I’m telling you that you’re operating in the spirit of the committee stage, which is a question-and-answer session.
Hon Chris Bishop: Parliament at its best.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Absolutely. I’m enjoying it.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to clause 44, “Section 79 amended”: this is the “Timing of panel decisions”. It is a clause that I’ve got a tabled amendment on to delete, and so does Lan Pham; hers got in earlier, but we’re both there. Why we have this deletion is because the time frame for the panel decisions as the bill was introduced does not exceed 60 working days, but I note that—and we heard a lot from the panel conveners—that 60 working days was totally unworkable, and that it would stop some people from agreeing to be chairs of the panels because they would not be able to, in good conscience, say that they could make a robust decision for complex projects—not the simple projects; just the complex ones—in that time frame.
I note that the Minister’s Amendment Paper has changed that 60 working days to 90 working days, and 90 working days is better than 60 working days. I presume that most of the approvals that have been through so far have actually been under 60 days, but the really complex ones have been under 100 days. Does the Minister want to comment on why that 90 days was chosen?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, the member makes the point herself, it’s just in response to the feedback that the 60 working days is unworkable, so fair enough, we’ve gone to 90 and there’s the ability to extend beyond that as well, of course, with agreement.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking still has time on the clock.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Is the Minister aware of analysis about whether that 90 days will always be enough in complex circumstances? I realise he’s just said that it can be extended, but I think it can only be extended if the applicant agrees to the extension—
Hon Chris Bishop: Yes.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and so the question is: is there analysis over that 90 days?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I mean, that’s true. But it would be a pretty stupid applicant who didn’t agree to an extension if the panel convenors came in and said, “Now listen, this is pretty spicy, and we think it’s going to take us time to work through the issues. We’re going to need another month or something.” If I was an applicant I’d say yes, because if I didn’t, I’d be running the risk of my project being turned down. So I suspect in reality that these things will resolve themselves. But I think there’s also some merit in having a time frame. Sixty days was clearly not appropriate, so we’ve gone for 90. Reasonable people can disagree around the exact length, but I think that’s about right.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking still has time.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you—maybe Government members want to listen to the Chair of the committee of the whole House. Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Moving on now to clause 45, section 81 amended, “Decisions on approvals sought in substantive application”, I have a tabled amendment to delete this, because it does refer to “[they] must consider a relevant Government policy statement:” at new section 81(2)(aab). I think I have here in black pen—it’s my very technical analysis of the bills—that the Government Amendment Paper is deleting subsection (aab), so that would mean they don’t have to consider a Government policy statement.
Then I have another question at new section 81(2)(aaa), which is that, for an unlisted project, they must “consider the Minister’s reasons for accepting the referral application”, and I’m wondering if the Minister can provide for us any context about what “consider” means and what the weighting is that he expects for “considering”?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can continue and he’ll come back with the answers.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I will continue on—OK. I will continue on into clause 48. I note that I’m jumping over clause 46, which is about conditions relating to infrastructure, and I think other members will have questions on that particular clause. I know there’s an Amendment Paper from the Greens on that one, and also on clause 48, which is what I will move to.
Clause 48 is new section 93A inserted, “Directions to EPA”. This is a really important clause that we got a lot of feedback on as well, and I note that there have been some tweaks to this in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, but I don’t think they go nearly far enough. What submitters were really interested in here is that a Minister can meddle in giving directions to the Environmental Protection Authority—they “may give a general direction to the EPA”. There are now some constraints relating to the—well, there were already constraints relating to the Crown Entities Act, but also a statutorily independent function.
I would be interested in the Minister’s comment on how the EPA will be protected from undue ministerial interference when we have had, on the day that this bill was introduced, the chief executive officer of the EPA resign and another Minister make some derogatory comments about him and how the culture of the EPA was all wrong. We asked the chief executive questions last week, in Scrutiny Week, about this issue, and he was very much clear that it is not the EPA that makes decisions; the EPA is following the fast track and has an administrative role.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): And the chief executive of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is right about that, they are, essentially, the administrative agency. I think a little bit too much is being read into clause 48, which is the directions to the EPA. It doesn’t interfere with their statutory functions. That would obviously be inappropriate. It’s really just to, you know—almost like it allows the Minister to write a letter of expectation to say, “We expect you to operate in accordance with the law and expeditiously and, you know, make sure that you’re providing good quality service to applicants.”
In relation to clause 45, I’m advised that the (aab) is there, but it’s a consequential amendment based around the other changes to the Government policy statement provisions that I think we’ve well canvassed.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Still going through, then, I’ll move on to clause 50, which is “Section 99 amended (Appeal against decisions only on question of law)”. I’m interested in how this relates to the earlier change that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform confirmed at clause 33, around section 53 and section 53(3) of the primary legislation now not being changed. I want to know how this appeal provision works given that that change we’ve already discussed has happened.
I welcome the new Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager. So the Minister knows, I’m at clause 50, section 99. I have an amendment and Lan Pham has an amendment to delete clause 50.
But I want to know what now are the appeal rights of those people who have been able to make a comment under section 53(3), which is retained, in relation to this appeal section. The bill as it was introduced would have meant that these discretionary groups under section 53(3) would not have been able to have made an appeal—and there are transitional provisions that we will come to about this ability. So the question is: is clause 50 needed, now that section 53(3) is reinstated?
Madam Chair? I’ll keep going?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Keep asking the questions. We’ve got a replacement Minister, so we’re just working through.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Give him some time. Thank you for that.
Moving on now to clause 53, and this is related to an amendment to section 108: “Regulations may set fees, charges, and contributions”. I see that the Minister’s Amendment Paper 473 has made some changes so that rather than just excluding certain categories of costs, the regulations can now include certain categories of costs. I think that is an improvement. But my worry about this regulation setting is that it could be strengthened by being in accordance with section 10 of the primary legislation—that is the principles section that is in section 10—and the principle of full cost recovery.
The way that the Government has talked about this fast-track process for some time has been that one of the benefits of it is that if the applicant—if the developer—really wants to go ahead and do something, they are paying for this special process that they are getting through the fast track. My concern is that these regulation settings—where they set upper limits and they set criteria and they exclude certain criteria—means that that is a backwards step on that principle of full cost recovery.
We heard it again in scrutiny week—but I think in some of our submissions as well—and we understand that there has been tension with some applicants saying that people—and when I say people, I mean agencies—are doing too much. Local government agencies are treating the application as if it was an application made under the Resource Management Act, which is more extensive than an application made under the fast track, and, because of that, that is leading to additional costs.
Part of the answer is all of the rest of this bill that we’ve already talked about, which is to really confirm exactly what is required and when it is required. So I don’t understand why we need this additional step of regulations that cut what it is that the applicant will be paying for. I do have an amendment on this, and I would love the Minister to take it up, because it is really bringing back this idea of full cost recovery, which is something that I’ve heard the Government talk about a lot.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for the South Island): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll address the question around appeal rights. This is in relation to section 99, inserted by clause 50. The Government considers that when an invitation is made, that is discretionary—so an invitation to comment doesn’t automatically mean that parties should also have a right to appeal—but that judicial review is retained. It would be a significant policy shift to remove the right for judicial review. The bill does also include savings provisions to preserve appeal rights for those that have already been invited to comment.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to give the Hon Rachel Brooking one more call because there’s a couple of other pieces that you’ve alluded to that you were going to ask some questions on.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Yes. Well, I haven’t had an answer then on the regulations. That was quite a long contribution I gave there, and I would like the Minister to answer that. Look, my final point before yielding to other members—not yielding specifically—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s just asked if you could just repeat the question on the regulations.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes. The question was about clause 53, amending section 108. This is that regulations can be set. My point was that the Government has talked about this whole process, the whole fast track, as being cost recovery so it’s not a burden on taxpayers or ratepayers; if somebody wants to do a big project then they can pay for it. My concern is that this regulation-making power is undermining the cost recovery principle. I have put up a tabled amendment that would import a cost recovery principle into this regulation-making power. Apologies for repetition, but the Minister asked.
I was noting before that there has been some tension around what council in particular, I think, have been charging for and seeking cost recovery for, because under the Resource Management Act (RMA) they’re used to doing a bigger piece of work—the Minister in the chair referred to this earlier; Minister Bishop referred to this earlier. We have all these other provisions of this Act that set more constraints and give more clarity on exactly what it is that those local councils have to do so they won’t be overdoing that work, because the point is that in the RMA you produce more; in the fast track you don’t produce as much. You might have issues with—that’s the legislation. Why is it that we need regulation to set upper limits if this is all about cost recovery and those other issues about councils may be doing too much have now been constrained by the earlier provisions that constrain them to only relevant issues under the Act. That was my question about regulations.
Just before you stand up, I’ve just got a very small comment to make on the “King Henry VIII” clause, and that’s simply that I have an amendment to delete that and I think that would be a very good thing to do.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Do you have other questions while you’ve still got some time on the clock?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Nope, you’re all good.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for the South Island): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, the purpose of the regulation-making power there is that the advice is that the current powers are actually insufficient to provide the clarity needed to—well, councils and applicants have been asking for clarity about what is and what isn’t out of the scope of “full cost recovery”. Up until now, I’m advised, the current powers were insufficient to provide that clarity. The intention is still to provide full cost recovery, but this gives the ability to do that. I’m advised that before this change was made, that ability was not there.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Lawrence Xu-Nan, just bearing in mind that a lot of ground has been covered on this part, so I’m looking for new questions on new parts that we haven’t covered.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to your direction, Madam Chair, I also have a number of amendments on some of the sections that haven’t really got the full consideration from the Minister, as well, so if I can also speak to some of my amendments on those sections.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, as long as you do it really quickly. I wouldn’t like to suppose that the Minister hasn’t given them consideration, because he has likely seen them.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Cool. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with, continuing on from some of the conversations we’ve had in terms of clause 44. Now, one of the things that has been asked by officials is the requirement to extend 90 days. My amendment over here, if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering, is an extension of the 90 days to 120 days, noting that it is a substantial amount of work—and potentially paperwork—for the panel to consider some of the decisions that are required when it comes to an approval process.
I want to check with the Minister in terms of the interactions between clauses 44 and 45, because I don’t think we’ve actually touched on clause 45, and noting that the Minister has made a number of changes in Amendment Paper 473 that are not a recommendation in a departmental report or something that we’ve seen from a public perspective. I wanted to check with the Minister if clause 45 is something that the Minister wouldn’t mind elaborating on: why we’re seeing a deletion of subclause (2)—and also a replacement of subclause (4).
Also, because it’s moving on, I note that the previous speaker, the Hon Rachel Brooking, has travelled to, in some ways, the end of Part 1—but noting that the Greens haven’t actually had a chance to contribute to some of the later sections to this. We’d like, really, just to get a few thoughts and clarities from the Minister.
The next one we’re looking at is clause 48, when it comes to new section 93A. I do have a tabled amendment on this, and the reason I proposed this particular amendment is—unless the Minister is able to clarify that the wording that’s being used under clause 48, new section 93A(5) is the same as the recommendation as we’ve found in the departmental report. The reason that I put my amendment in there—which is in clause 48, new section 93A(5)(b), after “may not give directions”, insert “including directions to a Crown entity under section 113 of the Crown Entities Act 2004”. Now, noting that, in new section 93A(5)(b), it does say that “any matter in respect of which the Act provides the Ministers of the Crown may not give directions”, what I’m not entirely clear on is whether that then also includes or encompasses a Crown entity under section 113 of the Crown Entities Act.
Now, in the departmental report, the recommendation is, for added assurance that the general direction cannot undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) independence, a reference should be made explicitly to section 113 of the Crown Entities Act 2004. I just want to check with the Minister if new section 93A(5)(b) naturally captures that; if not, would the Minister consider my amendment, which is the recommendation from the department?
Moving on, I do want to check—and I’m really glad that the previous speaker picked up on clause 53 around regulation-setting fees. I wanted to check if there’s any consideration, at any point, where the cost recovered extends beyond what is considered the definition of a “fee” and potentially wading into tax territory. As in, is the cost recoverability going to be used for things outside of the expectations of section 104 of the principal Act? And that’s also substantially different from the conversation that we’ve had previously.
Finally, I just want to check with the Minister on clause 54, and I do have an amendment to this. Noting that Minister Bishop mentioned that this a “Henry VIII” clause, but I think that there is a bit of downplaying of what the “Henry VIII” clause would potentially entail—Madam Chair, I am almost done. This is my last point.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Last point—last point.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Last point—and just to say that I have an amendment to amend new section 117A(3), inserted by clause 54, because I do worry, in terms of the scope of what is going to be done, although it says that there is going to be no new projects added to the list—but I think it is prudent to consider how ancillary activities or additional works may be added into that as part of Order in Council, noting that the Minister did say that this potentially could be a concern.
The other question I have for the Minister is that, in general, when you look at something like an Order in Council—and particularly when the Minister himself acknowledged that this is a “Henry VIII” clause, there is usually some sort of checks and balance, in terms of a review or a recommendation of what the Minister is going to be able to produce, like a report. We’ve seen that in the immigration fiscal sustainability paper as well, where the Minister is going to actively release some of the changes, etc. I’m just checking that that is captured within new section 117A(1); if not, just checking if the Minister would consider my tabled amendment.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for the South Island): Thank you, Madam Chair. There was a bit of a potpourri of questions there from Dr Xu-Nan, so I’ll do my best to take them in order. So from the top, the question was asked about whether we would support an amendment to the time frame in clause 44 of Amendment Paper 473, from 90 to 120 days. I think Minister Bishop covered that off earlier in the debate by saying that it’s arguably the way. It’s finely balanced, but the extension from 60 to 90 days was seen as a pretty reasonable extension to go to, and I’d just note that, I think, apart from one application, all applications to date have been processed in less than 90 days. So I think it’s a reasonable limit to go to.
The next question was around why add, in clause 45 of the Amendment Paper, the reference to section 42(1)(aa) as well as “or (b)”. That’s because that is a new section which is being included in Amendment Paper, and it needs to be referred to alongside paragraph (b) as well, so that’s why it’s in there.
The question around does clause 48 reflect the Crown Entities Act. Yes, clause 48 is amended in the Amendment Paper to reflect section 113 if the Crown Entities Act
Then I think I’ll just try and cover off that last question around what review mechanisms or oversight is in place for what you’ve described as “Henry VIII” clauses. Because they are done by Order in Council, they are subject to both judicial review oversight by a regulations review panel and all the principles around proper lawmaking. So any Order in Council would have to be within scope of the power envisioned by the regulation-making power, but it would have to be with consistent rights of natural justice. All of those are considerations that the Regulations Review Committee would take into account, but judicial review would take them into account as well, and so there is oversight for those kinds of changes.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move, That debate on this question now close. [Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m seeking a vote. The question is that debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 5, new section 10A(3), to insert paragraph (c) requiring consultation with “relevant iwi authorities, hapū, and Treaty settlement entities”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 5, new section 10A(3), to insert paragraph (c) requiring consultation with “relevant local authorities”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 5, new section 10A(3), to insert paragraph (c) requiring consultation with “relevant environmental organisations”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 5, new section 10A(3), to insert paragraph (c) requiring consultation with “the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 6, section 11, to allow “30 working days”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 44, section 79(2)(b)(ii), to provide a “120 working days” time frame, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 48, new section 93A(5)(b), to include “directions to a Crown entity”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 54, new section 117A(3), to include “ancillary activities and additional works”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 473 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the definition of “relevant portfolio Minister” in clause 4(7) is out of order as not being in a correct form of legislation.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 10A, to delete subsections (2) and (3), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s remaining tabled amendments to clause 5, new section 10A, 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 Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 10A, to insert new subsection (7), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 10A, to insert new subsection (7), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 6 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 6, to replace the section 11 heading and text, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 6, section 11(1)(a), to insert new subparagraph (iii), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 6, to replace section 11(3), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to clause 7 and 14 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s remaining tabled amendments to clause 6 and 23 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): Lan Pham’s tabled amendments to delete clauses 9(2) and 14 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s remaining tabled amendment to delete clause 18(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 (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9(6) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s remaining tabled amendments to delete 18(2) 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 Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9(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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 17(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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 10, section 18(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 (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 10, to delete the replacement of section 18(3) and (4), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendments to clause 12 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): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 19, to replace section 37A(2), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 21 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 25, section 46, to insert new subsection (2D), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to clause 26 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): Can I say that both Labour and National caucuses should know that we don’t have debates across the Chamber while we’re voting. Thank you.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 29, new section 50, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 33(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 33(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to delete clause 34(4) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 42 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 42, new section 68A, to insert new subsection (3A), 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 42, new section 68B(1), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 44(1) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 44(1) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 44, to replace section 79(2)(b), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 45(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 (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 46 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to delete clause 46 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 46, to insert new section 84A, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 48 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 48, to delete new section 93A, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to delete clause 48 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 48, new section 93A, to insert new subsection (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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 50 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 50 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to clause 53 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 54 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 54, to delete new section 117AA, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to delete clause 54 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Amendments to schedules
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 55 to 62, amendments to the schedules of the principal Act, including the schedule proposed in Amendment Paper 473. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for the South Island): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a wonderful opportunity to have a brief call on Part 2. Part 2, as you so clearly outlined, is the part that outlines all the amendments to the schedules. It does, essentially, three key things. The first thing is that it amends those schedules relating to information requirements and conservation land, and that’s in two key areas. The first is around freshwater and other technical information schedules, and the amendments essentially change the schedules specifying information requirements for freshwater fisheries approvals and other consent types to align with revised decisions and to ensure that panels have complete information on environmental disturbance. Members will note that it uses the term, I believe, “fish facility” numerous times, which I found very, very fun to say—“fish facility”. It’s one of those Christmas tongue-twisters.
The second thing that Part 2 does—the very short and succinct and somewhat bland Part 2—is amend schedules related to land exchange in conservation. It amends Schedule 6 so that panels must consider the conservation values of both land disposed of and land acquired. It requires explanation of why the exchange benefits the conservation land, and it ensures that any improvements required as conditions of the exchange are aimed at enhancing conservation values across conservation areas and Crown-owned reserves—which, I think we’ll all agree, are very, very positive, pro-environmental, pro-conservation changes that will receive wide support from across the House, from all members.
The third thing that Part 2 does—it’s the part that amends and makes refinements and changes to project descriptions for a range of projects, including the Stella Passage development, which was mentioned earlier on in the debate. I’m particularly excited from a ports and maritime perspective to see the change that amends “after Sulphur Point Wharf” to insert “and Mount Maunganui wharves”, with a significant change from “wharf”, as was originally in the bill. I think that just reflects the amount of care and attention that is being taken to this process to ensure that we get things right and that we make sure that it is very clear what the projects are and what they stand for.
Throughout those changes, I think members will see they’re relatively self-explanatory. For example, when you look at the solar farm projects, essentially it amends descriptions of the proposals from being simply numbers of panels to include things like battery capability, and perhaps the wattage that those solar farms may well produce. I think that’s just to provide further clarity and consistency as we get this thing moving and get these fast-track projects through the process and delivered for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Thank you very much.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first—I think there’ll be a bit of jumping around because there are significant amendments to Part 2, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform just outlined, particularly with that extra detail in the Schedules. But I’m not going there at the moment.
What I want to focus on is clause 56 Schedule 3 amended and the new clause 3A. This is very important, and we heard a lot of submissions on it as well. So it is that an “Applicant or local authority may raise concerns about prospective panel member”.
Now, I’m not concerned with local authority being concern with a prospective panel member, but I’m very concerned about the ability for somebody who is making an application through a special process to then be able to say, “Well, these decision makers have been given to me”—and must start within very fast time frames as well, that we’ve already talked about—“but I don’t like them. I don’t like that decision maker. I want somebody else.”
Hon James Meager: It’s been removed.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, it’s been removed? I don’t have that in my copy.
Hon James Meager: In the Amendment Paper.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: That’s all removed. Sorry, I’m happy to—sorry, if the Minister just wants to explain to me that that’s in the Amendment Paper.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for the South Island): Yeah, so I just refer to the Amendment Paper, new clause 3A of Schedule 3, inserted by clause 56(2) is proposed to be removed.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you for the call, Madam Chair. It’s really good to be able to ask some very clear questions, particularly about this part, because we have had such a short and unthorough—is that a word?—undetailed select committee process.
Particularly, I wanted to begin on clause 55—this is Part 2, clause 55, “Schedule 2 amended”, and this is clause 55(2). In the Schedule 2 heading, it proposes to, after “projects”, insert the words “with significant regional or national benefits”.
Now, we had some really clear submissions around this clause in particular from submitters, and many of them—the majority of them, actually; over 200—were opposed to this specific clause. The reason they were is because it’s virtually assigning the definition of significant regional or national benefits to automatically apply to those projects in Schedule 2. The official and the Government’s response to this was that the intent of it is to actually clarify that it is not the role of the expert panels to determine whether listed projects have national or regional benefits, as this determination has already been made by the Minister. Now, the real concern that people had—and which absolutely Te Pāti Kākāriki share—is this is, essentially, a benchmark of reckons where the Minister has not had adequate information to actually determine whether it meets criteria of significant regional or national benefits.
And we know this because we’ve just heard in the previous part that, for example, it’s up to the applicant to assess the significance of their own environmental impact. And what we heard very clearly from submitters, even with projects that are already in the fast-track process, is that this is completely inadequate and, actually, there’s been errors and there’s been glaring gaps of applicants’ environmental assessments, where the holes are not being plugged.
So, at this early stage, the Minister is meant to be making this determination without any criteria of actual net benefits of a project. Now, the concern with this—and I think it is a very valid point which submitters made—is that if these projects have such significant regional or national benefits, then they should be able to stand up to a criteria test that actually proves that—that actually makes the applicant do the work to show they actually have those benefits. Now, the concern here is that it’s automatically applying that by simply changing the title of Schedule 2. And it’s taking the power away from the independent decision makers to appropriately make that decision.
Now, we heard throughout this process from very concerned submitters, including the fast-track panel conveners, who specifically urge the committee to use caution and watch for unintended consequences, and this is exactly one of those aspects that it would be great if the Government could actually turn their mind to and consider whether it is appropriate to make this change, because I’m proposing in my amendment simply that we would delete clause 55(2), so that it isn’t making this inappropriate inference, and, essentially, a benchmark where the Ministers are actually not in a position for them to even make that. And what we’ve heard time and time again from submitters is that these are the exact things that in fact open this process up to appeal and judicial review. So I’m really interested in the Minister’s views on that. Thank you.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for the South Island): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a bit of clarity, because these are Schedule 2 projects that it refers to, it’s the Government’s view that projects that are listed in Schedule 2 are those that already have national or regional benefits. That’s the Government’s view, one which will, hopefully, be endorsed by the Parliament as well. Once that view is endorsed, it will be then up to the expert panel to then assess the level of those benefits. The Parliament is going to endorse the view that these projects that are listed in Schedule 2 already are of significant regional or national benefit, but it will still be up to the independent expert panels to assess the level of those benefits and the environmental effects, at the substantive stage. Of course, there is no ability for Ministers to add new projects into Schedule 2, so, with Parliament’s endorsement of what the law will define them as, it will then be up to that panel to assess the extent to which they are of benefit.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume tonight at 7 p.m. Thank you.
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the committee has resumed on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. When we suspended for the dinner break, we were debating Part 2. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair, for that. Now, the Minister in the chair, Chris Bishop—I see he was off having a beer before, according to his social media.
Hon Chris Bishop: That was yesterday.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, that was yesterday—oh, it looked like it just popped up.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It is yesterday.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I was going to ask why he wasn’t drinking a Speight’s, like Simon Court was, but there we—
Hon Chris Bishop: Facebook scheduling is a wonderful thing.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh right, OK. So, more importantly than beer choice, I was pleased—I will tell the Minister this—that in clause 56(2), which was to insert the new clause 3A into Schedule 3, “Applicant or local authority may raise concerns about prospective panel member[s]”, which we called outrageous in our differing view, the Minister’s Amendment Paper has deleted that. So, good work.
Now I would like to come to something that isn’t deleted in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, and that is a change at—so still looking at clause 56, but at subclause (6) there’s a phrase here: “In Schedule 3, clause 7(1)(a)(i), after ‘application’, insert ‘, including knowledge, skills, and expertise in the sector to which the application relates (for example, mining or quarrying, housing and land development, or aquaculture)’.” That change might be OK, because below that, in the Act itself, there is a requirement for environmental knowledge, but what the Minister’s amendment does is say that this knowledge, skills, and experience is only if practicable. We’re very concerned about this addition “if practicable” and in fact are wondering if we can still call panels “expert” panels if they are only expert panels “if practicable”.
I’m concerned about this. I’d like the Minister to tell us why it’s been included and if he’ll consider removing it, and if there are any limits on it—particularly interested in criteria and limits.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I thank the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for her kind remarks about some of the changes the Government is making. I think this would be in the “rats and mice” category, which I know the member likes to talk about sometimes with changes. The simple reason is that it’s really just a gloss—so the “if practicable” bit is a gloss on “knowledge, skills, and expertise” in case there’s panels that are stood up and, for whatever reason, you can’t find the expertise, knowledge, and skills for the particular relevant application. It’s really just a bit of a gloss to make sure that if you can’t—you know, you can do it “if practicable”, but if you can’t, it’s not the end of the world either. But it should be read in conjunction with all the other bits, as the member rightly states.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Still on this topic, does the “if practicable” only relate to the knowledge, skills, and expertise of the sector in the sector to which the application relates—for example, mining or quarrying?
Hon Chris Bishop: Yes.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: So there’s no “if practicable” caveat on environmental expertise or other sorts of expertise—
Hon Chris Bishop: No, no, no.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and the Minister’s saying no, no, no. It’s good to hear the Minister say no!
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do also have a very specific technical question on clause 56, Schedule 3 amended, and that’s, in subclause (3), it says: “In Schedule 3, clause 4(1), replace ‘a suitably qualified lawyer or planner with experience in relevant law’ with ‘a suitably qualified lawyer or resource management planner’.” I’m just wondering whether the removal of “in relevant law” is an actual material difference in who qualifies, or what is the reason for the change in the language in this point?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It’s just a tidy up. It’s one of these things where the Fast-Track Approvals Act was done—bills are never perfect, even bills that have been on the statute book as Acts for years. We were doing the amendment anyway. It’s just one of these ones where, if you’re going to do it, you may as well take the opportunity to just—I would put it in the—it’s beyond “rats and mice”; this is in the “finesse” category of changes. It said, “a suitably qualified lawyer or planner with experience in relevant law”; now it says, “with ‘a suitably qualified lawyer or resource management planner’ ”, which just makes it clear that we want people with resource management planning expertise as part of it, because that’s ultimately what we’re dealing with 95 percent of the time—resource management—well, in fact, all the time, actually.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just had a series of questions and comments. My colleagues have tabled a number of amendments to the subclauses. This is in the Amendment Paper—sorry, I should make this clear; this is in the Minister’s Amendment Paper—which was only recently tabled. If we go to Part 2, clause 55, it makes a number of amendments to the project descriptions in the schedules. The ones I’m particularly interested in—the Minister will be shocked to find out—are the amendments to New Zealand Transport Agency - Waka Kotahi’s listed projects. There are a number of tabled amendments that we’d love the Minister to consider, including some that just delete the projects from the fast-track list.
I guess, the comment I would make at this point, to the Minister, is that I think the fact that we’re having amendments to the descriptions of specific projects as an amendment to a bill, post - select committee, and the description of the bill and the general policy statement is all about the Commerce Commission’s supermarket competition. Most of the paragraphs in the explanatory note say this bill is about supermarket competition. It’s only at the very end that it says the bill also includes specific technical and machinery changes. Arguably, changing the description of listed highway projects has nothing to do with supermarket competition or even technical amendments to the bill. I just want to raise that particular process point. Would the Minister like to comment, and I can—
Hon Chris Bishop: Yes, I can comment on that.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Great.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): We canvassed this in Part 1 because it kind of came up as well. Just to kind of reiterate for the committee, I suppose, we found ourselves in a situation where what we thought were quite accurate project descriptions, which would do the job to make it clear what projects the Government and Parliament wanted to accelerate through the fast track—we found a situation via the courts which has made it very clear that there needs to be absolute specificity, like, literally to the very word about the particular descriptions of the projects.
That was not anticipated and the advice was that that would not happen. But that’s OK; we have a separation of powers in this country and the courts have said—well, I shouldn’t say the courts have said generically. I should say that the High Court has found in relation to one case—which, of course, makes people nervous about everything else. So given we’d already decided to do the amendments in relation to grocery competition via the Government policy statement process, we thought it was an opportune time to also—just for belts and braces, for absolute clarity—update some project descriptions at the same time. I think that’s the responsible, sensible thing to do. We’re making the amendments anyway, so we might as well take the opportunity to do it, to just make absolutely certain they’re all accurate.
And, of course, there’s the residual power in Part 1, which we’ve already canvassed in the previous part, which places the ability for the Minister to update those project descriptions, but there are some guardrails around those project descriptions as well. That issue has been canvassed in the previous debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Julie Anne Genter. Just while we’ve got this interaction, we’ll try and encourage this and leave one member with a few questions while the Minister’s answering.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thanks, Mr Chair—I do really appreciate it. I think it does help the flow of the debate. In that case, as I said, there’s a whole number of Amendment Papers, which I’m sure the Minister will be very interested in.
I want to make the point that the Minister might now have to consider amending project descriptions in the future, because it may well be true that the description of the projects—and specifically the New Zealand Transport Agency projects—could change again in the future. For example, in the projects that refer to Wellington and improving State Highway 1 in Wellington in the Amendment Paper—this is, again, clause 55(2R), item relating to State Highway 1 Wellington Improvements—well, firstly, I think it is highly contestable that what’s been proposed by the Government is an improvement. Also, would this therefore rule out improvements that might include further changes beyond what’s been proposed, like bus priority or a light rail connection? Walking and cycling aren’t specified in the project, so I’m just wondering, is the Minister expecting to have to continually update the project descriptions?
This would be one of our criticisms of this whole fast-track approach and the projects that it applies to, and specifically the New Zealand Transport Agency projects—that trying to define in a schedule in a bill what the projects are when they haven’t even really been fully designed and still have to go through a process is possibly not the best process.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I think the member makes reasonable points. In relation to her second point about whether we want to continually update projects, the answer is no, but the ruling of the High Court has placed us in a difficult situation. So just by way of background there without impugning the honour of the court, it relates to the—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Are they pernickety?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that? Are they pernickety? It’s the word du jour. It relates to the Stella Passage extension of the port of Tauranga. Literally, I think I’m right in saying two or possibly three words left off the project description have meant that it apparently can’t be a substantive project. Now, this bill actually fixes that issue by updating the schedule. Also they’ve subsequently lodged a referral application, which has been accepted and so it’s in the mix for that as well. We’ll wait and see where that gets to, obviously, without getting ahead of the panel, but that has meant that people are obviously pretty concerned to make sure that project descriptions are accurate because if the High Court interpretation in the Stella Passage case holds, then it will mean a very strict reading. So that’s why we’ve gone through the process of updating them and there’s the backstop power to continue to update them. I don’t really want to do it, but, you know, clearly there may be a need to.
In relation to the member’s first point, that’s a question of judgment that I’m probably not the right person to proffer a view on. I think the question was: will it include walking and cycling or bus priority, for example? I mean, strictly, the project that she’s referring to was State Highway 1 between north of the Terrace Tunnel and Kilbirnie, including associated infrastructure and connections. I suppose it depends on whether or not you think associated infrastructure includes that. Probably it does if you’re talking about walking and cycling through the tunnel; bus priority on the quays, probably not, but that’s OK. That’s why there’s two pathways. There’s the listed projects which a lot of time and energy has been spent on, but there’s the referral pathway as well. I haven’t got the numbers to hand, but I think I’m right in saying that we’re about half and half so far. Some of the projects that are actually working their way through have been referrals—and I’ve turned down some referrals as well, by the way. People think it’s just an automatic accelerator to get all these projects done. I’ve actually turned some down and, you know, I’ve used my judgment in relation to a range of matters. All of that is publicly available, by the way, there’s nothing to hide here. It’s all available online and people are examining that. So I think that deals with the member’s questions.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to go back briefly to a matter that was raised just before the dinner break by Lan Pham about the schedule and the answer that the Minister in the chair gave regarding—those listed projects in the schedule are now to be all thought of as regionally or nationally significant.
My only question around this is, given what the Minister has just said about loss of time and energy that went into those listed projects during that time, of the time and energy between when the applications were made to the Minister in a very secretive process, and we didn’t see the schedule to the fast-track approvals amendment—not the amendment, sorry; the original bill. They all came in at the committee stage. Was there scrutiny of whether or not they were of a regional or national significance when they were put on that schedule to start with? That’s my first question.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The member makes a good point, and this is actually, I think, quite important. Clause 55, the Schedule 2 amendments? This is a direct response to the Delmore decision, which was a project; it was a housing development, from memory, where the panel—so Delmore was a listed project. It was a Schedule 2 project, and the panel and Delmore—I’m paraphrasing—said, “just because a project is listed in the schedule doesn’t mean it necessarily has significant regional or national benefits”. That was the intention of listing that in the schedule, and without getting into the panel’s reasoning, somewhere along the line, listing it in the schedule got lost sight of. So, regardless of the rights or wrongs of that, this is a response to that and makes it clear that Schedule 2 projects have significant regional or national benefits.
Now, the extent of those regional or national benefits is clearly an issue for the panel to weigh up in the decision making with the adverse effects, but the sort of a priori threshold question “Does it have significant regional or national benefits?”—if the amendment is agreed to—then the answer will be “Yes”.
Hon Rachel Brooking: And the analysis. What’s the analysis?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you for the reminder. I was just churning in my head exactly what the next question was. And the answer is “Yes”.
Look, members may disagree about this, but we went through a relatively robust process, I think, through the independent advisory group report, which provided the advice. There were, like, hundreds of applications to be a listed project, and some of them made their way through and others didn’t. There was an independent report; we put a group of experts in charge of that, and we accepted many of those recommendations, but some were rejected by the Government. Look, these are, in some senses, issues of judgment, obviously. You know, is a 1,000-home housing development substantial or significant, versus 500? I mean, these are issues of judgment.
Hon Rachel Brooking: “Is there the infrastructure that goes with it?”
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if the infrastructure’s not there, then, as the Delmore decision finds, that is an adverse effect that can be taken into account, although, however, we have also made the amendments around conditional infrastructure, conditional approvals based on the infrastructure. That’s also a direct response to Delmore.
This is Parliament acting in response to—in this case, one High Court judgment, and secondly, a panel judgment. It looks like you’ve got another question.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Still talking about the schedules—thank you for the answer—these are just two small questions I’ve got in relation to clause 58, which is Schedule 6 amended. Throughout clause 4 of Schedule 6, there’s this new phrase “or a transfer of”. The question is whether this transfer is something that is new, that’s come through the other changes that we’ve already made to these fast-track approvals, or if it was already there.
Then the second point is at clause 4(7) of Schedule 6—so I’m looking at page 35 of his Amendment Paper 473. There’s a “delete ‘, including an explanation of why the exchange would benefit the conservation estate’.” There are other references to the benefit of the conservation estate, but what I’m wanting comfort on, I guess, from the Minister is that consideration of the benefits to the conservation estate are still in the mix and they are not being degraded by these changes, which are quite technical in their nature.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I have answers on those issues. The transfer point is just to make clear that concessions can be transferred through this process in a way that they would have otherwise taken place as well. The bit about the “delete the explanation” is just a redrafting. It occurs elsewhere, so they just delete that bit. It’s just a redraft.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): This will be my final point for now because I know that other members are very interested in—and we heard from the Hon Julie Anne Genter as well—talking about the specific changes.
We see in this Amendment Paper that there are many specific changes to Schedule 2. I don’t want to go through them in a lot of detail, but that’s not to say that other members won’t have a different approach. I don’t know the detail of these explanations, and I don’t think it’s particularly my job to do that either, but I would ask the Minister if he could go through in particular the ones where we heard submissions on them. We definitely heard submissions on KiwiRail. We obviously heard submissions on the Port of Tauranga as well. If the amendments that have been made align with what was asked in those submissions—or not—is one question.
Then some other questions on these: if there is anything else, the Minister might want to make a general comment, and we did have a general, general comment from the Minister who was in the chair before the dinner break about how some of this is just more detail. He referred to the solar panels and that they give a wattage—I think he said—and that is different from what is currently in the Act. Can the Minister provide any general comfort that the changes are not significant or minimal?
And, before he does, I’ll ask one more question as well, and this is about the amendment to Precinct Properties. The Minister will know that I’m not from Auckland, but I do know Auckland is our great international city and it’s got a beautiful harbour, and thank goodness it’s got some marine protections now. I love Auckland, but I don’t pretend to know a whole lot about the Precinct Properties development, but there do seem to be some changes here about the heights of the towers. And I do also know that Aucklanders like being able to see that beautiful gulf of theirs, so I was wondering what the implications of this will be on those view shafts and if the Minister can tell the House the sorts of consultation that has gone on with Auckland Council and anyone else who might have a particular interest in this project.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The short point is, in relation to the member’s first point, yes, the submitters asked for these changes because they noticed that there were errors in the original words—or “errors” is probably too strong a phrase. In light of the High Court ruling in relation to the Sulphur Point, for the Tauranga decision, everyone got the heebie-jeebies and realised they needed to be really strictly accurate. Literally, relating to the Stella Passage development, the court found that, because the words “Mount Maunganui wharves” were not in the project description, the project was not eligible, even though the project’s been around for, like, 10 years. I don’t know; I’m not an expert on wharves, God forbid. But, I understand there’s—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Me, neither.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, exactly. But I understand there’s two particular parts and one was listed and the other wasn’t. It’s literally “and Mount Maunganui wharves”, so that’s four words. We’re just adding that in to make that clear.
Arena Williams: I mean, it’s a hotel now, though; it’s quite different.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Some would argue that that was clear already. But, you know, I don’t want to—some would argue that. I would not venture a suggestion. What was that, sorry?
Arena Williams: It’s a hotel now, the Precinct towers.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Hon Member: Not the wharf, though.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The wharf’s not a hotel. Oh, you’re talking about Precinct Properties. Yeah, well, I’m not super familiar with that project, either, to be honest, but it will have been upon the submission of Precinct. I think there’s a council involvement in that, because the building’s a car park—the old car park building is an old council building. I think there’s been an arrangement.
Arena Williams: It’s a big topic in my household.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a big topic? OK, well, there you go! In relation to the view shafts, which are issues in Auckland.
Arena Williams: We love a view shaft.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, do—OK!
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): There is now an opportunity to take a call, Ms Williams—geographical trip around Auckland.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, it’s great that you love view shafts, but do you love the E9 view shaft that protects the view from the toll bridge on the harbour bridge that doesn’t exist any more—that to view the view shaft would make you guilty of dangerous driving? That view shaft goes right through the middle of the Auckland CBD and has at least a $1.5 billion to possibly $2 billion impact on development capacity in the middle of our biggest city. If you tweaked the E9 view shaft a few degrees to the left or right, you would unlock hundreds of millions of dollars of development capacity in Auckland. I’m just saying you can tweak these view shafts with quite big economic benefits.
View shafts are important. I’m not an Aucklander, but view shafts are important. Viewing the maunga is important and there are iwi relationships we need to maintain and preserve there as well, and that’s all important, so don’t get me wrong. I’m not proposing to make any changes, but we do have a study under way into the economic cost of view shafts. People need to realise that these things that we impose for legitimate reasons have trade-offs. We’re doing this study, which the council knows about, so I’m not telling anyone anything secret. That will seek to quantify the economic costs of view shafts. Anyway, it’s a bit away from the topic. I think I’ve answered the question.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’ve just got a point of clarification for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, whether those heebie-jeebies he talked about were in fact pernickety heebie-jeebies.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Most definitely.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Lawrence Xu-Nan—we look forward to getting back to some parts of the bill.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We look forward to getting back to some parts of the bill.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: That is the kind of conversation I’d like to have with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, because I’ve learnt a lot about the last part that the Minister mentioned in terms of view shafts. I do find that very interesting.
Hon Chris Bishop: I’m resigning!
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Please, be my guest. I actually do have a question, and this is to do with the Minister’s Amendment Paper 473. I want to focus on a few of the projects that have been listed here. I’m going to start with the one that’s an amendment to Harmony Energy NZ. This is clause 55(2A) and (2B) and potentially even (2C). Would it be the correct assumption that by changing it from a quantitative approach of 660,000 solar panels to, I’m guessing, an output approach—is that what the adjustment is in here where, rather than saying, “We’re locking in X number of solar panels.”, we’re saying, “We’re expecting the output amount to be 400 MW DC.”? In which case, that’s really interesting.
I guess my next question is: are those two things comparable? Are 660,000 solar panels the equivalent of 400 MW DC? Then, in the next one, we see that there are 180,000 solar panels in terms of the Hinuera Solar Farm, which then equates to 100 MW DC. It’s one quarter of what we see in Bunnythorpe Solar Farm, but, obviously, 180,000 is not a quarter of 660,000. That’s my question, but I do have other questions.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I mean, look, this just goes to the point I made before—right?—which is: regardless of your views about Schedule 2 and this particular project—and I don’t know it from a bar of soap—you don’t want a situation where someone rocks up and says, “Oh by the way, we’re only doing 500,000 now. It’s the same megawatts as 400.” But the court says, “Well, no, no, no. Because you said 660 and now you’re only doing fewer, even though it’s the same wattage or the same megawatts.” That’s the unfortunate reality of the Sulphur Point decision, where, like, a really strict reading has meant we’re going to have to go through this. But, look, it is what it is. That’s the role of Parliament.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Yeah, I think I actually agree with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. I think that’s a sensible adjustment, going from locking into an exact amount to looking at it more from an output perspective. But can I also check in—I think the Minister has answered this already, which is that these are the kinds of amendments, for example, that will now be captured under Order in Council in the future, as opposed—
Hon Chris Bishop: Yes—yes.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you.
The other question, then, I have is, and, you know, I don’t normally—I’m also the Green Party MP that’s based in Epsom, so I have a keen interest in new clause (2E) of Schedule 2, inserted by new clause 55, in terms of the deletion of “(Newmarket)”. Now, understanding that this original project is KiwiRail and it’s talking in terms of the North Island Main Trunk between Westfield Junction in Newmarket and Pukekohe, I’m checking if the deletion of Newmarket—and potentially it’s the same as before; it just means that it’s a level of specificity that’s not needed, but will that still take place in the same Westfield in Newmarket, or does that then mean that any Westfield along that line potentially would apply? That’s my second question to the Minister.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Westfield there is not the shopping mall. Westfield is the area—
Hon Member: Train station.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s the train station Westfield. It’s not the shopping mall. It’s Westfield, which is on the—well, this project; I mean, I don’t want to distract the committee, but this—
Grant McCallum: Go on!
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, just one minute’s indulgence. This project is actually a very important project, the four-tracking. I do know a little bit about this one; I don’t know a lot about the some of the other ones.
We’ve just done the third main project, right? We’ve just done the third main. This is the busiest section of the freight section in Auckland and, in fact, the whole of the—in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s the busiest freight section in the entire country. Of a rail network that struggles economically, this is the bit that actually makes sense. We’ve just opened the third main, and, frankly, we should have done the fourth at the same time. That’s what this project is: the four-tracking from Westfield to Pukekohe. It means you can separate out passenger and freight rail, because, at the moment, in that part of Auckland—well, the third main’s been good, but that part of Auckland is heavily congested because you’ve got passenger rail on the metro passenger network competing with freight. KiwiRail’s incentive, obviously, is to run the freight, because that’s where they make some money; passengers are sort of, you know, neither here nor there for them.
So separating out the tracks is a really useful thing. It’s very expensive, I have to say. But, anyway, they should have done the fourth at the same time. Some of us argued for that at the time, some of us even campaigned on it, but we didn’t win, so that’s OK. But it just means that when we eventually do the fourth main, which is this project—the four-tracking of Westfield to Pukekohe—it will be much more expensive to do it for all the reasons that infrastructure costs go up. Anyway, KiwiRail will have asked for this.
But it’s not Westfield, the shopping mall; it’s Westfield, the area.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested in turning over many pages to page 40 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper, and this is where there’s the transitional provision. The bill, as introduced, didn’t have any transitional provisions, and then there are now transitional provisions. I’m pleased to see that the changes to the right to appeal don’t have an immediate effect. That is a good—that is good, although I don’t think the changes should be made in the first place. However, that is not my point or my question. That is a statement.
My question is—it’s just a small question about the use of the word “old”, and it might be a drafting technique that I am unfamiliar with. But “old”—so if you look at clause 11, “Notification under section 29 if consultation undertaken before second commencement date”, then you’ll see a lot of references to “old section 29” and “old section 30(2)” and “old section 30”. I was wondering if the Minister had any comments or if his advisers can help—if this is a normal transitional provision. It’s not one I’m familiar with.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m advised the answer is yes, and it’s just a drafting choice by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It is normal.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would actually like to draw the Minister’s attention to the newly introduced schedule, which is technically clause 54A. Again, this is something that we haven’t really had a chance to dig into during the select committee stage, because it’s part of the Minister’s amendment.
I do want to check—in terms of clauses 6 and 7, in particular, of that schedule in the new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1—what is the Minister’s intention when it comes to between the first commencement date and the second commencement date? For example, in clause 7(2), if an application is a substantive application and the approvals sought have not been decided before the second commencement date but it is after or on the first commencement date, the following provisions apply. I just want to check with the Minister the intention of adding something like this and whether there are current projects that are already being caught out as a part of this sort of weird limbo area between the first and second commencement date, or is there any projection of what could be captured between the first and second commencement date as a result of the introduction of this new section? That is my first question to the Minister. If the Minister wants a specific section I’m referring to, I guess, clause 7(2) of the schedule is a good place to start.
Just going back to the main area, I really appreciate the Minister’s response to my question around Westfield Newmarket, because I did not know that and that was really, really informative.
I want to check with the Minister in terms of the idea of introducing some of the amendments. You mentioned in terms of the amendment to the Port of Tauranga Ltd and the wharves and the specific naming of it. But I guess I’m curious to know, in all of these—noting that the Minister cannot add new projects by Order in Council; but in terms of the new ones that are listed here and the specific changes that have been made—I don’t see any one that does mention a supermarket. Maybe for The Downtown Carpark Redevelopment? Is that one of the ones that would potentially be considered under retail and hospitality, which is the third bullet point of clause 55(4)?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Clause 7 in Schedule, “New Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1”—on page 39—is relatively complicated transitional provisions reflecting the two different commencement dates around the provisions, and it’s just to make sure that applications in train are not suck in that limbo land and that they can carry through and they can get some of the benefits of this but not all of them, which is reflected in clause 7(1) and (2).
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I just want to go back to this Downtown Carpark building. Actually, it’s a really convenient car park and I’m sorry to see it go, but never mind.
Look, it’s a meta question, but this is a good example of it. Going back to the original Act, the approval was for two towers of 56 and 41 levels respectively. In your Amendment Paper, they are now two towers of 55 levels and 45 levels, so there has been some change.
Arena Williams: And less car parks.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah. And then the residential space, in the original Act, is approximately 300 to 350 apartments. It’s now residential space providing apartments and a hotel. I’ve got no objection to this in particular. I will get to the wider point. In terms of car parks, in the original Act, it’s five car parking levels, basement levels, providing 613 car parks. In the new amendment it’s a four-level basement for car parks.
Look, I appreciate projects change, but in a sense there’s been a change on this project sufficiently that you might have thought you’d have to go back and get a new consent for some of this, and yet it’s coming back in, not quite by the back door as it were, but it’s because we’ve changed—and I take the Minister’s point about needing to be more specific about getting the wording right so it’s not affected by those court decisions, but what we are seeing here is a slightly back-door route to what looks like a change in a project.
It just begs the wider question of what happens—and I may have missed it earlier in the discussion—when someone applies for a fast track but then, a few months down the track, something changes and so the project changes a bit. At what level do they need a new application? If you could just clarify that for me.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The member makes a reasonable point. I think she’s sort of answered her own question, which is the High Court ruling and the Stella Passage case, passage of time between fast track and this project’s been updated. It’s not—I mean, it is different, obviously; I wouldn’t say it’s substantially different.
Going forward, if Parliament agrees with this amendment and the bill becomes law, there is the ability through the section we’ve talked about quite a bit, which is new section 117A, where there are guardrails in place; where the Minister must not make a recommendation to change the scope of a project unless the Minister is satisfied that the scope of the project will not be substantially different as a result of the amendment, taking into account three different factors.
That’s ultimately a judgment call. Of course, that’s reviewable, and Ministers will take legal advice on that. I’m not venturing a suggestion in relation to the Downtown Carpark, because it’s a listed project, but that is what it is.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just to those members enthusiastic on my right: can you just actually have a look at the bill and see how much is in there? That might just curb your enthusiasm a little. You can stand and take all the calls you like, but I just suggest you have a look at what’s in front of you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Well, my point is a small point, and it may even be a pernickety point, Minister. And that was I asked you earlier about the changes throughout this schedule and if they all related to submissions that were made, and you responded in relation to a couple of examples; I think you spent some time talking about the Port of Tauranga case, and I understand the Minister’s point there, but I’m just wondering if he can confirm if they all came from submissions or if there has been some other process that has been undertaken that has changed these other projects, and, if so, what that process was.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m advised that some are in response to submissions. When the member said submissions, I thought she just meant, you know, suggestions or submissions somewhere; I didn’t realise she meant select committee—did you mean select committee submissions?
Hon Rachel Brooking: I meant select committee submissions.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, OK. Well, the answer is yes, in relation to some, but there have been others into the Government—into either the Ministry for the Environment or my office—in relation to some of these updates.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to touch on Schedule 6. This is clause 58 in Part 2 and it’s to do with the assessments and the reports by the Director-General of Conservation with regard to conservation values.
What was really clear from submissions is, particularly because this is a process that the Director-General of Conservation undertakes, that this is one avenue to potentially provide mana whenua with a voice under this, particularly when it comes to the assessments that need to take place under Schedule 2. We know that there’s a lot of Treaty provisions that have conservation and taonga species provisions that could be relevant to these clauses. One submitter made the proposal that, because it is the Department of Conservation involved in putting together these assessments and the analysis of these assessments, perhaps this could be one way that relevant iwi and hapū could actually feed in at that process.
Now, the other aspect that I’m interested in is, from what I understand, the information requirements were somewhat complicated in the original bill, and so there’s been a number of what looks like quite basic changes to actually clarify the requirements there, particularly when it comes to land exchanges. I just wanted assurance from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about whether there are any material changes in that and whether this could be a particular area where mana whenua could have a voice.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m not an expert on this area, but I’m advised that it’s optional, not mandatory, to involve mana whenua, and that, in practice, the Department of Conservation do that.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you. Just one quick follow up in response to this, and thank you to the Minister for his response. Forest and Bird raised the question about whether this applies or does not apply to council reserves and there was concern that there is not clarification. Now, it looks like there have been some changes, but, again, just looking for clarity that that has been covered in some way.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It’s Crown-owned reserves as opposed to council reserves. Yeah.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I have just a small point, going back to this discussion I was having with the Minister about submissions made. He’s now clarified that the amendments to Schedule 2 go beyond what was requested by submissions in the select committee process. He said there’s been some conversations with the Ministry for the Environment or something like that. What I’m looking for now is some assurance from the Minister that, where something hasn’t gone to the select committee and is changed here, the changes are pernickety in nature only and are not expanding the projects or likely to have an increase of adverse environmental effects as the result of these wording changes.
Hon Chris Bishop: Sorry, I missed the start of it. Can you just summarise it?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Pernickety. The changes to Schedule 2—these projects that are listed here, some of them were looked at by the select committee because they went through the select committee process; some of them weren’t. For the ones that weren’t, can the Minister give us some assurance that, whatever processes happened to make these changes in front of us now, there are no increased adverse effects from the changes in the projects and no changes in scale either?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, best endeavours. Ultimately, the question of adverse effects is for the panel, it’s not for me, because they’re listed projects and the assessment of the effects will happen later. So best endeavours. If the member—I hesitate to suggest this—sends me a written question, we can get into it. I get quite a lot, but, you know, it’s not like we don’t have enough to do, so, you know, put it down in writing, take it on notice.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s response before, but one of the things I was asking the Minister is with regard to the—and I totally understand in terms of the complexities, and we can talk about some of the changes to the commencement date a little bit later.
But between the first and second commencement dates that the Minister mentioned, is the Minister aware of any potential project—not the name of the project, but a rough number of the projects—that would be caught in that kind of limbo period that the Minister has mentioned? Particularly with regard to, I think it was to do with the reducing scope of substantive applications. It’s also good to hear from the Minister that the Minister’s already declined some of the substantive applications as well and not just an open slather.
That was my first question, just to see if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying. I do have another question, but if the Minister wants to respond—
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It’s an easy answer, which is: the provision the member’s talking applies to projects lodged after the first commencement date prior to the second commencement date. We haven’t had either of them yet because we haven’t passed the bill yet. So, you know, God willing, we might get it done tonight—ha, ha!—at which point there will a commencement date—but that is a future date. So we’re not there yet—sadly.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Cool, thanks Minister. That’s a fair point, and, hopefully—maybe—no-one will be quite in-between that limbo. My next question for the Minister is to do with—I’ve got two additional questions, which one is first? Let’s go with this one. This is clause 56, Schedule 3 amended, subclause (7), which is in Schedule 3, “replace clause 13”. Now, I had to check with the original amendment bill, not the Amendment Paper that the Minister has produced. I want to check, because in the bill, there’s mention of “associate panel convener” in the main legislation, the Fast-track Approvals Act, but this two-tiered process of liability between panel conveners or an associate panel convener and the members appointed to a panel—this is something that’s been introduced that’s new, that isn’t in the existing clause 13.
I want to check with the Minister: what is the rationale behind splitting out the two-tiered liability, one being the panel convener or an associate panel convener, and one being the members? Because in the current clause 13 of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, it is the panel convener, where any member is appointed as one group of liability—no mention of associate panel convener. Is it just because “associate panel convener” was missed out for the original one and there is the realisation that there is a weird, I guess, gap or loophole where, if you are associate panel convener, you are somehow liable, whereas the others are not?
I have one more question for the Minister. Maybe I’ll ask my final question while the Minister gets some advice.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ask your next question.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: My final question is around clause 58, Schedule 6 amended, and this is subclause (10). I just want to check if the Minister wants to respond to my previous question before I go on to this one?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The answer is neither panel conveners or associate conveners are protected now from liability. This amendment means that they will be. It’s an amendment in response to a suggestion from the panel conveners themselves.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Oh, cool. Thank you for that, Minister. My final question is on clause 58, “Schedule 6 amended”, subclause 10: in Schedule 6, replace clause 26(1)(a) with the following—noting that paragraphs (i) and (ii) are what’s existing; paragraphs (iii) and (iv) are what was being produced. I guess my first question on this section is: who makes the determination of what is considered threatened or abundant? They are not terms that are determined under the primary legislation.
The next question is, in terms of what we’re seeing being inserted here under clause 58, the original bill in its explanatory note also doesn’t explain why an explanation for how the exchange would benefit the conservation estate is needed. But I guess the question of that is if paragraph (i) considers the two components of threatened or abundant, would paragraph (iii) also include things like an explanation of why the exchange would not benefit or would be detrimental to the conservation estate.
And the final one is paragraph (iv), which is the impact of anything registered or noted for the conservation purposes on the record of title of the land, and I just want to check with the Minister on the rationale for introducing that particular number as well.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Good questions. In relation to addressing “threatened or abundant”, those are Department of Conservation reports, but over to the panel to assess. In relation to the explanations, that is because the panel has to consider that as part of the determination process. So it’s just to make it clear that there needs to be an explanation in relation to that, and likewise, for subparagraph (iv) as well.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m looking at these transitional provisions as well in the new Part 2 being inserted into Schedule 1. Going right to the end of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 473, on page 41, at new clause 15, there’s transitional provisions relating to consultation on Government policy statement (GPS), and it refers here to the consultation that’s already been undertaken in new section 10A(3).
As we traversed in the Part 1 debate, that consultation is very minimal. All that is required in the consultation is whatever the Minister thinks is fit, or with other Ministers, and so I wonder why we need a specific transitional clause here. When the requirements for making that GPS are already so lax and there already are so few guard rails around it, why is it that we need a transitional provision letting this consultation roll over when that’s hardly necessary due to the terrible process, or the total lack of process, that goes into making these Government policy statements.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It’s because the first Government policy statement—the grocery one—has already been issued. So it’s just to make sure that it’s valid and that no one turns arounds and says that we didn’t consult on it because we’d already issued it, and so it’s going to come into effect when the Act comes into effect, obviously. It’s just to make that clear, and so that’s why it’s in the transitional sections.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Further to that, can the Minister confirm whether there are any other Government policy statements currently under way that this transition provision would relate to?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): No.
MIKE DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to quickly talk to a project in Schedule 2 of the Act, with reference to clause 55(2) of the bill, around the “significant regional or national benefits”. The project is the Ōhoka Residential Subdivision. I’m hoping you know the area—for those that don’t, Ōhoka is in the Waimakariri District Council. It’s a really beautiful, character rural community. Not too many people live there; it’s best known for its farmers’ market. Obviously, quite a few years ago now, the plan for this subdivision went through the proper course of action, processes—went through an independent hearings panel, who decided to decline it, and that went to the Waimakariri District Council, who rejected it. Since then, obviously, the group there have lodged an appeal to the Environment Court and that’s still awaiting the result of that hearing, but it’s obviously been included within the fast-track project.
But if you have a look at what they’re actually trying to achieve—850 residential developments, a mixed-use centre, polo field, potential development of a retirement village or a school—if you look at the current community now, it’s a small community. When they went through that process, the community by a huge majority opposed this, as did the city council, and, I believe, just recently the mayor, when this project got into fast track, said that, actually, rejected projects that went through the due course should not be accepted on to the fast track.
So I’m just wondering, when you look at the size of this project and the size of this small, quaint, rural village, whether it actually would bring regional or national benefits given the scale and, actually, the location, considering, when you look at Waimakariri and what they’ve done across Greater Christchurch, they have enough provision in there for, actually, the proper amount of housing to meet its future demands.
So I’m just wondering if you have concern that this is still in this list, and I’m just curious if you would be willing to accept an amendment to actually delete it from the list. Kia ora.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): No, and if there’s no demand for the houses, the project will never get built.
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 (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2G), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2H), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2I), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2J), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2K), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2L), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2M), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2N), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2O), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2P), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, deleting clause 55(2Q), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2R) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting “without tolling” into clause 55(2R) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting “including pedestrian priority at every intersection” into clause 55(2R) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting words beginning “safe, separated, and continuous cycling” into clause 55(2R) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting words beginning “light rail between Wellington Railway Station” into clause 55(2R) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2S) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2T) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2U) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2V) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Alternate Water Supply Project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Auckland Prison Capacity Increase be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Balmoral Water Storage Facility and Fish Screen be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No.
Hon Member: Aye.
Stuart Smith: No.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Ayes have it.
Stuart Smith: Noes have it.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2—
STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): Point of order. Sorry, was that voice carried on voices for no?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It was carried on voices, sorry, for yes.
STUART SMITH: For no. I called no.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, no. I called it yes.
STUART SMITH: No, you didn’t.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): OK. I’ll go back and recall that vote just to clear it up.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Balmoral Water Storage Facility and Fish Screen be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Belmont Quarry Development be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Bendigo–Ophir Gold Project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Bledisloe North Wharf and Fergusson North Berth Extension be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Bream Bay Sand Extraction Project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Buller Plateaux Continuation be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Central and Southern Block Mining be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Clifford Bay Marine Farm—Innovation and Productivity be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Drury Quarry Expansion—Sutton Block be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Drury Metropolitan Centre–Consolidated Stages 1 and 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Eden Park 2.1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the End of Life Bridge Replacement Programme be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Flat Top Quarry Development be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Flint’s Park Urban Intensification be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Green Steel be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Hananui Aquaculture Project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Hunua Quarry Development be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Integrated Development Plan for Te Ārai South Precinct and Regional Park be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Katikati Quarry Expansion be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Kings Quarry Expansion—Stages 2 and 3 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Klondyke Storage be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Macraes Phase Four (MP4), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 in the principal Act the item relating to Makarewa Hatchery, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 in the principal Act the item relating to Miners Road Northern Expansion, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 in the principal Act the item relating to Muriwhenua Aquaculture, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 in the principal Act the item relating to Northern Block Mining, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Northport Container Terminal Expansion, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Pit 1 Mining Project, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Pound Road Industrial Development, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Project East, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Project Kea, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Remarkables Ski Area Upgrade and Doolans Expansion, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Rotowaro Mine Continuation, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Ryans Road Industrial Development, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Sanford Second Greenshell Mussel Spat Hatchery, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Shipyard and Drydock Facility, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Southern Screenworks Quarry Extension and Managed Fill, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere Long Term Improvements Project, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to State Highway 25 Pepe Stream Bridge Replacement, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to State Highway 29 Tauriko Network Connections (including Omanawa Bridge replacement), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Stella Passage Development be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Stratford Park be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Summerset Retirement Village, Mosgiel be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Taradale and Awatoto Borefields/Water Treatment Plants be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Taranaki VTM be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Tara Road Development be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Te Rāhui Land Fill be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to The Hills Resort Development be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W), deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Tukituki Water Security be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Waihi Hydroelectric Power Scheme Reconsenting be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 inserting clause 55(2W) deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Waihi North be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 replacing clause 55(5) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(5) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 473 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 55(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 56(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 56(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to delete clause 56(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 58(1) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 62 to insert new section 118A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 473 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment 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.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Clauses 1 to 3
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3: the title, the commencement, and the principal Act. The Hon Rachel Brooking.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Hello.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hey there. “Story time” from me is over for a while, thank you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you very much—that did take some time. We are now on to the title and commencement, and I’m sure there will be some contributions on the commencement, because, of course, the Amendment Paper from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has changed quite a lot of that, and we’ve seen in what we just voted on there, the change to the Schedule, that actually now includes a whole lot of transitional provisions.
I will leave others to talk on that for now, because I do want to address the title of this amendment bill. Of course, it's the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, and we all know that the primary piece of legislation is the Fast-track Approvals Act. I'm interested in that word “Approvals”, and that is because, whilst there have been many changes that the Minister has made in his Amendment Paper that we agree with and are beneficial and show that there has been some listening to that Environment Committee process, shortened though it was, however, the most egregious provision in this bill has not changed, and that relates to these Government policy statements (GPSs) that can pop out of a Minister's head and then relate to a substantive decision.
We had some discussion with the Minister; we traversed this a little bit, but he would not specify how it would be that the GPS would be relevant to the decisions made in sections 81 and 85, which is the ability to decline in the Act. He said two different things—two, I would say, contrary things—in saying, “Well, it adds to the weighting, but it doesn't change the test.” If it's adding to the weighting, then it is relevant to that test.
Given that, I've got some suggested better names for this amendment bill, and one of them is that it is the “Fast-track (Based on Ministerial Whim) Amendment Bill”. Going back to this word “Approvals”, another change would be that it's the “Fast-track (Never Declining Applications) Amendment Bill”. In fact, if we're going to the primary piece of legislation, I mean, a good amendment there would be to amend the Fast-track Approvals Act to the “Fast-track and Never Decline Act” as well.
Another suggested change, going to this point about the ministerial overreach, would simply be that the fast-track—so you're fast-tracking by enabling ministerial overreach, because that is what this bill and the provisions around the Government policy statement do. The Minister had an opportunity in his Amendment Paper to change those provisions, and he had an opportunity in the committee stage when we were on Part 1 to give more comfort about the role of those Government policy statements—policy statements that have no process and have no criteria beyond talking to some other Ministers and whoever the Minister wants to talk to and publishing it in the Gazette. That is it—that is all the criteria. That is why I say it is ministerial whim.
Another one might be the “Fast-track (Reversion to the Original) Bill”, and I say that again because people knew in the Fast-track Approvals Act, as it was originally introduced before it got changed, that it was the ministerial overreach that people objected to, and that is where these changes take us.
Of course, another change would be the “Fast-track Approvals (Nothing to Do with Supermarkets but We're Going to Say That Anyway and Rely on it in a Very Cynical Way) Amendment Bill”, because that is what the Minister has done, and that is what the Minister of Finance has said about this bill as well. That is cynical and not needed, and that is why we are not supporting this bill.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will just have a short contribution on this. First of all, I would like to thank the committee for considering my amendments, even though it’s disappointing that none of the amendments was voted on and accepted, because I thought they were—
Francisco Hernandez: You nearly got one.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah. We were close to getting some of them through. I do want to check two things. Number one: I do have two amendments that I want the Minister to consider. I think one of them is around the commencement date—and both of these two are regarding the commencement date.
The first one is changing the commencement of the bill from the day after Royal assent to 24 December 2027. The rationale for that is, as we’ve seen through the select committee stage—and we’ve had a number of submitters discuss the fact that, as many of them rightfully observed—the Act itself only came into force on 24 December 2024 and it hasn’t had the chance yet to bed in. A lot of the changes that are being made are changes that have not yet seen the full impact or implications of the principal Act. The proposal: like many things, as we see with a lot of the legislation, a three-year period is appropriate for when it comes to review. The idea is that the commencement date will start on 24 December 2027, and that way it will allow the time, too, for the Act to bed in and maybe consider whether the changes we’re seeing in this bill are necessary before making changes that materially affect clarity and certainty. I think that in general is a good practice.
The other one is around the amendment—and I think this actually speaks to the two-tiered first and second amendment date that myself and the Minister had a discussion on in Part 2 of the bill. I do want to check with the Minister on the date for 31 March 2026 and where that particular date came from. Although the explanatory notes say that this is the date in order for the fast-track system to be able to be fully implemented, it doesn’t actually give any explanation that I can see—“specified amendments will come into force on 31 March 2026 to enable updates to be made to the fast-track approvals system.”, but it doesn’t actually give any more information on when that date comes from. As far as what we see in the bill as written, the date seems to be fairly arbitrary, so I want to check with the Minister if he can provide any clarity on the 31 March date.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It’s good to see you all again! I mean, this is relatively straightforward, to be honest. The title of the bill is the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill because that is, indeed, the Act that it amends, and it an amendment bill. So we can have some fun with the title.
Hon Rachel Brooking: Just going for accuracy—just going for description.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK. I’ve played that game before. I admire it, but it’s not going to succeed. On the principal Act, I mean, that is also relatively straightforward: it is the Fast-track Approvals Act, so we need not spend more time on that.
The commencement does have some substance to it, and Lawrence Xu-Nan makes a good point. [Interruption] I see Ms Genter down the end is incapable of not arguing with people in the Chamber, but anyway. So the key point is this—[Interruption].
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you keep it down at the back there. Thank you. Continue, Minister. [Interruption]. Hon Chris Bishop.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Just interesting that Ms Genter has moved on to the right hand side of the House. That surprised me. I’m not meant to talk about that.
The key point is this: for changes that require IT upgrades at the back end of the Environment Protection Authority, they are delayed until 31 March. I am advised that that is the appropriate length of time; we’re sort of mid-December now, we’ll get Royal assent, then it’s the Christmas break, and we’re all looking forward to that. Then there’s the summer holiday period, and so 31 March is an appropriate length of time, I’m told. So that’s for the IT-related upgrades, which is, well you can see it there in the clause. And then everything else is the day after Royal assent. So it’s pretty straightforward. It’s got a logic to it. That’s it.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to invite the Minister to consider a different name for this bill. This actually relates very much to what we were told the bill was going to be about when it was announced on 3 November. I have here in my hand a copy of the Beehive press release on that date. We were told that this bill was going to be all about making supermarket competition a bit better. As far as we knew, that was going to be the primary purpose of this bill. Aside from supermarket competition, the press release said that there were going to be some technical changes in the bill—so all about supermarkets and getting some more competition in the grocery sector.
So I went searching through the bill for the word “supermarket”, and you might be surprised to find that the word “supermarket” is not actually in this bill—but that's fair enough, because, in actual fact, they used another sort of phrase which is a little bit more technical, because we knew it was all about technical matters. In fact, they talked about it being about, I think—let me see, it was “grocery retail” or something like that, was the phrase that was used. Let me just check that; it was certainly around that sort of term. Yeah: “grocery developers”, “grocery competition”—“grocery” was the relevant word. So I thought, righty-o then, let's just search through this bill and find out how many times the word “grocery” is mentioned, and, as it turns out, it's 11 times in the bill as introduced, nine times in the explanatory note, once in the clause by clause analysis—but, in actual fact, in the actual bill itself, in the actual legislation, the word “grocery” is only there once—just once. So telling us that this was all about supermarkets and all about grocery competition, well, it's not exactly accurate.
I'm going to propose a different name for this bill. I think it should be called the “Fast-Track Approvals”—that's good, but we just need “Supermarkets (Trojan Horse) Amendment Bill”, because the substance of the bill is actually about far more than supermarkets. As my colleague Rachel Brooking has said, there is this extraordinary matter of the Government policy statement that is sitting in there, and I think that’s perhaps the most interesting but also the most impactful part of this bill. So I put it to the Minister quite seriously: this bill, under the cover of being about supermarkets—that's what they told us it was going to be about; that's what two-thirds of their press release is about—is not, in actual fact, about supermarkets at all. It's actually about letting the Minister's cute little ideas pop out and influence development.
In that case, I'm offering my own cute little idea: this should be called the “Fast-track Approvals (Trojan Horse Supermarkets)”, or “(Supermarkets Trojan Horse)”—it doesn't really matter—“Amendment Bill”.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That’s a long title.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m prepared to entertain an amendment from the member, but it would need to fit with—the Parliamentary Counsel Office has got all these rules. You’re not allowed to have silly names for bills, and they have to be proper words and all the rest of it, which is fair enough.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Trojan horse is proper.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s true.
Hon Rachel Brooking: What about finickity? Is finickity proper?
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: No, pernickety.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s a good question. Is it even a word? I mean, these are the questions that one considers at 9.30 on a Wednesday night.
I’m prepared to entertain that, but I don’t think the Trojan horse thing is going to fly. But if the member wants to call it the “Fast-track Approvals (Supermarket Competition) Amendment Bill”, I’m all ears! I’m all in favour!
Arena Williams: Yeah, go on. Do the amendment.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, but I think it’s contrary to the point that your colleague was making, which is that the bill doesn’t actually mention “grocery” that much. In fact, I was surprised it mentioned it as much as the member said. Genuinely though, the bill does give effect to grocery retail competition, because it allows the government policy statement (GPS) to be issued, and the Government has published a GPS that will take effect as a result of the bill. So, anyway, we’ve canvassed that ad nauseum at various different points, and no doubt we will continue to litigate it in public.
But I think that the bill is appropriately titled. The commencement clauses are appropriately finessed. And I suggest we move on.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do appreciate the Minister being so flexible and adaptive in thinking about the title and thinking about a title that might fully reflect the bill and a title that has some character and some colour. I did not expect that from the Minister, quite frankly, because this, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill—what a boring title. It doesn’t do justice to what this bill’s all about.
Hon Mark Patterson: What have you done, Scott? Come on! It’s a big build-up.
SCOTT WILLIS: We have so much potential, and I’m pleased that the Hon Mark Patterson chooses to intervene because I would have thought somebody from the South would understand the importance of this bill and would understand what this bill is going to do. We also have Mark Patterson’s colleague who shouts out to us, on a regular basis, “Coal, coal”. We get the message; we get the message. This bill—
Jamie Arbuckle: Mining, mining.
SCOTT WILLIS: That’s right—“Mining, mining.” Yet we hear from the Government that this is all about renewables, but we hear from the Government’s partners that it’s all about mining. This is not about fast-track approvals. This is not at all about fast-track approvals; this is all about helping our mates do stuff that the rest of us don’t like. I really think we could find a title that is much more appropriate and that would describe exactly what’s going to happen.
I’m particularly thinking about the Santana project, but that’s just an example of the other mining projects that are happening. Santana, which has proposed to dig up a cultural pathway, destroy one of our premier wine regions—
Hon Mark Patterson: It’s an old gold mining—
SCOTT WILLIS: —destroy a landscape, destroy some merino country. I would have thought a farmer over here would have appreciated. I would have thought someone would stick up for the farmers in our area, but no.
I think we can have a title that gives more truth to what this bill is all about.
We know the story of King Midas, who was given one wish from Dionysus. His wish was that everything he touched turned to gold. Now, we can see some parallel with the Hon Mark Patterson’s mate over here, who wants to dig up everything and who wants coal at every opportunity. We can see some parallels. Maybe his mate thinks he’s King Midas if everything he touches turns to gold.
What was the lesson he discovered, Mr Patterson? The lesson he discovered was that when he touched an egg and when he touched food, it turned to gold. When he touched his daughter, she turned to gold. Gold is of no use when we need to eat. When we need to show love to one another and when we need to have spaces to live in, gold is of no use, and yet this is what this bill is all about. It’s about extraction, it’s about destruction, it’s about despoliation of our natural environment. That’s what this bill is about. Let’s give it a title that gives real meaning to what this bill is about. For the Minister, I would suggest—it’s a very simple title; I love it that you’re on the edge of your seats; I love it; come on! This is fantastic. I think you are going to enjoy a title that is truly accurate, and I look forward to the support from the Minister who has shown his willingness to adapt and to be a bit more creative. The title I’m suggesting here is simply the Fast-track (Midas Touch) Amendment Bill, because everything they touch will turn to gold. Only gold will be of no use to us, and that’s what this bill is all about.
If the Minister would like to give a response, I’d really appreciate that. Given his willingness to be so generous in considering other titles, would the Minister like to give me a response? I think this title really does capture the heart of this bill. Thank you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for engaging in these titles. That's very good of you. In one of your contributions earlier—I think it might have been to the Hon Deborah Russell—you were saying that, well, it's got to be legal language to be in these titles. So I was wondering if you could take some advice from your advisers if the word “pernickety” could be included in the title. It does seem to have been relevant this evening, as does “No, no, no.”—that could also be included.
Arena Williams: Don’t forget “farting around”.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, “farting around” apparently, as well.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: And “heebie-jeebies”.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Is “heebie-jeebies” an appropriate word for a title there? There are a few questions for the Minister.
But then a perhaps more serious contribution, given his response, would be the “Fast-track (Grocery Competition and Ministerial Policy Statement) Amendment Bill”. I think that would be a much clearer title, given the feedback that he's given, and hopefully we will have an Amendment Paper being tabled on that point very soon for his very careful consideration.
A different track, though, in terms of titles would go to this point that the Fast-track Approvals Act and with these general Government policy statements—rather, the GPS—that could be on anything. We often hear in this House the word “coal” heckled by the Hon Shane Jones. And then I know that other members of this House are interested in different types of energy as well, so it is not beyond the realms of imagination that this Government might have a Government policy statement on nuclear power. So perhaps another suggestion for this could be the “Fast-track (Nuclear Power Plant) Amendment Bill”. I'm glad that the members across are fine about this, and hopefully they think that that is a very unlikely thing to happen.
But the problem is that when you just give Ministers unfettered power or it's only fettered by the need to talk to other Ministers, then you can end up in these very problematic situations. And we all know that there is a coalition of three different parties with some very different interests. We heard that in question time today. The Prime Minister stood up at one point and said something about how his legislation was great because it was going to allow for more renewable energy. I love talking about more renewable energy. That's a very good thing. But then from across the House, there was the heckle of “Coal, coal, coal.” That is what came from New Zealand First. So it is not out of the realms of possibility that this Government might want to do a Government policy statement on a nuclear power plant.
But I do not have an Amendment Paper on that; I just have the Amendment Paper on the “Fast-track (Grocery Competition and Ministerial Policy Statements) Amendment Bill”. I think that is with you now and I ask you to consider that very proper change.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I’m prepared to accept it if it says “Government policy statement”, because that’s what the reference is. So it would be [Interruption] “grocery competition and Government policy statement”. And if it means that this ends the matter and we can get voting, then yes, we can do “(grocery competition and Government policy statement)” because that is an accurate description of the bill. So let’s do it. Done. Thank you. Let’s move on.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 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.
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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 amending clause 2(2) to change the commencement of specified provisions to 30 April 2026 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 473 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “24 December 2027” 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 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.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Fast-track Approvals Amendment 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 immediately.
Third Reading
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is available on the parliamentary website.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I move, That the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
I am pleased to stand before the House today for the third and final reading of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. This bill helps to create a new express lane for new supermarkets to boost competition in the grocery sector and spur on economic growth. It represents an important step in this Government's mission to roll out the welcome mat for supermarket competitors, boost competition, and thereby deliver better deals for Kiwi shoppers.
The simple fact of the matter is that right now, even with all of the goodwill and all of the capital in the world, a supermarket operator wishing to build a number of supermarkets, or just one, in New Zealand faces the barrier of resource consenting processes, which are off-putting to look at because they can take so much time, create so much complexity, and create so much cost and so much uncertainty. We cannot let the thicket of red tape stand in the way of Kiwis getting better deals at the checkout aisle, and this bill directly addresses that problem.
And, of course, the context in which we introduce it is one in which competition in our grocery sector is limited, with the major grocery retailers, Woolworths and Foodstuffs North Island and South Island, making up 82 percent of the market. We have asked those who are involved in the sector and who would want to compete in the sector what barriers stand in their way, and they have told us explicitly and clearly that restrictive land zoning, slow consenting, and cumbersome regulations can make it extremely difficult for them to get a look in or consider expanding in our country. The simple reality is that for so long as we have a market dominated by an 82 percent duopoly, New Zealanders will have fewer choices and they will face higher prices at the checkout compared with other countries. So this bill presents important amendments to ease the barriers holding back grocery competition and clear the way for new developments to take on the major grocery retailers.
It builds on the success of the fast-track regime, a regime without which we would not be having an expansion occurring at Auckland Port; a regime without which we would not see hundreds of homes being built in Nelson and other parts of the country; and a regime which says yes to making things happen, yes to getting things done, yes to creating jobs, and yes to investment. And we wish to make it very clear that the fast-track regime also says yes to pro-competitive grocery developments, and this bill ensures that there is explicit acknowledgment at law that those developments can access the fast track.
We’ve heard from potential developers that they haven’t previously been confident that their projects would be eligible for the fast-track process, and these changes that we’re making will make it clear that they are and give confidence that that pathway is available to developers. It does this of course in several ways. First, it clarifies and makes explicit that improving grocery sector competition either at a regional or a national level is a valid factor that the Minister for Infrastructure can consider in referral decisions, so that it can be explicitly considered. Second is ensuring that the expert panels appointed to consider those referrals must have regard to the Minister’s reason for referring the application, including factors relating to enhancing grocery competition. And third, it adds a general power to the existing fast-track regime to issue government policy statements, and this will include a government policy statement on grocery retail competition, which the Minister for Infrastructure and expert panels must consider when making project approval decisions. Taken together, those three changes will enable more new supermarkets to progress consents fast and to have certainty in their application process.
Importantly, we’ve thought this through—we’ve talked to those involved—and it also includes infrastructure such as distribution centres that can be crucial to enable new competitors to compete with major incumbent grocery retailers.
These grocery competition related amendments will come into force on the day after the date of Royal assent, ensuring that those benefits will be felt as soon as possible.
During the course of what has been a long debate, actually, I have been surprised to hear opponents on the other side of the House argue so vociferously against a set of amendments that do some things I thought we all agreed were good: amendments which ensure we can get more competition in the very thing that New Zealanders tell us matters very much to them, their grocery shop; a bill that explicitly will allow people to invest in new development, creating jobs; a bill that gets rid of the red tape that frustrates people; and a bill that simply says, “Hey, you know what? You want to come and set up a shop in this country that offers cheaper goods, innovations, new ways of doing things? We want you here.”
And, on the other side of the House, what have we had? We’ve had “Dr No” and the sideshow on the other side telling us why that’s a bad idea. I’ll tell you what: if you’re ever sitting back and thinking “How has New Zealand got into a place where good things can’t happen?”, I want you to go back and listen to the Hansard from “Dr No” over the last few days—“Dr No” and their friends. What they say is: “Please could you keep the thicket of red tape. We love the red tape. We’ve got great affection for the red tape because it’s really cool, because we love the gravy train of consultants and planner and lawyers. They’re our mates. And we love that they get to do endless hours of billable work talking about things that, actually, at the end of the day, stand in the way.” This is the kind of legislation that is needed if we want this to be a country that says yes, and we do say yes.
These amendments are part of a suite and a programme of practical—practical; that word—practical, practical changes that our Government is making to improve grocery competition.
At the same time, of course, this bill is given ballast by the fact that we have announced a new one-stop shop for supermarket building consents, because, of course, it’s not just the resource consent that they want covered in red tape, members; it’s also the building consent. So we are providing a new consenting service, and it will be provided by Christchurch City Council—hear, hear to them!—for large-scale supermarket developments.
What I want to make clear is that in advancing this legislation, we are not doing, as I think some would say—who’d say perhaps let’s do KiwiShop, and do 100,000 supermarkets, and use taxpayer money to do it. What we’re saying is what we actually need to do is unleash the great spirit of entrepreneurialism, of innovation. What we actually need to do is release the capital that is in the world and in our community towards competitive investment.
The thing that is holding back too much of that in this country and has been allowed to hold back too much of that in this country is “Dr No” and “Mr and Mrs No” saying, “We don’t want you investing your capital in an extension to the port. We don’t want you investing your capital in a new housing development. We don’t want you investing your capital in a wind farm, because it’s more important to us that we spend months in court having debates about all sorts of things”—things that, by the way, do not put food on the table, do not reduce emissions, do not increase jobs in the community, but allow people to stare at their navels and feel good about legal clauses.
Well, we say we tried that, it didn’t work, and we are the Government that’s changing it, unleashing the practical spirit that is actually the best of New Zealand and saying to those with a can-do attitude—the people who want to build things, the people who want to farm things, the people who want to make things and grow things—we’re saying to them: do you know what? We’re on your side. And if you’re on the nay-sayers side and you want to slow it down, you want to make it hard, you want to make it stop, then go and talk to “Dr No”, “Mr and Mrs No”, and their mates.
And so I am proud to be speaking in support of a piece of legislation that’s not only important in and of itself but speaks to the spirit that our Government is fostering in this country—the real spirit of New Zealand. Let’s make New Zealand a country that once again builds, makes, and grows; let’s make it happen. Fast track!
TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): The question is, That the motion be agreed to.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I may have an issue with the little pernickety comments and I have to respond to some of those statements made by Minister Willis, who just delivered her third reading speech. One of those pernickety comments is that she said at some point that she was surprised by the voracious opposition when, apparently, we all agreed to groceries. If she just paid a little bit more attention she’d know that it’s about amendments that we put up to very specifically constrain these very wide provisions to groceries. That was an easy thing for this Government to accept, and we could have all been very excited about that agreement, but, alas, that did not happen. So rather than having a bill that is constrained to groceries, which would be a great thing—we’d all, I’m sure, be in support of that—we have a bill with a very wide-ranging and dangerous power, and that is about the Government policy statements—Government policy statements that are made on the whim of a Minister—
Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear!
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and Government policy statements where there are no criteria and no guardrails, and Minister Shane Jones is very happy about it, as he says, “Hear, hear!”
All the Minister has to do is consult with some other Ministers and whoever else the Minister wants to talk to, and publish it. That's it. There is no guardrail, and that then enables the substantive decision to have to take account of that Government policy statement that is made on the whim of the Minister. So that is what we are very, very concerned about. Instead, we've just had some Minister waving around the word “yes.” That is not good faith. That is the cynical Government's attempt to not deal with the real issues, and I’m very disappointed by that.
I'm also interested in the Minister saying, yes, a whole lot—about how everyone wants to say yes. She said that this Government's fast-track regime has said yes to things like ports and houses. She said that without this Government's fast-track regime, those things may never have happened, but, of course, when that Government came into office, there was a fast track. It was in the Natural and Built Environment Act, which this Government repealed two years ago. However, they did not repeal that fast track at the time. So there was a fast track and that fast track was enabling some of these big complex projects to be done at pace.
Why I'm interested in the use of this word “yes” is because I’m wondering whether anything will ever have a “no” to it. Will anything ever be declined? The fast-track projects are big, complex projects and some of them may have incredibly consequential effects on our environment. If you have, for instance, a tailings dam break, that means you'll have a whole lot of pollution going into a river, a river that could be used for drinking water, rivers that could be used for all sorts of agricultural purposes and may not be able to be used for those purposes if there was some sort of breach. These are really serious issues. They are not just for a Minister to run around and say, “Oh, we say yes and someone else says no.” That is just so unsophisticated and so basic.
I really hope that the Government are not of the mind that we never need any proper consideration of the controls on projects, so we do not get those significant environmental effects, effects that affect all of the community. And when you affect all of the community, you affect all of the economy. Our economy is totally reliant on our environment, and that is why it's important that there are environmental protections, and that is the Labour Party's problem with the primary Act all along. It has been and continues to be that the purpose of that Act is to facilitate projects of regional or national significance. It is not to protect, though, or to facilitate those projects in accordance with sustainable management or any other term that you want to use that has some consideration for the environment and prioritises not destroying our environment.
Our concerns always with this legislation is that this will enable destruction of our environment and that is a terrible thing and the serious contributions from the Government benches are for me to cheer up, apparently. Well, I’m not going to cheer up about these very serious issues, and I will keep talking about them over and over again.
But I’m going to very quickly change tack. This bill went through a select committee process. It was a very truncated select committee process, and the debate around that truncation did not happen in this House. However, what this Government does time and time again—in fact, most of yesterday was taking up with it—is produce bills and do them in all stages under urgency. I am the first person to ask, with all of these bills, “Can’t we just send it to select committee even for a short time?” I also suggest we have a post-enactment review clause, and the answers all seem to be no, no, no. But this time, at least this amendment bill did get sent to a select committee, and even though the process was truncated and lots of submitters came to us and had great ideas about how they could amend it and how important it is—and I agree with people from Queenstown that affordable housing is a huge issue there—perhaps this bill could have been the vehicle to help them. But, no, this bill could not help them because there was not the time. So again we had the no, no, no.
However, there were some submissions made about the time frame for panels to make their decisions and for panels to be convened, and the Government, in the Amendment Paper, has changed those provisions. There was a provision that would have stopped the discretion of panels to be able to invite comment from parties that they think are relevant. That discretion now remains, so the Amendment Paper that we have today has changed what was in the bill in response to very strong submissions. That is a good thing.
The outrageous provision would have enabled applicants for these very complex and potentially dangerous projects to shop around for their decision makers, and, of course, that would have totally undermined any semblance of a rigorous decision-making process. So it is good that that change has been removed by the Minister’s Amendment Paper, and it goes to the importance of having a process whereby you can hear submissions.
I am concerned that the people who make up the panels must have—there is a new phrase in there; as far as practicable, they must have “expertise”. I don’t know how we didn’t get through in the committee stage to how that expertise relates to the sector involved, but I was pleased to hear that that caveat does not apply to the environmental expertise that is required on those panels.
Those are some good things that happened. But it has been interesting, and I raised it in relation to another contribution that we heard from Ryan Hamilton in his second reading speech. He said that this bill was going to do better for supermarkets and that the Pak ‘N Save in Hamilton that has to pay for its own traffic upgrade, and I think he referenced a roundabout—and apologies if that is not what he said. He said that those supermarkets will no longer have to pay for that type of traffic upgrade. I’m interested in this because I haven’t heard any of the Ministers comment on that, and I don’t know where in the bill it is. But it goes back to this wider point of Government members saying that they say yes, yes, yes. What is it that they are saying yes, yes to? Are they saying, “Yes, yes, yes, ratepayers and taxpayers are going to have to pay for the privilege that a company is getting from being able to use the fast track?” And that is an argument that we’ve had in this House before. We do not think that there should be listed projects in the Act, because the Act enabled projects to go through even if they are otherwise permitted. It is dangerous and needs to change.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess we’re 46 hours into yesterday, and fatigue affects people in interesting ways, doesn’t it, which we’ve seen tonight, but—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I notice that, too, under urgency.
LAN PHAM: Thanks, Madam Chair. But I think what I would like to do with fatigue is actually, like, think about that bigger picture, because some of us here have to believe that it’s worth it—being here. I think what I reflect on with this bill in particular is what was going on yesterday and the day before in these very walls, in this building, and that was the cross-party international Antarctic gathering. I want to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Bayly in sharing that and bringing people together, it’s a real privilege to co-chair the New Zealand parliamentary group alongside him. But that brought together parliamentarians across the world with the sole purpose of getting together to re-energise and re-emphasise the importance of the Antarctic Treaty.
We met with scientists—again, from around the world—who came and shared their expertise about the importance of Antarctica. What we heard was that it’s remarkable, that it’s essential. It’s the coldest, driest place on our little world, and it’s the engine room of global climate. What we do, ultimately, around the planet affects Antarctica and vice versa; Antarctica’s influence on us is absolutely critical. We just rely on it to literally live.
What we know, and what the scientists were just tearing their hair out for us to actually hear, is that climate change is happening more rapidly than they could have ever imagined—were their words—even 10 years ago, and a lot of these scientists have careers over decades. They talked about temperature changing in Antarctica three times faster than the global average. It made me recall a trip that the Hon Rachel Brooking, Arena Williams, myself, and Scott Willis were on just the other week in Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—where we were hearing from local community members there about the change in their ocean temperature, where just in a week it had gone from 17 degrees Celsius to 21, and the result of that was a complete loss of life. We saw two gannets—two gannets—
Hon Simon Watts: There’s no gannets in the supermarket.
LAN PHAM:—and they said that usually in that strait, there’s complete boil-ups—
Hon Shane Jones: They’re looking after their babies—they’re babysitting.
LAN PHAM: —there’s life, there’s marine life.
Sam Uffindell: Is this the right bill?
LAN PHAM: Why I want to talk about that—again, see these members are all confused. Why are we actually talking about that? It’s because everything we do here influences Antarctica, and everything that happens there influences us because it’s all connected. You might not know that, but this is exactly why the scientists were pulling their hair out and so frustrated that we here, in this Chamber, don’t get it, and you’re demonstrating that exactly tonight.
Here’s the thing: our solutions depend on understanding the scope of the problem. We need good information and expertise and relevant community experience to actually make good decisions, and that’s exactly what is absent and lacking in this bill.
Every time the world has gotten to a place where we are, in our global climate trajectory—and the scientists wanted to make this really clear because it was questioned at the conference, they said, “Let me make it clear to you: every time this has happened, the highest order creatures became extinct. Can we have those conversations before it’s too late?” That’s all they want us to know.
It was really painful to hear, as a result after that, our Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, who’s here, talk about the heroism of the likes of Shackleton, the likes of Hillary, and they are heroic feats, but romanticising it when you literally have at your fingertips—sorry, the Minister literally has at his fingertips the ability to be the hero, to actually deliver, not only for New Zealanders but for the world.
This Government should be absolutely ashamed of this bill because we so desperately need them to act. We desperately need them not to turn the Denniston Plateau into a coal mine. We need them not to open-cast goldmine on the Bendigo Hills. We need them to reject Taranaki seabed mining, the same way that legal process after legal process has rejected it, and they should be ashamed that they are opening up pathways for that to happen.
If this bill is about supermarkets and public infrastructure, it would be a totally different scenario, but it’s not—it’s not. This Government needs to own that and understand their place in history and how shameful that is, because it comes to this broader issue of who influences this Government. It was particularly concerning to hear from the independent fast-track convenors, who are independent of the Environmental Protection Authority. They described this bill as a surprise. They said it was a surprise for them to see the tenor of some of these amendments, which appear to simply be driven by some kind of commentary to the Government that the process is not working.
Now, as Te Pāti Kākāriki, we totally reject this Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. We think it’s completely unacceptable to override community voice, to override just our basic environmental protections—that weren’t even succeeding in actually protecting the environment, and yet we’re overriding them. There’s still no guardrails, like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment painted so clearly for us.
I want to just take a moment to reflect very clearly on some of the voices that we heard, OK? Because 95 percent of people who took the time—despite all of these bills that come across in urgency and that are rammed through, they took the time to make a submission, and 95 percent of them said “Get lost.” The majority of the amendments that have gone through in this bill were only supported by current applicants and past applicants of the fast-track process. That is really embarrassing because it so clearly paints the picture of who is really in charge.
I want to shout-out to some people, like Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whakaue ki Maketu, because they saw that this bill risks irreversible harm to the ecosystems that sustain us.
Suze Redmayne: How?
LAN PHAM: Tinopai Resource Management Unit—do I hear “How?” Incredible.
Kia ora, Kaipara and Tinopai Resource Management Unit. You cannot fast track your way out of ecological collapse; you will only exacerbate it
I really want to invite those members who are questioning how this will damage the environment, to try understand your own legislation. It’s a big challenge, I know, but it’s a real offer.
This amendment bill is ultimately a bill of desperation. It’s a time where public sentiment is running out on this Government’s brutal attacks on nature and our shared commons that we all depend on and our economy is built on. It’s a betrayal of our longstanding identity and understanding as New Zealanders, that we are people of the land and the ocean, as tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti, we’ve ended up here together. Wouldn’t it be cool if we made the most of it? Wouldn’t it be cool if we actually took those heroics of our ancestors and actually applied them? We can evolve as people. This is not evolution; this is devolution. Now, whether we’re aware of our connection to nature and its absolute, essential place in our lives or not—or we’re in denial or whatever—we’re connected; we need to stop making dumb decisions.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, after half a speech of complete irrelevance, I’m here to stand up and talk on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. This bill is going to provide to New Zealanders some efficiency. I think of the Ōmanawa Bridge and the Tauriko connections that will get New Zealanders trying to get in and out of Tauranga, to our largest exporting port, moving faster, reducing pollution of cars sitting on the roads. I think of Ngā Pōtiki ā Tamapahore’s redevelopment of the Tara Road area so that we can have more houses in Pāpāmoa; also, the Wairakei South Bell Road development—thousands of homes and businesses will be created. I tell you what, Sam Uffindell, we are getting the Stella Passage sorted because of the Opposition—that was completely ridiculous—we are going to finally, after years of trying, assist an absolutely essential piece of New Zealand’s infrastructure. If we want to be a trading part of the world, we’ve got to have the stuff that does it. I could go on about re-consenting hydro in Kaingaroa, wind farms in Paeroa, but I’m going to leave it there. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A day of economic liberation has arrived. There will be a small range of critics against this bill, but let us just recount that the element, which has caused the opposite side of the House to recoil, actually comes from their own legislation. They passed a piece of legislation which, sadly, is destroying large parts of the economy—otherwise known as climate change legislation—and in that legislation is the opportunity for the Government of the day to use a general policy statement to indicate the direction of travel. To show the spirit of bipartisanship, we have borrowed that small device, and we will now have the Government able to affirm those sectors of the industry who are looking for leadership from the Government to create jobs, to create investment, and to grow the economy. There is nothing to fear. This general policy statement device will be judged within the statutory criteria, which people can challenge. That is how you grow an economy.
Now, of course, our side of the House has a different view than those who want to wrap the environment in some sort of ideological bubble paper. No, our focus is ensuring that the actual guard rails are consistent with not only the purpose of the statute, but we must grow our economy. Now, no doubt it will come to pass that Mr Bishop and the fine minds that have put together the replacement Resource Management Act. Of course, I had some modest association with that 35 years ago and, apparently, that was on television recently—34 years ago. There is a small change in anatomy. However, it shows greater wisdom can be measured in the size of the puku. Those changes provide an opportunity in the future, but we need a transition, and the fast track is a guaranteed transition. We also have the ability to ensure that iwi, such as Ngāi Tahu, don’t have their aspirations and their objectives hobbled or blighted. What happened is that they made an application called Hananui; three unelected, ill-prepared, hopefully, never to be seen again grandies destroyed that application, which is why the legislation ensures that imposters, those with fake competence, never have the opportunity to sit again and make decisions and undermine Māori endeavour. Of course, there have been some surprises, I have to say, in the development of the fast-track practice. Now, I knew, within Taranaki, there’d be the predictable banshees, very upset about progress; and then what’s happened? When they couldn’t beat me with intellect, they decided to invoke the Taranaki Mountain—Taranaki Mountain! They decided to enable the maunga to send off a puff of smoke. But the maunga has to come to the matua, not the other way round—not the other way round. This piece of legislation is going to open up the environment.
Now, you do need boldness, and you need courage to stand up, and nowhere have we seen a greater demonstration of that than by the Minister for Infrastructure. Turbocharge Energy! A nation that does not have an energy plan has no economic plan. Now, as this legislation accelerates the delivery of new sources of energy: coal, coal—please remember that famous saying from the Thatcher-era, “Coal before dole”. Now, it may sound awkward, and it may sound slightly jarring to the tender ears of those who bring Parliament pantomime, devices, and unnecessary rhetoric to the House every day, as opposed to us more moderate contributors. Gold, gold; and, in addition to that, critical minerals. Such things would never happen unless we had the farsighted authors and architects of this legislation. Now, inevitably there will be continued criticism, but you cannot grow rich by doing each other’s Green Party washing, or “greenwashing” our nation, or snaffling the nation in brown tape. That is why this is such an overdue development. Of course, it stands up for capitalism. That’s what defines this side of the House and those who want to live an ideological bubble wrap—socialists and communists! But it’s a contest of ideas—It’s a contest of ideas.
Now, I am willing to admit that there are contributions worthy of the intellect of Mickey Mouse, but we are not running the economy in a cartoonish way. We are going to the pith of the issue—international investors, domestic investors with confidence in our new overseas investment. Now, it is not us deploying the chilliness of Antarctica to freeze investment; it is the other side of the House. Now, I don’t believe that we’ll have to make any more refinements to this brilliant piece of legislation prior to the election, largely because they are going to be so busy, the three conveners—subject to their performance once or thrice; I might have called them the “three daughters of King Lear”. The fact that they had complained that we—presumably they were talking about one or three MPs, with myself included—had lost confidence in the process was a clear demonstration that the sovereignty of Parliament is beyond the tender mercies of the “three daughters of King Lear”, otherwise known as the convenors. They are paid to do a job, which is administrative, and to apply the law in such a way that the black-letter meaning of the law trumps any other fantasies or any other concoctions which only seek to scare and intimidate those people who want to create a better future. Nowhere is that future needed more than in Taranaki.
The last regime, as you know, destroyed the oil and gas industry. Not content with doing that, they destroyed and sold Marsden Point—closed it down and sold it down the river. What do we see in the Schedule? An opportunity to reinvigorate those areas. Now, what could possibly be wrong with that? Some might say you’re trampling on the rights of the hapū and the tangata whenua of their takutai moana. Those rights play second fiddle to the purpose of this statute, which is based on cohesiveness, collective strength, and growing the economy. No single hapū has a veto right to trample or hobble the development of our nation. That is why my name is resounding from Port Waikato right down to Waikanae through the vast swathe of Taranaki. But, look, I don’t want to sound too triumphant. I don’t want to sound unnecessarily immodest. I just want to put on the record that this piece of legislation was wisely inserted into the negotiations in 2023 by my leader, Winston Peters, because he could see that the last regime had a contribution, otherwise known as fast track, but it was stymieing, it was hobbling, and it was it was covering the ambitions to grow the country in ideological treacle. We are a common-sense bunch of contributors, and common sense shows us that, yes, we ought to observe the existing Treaty of Waitangi settlements, but they must contribute to the growth of the nation.
Now, sadly, development, frogs, bats, and birds all have to enjoy the cleansing experience of trade-off. Trade-offs are what is necessary in order to grow your economy. It doesn’t say that we’re declaring war on nature. Freddie: Freddie’s not going to die—occasionally in the departure lounge once or thrice. We’ve got to stop all this catastrophisation, which is why Mr Bishop has delivered an overdue dose of common sense. With the small amendments and refinements, including competitiveness in the supermarket sector, who could possibly complain for those who are interested in the patriotic development of our nation? Now, there will be a small group who believe that iwi separatism is the proper construction or interpretation of the Treaty. They can’t even get 1 percent of support. How can they talk about sovereignty when their own sovereignty in their party is fatally cracked? It’s like an egg. The egg soon addles and rots once the shell is cracked, and, sadly, that egg is not only cracked, but please turn the lights out because the party is over.
Coming back, our party and this Minister, with a long experience in economic development, resource management, and the most authoritative voice in the recent history of Māori development, support this bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Look, I don't want to come across as unnecessarily modest, but what I do want to do is share with the House this story. It's a story about a big man with a key, and let's just call this big man Matua. Matua has the key and he's gone out and he's promised everyone: “Don't worry about anything because I have the key for opportunity and prosperity for all.”—and he locked them all out of the house. Well, he took his big key and this big man Matua went and proceeded into his house. This is a true story, by the way.
He said, “Not only am I going to fix up this place; I'm going to cut all the red tape, all of it. And I'm going to be able to mine on your whenua, I'm going to be able to drill on your maunga, and I'm going to be able to do whatever I want in your moana. But I've got the key. Don't worry; you just trust me because I am unnecessarily modest.” And one of the things he told all his whānau and his hapū and his iwi: “Wait outside. Wait, wait, wait, because I have got a reputation like no one else, from Waikato all the way down to Te Tai Tonga. I am the one percenter of every percenter that you ever percent and need to know. Inside this house, this big man Matua walked around and he changed it with this dream and this vision that he had concocted up one night in a really lonely motel room. He said, “I am going to do with this—I am going to play with this as I want, and no one is going to stop me.”
So many of the people, they kept knocking on the door: “Matua, Matua, let us in! It's getting cold. We've been outside. You know, we told you we trust you. You're cutting red tape. Let us in.” He said, “No. Taranaki, you trust me. I know what I'm doing because I am the unnecessary modest uncle.”
Anyway, they waited and they waited and they waited and they finally got to have a sneak back into their house, but when they got in, they didn't recognise it because it didn't look like anything they'd ever seen before in their life. Not only had he slaughtered the w’enua, not only had he polluted the moana; there was no maunga. There was no maunga left, and that is what Matua left for the mokopuna.
Now, there's a story behind this, because I come from Taranaki, as some people in here tonight do as well, and we've spent 12 years fighting against those types of matuas who make promises—huge promises: “Let us come in and mine, mine, mine; drill, baby, drill. Milk Mother Earth for all we can.” My God, I sound like him. My point being, 12 years of fighting and fighting—not hapū—divers, fishing sector, community members, people who love their coastal life. Not all Māori, not all hapū has sat there and fought and fought to protect their ocean for the mere fact that they believe that every New Zealander should be able to live in their coastal homes, live in their coastal areas, eat of their moana, swim in the moana, have their mokopuna enjoy the pleasures of their taonga.
But, no, ones like Matua fought and fought and said, “We must let the Trans-Tasman resources come in. They won in the High Court. They won in the Supreme Court. They won in the Court of Appeal. They won in everyone's hearts and souls. But you know what? It doesn't matter how they played their game; there was legislation that came through from Government that told them: “We don't care what you think, community, because I have the key for your environment. I am going to shake it up and make it like you've never known before.”
“But we don't want it”, the community said, as they were locked outside during this fast-track situation. I walked into the House just after missing—I'm not sure what it was—this really theatrical drama dressed up as leadership telling us that this is all about cutting red tape, being practical, and growing Aotearoa New Zealand. But you cannot and you should not grow anything if you are locking the communities, if you are locking the iwi out, if you are locking those who have spent a lifetime having pride of where they are and where they live. It is not progress. That is not nationhood, and that is what fast track has done. It has put people into situations they should never ever have been. We should never be a nation sitting here listening to someone telling us: “Trust me, I have the key, and my ministerial power, my power to hold that key, will matter to more than anyone else in the world because I am to be trusted.” That has never worked in Taranaki before in the past, and it won't work for seabed mining as well. We absolutely oppose this.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): As the Green Party, we of course oppose this legislation. It’s really difficult standing here to speak to these amendments that have been dressed up as a bill that is here to address supermarket competition, with only a few minor, technical changes, when actually the changes are going to have fundamental impacts for us in the kāinga. Fundamentally, we will be undermined as tangata whenua to exercise our rangatiratanga over our taonga, our assets, and our rawa, takutai moana and our whenua.
It’s really hard to sit here and listen also to the way in which the Government demeans us as tangata whenua and pooh-poohs the way that we will be made second-class citizens in the fast-track process, as we will see the elevation of local government to being the voice of our community, above hapū and iwi, above environmental advocates and community groups, and above the local ratepayers and residents. That’s what’s happening in this legislation. Our communities don’t know that that’s the depth by which this legislation will fundamentally change the fast track.
The applicants are being put in the driver’s seat. The applicants are going to be the ones who get to call the shots as to how long the deliberations will be on fast-track applications in our communities. As hapū and iwi, if we even get a chance to comment on these applications, we’ll only have 15 days’ turn-around. Now, that’s criminal. That is criminal when you know that we can barely survive normal Resource Management Act processes, let alone have to enter into this truncated process and try to respond with technicians and legal advice within a 15-day turn-around.
That’s if local government doesn’t undermine us as tangata whenua or the community by taking up that space as the voice for our full rohe and communities. This fast track is on steroids. That’s what it is doing. It is so unworkable, and that’s why local government has kicked back. Local government came into the submissions and said it is unworkable, and I mihi to the Far North District Council, who said the changes are going to significantly impact hapū, iwi, and community as the affected party, because their expertise and their experience in communities will be locked out. Don’t act like local government supports this, either.
This Government is also ignoring the advice that its own independent panel conveners are giving. The independent panel conveners said the proposed time frames are simply unworkable: for many of the processes that are going to happen, the outcomes need to come from the earlier steps, so as you start to truncate and make things happen concurrently, you’re actually going to put the process at risk and prejudice and compromise the quality of the outcome.
Let’s talk about zombie projects. Just like in Taranaki, we’ve got Bream Bay sandmining. We’ve got the McCallum Bros. They’re a retro throwback that got thrown out of Pākiri. Let’s just remember that those McCallum Bros got thrown out only in 2024, and now they’re creeping their way into Bream Bay—creeping their way into Bream Bay—and through their bros in the Government are going to file just before Christmas because they’re “back on track”. They’ve got their bros in the Government, because this Government prioritises the corporates over the local hau kāinga, over the community, and over those who are going to be most impacted.
When Bream Bay sandmining starts, the impact will be intergenerational, and shame on this Government. Shame on them when they say that this about economic development and opportunity.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
We don’t need any sand from Bream Bay. We’ve got all the reports in the world. Our community has mobilised and pulled out all these technical reports that say we’ve got plenty of sand in Northland, and you can also manufacture sand now with this new technology from out of the whenua. You don’t need to go into Bream Bay, but, no, because they’ve got the ear of the Government, this legislation is just giving it to them on a plate. That’s what is despicable about it.
Iwi like Patuharakeke, Ngātiwai, Te Parawhau, and our community, like the Bream Bay Guardians, are trying their best to mobilise, and there will be trouble. I tell you, when this comes out, and it’s going to be so quick, it’s going to be like a thief in the night, for sure, because you’ve only got 15 days to respond. That is horrible for any community group. You can’t even say that councils are ready for it. There is no resource for council to respond within 15 days, either, and they’ve got massive infrastructure compared with community, massive compared with hapū and iwi. That’s what’s so sad about it. It’s that the fishhooks in the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill is a rip off—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, this is an exciting day for New Zealanders. We are fast-laning supermarkets, putting more competition so we can get a better deal for New Zealand shoppers. We want to get things built in this country, grow jobs, and grow the economy, and this is what fast-track is all about: it’s going for growth; it’s good for the economy; it’s good for New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure where to start after that contribution, given that the member who resumed her seat was the chair of the select committee that considered this bill, but I will begin. Despite submissions being open for just 10 days—a unilateral decision by the chair of the committee—there were over 2,500 submissions that were made by individuals and by groups to the Environment Committee on this; 85 of them appeared in person, fifteen hours of hearings were done, and we’re back here for the rest of the process through urgency; 95 percent of submitters opposed this bill. Numerous submitters made mention of the rushed process, the fact that there wasn’t enough time for them to consider the changes contained in this bill. They talked about the weakened environmental protections contained in the bill, the fact that it would reduce community input into the process, and the increased ministerial power that this legislation would confer upon the Government.
Yet, anyone who was listening to contributions from members opposite, started off by Nicola Willis in an increasingly theatrical performance, who talked about the fact that this is just about increasing supermarket competition, that this was an Opposition that was voting against development more broadly, that we’re voting against efficiency, and this is all about strengthening the economy. One could be forgiven for thinking that members on this side of the House are anti-growth, but there’s nothing that is further from the truth. In fact, it was Labour in Government who started work on increasing grocery competition that of course members opposite seem to have conveniently forgotten in a little bit of political amnesia that we’re seeing from members opposite.
Now, the original Fast-Track Approvals Bill was described as an assault on environmental protections, and for good reason, because that is a piece of legislation that allows projects that have been previously rejected on the grounds that they override environmental protections to be resurrected through this project. It allows projects to circumvent the previous environmental rejections on grounds that they weren’t rejected on. Twenty thousand people marched against that bill on Queen Street alone, largely because it concentrated ministerial power. It allowed three Ministers to veto decisions of their own independent panel. Then the Government backtracked. They decided that there was so much opposition to that particular part of the bill—well, the bill in general, but that particular bit that was the worst. They backtracked and they decided to reverse that particular provision such that Ministers couldn’t override the decision of the panel.
Then we come to this amendment bill, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. I want to make some mention of changes that were made during the committee of the whole House stage. Given the rushed process that we have already traversed with regard to the submissions process for this bill, it meant that there was no revision-tracked version of the bill accompanying the select committee report-back. It meant that submitters’ concerns couldn’t be given the adequate consideration that they should be given by officials. It meant, basically, that it curtailed the job that we could do on that select committee.
However, I do want to acknowledge that the Minister responsible for this bill has taken some of that feedback into consideration and introduced amendments at the committee of the whole stage. For example, the ministerial overreach into the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) decisions is partially restricted as a result of the amendments, and that means that the Minister will no longer be given the power to be able to direct the EPA in relation to its independent function. That is an important change that came through submitters, and I want to acknowledge that that was made.
The second amendment that was introduced at the committee stage that is a good one is the fact that panels will now retain the ability to be able to seek relevant advice and expertise, and that means that they can bring in that expertise to be able to inform the decision making that they are in charge of. In the past, there have been situations where the likes of the Environmental Defence Society and Forest & Bird have been brought in and they have provided some really valuable feedback that has directed the decision making of that panel, and so I acknowledge that that reversal has been made by this Government at the committee stage. None of those, of course, could be examined by the select committee because they were only introduced to the House at the committee of the whole stage, but none the less, they have been done.
However, one of the most egregious components of this bill remains, and that is the ability for the Minister to come up with a Government policy statement, or a GPS. That is the ability for the Minister to have unfettered power to create whatever it is that the Minister wants to put into a GPS. The only fettering, as it were, of that power, the only guardrail, is for the Minister to consult with other Ministers and then publish that GPS. For example, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) has noted that this will “make the approval of applications almost inevitable, by providing the Minister with a mechanism to insert tailor-made government policy statements to which weight must be given by panels”. That means, for example, and as EDS notes, Ministers will have the ability to create this GPS and the only consideration for that is that the projects must have regional or national benefits and that panels must take these statements into account when making decisions.
There are no guardrails about what those GPSs can contain. So, for example, if an open cast mine in one of the top 50 most ecologically valuable sites across Aotearoa is considered an infrastructure project that has regional or national benefits, then it can be allowed through a Government policy statement. And that’s what people are worried about: that land that should be protected will be opened up in the name of economic growth and efficiency.
The other issues that submitters have raised that have persisted through the passage of this bill through this House is the reductions in statutory time limits for both referral applications and substantive applications. That just means that the panel considering these applications has less time to be able to take into account some of the more complex issues to do with those. That’s been raised by a number of submitters at the select committee stage of this as well. There are also restrictions on appeal rights that are retained in this bill and that means that legal challenges by people or groups that an expert panel chooses to invite to comment on would need to use the more much more costly and time-consuming process of judicial reviews.
The final point that I’ll make that I did raise during the committee stage as well that we find problematic on this side of the House is the “Henry VIII” clause that is retained within this bill. That allows the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to amend the description of a project that is listed in Schedule 2 of this bill. What it really means is that the Government of the day can choose to change the project description or the geographical description of that project unilaterally, in a sense. It circumvents this Parliament, which we feel is the appropriate forum to make such changes that are substantive. We would have preferred that the “Henry VIII” clause, if it was retained, was limited to just technical amendments or factual corrections. The likes of BusinessNZ have made such submissions to that effect as well, and I would actually support that. To give the Minister credit, he did go into a fair bit of detail to explain that and the thought process behind retaining that clause. He felt that there were enough or sufficient limitations with regard to the scope that was contained within the bill. However, on this side, we would have liked to have seen it limited further.
Ultimately, in the time that I have remaining, the point that I will make is that members on the Government benches wax lyrical about strengthening the economy, the fact that this is a bill that just increases supermarket competition, that it’s just about efficiency. They seem to be completely blinded to the fact that there are a number of other changes contained within this legislation that will reduce and weaken our environmental protections. What they’re doing is engaging in the false dichotomy between the economy and the environment. There is no sustainable economy without a healthy environment.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about yes, yes, yes: yes to a supermarket in Kaitaia, yes to a four-lane highway to Whangārei, but, most importantly—guess what?—yes to a new road over the Brynderwyns, because that’s what Northland needs. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call—the Hon Ginny Andersen.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill’s changes the initial fast-track bill from back in, I think it was, December last year. That was the bill, I recall, for which the companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects gave around half a million dollars in political donations to National, the ACT Party, and New Zealand First.
This bill expediates things for those people; they had some feedback from those people, and, in fact, the bill itself says that they’re trying to improve that process. This bill includes specific technical changes to that original Act “and its processes, informed by feedback from the current system users. These amendments are aimed at improving system efficiency by reducing time frames, duplication, and unnecessary costs, improving clarity for applicants and other system users”. It’s making that streamline even better for those who are protecting existing interests and marginalising communities—marginalising those who want to have a say about what’s going on in their own area.
Trying to tell New Zealanders right now that this is somehow going to bring down the price of a block of butter or that it’s going to make your groceries more affordable in a cost of living crisis is an absolute joke. This is a fast track to mates being given a pathway through community consultation by bypassing environmental protections, by bypassing any consultation with iwi, and by enabling those same people to benefit even more from what they have been. It means that there is a quicker pathway into doing that without talking to the very people who are directly impacted by some of these changes.
While, yes, we definitely want to see more supermarket competition—that’s great—I’m yet to hear from one of the lengthy and wonderful speeches delivered about how this bill will actually provide cheaper prices at the supermarkets for those families that can’t pay for the food that they used to be able to afford. They go in with the wages they earn at the end of the week and go to buy things like meat, which is currently unaffordable to a whole bunch of people in the area I live in. They can’t afford to buy children milk; they can’t afford to buy decent wholemeal bread. Those are the things that are impacting upon our communities right now, and fast tracking approvals for your mates isn’t going to make the people in Wainuiōmata able to afford milk, butter, cheese, and bread—it’s simply not. This is an absolute Trojan horse of a bill because, instead, the focus is on reducing participation and making it even more difficult for a panel to decline an environmentally damaging project. It’s selling out from underneath people the taonga that is our land and cashing it up for an absolutely minimal benefit back to communities in the long term.
So many of the things that this Government has done have been a sugar high, a dead cat bounce—it gives you a few seconds of excitement. Down the line for New Zealand’s future—having a future that actually works for us and works for our people; that puts into a long-term plan how we will grow our country and grow our economy; that makes sure our people earn decent wages; that they have a job that actually does that, and that they can afford a home that they’re proud of and they can live in; that their kids can get a doctor and they can get into the doctor and actually get healthcare—those are the things that we should be working for, not fast tracking the 12 different companies that all donated to your parties in the first bill and actually enabling this process in the door.
I fail to see how this will materially make a difference to those New Zealanders right now who were promised by this Government that they would take action on the cost of living. Instead, what do we have? A self-serving bill—a Trojan horse of a bill—that says it’s about improving supermarket competition. Well, what we have seen is prices at the supermarket that mean people are standing outside the supermarket without being able to afford the food that’s inside, and that is what will continue. While your Prime Minister might say that this is a two-stage recovery, it’s one stage for you, and there’s one stage for the rest of New Zealand. They’re not the ones that will benefit from this Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. They will not be the communities that have any real benefits coming out of these changes, but they are the people who will be shut out of voting in your bill coming up later on, and we’ll be mobilising all of those communities to vote this Government out for the fact that it does not serve New Zealand or our communities one iota.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just feel I need to correct the record, because Rachel Brooking was quoting me earlier and I think she didn’t mean to misrepresent what I said, but she that I was saying that Pak’nSave wouldn’t pay for an existing roundabout, or supermarkets wouldn't need to pay for associated infrastructure. Under fast track, they still do—my point was that it's the consent, the delay, the time. That cost accumulates, and that cost gets passed on to the consumer. So that's why I support fast track, and I commend the go to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Yeah, it's not a pleasure to stand and rise and speak to this piece of legislation. Let me begin, and let me actually share some thoughtful and thoughtful points on this legislation, which is hard to do because it's no pleasure to stand, yet again, in this House and to speak on fast track.
Fast track, which we've heard about a number of times from the side of the House, has been something that we have not been against, because fast track was something that was part of our Resource Management Act reforms that we did in the last Government. Fast track, which is part of legislation that we did in the last two Parliaments; fast track is not the issue here. The issue here is around fast-tracking and ignoring things such as the environment and, I would say—and go as far as—democracy.
It was noted quite clearly in the submissions, in the 95 percent of submissions who opposed this legislation: they said this overrides the challenges that we have in our democracy. Democracy is a challenging and a fragile thing. We need to be working as hard as we can in this House to make sure that we protect democracy and protect people’s perception of what we do and why we do it. As my previous colleague spoke of in terms of who funds what, who does what, what gets passed through this house is a challenge—
Hon Damien O'Connor: Join the dots.
GLEN BENNETT: Join the dots—thank you, the Hon Damien O'Connor, because that is true. Join the dots and you'll see all the paths that lead to the reason we're here tonight debating, again, this debacle of a piece of legislation.
It's the Trojan horse of this: “It's all about supermarkets. It's all wonderful.” There was a comment made earlier about fast-laning supermarkets. I'm not even sure what “fast-laning supermarkets” means, but that’s what was said, “fast-laning supermarkets”. What I say is that what we need to think about here is around why, if it's around fast-laning supermarkets, it's not even mentioned once in this legislation. Why didn’t they bring a bill to the House that is around fast-laning supermarkets? Why didn’t they bring a piece of legislation to the House to create cheaper supermarket prices for people at the supermarket checkouts?
But no, they're not. They're not, because this is not about fast-tracking supermarkets. This is not about making our grocery prices cheaper. This is, yet again, another Trojan horse from this Government that is doing what they can to ignore environmental protections, ignore democracy, ignore community engagement, ignore iwi—ignore anyone except for their mates, except for the people that look after them and line their pockets.
When I look at this legislation, I think very carefully—I listened very carefully in the select committee to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who talked about the removal of guardrails; how dangerous, yet again, this legislation is to protectionism of what we hold dear in New Zealand, which is “100% Pure New Zealand”. As the spokesperson in Labour for tourism and hospitality, it is important to consider our second-largest export—it'll be our largest again very soon, I know—but we need to consider the fact that “100% Pure New Zealand” is the brand that we sell to the world.
It's around “100% Pure New Zealand”; 100 percent pure glaciers and mountain ranges. It's around 100 percent our food story, our cultural story. It's around 100 percent our environmental story and our climate story—of what we have that no one else has, that we must protect. Because that is about GDP; that is about jobs; that is about growth, which this Government talks about so much. That is why their Minister for Tourism and Hospitality has put together a 10-year road map for the tourism and hospitality sector, which is around protecting, which is around making sure, that people come to Aotearoa for that experience.
This legislation—yet again, this legislation, yet again, is going to undermine that “100% Pure New Zealand” brand that is known globally. We need to think very carefully about this, because I was in Central Otago—I heard that someone said, I'm not sure if they said “bunker”; it might have been another word—but I was in Central Otago recently. The challenge there is for our wine industry; the challenge there is for our stone fruit industry; the challenge there is for our tourism industry in Central Otago, who spoke to me and are very concerned about fast track around mining and the implication that has for the hundreds of millions of dollars, to the thousands of jobs that are created in those industries in Central Otago, in places like Cromwell. That's where you've got things like arsenic, when you've got things like dust, when you've got things like the challenges of open-cast mining, and what they will do. That money goes to those overseas investors—and people say “What a load of rubbish.”, but when you work and live in those spaces, when you're the champions, when you're the local tourism organisations who say, “This is wrong and we need to do something about it”, what is the—
Hon Mark Patterson: They’re old mining areas! They’re old mines!
Steve Abel: Wines, not mines!
GLEN BENNETT: That’s right. This is a concern, and we hear the rebuttals across the floor, but we need to stand strong and stand tall. As was said previously, I walked down Queen Street last year against the Fast-track Approvals Bill—number one. The reason I did that, and the reason I stand here this evening to speak against this piece of legislation, is around how do we put things in place? How do we lift our gaze beyond today and a quick sugar fix for today; how do we lift our gaze for tomorrow and what our future will look like—what our future will look like?
With something like this, where we just override environmental standards, where we just kind of step in the way and ignore community engagement—and, as I said, we are not opposed to fast track, because we implemented fast track when we were in Government previously. But it's around—you can do both. You can have fast track, and you can have environmental protections at the same time. You can have fast track, and you can protect democracy at the same time. You can have fast track, and you can engage with iwi, you can engage with community, and you can engage with key stakeholders.
We need to consider that: that it's not just about a loose and quick and “Let's just rush off and say this is all about just building more supermarkets and making things cheaper.”—because it is not, in the long run. We need to figure out and find ways to innovate and change how we run our country and what our GDP is all about. The Hon Nicola Willis, in her opening remarks to the third reading—all she talked about was saving money at the checkouts. It's all about supermarkets, this legislation. Well, again, it's not mentioned once in the bill—not mentioned once. One thing is mentioned once, sorry: that is “groceries”—but that is all. That is all.
Then we heard, as the afternoon rolled on and we came into the evening, it was, you know, “We’re not about the no, no, no; we're about the yes, yes, yes.”, and “We're all about the yes. We're all about the yes.” I can see Mr MacLeod across the a floor there, the previous chair of the Taranaki Regional Council, who was all about the “yes” to look after our environment, was all about the “yes” to look after our rivers, was all about the “yes” to look after our environments and our economy—because they can go hand in hand. They can be hand in glove. We don't just want to throw the baby out with the bath water and rush ahead.
We are about “yes”; we're about protecting democracy and saying yes to democracy. We're about protecting our environment and saying “yes” to the environment. We are saying “yes” to productivity. The fact that, also, we heard so many times in speeches from the other side was around consenting renewable energy. Wind farms: well, there's bundles of them already consented that are just sitting there. This rhetoric from the Government that this is going to unlock all of these new wind farms—there’s bundles of them already there. We cannot support this bill. It is terrible.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think we just heard a trip down memory lane. The member opposite doesn't even know that it's called an express lane in a supermarket, because they don't know how to get things done. They don't know what doing things quickly means. This is about consenting an express lane for a supermarket. It's also about demonstrating an express lane for getting things done on the Government benches. That's what we're doing, and therefore I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill 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.
Bills
Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is there a legislative statement?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee, especially the chair and vice-chair, for their time and effort in considering this bill and for returning it to the House prior to the revoking of the current regulations on farrowing crates and mating stalls. I also want to acknowledge the submitters who took their time to express their views on this bill.
This bill will mean pig farmers will operate under new animal welfare standards that will be amongst the most highest in the world and, most importantly, where they will, finally, have some regulatory certainty so that they can invest in their business and their animals.
The bill proposes three key changes to regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, and will ensure that we have massively strengthened animal welfare rules, as well as have a viable New Zealand pork sector. Changes to Regulation 25 will increase the minimum space requirements for grower pig by 13.3 percent. This increased space provides sufficient room for pigs to lie comfortably, move freely, avoid other pigs, and gives room for separate dunging areas.
With Regulation 26, the bill decreases the maximum period that sows may be confined in crates, down from 33 days at the moment, to a maximum of three days prior to farrowing, and four days post-farrowing. It will also ensure that sows must be provided with manipulatable and deformable materials in all cases. Provision of these materials is an important addition to farrowing practices, as this enables sows the opportunity to perform their strong drive to engage in nesting behaviours. These changes will optimise welfare outcomes for sows and piglets. The rules will limit the amount of time that sows can be confined in crates, to focus on when the piglets are most vulnerable during their first few days of life, while also managing the risk of them being crushed or savaged.
The other key change is to Regulation 27, which sets the requirements for the use of mating stalls. Currently, sows may be confined in mating stalls for up to one week per cycle. This restricts their normal behaviours of social interaction and free movement. The bill reduces this to three hours at any one time. These changes reflect good practice and can be implemented by pig farmers relatively quickly.
The proposals in the bill are consistent with the purposes of the Act. The Act requires that animals’ physical health and behavioural needs are met, including the opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour and protection from and rapid diagnosis of any significant injury or disease. The Act takes a welfare-based approach, allowing the humane treatment of animals when kept for food, research, or entertainment. The Act is deliberate in this way and does not take an animal rights approach that would not allow humans to benefit from keeping animals. From that animal welfare perspective, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) determined that the temporary crate use meets the obligations of the Act.
In bringing these proposals forward, I’m required to ensure that the changes are in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge. MPI has considered good practice and scientific knowledge in the development of these regulations and is satisfied that the proposals meet the purposes of the Act.
This topic has long been a contentious issue of debate. I acknowledge that a good number of people opposed the bill at select committee, with a particular focus on the proposal to allow the continued use of farrowing crates. In general, those submitters believed the industry should transition to free-farrowing systems without crating. I further acknowledge, for many, that the idea of animals being in environments where they’re not roaming free in green grass is not what they have in mind for farming in New Zealand. What I say to those people is that the much more limited use of farrowing crates that we will have is the best outcome for animal welfare, because it balances the welfare of the sow and the piglet.
In submissions, the pork sector did show strong support for the proposals in the bill, but they also acknowledged that the transition would not be easy. I understand that there was agreement from most submitters on the proposal to limit the use of mating stalls, and that few submitters engaged on the proposal to increase spacing requirements for grower pigs. So I’m aware these changes may not be agreed by everyone, but I have considered all the factors and have concluded they are necessary.
The proposals in the bill align with New Zealand’s international obligations and will uphold our reputation as a country with high animal welfare standards. In most European countries, Australia, the United States of America, and Canada, the use of farrowing crates is allowed for up to four weeks. The passage of this bill will take us beyond those countries in terms of the welfare of pigs. I have heard from submitters that New Zealand should be emulating Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland that have transitioned to free farrowing systems. However, even in these countries, they still allow the limited use of farrowing crates when a sow is restless or aggressive. Unlike producers in many other countries, pig farmers in New Zealand operate without subsidies and they are a pretty small sector in comparison to the industries in most other countries. The changes in this bill will maintain New Zealand’s international reputation and consumer confidence in our production standards.
To achieve the best balance between high standards of animal welfare and supporting farmers, I will be proposing two minor amendments to the bill, via an Amendment Paper. First, the transition period for mating stall requirements. In its current form, the bill proposes providing a 10-year transition period before the new requirements on mating stalls, farrowing crates, and space requirements for grower pigs come into effect on 19 December 2035. Applying the 10-year transition across all three matters was intended to provide clarity and simplify the transition period for pig farmers.
To comply with the new requirements for mating stalls, farmers will only need to change farm practices; no new equipment or buildings will be required. As such, I’ll be presenting an Amendment Paper to the committee of the whole House to reduce the transition period for Regulation 27 from 10 years to one year, meaning the new requirements will come into effect on 19 December 2026. I consider that this proposal strikes an appropriate balance between achieving high standards of animal welfare and providing sufficient time for farmers to implement changes to their practices. I expect there will be broad acceptable from industry to this change, and others will be pleased to see an improvement to the animal welfare outcomes occurring earlier.
The second change is around record-keeping requirements for farrowing crates. The new Regulation 26 will require records to be kept about how farmers comply with farrowing rules. It is planned to come into force after 10 years. These record-keeping requirements are to address a gap in the current regulations. I propose shortening the time for these record-keeping requirements to come into force on 19 December 2026. This will increase transparency and trust in the pork industry and provide greater assurance that farmers are meeting minimum required standards.
In conclusion, this bill supports a transition to massively strengthened animal welfare standards for pig farmers, in accordance with good practice and scientific evidence. It strikes an important balance between high standards of animal welfare and maintaining a thriving and productive pork sector. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It’s not really a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Just to confirm to the House that the Labour Party will continue to oppose this bill as it makes its way through the Parliament.
I’m going to just spend some time focusing in on the select committee process in particular, because we are at second reading and because we’re in urgency we’ll be getting an opportunity in the morning to interrogate the bill a lot further around the committee of the whole House stage. I do want to talk to some of the frustrations around that select committee process throughout this speech.
Before I do that, I’m going to talk to what led us here. It’s important that the background to this bill is actually put on record, because there has been a long process to get us here. Unfortunately, what happens when we are putting this bill through the House, is we do not have that agreement between industry and animal welfare organisations that we should have and that we need to ensure we have certainty for industry. The Minister has talked about the need for industry to have certainty, but if the Minister was actually clear about wanting that, there would have been a far greater consultative period over the last year or so, including working properly across the House, including working properly with animal welfare organisations to get agreements so that we can have that certainty. I’ll talk to that a bit more detail later.
The background to this is that in 2020 there was a court case in New Zealand, which found that the regulations around pig welfare were unlawful and invalid, essentially that they were inconsistent with the Animal Welfare Act. That was a case that was taken by the Animal Law Association. Cabinet was left with a situation where the High Court said that current practices were unlawful and action needed to be taken. Cabinet then agreed to new regulations with a phase out period that would allow the continued use of farrowing crates and mating stall systems for five years. As others have noted, the Minister has noted, those temporary regulations are due to expire next week on 18 December 2025.
What the Government then did was during the period around 2022 in particular, there was a significant amount of consultation lead by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) with industry, with stakeholders, with animal welfare organisations on a range of options that would improve animal welfare for pigs. Those standards were consulted on during 2022. At that point we had a change of Government. The frustration from this side of the House is that instead of pursuing the advice from NAWAC at that time and providing at that point the certainty to industry, nothing happened.
Now, we know now from hearing the Minister talk to select committee and give some more detail about what did happen behind the scenes, is that MPI then did some targeted consultation with the pork industry, and lo and behold, some legislation was then put on the table recently. Funnily enough, what was put on the table matched exactly what the pork industry had requested. There was a press release from the Minister announcing that there were going to be improvements to pig welfare and wasn’t this a wonderful thing. The problem with that—there are two major problems, which we discovered at that point. The first was that those standards aren’t due to be improved for 10 whole years.
Now, I disagree entirely with the Minister that the industry needs 10 years—10 years to transition. I do agree it needs time to transition. I do agree with that, but ten years is far too long, and when we get to the committee of the whole House, the House will note that there have been a series of amendments put forward to bring that time frame back down to a better period of time, because 10 years is too long for any improvements to animal welfare for pigs.
The second part that came through clearly was that the actual improvements to farrowing crates, mating stalls. and for grower pigs was significantly weaker than what had been proposed during the consultation led by MPI and NAWAC in 2022. Instead of being consistent and sticking with the options that had been put forward, it appears—and I think when things look like a duck and sound like a duck and quack like a duck, they’re probably a duck—that some last-minute lobbying from the pork industry has led to a bill being introduced that matches the exact views of the pork industry.
Now, we get to some further concerns. The SPCA who—as I said in my first reading speech, and I’ll put it on record again—are New Zealand’s largest reputable animal welfare organisation in New Zealand. They have a responsibility to actually administer the Animal Welfare Act. They are pragmatic, they are sensible, they are based on science, they have people with significant skills sitting around their workplace. The SPCA asked the Minister multiple times during their meetings what is happening around the pig regulations. Instead of being brought into the conversation, they were completely sidelined.
Steve Abel: Blindsided.
RACHEL BOYACK: Completely—absolutely, Steve Abel, blindsided.
Again, I say in the Labour Party, what we want to see is certainty for this industry. We cannot get certainty if laws have been decided and determined without the input of New Zealand’s largest animal welfare organisation. It just isn’t good enough. I stand here saying that the pork industry and the animal welfare organisations should both have input into this. It’s not about allowing one to have more input than the other; it’s about ensuring everybody who has an interest in this is at the table. That may lead to some compromise, that may lead to everybody being willing to give way a little, but that is not what has happened here.
The next frustration which I’m going to speak to is around the select committee process. Now, the Select Committee process was truncated—it was truncated. Now, the Minister made a massive boo boo when he introduced the bill to the House and wanted a report back date in February. It was very clear that would have exposed industry to legal risk from 18 December due to the report back and then the ultimate passage of the bill. We would have been left with a legislative gap. Acknowledge that. However, the Minister made that mistake. The committee then decided to report back earlier, and as a result, we had a truncated process.
Now, the frustration with that is that there has been a lot of disputes around the science with regard to sow welfare and piglet welfare. I’m going to talk to that a little bit, because what has happened is that MPI, led by their chief science adviser, who was also the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, John Roche, has put in place a science summary. Now, if people read from animal welfare scientists—and we will come to this when we get into the committee of the whole House in a lot more detail and ask the Minister a lot of questions. Scientists have been scathing of that summary. There has been the suggestion made that we need to make a trade-off between sow and piglet welfare.
Actually, if you listen to the expertise from animal welfare scientists, people who have worked in this field, people who have worked for MPI, people who work for the SPCA, actually, there is recent science and research showing—if we specifically talk about farrowing crates, that, actually, farrowing crates and the removal of them, there actually is not that much difference in the outcomes for piglets. The suggestion—the suggestion—that farrowing crates are good for piglets is actually disputed.
The frustration—we will get to that in the committee of the whole House, and very keen to table some of the scientific documents that we have on this—is that the Select Committee process—look forward to the detailed submissions from the other side on this bill. The frustration is that the select committee process was so truncated and shortened, the Parliament of this House has not been able to do its due diligence on that particular matter of dispute.
We will be here for a long time tomorrow with a lot of questions for the Minister. We look forward to that debate; look forward to significant contributions from the other side tonight. I do not commend this bill to the House.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a piece of legislation that goes against the welfare science for animals. It goes against the law and the courts, it goes against public opinion, and it goes against industry certainty. In every sense, it is a pig’s breakfast.
Todd Stephenson: “A dog’s breakfast” is actually the saying.
STEVE ABEL: “A pig’s breakfast” is a saying as well.
Todd Stephenson: No, it’s not.
STEVE ABEL: Look it up. This legislation locks in mother pigs to their cruel caging indefinitely. It actually maintains the use of farrowing crates in the status quo formula, where pigs are allowed to be in there for five weeks. It locks that in for another 10 years at a minimum, with the permission to extend it for a further five after that. Only then, after 10 years, does it move to temporary farrowing: seven-day farrowing. The Minister pointed out that Sweden and Norway are already doing temporary farrowing. Under a best-case scenario with this legislation, New Zealand won’t be doing it for 10 more years. Temporary farrowing, even under the welfare science, is certainly not good for pigs, either. Just to be clear what we’re talking about with farrowing crates. It’s a cage.
Miles Anderson: Here we go.
STEVE ABEL: Here we go. [Holds up picture] So people can understand what we’re talking about. Are you ashamed to look at it?
Miles Anderson: We love a photo.
STEVE ABEL: Well, a photo tells a thousand words, as they say. You can see a very unhappy mother pig, who’s stuck in a cage, who cannot turn around, who cannot build a nest. That is not the best way to mother young.
The use of farrowing crates causes significant animal welfare issues for both sow and piglets. For piglets, their use is associated with increased risk of stillbirth, reduced growth rates, poorer maternal attention and sow-piglet interaction, and increased risk of mismothering—e.g., savaging—and a lack of enrichment and space. For sows, their use is associated with the restriction of the expression of almost all normal behaviour, including: turning around, walking, resting comfortably, creating separate functional areas—lying area, toileting area, feeding area, and nesting area—rooting and maternal and nesting behaviours. They are associated with health problems such as pressure sores, teat cuts, lameness, frustration, boredom, pain, and distress caused by the prolonged confinement. That is the fact of putting mother pigs in cages, and this Government is going to prolong that miserable cruelty for at least another 10 years.
What is more, the means by which they are doing it is to break our own Animal Welfare Act. This legislation actually requires the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to accept the determinations of the Minister as if they meet best-welfare standards. This amendment bill changes primary legislation to avoid the Government being taken to court again, as was done in 2020 successfully, where the court determined clearly and distinctly that farrowing crates must be phased out and got rid of if New Zealand is to be consistent with its own Animal Welfare Act.
Thirdly, I said this to Brent Kleiss from NZ Pork—that I would tell this little story—what is the difference between a mother pig and a pork industry boss? Pigs are highly intelligent. The pork industry are fools if they think that this legislation will stand the test of time, because the members on this side of the House are not going to allow the caging of mother pigs to stick around for another 10 years and beyond. If you want industry certainty, you need to go the whole hog and get rid of farrowing crates. It turns out, in fact, that even the economic analysis on that is not correct, because it only costs 17 percent more to completely phase out farrowing crates, as opposed to moving to the Minister’s proposal.
Finally, this legislation is widely opposed by the New Zealand public. For a long time, New Zealanders have not wanted to see pigs in cages. The latest polling by Horizon Research just in October 2025 shows that 66 percent of New Zealanders want to see a complete phasing out of farrowing crates. What is most striking about that polling is that the voters from every single political party in this House want to see the phasing out of farrowing crates. ACT Party voters: 61 percent of them want to see it phased out, only 18 percent don’t. New Zealand First Party voters: 51 percent of them want to see it phased out, only 22 percent don’t. National Party voters: 63 percent want to see farrowing crates gone, only 14 percent don’t—78 percent of Labour Party voters, 88 percent of Te Pāti Māori voters, and 90 percent of Green Party voters.
There is not a single constituency that elected any party in this House to this Parliament that supports the continued use of farrowing crates. Therefore, this bill is not democracy. This bill is a Government not doing the bidding of the people but doing the bidding of the pork industry. I cannot think of a more glaring example of that, because to come up with this amendment bill, the Minister had to bypass the independent scientific advice, had to bypass the law, and had to go against the strong public feeling.
It’s a big responsibility to be responsible for animal welfare in this country. I believe the Minister responsible for animal welfare has a serious duty, because, of course, animals can’t speak for themselves. They need advocates, and in making assessments about animal welfare outcomes, it is the duty of the Minister for animal welfare to listen to those experts who actually understand what is going on for animals. All of us who have spent time with animals know what animal suffering is. Anyone who’s farmed animals or had pet animals, companion animals, knows that animals do not want to be in cages. Animals do not want to feel pain. They do not want to be separated from the young. When it’s hot, they want somewhere to go that’s cool. When it’s cold, they want somewhere to go that’s warm. There’s no way they want to spend five weeks stuck in a cage when they’re trying to give birth to young, and trying to nurse them, and trying to build a nest. Those are the profound instincts of mother pigs, as they are the instinct of any animal when it is giving birth to its young.
This Government, and this legislation, disdains that basic respect for the sentience of animals and for the dignity of animals. If we are to have the farming of animals in our country, it must be predicated on a principle of them having a good life and not a miserable existence. That is the reason so many New Zealanders are against the use of these farrowing crates, and that is why we as the Green Party strongly oppose this legislation. My message to the pork industry is that you are mistaken if you think this gives you a futureproofed industry. It does not. They need to work within the expectations of public morals and public sentiment if that industry is to have a just a and a moral future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to note that this approach will ensure that we continue to have our high animal welfare standards but still have a viable pork industry, which is the aim, and we will be phasing out the farrowing crates over a period of time so it gives the industry surety and the ability to invest. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, the simple question New Zealand First asked within this bill, just responding to some of the previous comments, is do we want a domestic pork industry? Do we want a domestic pork industry? The reality is our domestic producers are competing against a flood of imported product, much of it from countries that do not have our high levels of animal welfare standards and regulations.
We do accept the High Court ruling, and we do know and the industry knows that it has to recalibrate, and that’s exactly what the Minister is bringing to the House tonight and out of the select committee. We are reducing the time in farrowing crates and we know that—you know, there were 8,000-odd submissions to the select committee, most of them supportive of what the Minister’s doing, just maybe wanting to do it quicker. The Minister has brought forward, which New Zealand First supports, a couple of amendments, including the mating stall limitations down to three hours and bringing that forward to next year.
But it is a very simple equation. I heard the statistics here in the poll—yes, it is an emotive issue, but actually, 60 percent of the pork is imported. If those 60 percent of people all went and bought New Zealand free range pork—which they can; it is available; not all pigs raised in New Zealand are in confinement—this wouldn’t be an issue. But the fact is 60 percent of New Zealanders will have a Christmas ham that was purchased using overseas pork from unknown animal welfare standards.
This bill was pragmatic and so New Zealand First will continue to support it. We think the Minister’s made some good amendments to it, but it is not the simple equation that we’ve been hearing. The farrowing crates aren’t designed for cruelty, they’re designed to save piglets. It is very much a sows versus piglets debate and getting that right. We’re working through this and so New Zealand First continues to support the bill. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call. I call Scott Willis.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is interesting hearing the different parties of the Government trying to defend the indefensible. I’ve heard a lot of hogwash from this lot, but that is to be expected. We hear them full of climate denial, we hear them wanting to mine, we hear them wanting to open up coalmines. We hear all kinds of rubbish from this Government.
I’ve heard, do we want a domestic pork industry really? Really, if we’re thinking about raising animals, is that an industry or is it farming? I think that is a fundamental question we need to address. Do we want an industry? Do we want the corporate industrial food regime that this Government wants us to be eating from? Is that what we want? I certainly don’t want that. I’ve raised pigs and I know how intelligent they are and I know how they do care for their young and I know that they do not like to be enclosed.
After World War II, we saw the emergence of a more industrial model. We saw tanks turned into tractors. We saw chemical weapons turned into pesticides; fungicides. We saw explosives turned into fertilisers. We saw the intensification and industrialisation of agriculture. We saw the rise of agritech. We’ve seen the use of growth hormones in the pork industry. This puts pressures on animal physiology, and it’s a terrible thing. It’s a terrible thing to think that we can shape animals to suit our own desires when they have lives and they have natural environments that they can thrive in. What we’re doing with this is simply trying to create food that comes from anywhere or nowhere. It isn’t giving identity; it isn’t respecting the animal; it isn’t giving us something that most humans want.
I do remember going to Riverside—I think, whatever—just out of Oamaru a few years ago where they put on a “Pig Day Out” and that was a whole pig from free-range Havoc farms broken down into separate pieces and really respected each and every part from tail and trotter to snout. Now, that type of process helps people understand where and how to respect an animal and why we shouldn’t simply consider animals as things that we can abuse to grow more protein. We can certainly be omnivores, but we shouldn’t do so and dehumanise ourselves in the process.
I think one of the things that is really challenging is that somehow, in the mess that happened with the free-trade agreements we’ve got in agriculture—the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs—is this ideological justification that we Kiwis are feeding the world. We’re not feeding the world; we’re feeding the already overfed in the world. We’re not feeding the hungry, we’re not feeding the poor. This bill is simply pushing animals—pushing animals—into crates—
Andy Foster: La La Land.
SCOTT WILLIS: —into crates. And yeah, La La Land. That’s right. I agree—I agree, that’s where the Government is and that’s why they’re determined to be a one-term Government. We would like to help them do better, but they can’t seem to do so.
What I heard from Miles Anderson is we will eventually get there. Don’t we hear that all the time from this Government? Don’t worry, we’re going to cut the methane targets, but we’ll eventually get to 1.5 degrees. Don’t worry, we’ll cut the clean car standards; we’ll eventually get to 1.5 degrees. Don’t worry, we’ll open up coalmines; we’ll eventually get to 1.5 degrees. It’s the “We’re going to get there.” That’s what this Government’s about. But they won’t because they are incompetent, and they know that this is going to be rejected; they know they’re a one-term Government.
SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Brent Kleiss, who Mr Abel mentioned, the CEO of NZ Pork, presented to the Primary Production Committee about an industry that he is incredibly proud to represent—an industry that contributes a billion dollars to the GDP of New Zealand. They support this bill because it enhances welfare outcomes for pigs, it provides the sector with a realistic time frame to adapt to change, and it gives farmers the confidence to invest in their animals and in their businesses.
Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this proposed piece of legislation. I would imagine it's likely to be the last call of the evening. I just want to acknowledge and thank the Minister for the amendments that he has proposed this evening and to note that Labour will be supportive of those amendments that the Minister has made mention of this evening, although we do still stand opposed to the legislation itself at this point.
Todd Stephenson: Good try, though.
Hon JO LUXTON: Why, thank you. We do have concerns with the process prior to this piece of legislation coming to the House with regard to the fact that the SPCA, as my colleague Rachel Boyack mentioned, is one of the largest animal welfare bodies in the country and they are there to uphold and administer the Animal Welfare Act and have been left out of the consultation.
I understand that the Minister did make mention that they were consulted with quite substantially in the consultation that was held with the previous Government and perhaps didn't feel the need to include them in this round of the consultation process, although he did seek to have some quite substantial consultation with the pork industry, which is fair enough; that is the industry that is going to be affected by this. But I would also argue that it is important that we get the voice of others that are able to be part of this consultation, because as a previous ACT Minister said this evening, more voices make better law, and so I think that's something that we need to consider.
One of the things that was also brought up within the Primary Production Committee is the concern around the shortened report-back time frame. I do think that when we have a piece of legislation like this—as the Hon Mark Patterson mentioned, it is quite an emotive piece of legislation. I do think that it is important that we allow a real opportunity for the public to engage and submit in the process. We did certainly have a large number of people that provided submissions, but due to the short report back, we certainly couldn't hear from perhaps all of those that would have liked the opportunity to present to the select committee orally, and so I do think that that is a bit unfortunate for democracy for New Zealanders.
I and Labour stand opposed to the 10-year time frame to change the farrowing crates. Now, Miles Anderson mentioned that the Government was phasing out farrowing crates. That's not my understanding; they're just making changes to the sizing of farrowing crates, and so I think perhaps it might be worthwhile, Miles, just checking the legislation—
Miles Anderson: Oh, it is late, Jo.
Hon JO LUXTON: —before he speaks to it, perhaps, in the next reading that he does. Yes, it is late, Mr Anderson, but it is still important that when we speak to pieces of legislation that we speak to them accurately and say the correct thing. So just to reiterate, the Government is not phasing out farrowing crates; they are changing the sizing of farrowing crates.
Now, the Labour Party would have been open to working in a bipartisan way with the Minister on this piece of legislation had we had the opportunity and perhaps even thought about an extension, but definitely not the 10-year extension, which is something we find problematic. And given the fact that the industry itself—whilst the farmers out there in this industry do the best that they can and they look after their animals the best that they can, the public perception does not support that and I think it is important that as a Government, as a Parliament, we look to do all the things that we can to support industry to be able to be in a situation where the public perception isn't one where they can be critical of what's going on behind the farm gate.
Hon Nicola Grigg: Aren’t you the primary industry spokesperson?
Hon JO LUXTON: I'm sorry, Minister Grigg; perhaps you might like to take a call. I can't quite hear what you're saying, but if you wanted to take a call, I'm sure we’d be all ears. But as I said, we will continue to oppose this bill and perhaps put forward some amendments tomorrow during the committee stage. Thank you.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a very emotive subject, this, and sometimes it’s very easy to go and cherry-pick the data that suits your particular argument, but we did hear from Dr John Roche, Chief Science Advisor, who looked at all of the research, and the recommendations in this bill take a balanced approach, and they balance the needs and welfare of the sows and the piglets. I commend this bill.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call and to speak. It’s been interesting. I’ve been listening to all the contributions in the House tonight on the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill, and whilst it’s quite disconcerting that I haven’t had to have taken extensive notes because the members on the Government side of the House really haven’t made much of a contribution, you would think that if they were feeling safe and secure in their decision-making process with this potential piece of legislation, they would be a little bit more eager to shout its merits from the rooftops. But we note that they are not.
It’s a little bit rich, isn’t it, for them to talk about animal welfare and industry certainty and to completely disregard what is the most substantial element in this, which is that for any good industry to survive and thrive and to be sustainable and successful, they need to work with all of the stakeholders so that there is some general consensus around the type of moral, ethical, and socially acceptable existence for said industry. I would have thought that the Minister in charge of this bill would have spent a little bit more time securing that type of consensus and that type of societal buy-in because that is important, obviously, in the long run, but, yet again, we are in the House at almost midnight talking about a bill that’s been ill-thought-out, that’s been rushed, and that’s a bit of a sugar rush in terms of making some quick gains, or ingratiating certain parties in this House to certain stakeholders.
It’s very disappointing. As my colleagues have said, Labour will not be supporting this bill, and we will be very vigorously opposing it.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think this piece of legislation, or this bill before us, is a very pragmatic approach to a situation where we’re trying to improve animal welfare, and it’s done in a very pragmatic time frame. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s a tough call, but it’s nearly the witching hour, and I think we probably need to call it a day. Members, the House is suspended until 9 a.m.
Sitting suspended from 11.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
TUESDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2025
(continued on Thursday, 11 December 2025)
Bills
Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Good morning, everyone. When we finished last night, we were on the second reading of the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. We’re at call No. 11—the Hon Damien O’Connor.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker—nice to see you here this morning. “The last shall be first and the first shall be last.” Well, I was last last night and first this morning—amazing how this place can transform a few things.
Pigs: the animal welfare of pigs—you may think it’s a relatively minor matter. People will be wondering why we are rushing legislation under urgency to do with pigs’ welfare. Well, there’s a couple of core components of our economy that we need to keep in mind, and that is that we use animals to create wealth in this country, and we’ve done it very, very well, I have to say. For the most part, internationally, we’re recognised as having good animal management systems, but there’s an evolution in awareness—just as there has been around DDT and nicotine and other things like that. We’ve become aware of sentience and the fact that animals are not just things to be used and abused. We’ve developed, as a country, systems of animal welfare—protocols and standards. For the most part, the legislation was changed in the 1990s, and then it’s been upgraded and, generally, has attempted to put in place high standards of animal welfare. I don’t think we can say we’re the best in the world, but we certainly have some very high and respected animal welfare standards across the globe.
When it comes to pigs, 75 percent of the protein produced in the world comes from pork and chicken. There’s been increasing scrutiny on the systems used to produce that pork and that chicken meat, and there have been adjustments across the globe to those systems. Some time ago the pork industry had to deal with the reality that these farrowing crates were perceived as a fairly negative impost upon animal welfare standards for pig management. The industry was given a heads-up a long time ago that perhaps things needed to change. When we have been in Government, we certainly did our bit to try to assist the industry—providing transition periods, seeking independent advice from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), and then indicating that, yes, we should change.
Now, can I just bring to the House the reality that it’s 55 percent of the New Zealand pork industry that is facing this challenge; 45 percent of the industry doesn’t have to worry about it because they run outdoor systems that don’t use farrowing crates, and they will not be impacted by whatever change this piece of legislation brings. It’s 55 percent of an industry that produces 40 percent of the pork for our country—about 60 percent of the pork we consume actually comes in from outside New Zealand. In fact, the pork industry has legitimately asked for us to look at the standards that apply to the pork that is being produced outside and imported into New Zealand. They’ve been asking for it for quite a few years, saying we should have equivalence, or we should at least ensure that they are doing better. I support that, but what this bill does is undermine their argument. “Be careful what you ask for” is something I would suggest to the pork industry, because if we were, indeed, to run the best systems in the world, then we could legitimately go to our trading partners and say, “Look, we can”—and, actually, trade legislation would allow that. We could say that we have some animal welfare standards and our consumers need to have assurances around the quality of animal welfare for that pork being produced.
The problem is that what the Government has done is ignore the opportunity to actually move forward. Following a transition period that we, in Government, provided to the pork industry—and there were a couple of interventions; the High Court ruled that the transition period that we had provided the industry actually wasn’t legal, and that’s why this piece of legislation is here. The lost opportunity is to move us forward to a clearly higher standard of animal welfare for pig management, and then to be able to apply standards to imported pork on the basis that we are aspiring to be the best country for the world and to have the best animal welfare practices in the world. We can’t actually claim that at the moment, but we’re getting close. Why not aspire to be the best country for the world? Why not aspire to be the best farmers for the world? I know that there might be members over there who think we are—actually, you’ve got to lift the lid on that and look across a number of areas of our farming systems. We’re good, we’re efficient, but we’re not the best in what are increasing areas of public and consumer scrutiny. Our long-term future depends upon us having the best systems in the world and the best systems for the world.
There are many colleagues who have covered the technical aspects of this piece of legislation. NAWAC is an independent organisation, and any Minister who deviates from their advice is a fool. Sometimes, they provide advice that’s not that pleasant for a Minister in the hot seat, but if you deviate from that, you’re in trouble, I can tell you, over time. We then end up in the tricky area of political debate that moves beyond science. When it comes to science, I have to raise questions around—because if you go back, science said DDT was OK; science said nicotine was OK; science has said perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFASs) are OK. We’ve had a lot of science that’s actually been, in hindsight, commercially driven and misleading.
What I suggest is that the advice that the Ministry for Primary Industries provided to the Primary Production Committee wasn’t good science, and closer scrutiny of some of those aspects would lead many to believe that, actually, there’s a political element here that is distorting science. When we do that—when we shift from the independence of NAWAC and we distort the science that we are so-called independently assessing—then we are in trouble. I think, as a country, we have been proud of the systems of independent science, objective assessment, and attempts to evolve and maintain the best farming practices across the globe. We’ve done pretty well, but the coalition Government over there has shown, in many areas of governance, that it’s prone to corporate pressure and distortion of the facts in the direction that our international reputation is seriously under threat. Our ancestors worked really hard to build that, and this coalition Government is slowly dragging that into the mud.
Travel offshore and talk about carbon emissions, talk about some of the animal welfare, talk about modern slavery—all the areas that we need to focus on because others across the globe are. This is an area, and this is a piece of legislation, that deals with the standards of management of pork production for 55 percent of our pork industry—not the other 45 percent—and the question that it begs is: has the Government missed an opportunity to put us ahead of the world? Are they just bowing down to what has been a pretty consistent approach from the primary sectors of “Let’s kick for touch, and let’s just try and move this down the road.” They did it on emissions in agriculture—they still haven’t addressed that issue and the challenge—and they’re doing it on some animal welfare standards. This is a missed opportunity.
If the pork industry, or 55 percent of the pork industry, relies on this piece of legislation and on maintaining the status quo with minor adjustments—because that’s all it is—then they are kidding themselves to think that this offers them certainty. Whether it be from New Zealand consumers or others offshore—trading partners—we’re under the spotlight. It’s important that, when we do make adjustments, we do it for well-founded, robust, scientific reasons that do give industry certainty, or as much as we possibly can, and we don’t try to pretend that this is short-term pressure relief and still ignore the reality of the changes that the industry will have to make over time to ensure that it survives.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take the last call on this bill, the Animal Welfare (Regulation for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. There are just a couple of points I’d like to make. I remind everybody who may have been listening to the drivel from the other side just recently, that the policy objective is to support an legally compliant and welfare-focused transition for New Zealand pig farmers. It’s quite simple.
I am not sure whether anyone has read the regulatory impact statement, but the consultation undertaken has been significant and wide-reaching, and changes were made as a result of that. I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Arena Williams—the Te Pāti Māori call.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that has received many submissions from the industry and people who are concerned about these decisions following the High Court ruling under the Labour Government. What, overwhelmingly, those submissions said was that we should follow the science, that we should have a New Zealand system which is robust—
Dr Hamish Campbell: The previous speaker said bad science—he said the science was wrong. Trust the science—and he said the science is wrong.
ARENA WILLIAMS: —and can rely upon the most useful advice that we have available from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council, or NAWAC.
But this is not a situation where that has occurred. I hear the member Dr Hamish Campbell, an advocate for science, heckling me on the other side of the House, and I say to him that if we were following the science here, this would be a very different bill. This would be a bill where there was regulation that was following advice, but that hasn't occurred here. The Associate Minister of Agriculture has been advised about this, and the decision is different from that. So the Hon Damien O'Connor is right when he says that we get into tricky territory here where we have removed this from the advice of the experts. We've removed it from the realm of the objective parts of our system which are beyond politics and are into the realm of following best practice around the world and working up to those, and we've moved it into a sort of political discussion about what our values are here.
I've heard members on the other side say, “Well, you know, this debate is getting shrill; this debate is getting about our values”—yes, because it has been dragged there by a Minister who is intent on giving effect to the proposal of the industry, which matches that proposal almost exactly and has been now enshrined in primary legislation, something that would’ve usually been worked out in the regulations because it is technical in nature and should follow the science.
I want to briefly address the Primary Production Committee’s considerations. The select committee did some work around the retroactivity in this bill and the provisions that were highlighted to it from the Regulations Review Committee. There are two provisions which seek to give a sort of special and unusual effect to two regulations in the animal welfare code for the management of pigs. Those are Regulations 25 and 26—and 27, sorry—which were the subject of the High Court decision, and the words of the legislation here are pretty unusual. They say that those regulations have been validly made as if they always have been. What's unusual about that is that they were the subject of the High Court decision, the High Court came to a finding on those that was carefully considered, and now we have primary legislation which purports to make them always have existed.
The problem with treating primary legislation as if it can change the past is that it can't in fact change the past. So now we have a problem around proceedings that might be brought against people who relied on those regulations at a certain point in time when the law was knowable and known, and where they could have been adjusting their practices because that was the law. But these regulations are worded in such a way where the Government is saying, “Oh, well, even if you were in contravention of the law at the time, we are trying to make it the case that these regulations would’ve applied then.” That is difficult for any Parliament to consider passing just in and of itself, because you can imagine that people who were doing something unlawful at the time, or, indeed, people who were doing something lawful at the time, should be able to expect that the law is as it was and that any prosecutions, any actions that arose from their actions at the time would be judged on the laws of the time. So we’ll come back to that at the committee stage.
In closing out what has been, you know, a debate about people's values and not necessarily the science that we're following, it is a reflection on all of us, what we will accept when we cannot see it. For most New Zealanders, they will never see sows in the situation that we are allowing to continue and lock in for many years under the legislation that we are passing now. It's not really about the pigs; this is about us. This is about what we will accept, and accept on an industrial scale, from an industry that all around the world is updating its practices. We will be one of the countries that chooses not to and chooses to lock in these conditions.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) 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 (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill.
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 9, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to give a very brief context for the complexity of the subject matter in the bill. While the bill is not particularly long, there are a lot of important details that we need to prosecute.
The main determinations being decided here are to do with four impacts on the way that pigs are farmed, the primary one being the use of farrowing crates; the second one being the size of the weaner and the grower pig pens; the third one being the use of mating stalls; and the fourth one being the availability of manipulable materials. So that's to give context to the subject matter in that.
Also, questions around the scientific advice the Minister has received and the location of NAWAC, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and its influence on that advice. Thirdly, there is the question of the extent to which the Minister has considered economic matters or industry financial matters or viability matters as against the obligation of considering the Animal Welfare Act. And probably the final one is the impact on the Animal Welfare Act and its intent.
In this Part 1, the amendment to the principal Act, “Section 71 amended (Public notification)”, we are immediately greeted with the attempt—one might say—to curtail the ability of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to give strong advice that is, as my colleague Damien O'Connor alluded to, almost invariably accepted by the Minister. This section, clause 4 and clause 5, is the place where, essentially, NAWAC is hog-tied—not wishing to make a pun, but they are neutered to being obedient to the Minister's determinations on what the code should contain.
I would put it to the Minister that that sets a very challenging precedent through this legislation that relates exclusively to pigs, but it sets a very challenging precedent for any legislation or any code of regulations that relate to animal welfare in so far as it essentially gives the power of the Minister to, through a trick of legislative formula as expressed in these sections, allow NAWAC, that exists as an independent welfare adviser, to be overridden by a preferred code of the Minister of the day. We're talking about pigs today, but we could be talking about the code of welfare for any number of animals in the future.
Hon Simon Watts: What’s the question?
STEVE ABEL: Well, my question to him is—I have actually asked a question, Simon Watts.
Hon Andrew Hoggard: Yeah, I’ve got it.
STEVE ABEL: Yeah. My question is the extent of his concern about that precedent being set. I would put it to him that that defeats the very elegant structure of our animal welfare laws and codes and regulations, which allows there to be independent advice that the Minister can take despite the strong voices that will invariably come from industry. My concern is that the Minister is setting a dangerous precedent for how we treat our animal welfare laws in general. I'll allow him to answer on that and take another call soon. Thank you.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I thank the honest member Steve Abel for his question. Just firstly, he raised what consideration was put around economic matters. Now, that primarily relates to the transition time. So when I looked at the economic impact, it was around that’s why we need a transition time, and that was critically important for that decision. In terms of where we sat at, we needed to achieve—you know, that met the requirements of the Act. So whatever regulations we came up with, they needed to meet the requirements of the Act. Now, we could have had many different scenarios that met the requirements of the Act—so long as they met the requirements of the Act, then of course we can look at, “OK, what makes practical sense, what makes economic sense?”, but, first and foremost, they need to meet the purposes of the act in terms of that welfare.
Now, in terms of you raise sections 71, 73—or the points there, where you’re talking about sections 71, 73 and 75, amended by clauses 4, 5, and 6 respectively. To be honest, when I first read that, I asked “What precisely does this mean?”, although I used quite different language. When I finally managed to get my head around this, after talking to the lawyers quite a bit, I guess where we’ve got to start with is the fact that, historically, how codes have been developed—well, we develop the code first, and then you’ve got the code written down, and then that code, there’ll be suggestions around regulations. The regulations are then made after the code has been developed. Because of the time pressure we’ve got with this one—we’ve got the initial transition period finishing next week, so we had to do these regulations first, and we’re still working on the code.
The key thing is, whilst we’re still going to be working on this code, we need to make sure that whatever the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) feels that they should recommend to me, they’re not constrained by feeling like, “Oh, no, we can’t do that do that because we’re hamstrung.” So we need to make sure that what’s in the code works with these regulations—that is the intent.
I would just add in terms of the compliance—sorry, not compliance; the independence of NAWAC. What you described is not what is intended here; it is not restricted by the bill. The amendments that are made in the bill do not dictate what NAWAC can recommend, nor what minimum standards or recommendations the Minister can use. The provisions provide that any standards that NAWAC or the Minister are satisfied are needed to give effect to, or for consistency with, regulations 25 and 27 must be treated as meeting the purposes of the Act. So it really is about trying to get—an example would be if we wanted to have minimum standards around deformable or manipulable material. So in the development of this code, we decide we need to have some minimum standards around that—that we’re not constrained in any way by what’s in the code. So that is the intent, it is not to hamstring NAWAC in anyway—forgive the pun. It does ensure their independence.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Steve Abel—one more call.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, I appreciate that. To take a broader interpretation of those sections—I appreciate the answer, Minister—the High Court judgment in 2020 found that the status quo was unlawful and that was the basis on which a time frame was set for moving beyond farrowing crates. Now, the effect of this bill is to, essentially, defeat that judgment. We know, because this information has been released, that Crown Law has advised that there is a risk that, if a change is not made within the time frame you just mentioned, by the 18 December, farmers still using farrowing crates under the status quo will be liable to being taken to court. That is the reason for the rush. One could say that that was entirely predictable, and we’ve known about this for five years, so this could have been dealt with sooner. That is broadly understood and agreed upon: that there’s a risk that those farmers become illegal after the end of December.
The way to fix that would be to pass a regulatory solution, but the risk is that that regulation would not be superior to the primary legislation in the Animal Welfare Act and, therefore, still subject to judicial review or a court challenge. By passing through these opening sections in primary legislation—I’m reading from clause 4, which inserts new section 71(5)—defining that “Subsection (1)(b) must be treated as being met in relation to proposed standards and recommendations in a draft code of welfare if the National Animal Welfare Advisory …”—the effect of this is to say that the laws, the code, and the regulations do meet the Act, even if, in a material sense, they don’t meet the Act. Because the Act requires the five domains, the expression of a good life for an animal and any material evaluation by independent scientific welfare experts who find that putting pigs in cages for seven days does not meet the Act on a pure material assessment now get overridden by this part of the legislation, which says, by default, “If it’s said to meet the Act here, it does meet the Act.”
Do you contest that the effect of this legislation is, effectively, to say what is put in the regulations meets the Act by default?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Look, just in regard to the High Court, the High Court ruled that the previous regulations for farrowing crates were made incorrectly and therefore invalid, OK? It was how they were made; that was what made them invalid. Now, whilst they didn’t ban farrowing crates at that point, the clear implication was that the use of crates for 33 days didn’t meet the purposes of the Act. Our view is that the proposed shortened use does.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to begin by speaking to my intent in terms of how I wish to prosecute this particular bill through the committee stage. Members will note that we have two parts and each part refers to a schedule, and so this morning I will be speaking substantially to Part 1.
I also note that there have been a substantial number of amendments to this bill from myself, from my colleague Arena Williams, and from members of the Green Party. Arena Williams’ amendments talk specifically to the early part of Part 1, across clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7, and so I’m just signalling that my colleague Arena Williams will want to take some calls to speak to her amendments in those parts of the bill. In terms of Part 1, I have some amendments to clause 8 that I’m going to wish to talk to quite specifically, which are around elements of the retroactivity in terms of this bill.
The other matter that I wish note just at the beginning of this part of the discussion this morning is that we did have a truncated select committee process. When the Associate Minister of Agriculture first introduced this bill into the House, he put forward a February report-back date. The Primary Production Committee elected to report back earlier—in November—and what that meant was there was less time available at the select committee for select committee members to hear from the public and to recall officials for further advice, particularly in relation to some elements in Part 2 which relate to the science. So we’ll get to that in Part 2, but I’m just noting for the record right now that as a member of the select committee that voted against that truncated process, there were a lot of unanswered questions, and this is now the appropriate opportunity for us to be able to answer those questions due to that truncated process.
Now, I’m just going to speak specifically to clause 6, and I have a question for the Minister specifically related to clause 6. In the explanatory note, at page 4, it says that “Clause 6 amends section 75, which provides for the Minister to issue a code of welfare that is recommended by NAWAC. It also provides for the Minister to refer the code back to NAWAC or to decline to issue the code. Clause 6 inserts new section 75(4A) and (4B)”, and there are some matters related to that that we can interrogate further. Essentially, the report prepared by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) after a code is referred back to it by the Minister “must be treated as complying with the purposes of the principal Act if NAWAC is satisfied”, and so it is pleasing to see that the second part to this does give NAWAC that responsibility to be satisfied that the code gives effect to and is consistent with those regulations.
I have some specific questions around the drafting of new section 75(4A) and (4B), which is over on page 3—so we’re looking at clause 6 in Part 1. It says here in new subsection (4A) that “Standards and recommendations in a code of welfare issued under this section must be treated as complying with the purposes of this Act if the Minister is satisfied that they are needed to give effect to, or for consistency with, any of regulations 25 to 27 of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018.”, and so my understanding is that the code of welfare is drafted by NAWAC and is then referred to the Minister. New subsection (4B) includes the phrase “Recommendations in a report under subsection (2)(a)”.
My question to the Minister is this. What is confusing in this part is that back in the explanatory note, it, essentially, gives the Minister the opportunity to decline that code of welfare and to refer it back to NAWAC, but when reading through new subsections (4A) and (4B), it doesn’t actually refer to that process. It doesn’t stipulate how that process works. It’s potentially a drafting issue, and, again, this speaks to the truncated part of the select committee. I’d like some answers from the Minister about exactly how that referral-back process works and where it’s actually stipulated in the legislation, and I would ask on what criteria the Minister would refer something back to NAWAC for, essentially, declining a code and referring it back to NAWAC. That’s my first question to the Minister.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I guess I can just give an example, in terms of the Minister referring the dairy code back to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), a while ago. It also came there, sent it back to NAWAC for consideration, so that’s—
Rachel Boyack: Where is it?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: And they’re working on it, and they’ll be bringing it forward very shortly.
In terms of the wording, I guess all I can reiterate is what I said to the member Steve Abel, in terms of sections 71 and 75. That is, from my understanding—and I know the wording is confusing, but that’s all there is for you—the important fact here is that we are trying to ensure that where we arrive to with the code we are not going to have a confusion issue with the regulations.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I’m not satisfied with that answer, because the purpose of the committee stage is actually so that, for example, the Hansard can be referred to in court when things are unclear. So you’ve acknowledged in your response to me that it’s unclear. Why are we passing this bill today if it’s unclear?
So I’m just coming back to page 3—and I’ll keep this contribution short. It’s subclause (4B) in clause 6 amending section 75 “Recommendations in a report under subsection (2)(a)”. So who’s report? Subsection (2)(a) of the Animal Welfare Act. Again, he may wish to take some advice from his officials on how this actually works. You can talk about an example where it’s worked in practice, that’s fine, but we need more detail in the legislation, we need more detail on the Hansard, because if something—you know, what is the criteria the Minister uses to refer back? What is the specific part in law that is referred to in the explanatory note, because the clauses don’t actually detail that.
So if the Minister refers something back because he doesn’t like it, let’s say he gets a code of welfare from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), he thinks it goes too far, so he sends it back. But on what grounds can that then be challenged? Like, do we end up in a go back and forth between the Minister and NAWAC—a stalemate going back and forth and, in the end, we have no certainty for industry.
These are important questions, because we have had legal cases on this particular matter. What’s the process? Where is it stipulated in the legislation? This is up to the Minister, really. If he wants to put on Hansard today that the process is unclear and leave it to the courts to determine, well, that’s on him; it’s not on us. I’m keen to get to the bottom of it, get it on to the Hansard. Maybe take some more advice from officials and come back to us with a more detailed and substantive answer. Thank you.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. Good morning to the Minister. Thank you for his enthusiastic engagement in this committee of the whole House stage. I am not an expert on the animal welfare regulations, but my interest in this is from the perspective of the retroactive provisions and the way that the regulations apply.
This is an unusual way to make regulations, and I want to ask the Minister first about new clause 5, which is under subclause (7) of his tabled amendment. I want to understand this, and I'm prepared to be corrected, but I think I'll set out for the Minister what I think he's set up here in clause 5, and then he can help me with whether that's right or not. So you've got the publication of the draft code as a sort of protection rules that are set out in section 71(1)(b) of the of the Animal Welfare Act. When you publish it, you have to comply with the purposes of the Act. That was what the High Court case was interested in.
So the purposes of the Act, and there are a number, the ones that the High Court case was interested in—they weren't all of them; they were about the actual treatment of animals by the people who keep them. But actually, what’s being amended here is all of them. The way I read it, the purposes of the Act, which prohibit a number of things there: you know, you must take all reasonable steps to ensure physical, health, and behavioural needs. That was an issue in the court, but there are a number of other things, like in accordance with the scientific knowledge and good practice of the time—that's about, sort of, the public temperature of New Zealanders; that's about international best practice and those issues, which is a more sort of values-based judgment as well.
So when you then have this, sort of, protection baked into the regulation-making power, those regulations are made under section 183 of the Animal Welfare Act. This, I think, is intended to remove that protection only as it relates to the regulations for pigs, which are sections 25 to 27 of the animal welfare code—great. So that makes sense in the context of what he's doing now, and the committee understands that, and, though we disagree with it and it's not what we would do, that's the intention here, and it fits with the policy advice. I just want to ask him whether there is a set of circumstances which should be better protected here, or at least better understood, that we're not doing, and that Parliament doesn't intend to pass, which is that if you deem the regulations as having been meet, because—
Suze Redmayne: You should have come to the select committee.
ARENA WILLIAMS: I should have—I do enjoy regulations. If you deem the regulations as being met, regardless of whether they comply with the purposes of the Act, what about a situation we are not envisioning here, where other parts of the regulations that apply to give effect to section 25 to 27 of the Code of Welfare for pigs are changed? Not by him—because the regulation-making power, he's got an in to making the regulations; so do the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC). If NAWAC were to propose a set of regulations which are not anticipated by this policy intention, later—now, he's removed them from the protection, which is that they must publish those guidelines only if they're satisfied that it meets the purposes of the Act; and the purposes of the Act are broad. They include things like, say, restrictions on surgeries around animals. That's nothing to do with the policy intent here, but that protection doesn't apply, so are we in a situation, now, where we have created—basically, you're sort of relying on the situation now, I think, where we think and we hope that NAWAC’s temperature on how protective the regulation should be will always be higher than the Ministers, will always want further protections.
That's the only thing that we've got to rely on here, I guess: that you would land in a window of public acceptance of those regulations, that if we remove the protection, as it does in his new clause 5, then, if you have a situation where NAWAC is changing regulations about something completely different, there's no requirement to check that it complies with the purposes of the Act. That's really the question I have for him: is that right? Is that what he intends to do; and if so, how does it apply to other, ordinary practices of making regulations, because they always need to comply with the Act or they're unlawful?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Just in relation to Rachel Boyack’s question of where the report-back process happens or where is it detailed, that is in the main Act in Part 5, section 75 of the report-back process.
Just to one of the earlier questions that Arena Williams had, the bill does not change the ways the code is made under the Act; the question is about matters outside of the bill.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just want to follow up on a couple of the responses from the Minister to clause 6 regarding the amendment to section 75. Minister, you said the wording is confusing and that what we’re trying to do is avoid confusion and we share in that objective, obviously.
One thing I want to clarify is the effect of new subsection (4A), “Standards and recommendations in a code of welfare issued under this section must be treated as complying with the purposes of this Act” where the code of welfare, no matter what it is, is treated as complying with the purposes of the Act even if an objective interpretation of the purposes of the Act would say that that code does not comply. For example, saying that you can keep pigs in a cage for five weeks at a time, or for seven days at a time in this instance, may be interpreted by an objective evaluation to be inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. But this provision says by fiat, in a sense, that that wording must be treated as complying—a code can essentially override the purpose. I just want clarification as to whether I’m understanding that correctly.
Secondly, who has the final say on the code of welfare—recognising that the Minister will receive a recommendation from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, who has the final say on accepting that code? The second part of that section goes on to say “if the Minister is satisfied that they are needed to give effect to, or for consistency with, any of regulations 25 to 27 of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018.” Who has the final say on those new regulations? Obviously, that’s a determination of Parliament that the Minister will be the one with the final say—that’s my understanding. If he could clarify that, I’ve got a follow-up question if the Chair will allow. Thank you.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I thank the member for his question. Again, in terms of section 75, the point here is that we’ve got these regulations—you laid them out at the start. Again, I use the example that one of those regulations is around the provision of manipulable and deformable materials. Now, if in the code we define what that looks like—is it straw, is it whatever—then we need to have this provision so that when the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee makes recommendations in the code around this and we sign them off, they are then meeting what that is. That is the entire intent, OK? It’s not to create something that’s completely unrelated to those regulations. Where things help provide clarity for codes, provide clarity for those regulations, that is the intent—to make sure we don’t have any more confusion. Sorry, I forgot you last question—oh, I remember now. In terms of who has the final say, the Minister does.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m ably assisted by lots of legal minds here that are a lot sharper than mine. I’ll just go back to a couple of principles. We are on Part 1 here and I’ve got a couple of questions to the Minister. He states, of course, that we’re not changing the Act. If we go back to how this dilemma occurred, maybe we pushed the boundaries on the Act—that is, we in Government tried to provide some transitional arrangements for the industry on the basis that at the end of that, which is this year, on the 18th, then they would meet the objectives of the Act, and they refused to. So they thought that they’d go to a political battle and “We’ll just kind of sound this out with the incoming Government and we’ll see if we can get some changes.” Indeed, the industry’s done a lot of very effective lobbying.
Can I come back to the legal judgment, of course, that said that our transitional provisions were not legal because they did not meet the objectives of the Act. The Minister just said in one of his responses that we have judged that these new provisions will meet the objectives of the Act. He may be wrong. In fact, the Government is often wrong. The coalition Government has been wrong. So my question is, will this piece of legislation be subject to challenge as well? I suggest that it might be because the regulations that we thought in good faith were within the objectives of the Act, and would have provided that transition, were deemed by the High Court to be illegal.
If the Minister, as he states, is not changing the Act, we’re still in the same dilemma. The same Animal Welfare Act provisions will apply to the code. So the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) may, in good faith, come back with an adjusted code, and the Minister has effectively made legal the retrospective part of that and said we’ll carry that forward, but that actually may be challenged as well.
The point I consistently make here to the industry is that this doesn’t offer certainty. So, in accepting the mistake made by us in Government to provide a transitional regime that was deemed to be illegal but was going to run out of time, instead of the industry saying, “Actually, if we’re going to abide by the Act, we’re going to have to make some changes to our systems”—more than what is provided for in this piece of legislation here.”
My question to the Minister: is he going to change the Act? If not, how does he think—because he said that we have judged that these new provisions will meet the objectives of the Act. Where did that advice come from and what happens if it’s wrong?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): So in terms of how we have judged, that is through all the scientific work that has been done, collated by Ministry for Primary Industries and their team of experts around looking at all the scientific literature that is out there and judging that “Yes, these, what we have arrived at, will meet the purposes of the Act.” They believe that this will be sufficient.
In terms of this argument that somehow the industry refused to adapt and change, they had no idea what they were supposed to change to. The previous Government created a transition period with no stake in the ground as to what the end outcome was supposed to be.
Rachel Boyack: Yes, there was.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: No, there was nothing. There were no codes. There were no minimum standards. There were no regulations that they had to move towards. You set up a transition period for five years. You know, here is the code that arrived with me in 2024; that only left two years for the industry at that point. We had to work through and find out, and get to a point where we’d have something that was workable. That’s why we need a new transition period. If you had done it and given them 10 years at that point, and if you had had the opportunity to accept the previous NAWAC code; you didn’t. That’s where we’re at.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Look, thank you. I just want to follow on. I accept the Associate Minister of Agriculture's point that there was some uncertainty that we had consulted on a proposal. That's not what we're talking about here, though. That's different. So, indeed, the discussion—which was not easy; the industry always pushed back. There was some debate and some of those things had not been concluded. I accept that.
Can I just move on to the point he makes around the one of the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI) scientific analysis. I'd suggest to him that he should go back and check it very carefully and I'd suggest the author of that, who identified himself at the Primary Production Committee, I understand, as the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor—hopefully that is robust science, because the point I made in my first speech here in the second reading is that if we deviate from the integrity of scientific advice in this country, we are in trouble—we are in big trouble. So I'd suggest that MPI’s scientific advice may not be as robust as it should be, and that leaves the industry exposed, which is the point I ask of him: is he confident that this will not be subject to legal challenge?
I accept that there's a transitional period; I think it’s needed by the industry. The point here, I think, is that it's kicking it out too far, and people who understand the need for a transition are saying that it goes out far too far. It's kind of unrealistic and it exposes us to not just international scrutiny but the social licence for the pork industry within our own country.
So we are trying to help the industry to move to a sustainable space, but some of the signals have not been taken up. I accept that if we'd been really clear and gone out, then the industry would have been up in arms and said they were all going to collapse. Perhaps we should have done that. Perhaps we should have just said, “That's it. Move on.” and made the major transition, but what this bill is doing is just creating more uncertainty, I'd suggest.
So the question is around: is he confident that the scientific evidence and assessment done by MPI is robust enough to stand up to a High Court scrutiny?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Yes, I am. I've known John Roche, the Chief Science Advisor at MPI, for a number of years. He is an excellent person; very knowledgeable in all areas of animal welfare. His team looked across a range of studies. They looked across a whole range of studies and then went, “All right, what does the average sort of tell us here? What is the scientific consensus?”, as the Green Party would like to talk about. That is where we landed and so I take that on board. You can point to one study here and one study there, but actually if you want to get a balance, you've got to sort of look at them all in combination, which is what they did, and go, “Where, on average, do things land?”
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested, later on, in exploring some of the science a bit further with quite specific questions to the Minister based on advice that I have received. But before I do that, I want to come back to some of the clauses in Part 1, and specifically as they relate to three of my tabled amendments that I lodged in the House yesterday.
The first one I’m just going to speak to amends clause 8, and what the effect of that amendment would do is remove, from new section 203(1), the words “immediately before and”, because one of the matters we have been exploring somewhat in this committee—but, in my view, not to enough of an extent—is that what this bill also seeks to do is not only make the regulations enforceable after this bill comes into force but prior to. Now, that is a retroactive clause in this bill. This is explicitly where it sits, in clause 8. There are three of them, which I will just talk to my amendments in relation to them.
The issue that was raised with the Primary Production Committee by the Regulations Review Committee—and I note that the chair of that committee is sitting next to me, and may wish to make some calls around this as well. The committee wrote to the Primary Production Committee and advised that we should remove the clauses that are retroactive, because what they do is they create uncertainty in law and they undermine the role of the courts in interpreting the law. They also noted that these three clauses assert that a certain legal status existed formerly, despite that the law at that point in time may have provided for a different effect. So, essentially, by having retroactive clauses in this, it creates real legal uncertainty. That’s problematic in this instance because what it sets up is a situation whereby what now is status of that High Court ruling—does that need to be thrashed in the courts again and tested out again? So it actually creates legal risk for Government. So the first amendment I’ve put on the Table is to delete the words “immediately before and”.
Then, if you look at new section 203(2) and 203(3), inserted by clause 8—I also have amendments to those—which would remove the piece that says, “and always has been”. It’s really interesting when the Parliament tries to say that time that has already passed, you can’t go back and look at that time again, that somehow the law was different at that time. Parliament should always be very, very careful when those types of clauses are inserted into legislation. There needs to be a reason for it. It’s not clear why officials have advised the Associate Minister of Agriculture that we need to take these three steps around making the law retroactive. It’s not actually clear what problem it’s trying to solve. In the views of the Regulations Review Committee, it’s not necessary. Again, this speaks to the truncated, shortened version of the select committee process that we had, in that, again, we’re not able to spend enough time interrogating these matters with officials.
I have three amendments that would remove the retroactivity components, which I think the Government should look seriously at supporting. We should always take real care, as a Parliament, when we put retroactive clauses into a bill. We have not taken enough care in this instance.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): So the advice of officials. Just to be clear: the view is that section 203 is not retrospective; it just validates and continues what has always been the case. Now—
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: That is retrospective.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Here we go. The words “always has been” is common drafting in New Zealand legislation for such a statutory validation as it avoids potentially implying that there is any point at which the regulations have not been valid.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right. Members, now we’ll be looking for reasonably specific—particularly around amendments—from henceforth rather than broad-based statements. I think we’ve covered most of the contextual matters.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I can refer to the amendment, but, also, because the conversation has kicked off around the science, I'm loath to not address some questions to the Minister around that, if this is the appropriate time.
It relates, specifically, to mention of regulations 25 to 27, which are mentioned in clause 6. I presume we will get to them later in the schedule, as well. It relates to the scientific advice that the Minister referred to that he received from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Dr John Roche. I wonder—and I have got an amendment in regard to regulation 25, as well, if the Chair would like me to articulate that—if the Minister has seen the response of SPCA to that advice, which says that it does not accurately represent scientific evidence and it characterises animal welfare science, an area in which New Zealand is world class and has world-class expertise, as entirely subjective.
Further, has the Minister seen the evaluation of John Roche's paper by statistician Dr Jason Kurz from Waikato University? Mr Roche presented this to us at the select committee during scrutiny, with this Mondrian - type diagram that was somewhat incomprehensible to any layperson. This is the paper that the Chief Science Advisor relied on, the Averos et al. paper. Mr Kurz assessed the Chief Science Advisor's evaluation of that paper, and said that the Government's summary that there needed to be no improvement in the welfare above the k-value—the k-value, for clarity, is the determination on the size of the grower pens by which this Minister has decided that they can increase by a certain amount and how much that should be. The critique of that summary from Waikato University said that the logical flaw in the behaviour or welfare was a misinterpretation of the model and the threshold; that it also took selective citation of the weakest subset; that it was a misuse of uncertainty and non sequitur; that there was a category error; and that the policy or economic arguments were being disguised as science.
Has the Minister seen that critical analysis? I'm happy to table it or give it to him. And to pick up on my colleague Damien O'Connor’s point, is it not deeply concerning if there is a suggestion—as this paper concludes—that animal welfare, as distinct from production efficiency, is measurably compromised at lower space allowances for grower pigs; and that, if there is any suggestion that the Chief Science Advisor has presented an interpretation of science that happens to very conveniently align completely with the preferences of the New Zealand pork industry, shouldn't you, as animal welfare Minister, concerned about accurate independent science, be concerned that that is the very risk for the credibility of the decisions that you are making based on that advice?
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. Because the Minister has brought the science into the conversation—technically, it probably sits more with Part 2, but the Minister has brought it in, and my colleague Steve Abel has just referred to a paper that I also intend to seek leave to table. Mr Abel has, quite rightly, raised the paper, which reflects on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) science summary’s reliance on Averos and that the inferences in that science summary are incorrect. I want to just commend his comments, because I agree with them.
The other document I want to refer to—again, has the Minister seen this—is an article in the Listener published on 24 November by Andrea Graves, the title of which is “Caged hogwash”. There are comments in here where the journalist spoke to a number of animal welfare experts, and here are some of the comments in the article related to that science summary: “Eight animal welfare experts the Listener spoke to”—eight—“including university scientists, veterinarians, and former Nawac members, described the summary as ‘appalling’, ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘biased’.”
Hon Member: Oh, come on.
RACHEL BOYACK: Someone across the Chamber says, “Oh come on.” Are they a scientist? This is what scientists have said to this journalist. A further comment, from animal welfare scientist Karin Schutz, who says, “The conclusions are not supported by recent research, and … you have to provide a methodology for how you selected your papers”.
It talks quite a bit around nest building, and again, I’m going to leave the detail, to talk about nest building, until we actually get to Part 2. I’m not going to go into the detail of that right now, but the fact is that scientists are critical of the MPI Science Adviser’s science summary. They’re critical of that, and we have that on record.
This particular paper that Mr Abel referred to. I’d like to take a point of order, to seek to table these two documents.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Point of order—leave is sought.
RACHEL BOYACK: I seek leave to table the paper prepared by Dr Jason Kurz, who is a statistician from the University of Waikato, titled Critical Analysis of Government Justification on Space Allowance and the Averos Model. This is not a paper that is available in the public domain.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave the sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
RACHEL BOYACK: A further point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave to table the article printed in the Listener on 24 November.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That one should be publicly available.
RACHEL BOYACK: It should be.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I won’t put that point of order. I’m going to take a call from Lawrence Xu-Nan. I was waiting—I’ve only briefly come into the Chamber; I was watching before I came in. I was waiting for a question in that last speech that we had. I was in the Chamber yesterday, and I saw some great dialogue going on between the Hon Rachel Brooking and the Hon Chris Bishop in a Q & A session, and that is what we’d be looking for in a session like this. I see a lot of it has been covered off, but that’s what I am expecting: very concise questions which haven’t yet been asked to the Minister.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to have a little back and forth with the Minister. I want to focus on a specific section that he hasn’t covered, because I think this bill presents two different interests and opportunities: one of interest to my colleagues Rachel Boyack and Steve Abel, from an animal welfare perspective, and the other side is for the likes of Arena Williams and myself, from a regulation-making power perspective.
I want to focus on Schedule 1, which is technically clause 9 of Part 1, and I want to particularly focus on new Part 3 inserted, clause 8(3). I know that we talked a little bit about the reporting and the content of the report, etc., but I wanted to just focus on the wording of this. My first question to the Minister, before I talk about an amendment, is that it’s very unusual and peculiar to see that if a report—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, just for the Minister’s purposes, could you just repeat the clause?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, yep. Schedule 1, new Part 3 inserted, clause 8(3). This is page 6 of the bill and page 7 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 471.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yep, I’ve found it. Thank you.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The first question to the Minister is that it’s very peculiar to have a report or a code being made or being able to take effect before the commencement of anything, really—before the commencement of the Act. Can I just check with the Minister, what is the rationale of basically legitimising a code before commencement?
Further to that, like I said, the idea of legitimising a code or a particular regulation, etc.—and this is also a very interesting bill in the sense that we are making changes, and we can talk more about that in Part 2, but we are making changes to regulations that are secondary legislation within a primary legislative setting, i.e., the House. Legitimising something before commencement is very peculiar, so one of my amendments that I want the Minister to consider is that, rather than “before commencement”, the normal standard of wording that we tend to use is “on the day” or “the day after commencement”. That will actually be, I think, a more appropriate framing.
If the Minister—I see he has just received some advice—wouldn’t mind considering that. I’ll get him to respond to that, because I saw that the Minister just got some advice, then I’ll ask my next question.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Look, this is just enabling the transition clause. It’s similar to what I described earlier regarding sections 71, 73, and 75.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): If it’s a transitional clause, that’s even more, in some ways, concerning, because that’s not how, normally, we would assume a transitional clause is framed in here. So just to give an example, yesterday we had the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, where the Minister responsible for RMA Reform released an amendment that’s specifically to account for situations of transitional savings and concerns by having two separate commencement dates, where there is a first commencement date that potentially could be, in this context, set in place when the report is made, and the second commencement date when the report is taken into effect—without having to legitimise the report before commencement. Again, it’s almost like we are now saying that laws will take effect before they even commence, which is, again, something we talked about in terms of retrospectivity, but this is very peculiar wording.
Suze Redmayne: Rabbit hole.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I actually would disagree. I would say that the very purpose of committee stage is for us to do this, especially in the context that there have been High Court challenges, and there’s a judiciary challenge on something like this. So the fact that we are in the rabbit hole will be very appreciated by the judiciary in the future.
The next thing I want to check with the Associate Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Andrew Hoggard, is my amendments, and I’m going to move from clause 8(3) of Schedule 1 to clause 8(1)(c), which is that “the code contains standards or recommendations that the Minister is satisfied”. I think there are two things over here, and, again, I don’t see any particular checks and balance in terms of the regulation-making power in this particular case. You know, I don’t see there’s any sort of ability for the Minister to review. It is technically within the Minister’s power because it is secondary legislation, so we’re not seeing a “Henry VIII” clause here, at least I don’t know, unless the Minister is able to enlighten whether this is going to be a “Henry VIII”—I’m seeing head shaking. But the fact that the Minister unilaterally can make something like this without any form of checks and balances is a concern.
So I would ask the Minister to consider two of my amendments. One of them is whether the Minister would consider inserting that “the code contains standards or recommendations that the Minister, after consulting with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee”—NAWAC—unless that’s something the Minister’s going to plan on doing anyway. Or alternatively, “the code contains standards or recommendation that the Minister, after consulting with relevant animal welfare or advocacy organisations, is satisfied are needed to give effect to, or consistency with,”. These two amendments are the ones that are tabled: 11.52.14 and 11.52.15.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In terms of the finalised code, we will be doing further consultation with various groups and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee on that.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to take the Associate Minister of Agriculture to Schedule 1. Following on from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions, I want to clarify with him the info between this and his clause 5, which amends 73(6) of the principal Act. It’s a simple question. When he was intending to basically insert by primary legislation something into the code—which is what Schedule 1 does—did he have advice on whether he should leave that route open for the Minister?
Because my reading of this—and I think he can nod or give me an indication—I think that Schedule 1, this is a one-time only. And if this is a one-time only, what are the trade-offs he was making there for the Minister to be able to change these provisions 25 to 27? Really, why I’m asking you that is because now that Parliament has had a debate about the policy that applies to 25 to 27, even if we don’t agree with you, this is now sort of a matter that is like making primary legislation normally and isn’t a matter that you would expect, then, the Governor-General by Order in Council to amend, but you’ve left that open at your new clause 5.
We would love this—we would love it if the Order in Council later amended the policy to give effect to a policy that we agreed with, and that those could be minor tweaks to achieve the policy aims of the Labour Party. But that would be inappropriate. It would be inappropriate to do that because Parliament has now made what—you know, you’ve made a choice here not to pass a law, which is the farrowing crates primary law—Act, bill—in the name of Andrew Hoggard, and that’s your choice. But then we’ve left open this power at clause 5 to amend it.
I also want to ask the Minister: is that still regulations? The regulations 25 to 27, in his mind, is that still secondary legislation? And would it be appropriate for the lawmaker to make a different decision that departed from his policy intent?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Look, the question is: are we trying to leave the door open to extend the extension again? No, it’s 10 years. It’s done.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I sense Arena Williams has got one more quick question.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I do. Thank you to the Minister. Yes, interested in whether the door is left open to a further extension of time, but also, is the door left open to the Governor-General coming back and having a second go after the Minister has had a go? I’m not advocating for that. I think that would be the wrong thing to do, because when Parliament has a debate about policy, the lawmaker who is a part of the executive Government—it’s not appropriate to change that, even though that is a position that we would agree with.
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 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 4, section 71(5), to change “must be treated” to “may be treated” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 4, section 71(5), to reference the minimum standards of an animal’s physical, health, and behavioural needs be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 5, section 73(7), to change “must be treated” to “may be treated” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 5, section 73(7), to reference the minimum standards of an animal’s physical, health, and behavioural needs be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 6, section 75(4A), to require consulting with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 6, section 75(4A), to require consulting with relevant animal welfare or advocacy organisations be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 6, section 75(4B), to change “must be treated” to “may be treated” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 6, section 75(4B) to reference “the minimum standards of an animal’s physical, health, and behavioural needs” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 to delete clause 7 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8 to delete new section 203 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8, new sections 204(1)(b) and 205 to provide for “an earlier date set by Order in Council” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 471 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ six tabled amendments to insert words after “of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018” are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, section 71 to insert new subsection (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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73 to insert new subsection (8) relating to “the environment supports natural behaviours” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73 to insert new subsection (8) relating to “the practices of people in charge of pigs” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73 to insert new subsection (8) relating to “no confinement system imposes an unreasonable or avoidable restriction on movement or behaviour” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’s tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73 to insert new subsection (8) relating to “the cumulative impact of the housing, handling, and management systems” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73 to insert new subsection (8) relating to “the best scientific knowledge available at the time” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, section 75(4A) to provide that “the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is satisfied” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, to insert section 75(4C) requiring that “the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has reviewed the code and confirmed that the standards and recommendations are needed” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, to insert section 75(4C) requiring the Regulations Review Committee to review the code of welfare 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, to insert section 75(4C) requiring that “the Minister and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee are satisfied the standards and recommendations are needed" 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, to insert section 75(4C) requiring the approval of the Regulations Review Committee of the standards and recommendations 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting clause 7 is being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting the text of clause 7 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, section 183A(11A) to require the agreement of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, section 183A(11A) providing that subsection (11A) does not apply in relation to pigs is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.
The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, section 183A(11A) to provide that “subsection (6) continues to apply to regulation 26” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, section 183A(11A) to provide that “subsection (6) continues to apply to regulation 27” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(1), to delete “immediately before and”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(2), to refer to “the day after Royal assent”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(2), to refer to “the day of Royal assent”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(2), to refer to “six months after Royal assent”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(3), to refer to “the day after Royal assent”, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(3), to refer to “the day of Royal assent”, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(3), to refer to “six months after Royal assent”, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8, inserting new subsection (1AAA) of section 204 and replacing “2035” with “2028”, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8, replacing “2035” with “2028”, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8, inserting new subsection (1AAA) in section 204 and replacing “2035” with “2032”, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8, replacing “2035” with “2032”, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Rachel Boyack’s amendment to Amendment Paper 471 to clause 8, new section 204(1), set out on Amendment Paper 447 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Rachel Boyack’s remaining amendment to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 447 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8, new section 204(1), to change the date to “2027”, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Rachel Boyack’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 8, to change the date to “2027”, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ four tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 470 amending clause 204(1)(b) are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Arena Williams’ three tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 470 amending clause 204A are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 8, new section 204, set out on Amendment Paper 461 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s remaining amendment to clause 8, new section 205, set out on Amendment Paper 461 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
Steve Abel’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 462 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Related amendments to Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018, and Schedule 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 10 to 16—“Related amendments to Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018”—and Schedule 2.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, and I appreciate the Minister's engagement during the discussion around Part 1—and just noting that we've touched broadly around the science in Part 1, because it was introduced during that part and the Minister gave some relatively detailed responses. In Part 2, we will get into the specific details related to the three matters that really count in this bill, which is around the regulations for farrowing crates, the detail around the regulations for mating stalls, and the details around the regulation for grower pigs.
Before we get to that, I do just have a really specific question for the Minister that I hope you'll be able to get back to me on quite quickly. This will just help confirm the Labour Party's support for his amendment to Part 2. I just want to clarify, because when he's talked about his Amendment Paper: he noted that, in Part 2, part of that Amendment Paper specifically related to the requirement to keep records. I just note, on page 10—and this is the piece that is around regulations to be inserted on 19 December 2035, new clause 27 of new Schedule 3. It talks around other requirements relating to management of pigs: things like pigs are not restrained by tethering, pigs are not confined in stores, and so on and so forth. Then it talks about the fines. It's clause 27(2) of new Schedule 3 that talks about the record-keeping, and that piece has been deleted from—
Hon Andrew Hoggard: Which one?
RACHEL BOYACK: The very last page, page 10, of your Amendment Paper. That whole section has been removed, and it looks to me like it has just been picked up and replaced to be put on page 8 of your Amendment Paper, which is the regulation to be inserted on 19 December 2026—so that's next year. In the Minister's legislative statement and in his verbal statements to the House, he's only talked about 27(2), which is about the records, but it looks to me like the entire section has been picked up and basically cut and pasted—which is a good thing; I'm fine with that. I just don't want to see it being cut and then not inserted somewhere else in the bill.
If the Minister just can confirm that that's what he's intending to do—he might just need to check with his officials—then we'll be able to confirm the Labour Party's support for that particular section. That's my first question, and then we'll come back.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): The answer is yes.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to echo the reflections of my colleague Rachel Boyack regarding the content of this section. We would like the ability to prosecute reasonably well the impact of the regulations in this section, which relate to the specific issues before us.
I have a bit of an overview that I think might be helpful in terms of what a pig’s life is like in our farming systems, which gives some context to those watching—because understanding all the different cages that are used and not used in New Zealand can be a matter of confusion.
Many people thought that we had got rid of the caging of mother pigs, because we did get rid of sow stalls. Sow stalls used to be used somewhat widely, though a lot of pig farmers have never used them; they are prohibited in New Zealand now, and we have led the world in that, and we should be proud of that fact.
Mating cages are still used to different degrees, and I acknowledge, later on when we get to talk about it, that the Minister has moved the time frame on the use of mating cages substantially—by nine years—which is something that we called for, and he has done it, so I acknowledge that.
Farrowing crates are still used, and that is after the pig is impregnated and they’ve had their gestation of three months, three weeks, and three days, quite generally. They give birth in a farrowing crate under the current regime, and under the new regime.
The life of a captive pig in New Zealand is that, once they have been weaned, as a piglet, after 21 to 28 days, they then become a weaner pig, and then later they become a grower pig, and they are grown to around 28kg or more—and then they are slaughtered. The natural lifespan of a pig grown for meat in this country is under a year, generally, and the natural lifespan of a pig, if it was not being farmed, would be about 20 years. That’s for the public to understand that this is very much an industrial form of farming about growing animals for meat consumption, and that’s the nature of the reality of these animals’ lives. The question at hand is how we can make that very unnaturally short life for a pig not so miserable.
On to the specifics of Part 2, and the principal regulations at clause 10; this part amends the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018. Herein we get the substance of all the regulatory changes, but what is unusual about this, and my question for the Minister, is that normally regulations would be passed through an Order in Council, correct? The Minister is nodding. Why, in this instance, are these regulations not being passed by merely an Order in Council but being passed in primary legislation? Surely it is because they are actually at risk, if not certainly inconsistent, with the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act. That’s my question for the Minister.
The reason we know they are inconsistent with the Animal Welfare Act is because the High Court told us. It’s a very specific question: why are these not being passed by Order in Council? Is it because the Minister knows, and the advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries is, that they are inconsistent with the Animal Welfare Act and therefore subject to a High Court challenge again?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, why not by Order in Council? Well, the main reason here is because they needed to do a further transition period. It was not allowed because a further transition period had already occurred. Hence we need to do this legislation—to provide that transition period for the industry to change.
That is the core reason behind all of this, and then I guess it’s about providing certainty for the sector. You mention the High Court case. Again, it did not find that what I’m proposing is illegal. It found that the other previous use of farrowing crates did not meet the purposes of the Act. As I’ve already said a number of times, we contend that the limited time we are using them does meet the purposes of the Act, and I feel it’s really important to be able to provide the industry with that transition period. This is a major cost imposition on the industry. It’s going to create a lot of challenges for them, to be able to update their facilities. Hence they need time to be able to achieve this.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you. Can you confirm, Minister, that the legal advice was that there was a risk of a High Court challenge if this was merely passed by Order in Council? Aside from the question of the extension of the time frame, on the question of the consistency with the Animal Welfare Act of the option you have gone for, temporary farrowing, and the weaner pig and grower pig pen size, can you confirm that the advice was there is a risk of a High Court challenge if it was not passed through primary legislation?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): This area is highly litigious. It’s attracted a lot of attention, and that risk of High Court challenges undoubtedly exists.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do just want to acknowledge the Minister's response to my previous question and just confirm that the Labour Party will support his amendment to Part 2. Thank you for that clarification.
I’d like to talk first of all about lying space for grower pigs and the specifics in the legislation. Schedule 2 of the bill inserts New Schedule 3 into the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018, and we’re looking at the minimum lying space for grower pigs. This is where things do get technical in this bill and we talk about the minimum area in meters squared and what the Minister is proposing is for that to be 0.034.
The question I have comes to the heart of this debate and the role of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) to provide independent advice to the Minister. NAWAC’s proposal was for a value of 0.04. There were then alternative proposals provided of 0.036, both of which are greater than what the Minister has in his bill of 0.034.
Now, the reason why this matters, just for the House and for those who are listening in, is that these are the formulas put forward by experts, by scientists, who can advise those of us in decision-making roles what is the best constraint for an animal that ensures good animal welfare outcomes, and what concerns me is that the NAWAC proposal is a greater area of space than what is being put forward in this bill. So the NAWAC proposal is 0.04. What the Minister is doing is 0.034 and that's the minimum area.
The reason this matters is that NAWAC are responsible for giving independent advice. The formula that’s in the bill is exactly what New Zealand Pork had asked for. We’ve had a situation where the regulations have gone to court for being inconsistent with the Act. Surely this opens up a legal risk for the Government that NAWAC specifically said, “No, you need 0.04 to actually have enough space for a grower pig to be able to live its life in a way that has the best animal welfare outcomes.” Yet the Minister is proposing a smaller area.
So that’s my question to the Minister: why is there a difference between what he's proposing and what NAWAC have proposed? Again, I come back to some of those debates we’ve had around certainty for the industry, because when you put details like this into a bill that, first of all, could then be considered inconsistent for the purpose of the Act, it puts legal risk in play, which means it's harder for industry to plan. It also means that it's unlikely this legislation will last the passage of time. Future Governments will probably come along within the next 10 years and say, “That’s not good enough. We’re going to change it.” So you then end up in a situation where industry have invested around this new size, spent millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchasing new equipment to house grower pigs in this amount of space, and then another Government comes along and says, “Sorry, we want to make it slightly bigger so you’re going to have to invest again.”
I put it to the Minister that you have an independent advisory committee in NAWAC. Why has their advice not been properly considered when determining the minimum lying space for grower pigs under New Schedule 3?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you. In terms of grower space, in early 2025, the Ministry for Primary Industries reviewed some of the current science around that, some of which weren’t available to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and they couldn’t find justification for going above 0.30. They we’re saying that 0.30 to 0.34, either one of those, would meet the purposes of the Act. Effectively, I looked at the costs of going higher than 0.34, which was quite substantial, and that’s to most of the industry, even those that are doing free-farrowing systems, still utilising grower space for piglets. We had two options there that I believe could meet the Act. I went for the higher option, which gave more space to the grower pigs.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just refer to Part 2 here. These issues have been raised but I don’t think there’s any harm in referring to them again. It is the new regulations 25 to 27 that come into force on 19 December 2035. What we have in the bill here, the explanatory notes of the bill, is the reference to changing requirements and specifications.
The questions that my colleague Rachel Boyack asked are very relevant that putting these down in the bill, in the explanatory note, implies that there’s some kind of science behind the proposals. Indeed, some might, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) perhaps is trying to say this is good, best practice, you know. Some would dispute that. But it just takes one number to top this whole thing on its ear, and that is you change it from 19 December 2035 to 19 December 2030, for example, pull it back five years. Indeed, any further Government could move on this.
The point I’m trying to make—and the Minister may want to answer this as to why they came up with the 10-year transition. Why they specified in the notes here or allowed what is arguably the better practice—better I say, not best. Indeed, does this not expose us to, as I say, the points I made earlier on about legal challenge as to why not bring this in earlier; if so, what date? Why 2035 rather than 2030 or 2029 or whatever?
So I suggest that the explanation of Part 2 here and the direction of travel exposes the industry once again to uncertainty. So the Minister and the Government are quite mischievous to think that this is going to sign everything off and it’s all going to be hunky-dory, because if he wants to refer to the science that MPI had access to and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee didn’t, I’d suggest he go and check that—double check that—because my observation of commentary on this is that they haven’t got it right.
So huge risks here. Maybe the Minister could take a call and answer those few questions as to why it’s not five years rather than 10 years. Does he think that this exposes or adds to a legal case or a legal challenge, because it specifies here what should be in place, but the transition as he’s offering it is fairly generous.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you. So the question is: why a 10-year transition? Several factors; number one: we are going through, as we’ve experienced this week in the House, changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA)process. At the moment, it’s costing farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars to get new consents—
Shanan Halbert: You could have been two years ahead of yourself.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —or change consents. Now, for—sorry, what was that?
Shanan Halbert: You could have been two years ahead of yourself with the RMA.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Anyway, the key thing here is: that’s a hell of a lot of uncertainty; it's a huge cost that I don't want these farmers to have to pay on top of the works they're going to have to do on their farm. We expect that everything will be bedded down with the RMA by 2029; effectively 2028/2029. So that gives us a few years there. Then you've got—and we're expecting them to expend upwards of $700,000. Now I want to give them certainty that they're investing that money in something that will be legally compliant, consent wise. etc. So that's a key factor to start with.
Then there's the actual factor of they've got to build this stuff. In some cases, these farms will need to tear down every single facility they've got and rebuild from scratch, as that's going to make the most sense. So again, that doesn't happen overnight. In a practical sense, you can't do that overnight because then you're left with no facilities to actually manage your pigs. So it's going to have to be done in a staged process. To my mind, 10 years makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Also, internationally, the only other few countries that are moving to a similar reduced period of farrowing crates as us are doing it in 2034/2035. So this lines up with what other countries are doing. My understanding is that the previous Government could have well given a 10- to 15-year transition period. They only gave a five, so it makes sense to enable them to have that full transition period to make this transition.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you—thank you, Mr Chair. I certainly have heard the Minister’s concern for pig farmers—or the pig industry; whichever the Minister prefers to refer to—their concern about having to invest in the right type of structures, and the concern that there's a cost involved with it.
But, thinking about Part 2, we've also heard from my colleague Damien O'Connor that there is some question about the scientific basis of the decisions that the Minister is basing this on. This is really the heart of it, I think, because we need to understand what the risk is of poor legislation. The Minister has pointed out that this bill could be challenged in the High Court; now, as it’s drafted, it’s a real risk. The Minister's already acknowledged that—as it’s drafted. When we are drafting legislation, we should be aware that if we are drafting legislation and it's then going to put us in a situation where we drive more judicial risk, that is not a good place for legislation to start from—that is really not a good place for legislation to start from.
I'm interested if—the Minister talked earlier about seeking balance and advice; not consensus, but balance. I'm wondering whether the Minister thinks that he's got the balance right. If the Minister has not leant on the independent advice from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee but is focused on the request from the pork industry in setting these limits for farrowing crates, etc., has the Minister got the balance right in his advice? Is this going to protect pig farmers—the pork industry, if the Minister likes—but, also, our farrowing sows, our piglets? Is this the type of advice that the Minister is leaning on? Is it the right type of advice? Is it actually going to protect us concerns that we have that this is going to go to the High Court?
This is really something that is not going to help our farmers at all. It's not going to save costs; it's going to increase costs. My concern is the Minister hasn’t had an opportunity to go deeper and to seek wider and more robust advice. Is the Minister confident that that has been done, and has been done thoroughly?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In terms of whether I am satisfied with the advice I received: yes. Sorry, the member went on quite a bit, and I lost track of what he was actually asking. Look, the advice I’ve got is that this will meet the purposes of the Act.
In terms of the assertion that this is somehow more prone, the statement I made was that effectively any piece of legislation is prone to judicial review. I just pointed out the fact that this area has attracted a lot of interest from lawyers in the past, but that is part of what has informed our process on this, to ensure that it is not judicially reviewed—that the sector can have certainty going forward, can make those investment decisions, and can improve the welfare of the pigs under their care.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to note that in terms of the discussion points around Part 2—just to quickly summarise—we’ve talked a little bit about legal risk and had some responses from the Associate Minister of Agriculture; we’ve talked a little bit about grower pigs and had some responses from the Minister. We do need to delve into the issue around farrowing crates in quite a bit of detail, so I just want to signal that to the committee because it’s the area around farrowing crates, in detail, where there is the most contention in the public.
I’ll just put on record, actually, in terms of mating stalls. It’s the one area of this bill where we are comfortable with the Minister’s decision making in terms of limiting the time that pigs will be in mating stalls, and actually really happy and want to say thank you to the Minister for bringing that from 10 years down to one year. We’re absolutely supporting that amendment and happy with that.
I just want to note to the committee that my next—and I’m going to have quite a few questions and I’m going to come back to the Minister specifically around the real detail around farrowing crates, because that is where the science has elements of dispute, that is where the greatest public concern sits, and this is where the greatest scientific detail sits. So I’m going to get started on that now.
The first element around farrowing crates is: what the bill has chosen to do is not make any changes to the size of the farrowing crate but chosen to make changes around the time frames that a sow and its piglets can spend in the farrowing crate. Now, I want to just talk first around the size component.
The Minister, in his second reading speech in the House last night, made commentary around free-range farming and commented that the public would most likely like to see pigs on ground and green grass and the like, similar to how we see our cattle and our sheep. The Minister made that commentary. The question I have off the back of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’s (NAWAC) advice, though, isn’t actually suggesting that we should be moving from a farrowing crate situation through to an “every pig is free range and roaming amongst grass” situation. My specific question to the Minister is around the option that NAWAC has looked at, that the SPCA has looked at, is around farrowing pens. It is still a restricted environment for the sow, but it is not restricted around the crate.
Now, I’m going to pre-empt that my colleague Steve Abel from the Green Party will probably have some more detailed questions on this because I think this is the area he likes to jump into as well, to supplement my questions. But my question really is: why has the Minister not given greater consideration here to farrowing pens, which are larger than compared to farrowing crates?
Now, I’m just going to link this briefly—and I will probably come back to this—to the time consideration because the concern that the science community have raised, and, Mr Chair, I’ll probably need to just seek an extension to my call here just to flesh out this argument a little bit more. The advice—and it’s good advice—is that when a sow has given birth, you shouldn’t move her, right? So there’s the pre-farrowing period and then the post-farrowing period. Sometimes there is that concern that, for example, in the pre-farrowing period, it’s very clear that the sow needs to be able to move, she needs to be able to build a nest. And the greater amount of space she has, the more likely she is to be able to do that. There is genuine concern—and I do think the Minister needs to acknowledge that—that in the small, defined space of a farrowing crate, very difficult for the sow to turn and to build the nest.
Now, if you have a situation where you have a greater amount of space in that pre-farrowing period, then the sow gives birth and then you want to go to a more restricted space to try to improve piglet mortality. That potentially means moving the sow and it becomes challenging. One of the benefits of a farrowing pen is it actually allows that flexibility within the pen to move the spaces, and so the reason why it is a good option to consider is that you can then allow the sow and the piglets to stay in the same area but you can potentially restrict them further in that time if you need to, to allow for piglet mortality.
I’m going to have more questions on this. I can pre-empt that my colleague Steve Abel’s going to have quite a few detailed questions around farrowing crates, and I’d be really interested in the Minister’s initial response into why were farrowing pens not properly considered.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In terms of farrowing pens, the research done—and I guess they fall into the free-farrowing system, as it were. The scientific evidence, the bulk of it that we had, showed there was this 14 percent increased risk of pig mortality from a free-farrowing system. Now, there are some new innovations out there, like the maternity ring that some pork are doing. Unfortunately, that has only been going in the last year or so, so we don’t have the full results from that. That may well be a solution in the future that many decide to move towards. That will be their choice, and I’d commend them on that, assuming this is a system that does work for them. We did not have that evidence at the time when we needed to make these decisions.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I feel slightly distressed that we've moved on to farrowing crates already because I still had questions on grower pens. So if you would suffer me to ask a couple of those and then pick up on where Rachel's led with the farrowing crates.
The assumptions around the grower pens—and, for context, because I think a lot of this is jargon that is probably not very comprehensible to the layperson: after the piglet has been weaned and they become a weaner, so-called, they get put into a barn and then they get put into a pen with probably another five pigs, and they get grown in those grower pens. So we're talking about that stage of the process of producing pig meat.
One of the assumptions, Minister, in your evaluation of the so-called k value, ie. what amount of space is acceptable for providing an existence for a pig in a grower pen, is based on this Averos analysis that we mentioned briefly earlier on, in this Mondrian/Milan Mrkusich - type modern artwork here, with an incomprehensible sentence: “broken line regression analysis of the effect of allometric space allowance and the percentage of total lying behaviour of growing finishing pigs housed on fully and partly slatted floor.” It did, I just have to say, briefly remind me of that great insight of Lord Ernest Rutherford who, to paraphrase, said” If you cannot make your theory comprehensible to a layperson, you probably don't understand it yourself.” I think our chief science advisor could take some advice from Lord Ernest Rutherford on that one.
The point is, in the analysis that Rachel Boyack tabled by Dr Jason Kurz that I mentioned earlier, his conclusion was animal welfare, as distinct from production efficiency, is measurably compromised at lower space allowances. Are you not concerned that the assumptions that you've fallen on regarding grower pigs actually are not consistent with an independent, objective view of the science? He goes on to say conflating statistical uncertainty with a lack of effect and equating productivity with welfare are a mistake.
The other thing I would like to check: already, the Minister has spoken of the economic considerations of implementation of a new regime. It would be good for us to be clear that we have a decent opportunity, through this process, to actually dig into the economic assumptions because that is another question the Minister has considered, even though—as the High Court rightly pointed out—economic considerations cannot be part of judging what is acceptable welfare standards for animals. So that's my first question on the grower pigs. I'm loathe to end the call now lest I don't get the next call, but can I step up and see the response to that, potentially, because I would like to follow up on this.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I've almost forgotten what the first part of your question was. In terms of the economic considerations—what part did they play—as I mentioned before, that was in relation to the transition period. In terms of the welfare side, that was being sure that whatever numbers we came up with met the purposes of the Act.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Let’s jump on to the farrowing crates question that Rachel Boyack began on. For clarity, the Minister was presented with two options. Option 1—for context, I’m reading from page 16 of the regulatory impact statement, clause 57—was recommended by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council (NAWAC): “based on the scientific evidence, available technologies, and best farming practices [a] five-year transition period would help farmers to adapt their systems and practices.” Option 1 is a move to free farrowing in a 6.5 square metre space, completely getting rid of farrowing cages. That was the option recommended to you by NAWAC.
The second option is what the Minister has chosen and is manifest in this legislation, which is no increase in the size of the farrowing cage and temporary farrowing for a maximum of seven days—three days before and four days after farrowing. Now, clause 60 on page 16 of the regulatory impact statement says, “During public consultation, animal welfare advocates generally supported ending the use of farrowing crates [completely]. In contrast, most pig farmers and industry representatives advocated for the continued temporary use of [farrowing] crates”.
The Minister, it seems—and I would like to check this—in going for option 2, was heavily relying on the economic consequences of option 1 versus option 2. It is undeniable that both options, and the regulatory impact statement acknowledges this, “result in a need for increased investment by farmers. However, the level of investment associated with option 1 is greater than option 2.” Crucially, on page 17 of the regulatory impact statement, there is an evaluation or assessment made of what the difference is cost-wise between those two options: “A 350-sow farm”—this is clause 68—“is estimated to face a capital cost of approximately $507,000”. That’s for moving from the status quo to a temporary farrowing system. A 350-sow farm moving to free farrowing would have a capital cost of $595,000; that’s an $88,000 difference—a 17 percent difference—or around a fifth more for complete elimination of farrowing crates and increasing the pen size to 6.5 square metres. I acknowledge that that doesn’t take into account the other capital outlay, such as for more land that a farmer might need to have bigger farrowing pens.
A major assumption, Minister, in your assessment of that being a financially unviable solution is to do with the piglet mortality assumed in those options. When tested, that piglet mortality, under a free-farrowing system, is highly estimated at 19 percent. It is estimated at 12 percent in the temporary farrowing option. NAWAC explicitly pushed back on the assumptions of that and made it clear that, over time, management practices would mean that the actual piglet mortality would decrease. For the clarity of the committee, piglet mortality is a factor in pig farming; whether it’s free farrowing, caged farrowing, or free-farmed pigs, it’s an issue, because these pigs are so unnaturally large and bred that way for meat production purposes, and they may have a litter of a dozen piglets that are very small and vulnerable to being crushed by the mother.
I might have to take another call on this if that’s all right, Mr Chair? Thank you. My question is: What is your confidence in that assessment of the economic differential, and to what extent did you take into account the huge opportunity of us moving to a free-farrowing system, whether in five years or ten years, and thereby eliminating this problem of farrowing crates being inconsistent with our Animal Welfare Act, inconsistent with public feeling, and inconsistent with the way the world is moving? To what extent did you consider that as a cost factor and a lost opportunity to improve or build on our positive reputation around animal welfare? That’s the first question.
I’ll come back to the economic assessment side of it, because there are a lot of questions around the assumptions on the economics. I’ve got analysis done by Matthew Haddrell on the economic analysis of the bill, which I would seek leave of the committee to Table. It is not publicly available. There is a preliminary analysis that is very critical of the assumptions in the economic assessment. Do I need to do that as a point of order, Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just seek leave.
STEVE ABEL: I seek leave to table the preliminary economic analysis of Matthew Haddrell, commissioned by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Are there any objections? It’s not publicly available, I understand. Yep, table it.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
STEVE ABEL: Thank you. I will allow the Minister to answer some of those questions, because I know there’s a few in there. Thank you.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): OK. In terms of the economic considerations, just to reiterate, once again: the key thing was, will what we’re proposing meet the purposes of the Act? In that case, yes.
Now, the questioning comes to the economics and how they impact. In terms of free farrowing versus temporary crating, it's not just the capital cost; it's the ongoing operating expenditure or increased costs that may result. That, for me, is how the real cost comes to the farmer. If they’re having increased piglet mortality—and this is how they make their money: they grow a piglet, they turn it into bacon or pork, and that’s how they earn their crust. If they're having increased losses, that's less profit they make, that's less interest in being in business; it becomes too hard, and they leave. In terms of that part of it, that is the economic cost that we’re considering with regards to, OK, we've got two systems that do meet the purposes of the Act. I'll just say that we did these proposals, we did send them back to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and they did agree that the post-farrowing four days of temporary crating did meet the purposes of the Act.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come back to the questioning around farrowing crates, because what I want to refer to specifically are submissions from some of the submitters during the select committee process. These would have been made available and were submitted back in October from a group of New Zealand animal welfare scientists. They have raised a whole number of issues back, again, around the science.
One of the things they have noted here is that scientific evidence shows that confinement of sows in farrowing crates compromises their welfare by preventing them from performing highly motivated behaviours such as nest building, turning, and interacting freely with their piglets. It goes on to say that the current proposal to allow sows to be confined for seven days without increasing pen or crate size is particularly problematic and that evidence suggests that this approach may actually increase piglet mortality, as sows released into undersized pens can accidentally crush piglets due to restricted movement. They go on to say, “Moreover, confining sows under restricted movement with no nesting material up to three days before farrowing prevents them from engaging in essential nest-building behaviour, further compromising welfare and affecting maternal care.”
What they have gone on to talk about as well is the conflicting science, because there is that concern. We’ve talked about it being disputed, being conflicting science. They’ve gone on to say that science can tell us about welfare within a farm system—for instance, an intensive indoor system based on close confinement—and science can tell us that the sow and piglets do better when they are not in close confinement systems. Sows and piglets do better when they can exist together in an environment that provides for their needs. One of the issues that has really cropped up in this debate—and I want to put this on record in this committee stage and get a response from the Minister—is the discussion around a trade-off between sow and piglet welfare.
Actually, what the scientists have told the select committee is that we need to stop talking about the trade-off between the sow and piglet welfare—that actually, they say, what the evidence shows is that what is good for the sow is also good for the piglets. They’ve raised some actual evidence—for example, recent studies in 2022—that a well-designed and managed system without permanent crating can achieve the same performance as conventional farrowing crates. This has been demonstrated in research and under commercial conditions, in research by Baxter et al. in 2022.
When also considering the piglets’ needs, another study showed that reducing the space available to the lactating sow below 6.6 metres would reduce her freedom of movement and increase the mortality of her piglets, but, above 6.6 metres, the behavioural freedom of sows and piglets is increased but piglet mortality does not further improve. What this speaks to is the benefit of what I’ve already raised around farrowing pens, as opposed necessarily to moving to an entirely free-farming system. There is a significant amount of science that actually disputes the Ministry for Primary Industries’ science summary, and I’d actually like the Minister to really dig into the detail of the science—what he has fully considered.
The final piece that I’d like him to talk about is around nest building and the types of materials that will be available for nest building. We asked this of officials but haven’t actually had a strong enough response, in my view, around the type of materials. We know that, for example, there are cases where farmers will leave a hessian sack and believe that that is enough of a deformable material. Actually, what the animal welfare experts have told us is that it isn’t enough. Will the Minister ensure there is a lot more detail—I think my colleague Steve Abel has some amendments on this—around what a deformable material actually is, to ensure that sows are able to properly undertake that nest building, because that will lead to better outcomes for both the sow and also the piglets?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, as the member quite rightly said, there are lots of different scientific views on this. Larger pen size—it's not straightforward. You can have the situation where you've got a larger pen size, and that makes the creep area—where the piglet keeps nice and warm at night under the heat lamp—further and harder to find for the piglet. Then you're going to have to have a person get in there to make sure the piglet gets there, and that puts them more at risk.
So it's not always straightforward; these things are risky. I guess that comes down to, you know, we can have lots of science—various studies being done—but, often, it's the farmer who knows what works. They're motivated to have the highest piglet survival possible on their farm. That is their driving thing. If you don't have good animal welfare outcomes on your farm, you don't make a lot of money, and so these farmers will be looking for solutions that work for them—that make the piglets survive better so they can actually farm better. Thank you.
SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. It would be good to have a bit of back and forth if that assists the Associate Minister of Agriculture. The point you just made, Minister, which you have articulated a few times, is your concern for the viability of a farming operation under any regime that still, in principle, maintains good animal welfare practice. I really want to challenge the assumptions on the piglet mortality, because a large part of what the Minister is arguing around the justification for the choice that he has made to go for option two, which is the temporary farrowing, is the cost impacts of a higher piglet mortality, as my colleague raises, but if those cost impacts are not correct, which is that if you take into account increased stillbirth from mother pigs kept in farrowing crates, which is one of the consequences of that and perhaps increased distress on the pigs, which leads to savaging, then it is also suggested, legitimately, that there is not much difference in the piglet mortality between the two systems, and, furthermore, with familiarity in the management practices, that mortality can be brought down.
So my question for the Minister is: given how much he is relying on piglet mortality and its impact on cashflow, can he be certain that the choice to not move away from farrowing cages is really the right one, first and foremost for the welfare of the animals but, secondly, even for the industry? I’ve got a follow up to that.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, just following on from the discussion. I appreciate that there has been really go to and fro. There were a couple of things that the Minister referred to, and one was that the economic analysis of this and why, in fact, it’s been pushed out to 10 years. So the implication is that the industry faces 700,000 or there abouts for an average operation.
So the question to the Minister is, how have they done that calculation? Is it on the assumption that they automatically keep the same number of sows, which I suggest I probably is. Yet any farming operation, any primary industry operation is always flexible to adjust it to the ongoing requirements and changes for operators. They may be climatic, they may be animal welfare, they may be related to the labour availability. I’m assuming that the cost calculation, this one that the Minister says is too great for most operators, is based on a flatline kind of management approach. If that is the case, perhaps he can give us an assurance on that.
Can I ask then whether, in the economic analysis, there was any valuation or assessment done of the countervailing kind of potential through the imposition of standards, which has been referred to, for imported product? That is that did the higher standard regime that could have been implemented, that might be—depending on, you know, there’s a lot of debate around that—in 2035. So we have a slightly higher standard. Whether it’s high enough or not, that’s a point that’s been well canvassed here. I’d suggest it probably isn’t. But none the less, the argument that if we had a higher standard and we would therefore be able to expect high standards of the imported product, what potential benefit does that offer to the pork producers? Maybe a little bit more leverage in the market.
So the question for the Minister: has this all been assessed? Because if it hasn’t, it should have been. If he’s referring to economic building as the reason for the extension of these regulations or the unwillingness to make the adjustments that are unnecessary, then we need to know that the economic burden has been properly assessed.
One of the values of market leverage of perhaps the supermarkets or the retailers having to accept higher standard animal welfare pork from New Zealand produces is kind of a win-win I would suggest—win, win, win. There may be or may not be an additional cost to the consumers. No one wants to unnecessarily drive up the cost of food in New Zealand, although I’d suggest a better solution to that is higher wages and then paying the food producers what they deserve. But look, there are a couple of questions for the Minister.
Can I also refer to something he said, which was as long as there’s good animal welfare then the systems are going well. I’d suggest the paradigm has been animal health not animal welfare and that as long as there’s good animal health—that is they don’t die and they grow quickly—then that’s OK. But the animal welfare side, which is a new concept of sentience discovered, I guess, and developed since the nineties, now being brought into legislation, then does the Minister understand the difference between—or do the officials and did they, in their advice, differentiate between good animal welfare or good animal health? Because that is, in fact, a critical component of internation scrutiny.
Not just animal health, we’re pretty good at that. We can pump in antibiotics. We can just make sure that they grow quickly and pay them a whole lot of food. But there is this other dimension to animal management now that we have to take on board if we’re to be a country that depends upon good animal management, good animal welfare, to give us a good return for our economy.
So a few questions there for the Minister and I look forward to his answers.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Working backwards—question, the last one that the Hon Damien O’Connor asked about. Do officials and the Associate Minister of Agriculture understand the difference between health and welfare in terms of animals? The answer to that is, of course, absolutely yes. I want to just also point the member in the direction of the Sapere Research report that was commissioned by the Ministry for Primary Industries to examine the cost implications of proposals. The questions that he asks are well defined and explained there.
Now, in reference to Steve Abel’s repeated questions, I can, with confidence, report that the Minister has previously answered those questions conclusively and fully.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, I will take one more call, but I do want it to be specific to the clause, and also to note that Ministers have been engaging well and addressing questions, so looking for new material and specific references to clauses in this next contribution.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I want to specifically pick up on the regulations regarding other requirements to management of pigs, which is to do with the manipulable materials that Rachel Boyack has touched on, but also this period of time in the mating stalls. So looking at, again, the decisions on regulations associated with the code of welfare of pigs document proactively released by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)—page 13 of that document outlines some advice given to the Associate Minister of Agriculture on the mating stalls. So I'm on page 13 of that—clause 54.
To be clear, the Minister originally, in this earlier version of the legislation, had a 10-year time frame on the mating stalls. There is only one single recommendation on this, which is that there should be a requirement that pigs spend only three hours in a mating stall at a time and then must spend a minimum of three hours out of the mating stall.
Originally, the New Zealand Pork Industry Board had indicated that farmers would not need a transition period to implement these new practices. Then they came back and said they would need at least six months for this change to occur. They made that statement on 18 December—oh, no, they didn't. They didn't make that statement then. That was regarding the 18 December date we’re trying to meet.
So based on this information, the advice from MPI was to issue the code requiring the mating stall change to come into effect on 1 July 2026 but to provide the New Zealand Pork Industry Board with a copy of the code that you intend to issue in confidence and seek their feedback on whether it is realistic for the members to meet the requirements set out in the code. Then the recommendation was to set the regulation on mating stalls to come into effect on 1 July 2026.
So my first question is why did the Minister initially suggest 10 years for that to come into effect, rather than the MPI recommendation of six months—1 July 2026? And why has he now determined to make it one year rather than the 10 years he initially set upon and rather than the six months initially recommended? Thank you.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): One year sounded simpler than six months in terms of people's transition.
TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): 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): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clauses 11, 12, and 13 to provide for “an earlier date set by Order in Council” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 471 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Rachel Boyack’s amendments to clauses 13 and 14 set out on Amendment Paper 447 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Rachel Boyack’s remaining amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 15 set out on Amendment Paper 447 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 (Maureen Pugh): Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendments to clauses 13 and 14 to change the date to “2027” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Rachel Boyack’s remaining tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 15 to change the date to “2027” 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 (Maureen Pugh): Steve Abel’s amendments to clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 set out on Amendment Paper 461 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s amendments to clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 set out on Amendment Paper 462 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 13 replacing “2035” with “2028” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, replacing “2035” with “2028” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 13 replacing “2035” with “2032” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, replacing “2035” with “2032” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment inserting new clause 11A set out on Amendment Paper 467 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 Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 13 set out on Amendment Paper 463 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): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s three tabled amendments to clause 13 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s two tabled amendments to clause 14 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Referring to Schedule 1, the question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 1, clause 8(1)(c) to require “consulting with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 1, clause 8(1)(c) to require “consulting with relevant animal welfare or advocacy organisations” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 1, clause 8(2)(a) and (b) to reference “on the day of or after commencement” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to 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.
Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 1, clause 8(3) to include the word “not” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to 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.
Amendments to the amendment not 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 2, new regulation 27(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) to replace “3 hours” with “1 hour” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to 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.
Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 471 as amended be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Rachel Boyack’s amendment to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, set out on Amendment Paper 447 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, to change “2035” to “2027” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s amendments to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, set out on Amendment Paper 461 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s amendments to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, set out on Amendment Paper 462 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, replacing “2035” with “2028” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, replacing “2035” with “2032” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 25(1), set out on Amendment Paper 464 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 Steve Abel’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 465, new regulation 25(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 Steve Abel’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 466, new regulation 25(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): Steve Abel’s amendments to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(1), set out on Amendment Paper 467 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Steve Abel’s remaining amendments to Schedule 2, new regulation 26, set out on Amendment Paper 467 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), set out on Amendment Paper 468 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 Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), to increase the fines to “$5,000” and “$20,000” 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 Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), to increase the fines to “$7,500” and “$25,000” 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 Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), to increase the fines to “$7,500” and “$35,000” 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 Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), to increase the fines to “$10,000” and “$37,500” 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): Steve Abel’s amendments to Schedule 2, new regulation 27(3), set out on Amendment Paper 469 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
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 to 3
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to clauses 1 to 3. Before I take the first call, can I just point out to members that my observation during the morning is that there is a tendency to use the questioning time in the committee of the whole House to make five-minute speeches with very little attempt to interrogate the Minister. I’m looking for some very targeted questions, obviously in context. So please try and keep your questions targeted at the work that we’ve got in front of us. I will clearly be making this point relevant as things progress. The five minutes is not a target.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I do note that clause 1 is, by convention and Standing Orders, a broad debate where we do discuss the title of this bill, and so it is appropriate that we talk specifically around the title of this bill and what is the most appropriate title for this shocker of a bill from this shocker of a Government.
A couple of months ago, the Minister trumpeted his great announcement that this Government was going to improve the animal welfare for pigs. Isn't that wonderful—isn’t that wonderful? So the title of this bill as set down in the House is the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. Doesn't that sound straightforward?
But I have an amendment on the table today saying clearly what is on the tin. It is a clear description of this bill, and that is that this should be called the “Animal Welfare (Regulations for Delaying Animal Welfare Improvements for Pigs) Amendment Bill”, because that is what this bill does. That's what it should say. The bill should clearly state what this bill actually achieves, and that is a 10-year delay to improvements in animal welfare.
Now, the Minister has made one small change through an Amendment Paper, which is to bring the improvements for mating stalls for pigs through to one year instead of 10, and we on this side of the House in the Labour Party do support that. But the small improvements for pigs inside farrowing crates and the small improvements for grower pigs in their confined spaces are not going to take effect for 10 years—10 whole years.
Now, to bring this debate back to the very beginning, two years ago when the Minister became the Minister, the work had been done by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The work had been done by the Ministry for Primary Industries. The Labour Government had overseen the consultation work required to get some agreement and to get some improvements.
Now, the Minister, instead of doing that work, putting that into legislation perhaps a year ago, so that we could have looked at it and spent six months looking at it at the Primary Production Committee and come up with some compromises and come up with some improvements and perhaps had a transitional time frame that was reasonable—instead of doing that, the Minister introduced this bill right at the 11th hour and has basically tried to say, “What a wonderful thing I've done here. What an amazing thing I've done.” Well, the public are speaking back and saying that this is not a wonderful thing. It is not a wonderful thing to see very minor improvements to animal welfare standards for pigs, and in 10 years’ time.
So one of the changes I have proposed is for this bill to take effect in five years. I believe that a five-year time frame is an appropriate time frame that does give the industry time to do the changes and the investment, but it doesn't confine animal welfare regulations for pigs to be delayed by such a long time frame. But I do believe that we need to be accurate about what this bill actually says when we describe it and so there are a number of title changes that I have put forward.
One of the other ones is the “Animal Welfare (Regulations for Harming Pigs) Amendment Bill”, because I believe and the Labour Party believes that what this bill does is allow pigs to continue to be harmed under animal welfare laws in New Zealand. The status quo will stay intact for the next 10 years for pigs confined to farrowing crates and for grower pigs in very small, confined spaces, they will also be harmed for a further 10 years.
It is not good enough, and it's not surprising from a Government that has decided that animal welfare is not a priority. It's a Government that has chosen to bring back live exports. It's a Government that has decided to not do anything about dogs that are contained. It is a Government that has decided to side with industry instead of properly consulting with all stakeholders, such as the SPCA, to ensure that this can be lasting, enduring legislation. It harms pigs, it delays animal welfare for pigs, and we should change the title to actually reflect what the bill achieves.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take a call on this, can I just say that my instruction at the beginning was quite clear. That was a five-minute speech very loosely related to the title.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Firstly, I just want to correct something there—
Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe: Point of order. When the rules for debate in the committee of the whole House were changed, it is in a manner correct that it was changed to be able to have question and answer sessions. It’s my understanding that it did not rule out at all the ability for a member to stand and debate the part or clause. This is a House of debate. Members should have the opportunity, I believe, under those rules, to actually debate those clauses.
I wonder if the best way forward would be for the presiding officer to think about it, amongst all the others, I would suggest, especially the Speaker. I don’t want to recall the Speaker on a matter as such, but I do believe that my colleague Rachel Boyack was completely in order with her contribution to this debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I appreciate the member’s experience in this position and in his previous position, but I did attempt at the beginning of this debate to make it clear that the committee of the whole House is about the bill and that speeches are reserved for readings one, two, and three. In the committee of the whole House, we’re interrogating the bill and making suggestions, and improving it where we can. Thank you for your contribution.
Arena Williams: Point of order, Madam Chair. This is a fresh point of order. It relates to Speakers’ ruling 127/3. You’ll note that in the report of the Standing Orders Committee in December 2003, it formalised the practice that, when debating the preliminary clauses at the end of a committee stage, the three ordinary preliminary clauses, particularly the title clause, would allow for a summarising of the political issues that have been discussed in the committee stage and the broader policy issues to do with the bill. It means, effectively, that that is the only clause where the committee stage allows for that more wide-ranging debate. I just want you to clarify: are you making a ruling that circumvents the ruling of Chairperson Tisch in 2015 and Chairperson Robertson in 2004, and Chairperson Hartley in 2004.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just firstly, I can’t let that comment around dogs go unanswered. This Government actually acted on that. The previous Government had spent three years dithering around what to around chained dogs. It did absolutely nothing; we did something.
In terms of the title and commencement, I know everyone wants to have some fun, but I wont be changing the title or the commencement date, although the “Piglet Lives Matter Bill” did appeal to me at one time, so did “Bringing Home the Bacon”, but we’ll just stick with what’s on the title.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I had not intended to speak on the title and commencement clauses until just very recently. I’m pretty astonished that my colleague the former Speaker of this House had to stand up, and that actually matters. It’s an extraordinary thing.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And this is relevant to the title?
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yes, indeed. It’s an extraordinary thing for a former Speaker to stand up and take a point of order, and it needs to be taken notice of. To that end, then, I intend, after all, to offer a suggestion for the title and commencement. I would not have done this otherwise, but I do feel the need to do so now. I’m sure my other colleagues, in the Green Party, have suggestions to offer as well.
My suggestion is quite straightforward, and it is about what this bill is about. The bill is not about animal welfare. In fact, it extends the time in which pigs can be kept in really confined quarters. It pushes out the time for improvements by 10 years, and this was done without consultation with the SPCA, done without consultation with New Zealand consumers, done without any reason given whatsoever, except that it happened to suit pork farmers. In fact, it was all about saving their bacon. In that context, I intend to stand up and bring to the committee’s attention an excellent tabled amendment presented by my colleague Rachel Boyack, who has worked extraordinarily hard on this bill and, unlike the Minister, has actually done a lot of consultation—broadly, not just with the industry.
My colleague Rachel has put together a tabled amendment, and it suggests that, instead of calling this the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill, we replace “(Regulations for Management of Pigs)” with “(Regulations for Harming Pigs)”. That’s one of the amendments she has suggested. Another one she has suggested, and this is the one I really like, is replacing “(Regulations for Management of Pigs)” with “(Save My Bacon)”, because that is what this bill does. It is extraordinary that the Minister could sit there and pretend this was about animal welfare. It is not about animal welfare. There is so much that could have been done in this space to improve the welfare of animals. Instead, what it has done is push out the time frame for when we were going to bring in regulations to ensure that pigs were treated better.
If the Minister was worried about the fact that that would raise prices for New Zealand pork farmers, perhaps he could have considered putting in regulations that insisted that the pork that is imported comes from countries that have similar standards. That would have been worth debating, would have been worth considering, would have had a whole lot of things to; instead, he’s just acted quite unilaterally and acted in a way that only preserves these cruel regulations for longer in an effort to save the bacon of the pork industry. That is the amendment, and I think it would be a much better title for this bill, because at least it would honest.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I also have some suggestions for the title of the bill.
One of the things that we got very clear feedback on in the committee was the extent to which people who were deeply concerned about the welfare of pigs felt that the determinations made by the Associate Minister of Agriculture in this bill actually backtracked on the trajectory that our nation was on around prohibiting sow stalls, around the decision of the High Court to recognise farrowing crates as unlawful, and an expectation that we, in New Zealand, were on a step away from the caging of pigs. On Tuesday morning, along with Rachel Boyack, I attended the protest, or the gathering of Helping You Help Animals (HUHA), the SPCA, and Save Animals from Exploitation, and one of the signs that HUHA produced was a clever play on “farrowing crate”: “Harrowing Fate”. [Holds up sign]
Todd Stephenson: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Slogans aren’t allowed to be displayed in the Chamber as part of a visual.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It’s political insignia, maybe.
STEVE ABEL: “Political insignia”?
Todd Stephenson: No, there is actually a Standing Order about political slogans, and a Speaker’s ruling.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to that point of order—thank you, Madam Chair. I believe that the Speaker’s ruling that has been made by the Speaker on this very issue covers attire, but it does not cover signage. I think there is a very clear Speakers’ ruling and also Standing Orders regarding the display of things, and the criteria is that it must not obscure, for one, the person who is sitting behind, but it is not necessarily in terms of the content and wording.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you for that explanation. It is being used as a visual aid for his speech, and so I will let the member continue.
STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Todd Stephenson: Speaking to the point of order, I would refer you to Standing Order 113, and then the Speakers’ rulings related to it. It’s quite clear that slogans cannot be visible from the floor of the House.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, I actually did have a ruling, which was that it was being used as a visual aid for his contribution at this point.
STEVE ABEL: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. That makes sense to me. This is not something that I’ve produced; it was something that I had got from an advocacy organisation, and it is entirely relevant to my contribution.
That articulation of just what a bad experience this is—I wonder if I have forfeited all my time on those points of order, Madam Chair, or whether there’s an opportunity for me to gain that time back?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, of course.
STEVE ABEL: Thank you. My contribution is around the extent to which the current title of the bill fails to capture the fact that this locks pigs into 10 more years of the status quo of that harrowing fate of being in a farrowing crate for five weeks at a time, and so I propose as one of my amendments that we should change the title of the bill from the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill to the “Animal Welfare (Regulations for Misery of Pigs) Amendment Bill”.
Furthermore, in the context of the extent to which the Minister’s decisions have been made based on considerations of the preferences of the pork industry, I believe that that is an abrogation of the Minister’s first duty, which is the welfare of animals. My second amendment, which is already tabled, is that the title of the bill should be changed to “Animal Welfare (Regulations for the Mismanagement of Pigs) Amendment Bill” because I believe that that is a more accurate expression of what this bill has the effect of doing.
Furthermore, the current title of the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill could more correctly be defined as the “Pork Industry Welfare Amendment Bill” because its priority seems to be the welfare of the pork industry itself. Whilst no one disagrees that that should be a legitimate consideration in how we effect the improvement of animal welfare, the focus on the industry’s preferences is disproportionate, and allowing the pork industry to determine the welfare of pigs is casting pearls to swine, you could say.
Miles Anderson: Oh, boom, boom!
STEVE ABEL: Boom, boom! I feel that the extent to which we have felt that there has not been full representation of the lack of engagement with the public and the animal welfare industry on this means that it could also be called the “Hogwash Bill”, as was the title in the Listener.
Finally, I think that what we really want to be seeing is a pork farming system that’s free from cages, and until such time as we see that, this legislation should be called the “Animal Welfare (Regulations for Misery of Pigs) Amendment Bill”. Thank you.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I won’t take too long, other than to actually challenge the title, because I think it is a legitimate question that the committee of the whole House should ask—whether it should be the “Pork Industry Transitional Arrangements Bill” because that is, in fact, what we are talking about here.
Animal welfare is, obviously, a focus of industry debate. We talked about whether it's animal welfare or animal health, and, in fact, there will be many in the House, and across the board, that will be thinking that this is about animal health—saving a few piglets—not, necessarily, the welfare of the either the piglets or of the sow.
But if I can come back to the focus that—it's not a long call but it is one around asking whether the Minister had considered, and I guess he's been challenged on a couple of other possible titles, whether it was, indeed, or should have been called the “Pork Industry Transitional Arrangements Bill” because that is, in fact, what we are doing here.
The question of whether it should be five years or whether it should be 10 years is one that, I think, will still be debated beyond the passage of this piece of legislation. It is occurring under urgency, and there hasn’t been, probably, the level of scrutiny that there might have been—should we have taken longer? Maybe the Minister wants to take a call and answer that question: should this have been or was it considered to be the “pork industry transitional arrangements” legislation?
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.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Steve Abel’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 1 to delete “Regulations for” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Rachel Boyack’s three tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.
Scott Willis’ two tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions 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): Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 463 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 2 to change the commencement to 1 July 2026 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the 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.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.
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.
Report adopted.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order regarding Speakers’ ruling 127/3. This committee stage included a debate between the former Speaker of the House and the Chairperson regarding the effect of the rulings, in 2004 and 2015, of three different Speakers about the preliminary clauses in the wide-ranging debate at the end of a session. It’s my view that this committee stage was curtailed because members were not given the latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they raised in the consideration of this bill. We now have the confusing situation where a Chairperson has said “I have ruled”, and then, later, in response to a point of order, made the point that none of those previous Speaker’s rulings were overruled. Mr Speaker, can you clarify whether the Speakers’ rulings in 2004 or the 2015 ruling by Speaker Lindsay Tisch are overruled or not?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just to clarify: the report has been received, and so, according to Standing Orders and the advice I’ve received, there is an opportunity after question time, I believe, after the House resumes; that is the appropriate time for this point of order, as I understood, because we’ve already voted on the report and the report has been adopted.
This bill is set down for third reading after question time. The House is suspended until 2 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 1.04 p.m. to 2 p.m.
SPEAKER: The House is resumed.
Papers
Papers
SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled How Tasman District Council and Waikato Regional Council mitigate flood risk.
I also present the report of the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests entitled Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of amendments to previous returns and of initial returns.
Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Justice
1. ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by the Government’s policy to ban enrolments in the final 13 days before an election, despite the Attorney-General warning that more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by this proposal?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you for the question. The answer is yes. I’ve got every confidence that New Zealanders have the capability of responding to a change in the signal that is sent. They’ve got a year to get enrolled, and I’ve got every confidence that they will be able to get enrolled 13 days before the election.
Oriini Kaipara: What impact will the prisoner - voting ban have on wāhine Māori—Māori women—who are one of the most overincarcerated groups in the world?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, if they’re imprisoned more than three years currently, they don’t have a vote. After the legislation is passed, if they’re imprisoned after the passing of that legislation for less than three years, they will lose their vote—and that’s about sending a clear message to those who are victims of crime that we take that seriously. There are consequences for crime, and one of those consequences is temporarily losing one’s vote while one is in prison.
Oriini Kaipara: Does the Minister dispute evidence that shows that denying prisoners the right to vote undermines rehabilitation goals, increases social exclusion, and, ultimately, increases the risk of offending?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, of course, I tend to think more about the needs of the victims of crime who are trying to put their life together after having been bashed or stolen or murdered or the many other victims of crime that live in this country. Look, we have a robust, strong democracy. There are many countries around the world that have various restrictions on prisoners voting. Currently, it is the law that if you’re in prison for three years or more, you lose your vote. We are extending that earlier, and we think that’s fully justified.
Oriini Kaipara: Does his Government truly care about democracy, or do they only care about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hang on. Stop there. The House will listen to a question in silence. Start again.
Oriini Kaipara: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister’s Government truly care about democracy, or do they only care about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori, such as when they removed Māori wards dismantled co-governance, and introduced the Treaty principles bill?
SPEAKER: OK, that question should be ruled out because it doesn’t comply with the requirements of Standing Orders; however, in so much as the Minister is able to make a statement, he can.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can assure the House that this Government does care about democracy—very much so. The good news about democracy is that Governments are held to account, and we are perfectly willing to put our record before New Zealanders, particularly in the justice space, where we’ve seen 38—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a moment. Things have to settle down. There are people just yelling for no particular purpose—they are not interventions; they are just boorish barracking. It’s got to stop. The Minister will briefly eat his answer.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was just continuing about the virtues of democracy and the accountability and where we lay our performance before the people of New Zealand at the next election, and we’re very proud of the progress that we’ve made on many fronts.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that it’s actually a legal obligation to be enrolled to vote with an up-to-date address from the age of 18—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, Minister Seymour. Someone called out then—interjected—while a question is being asked. The question can be asked again, and you will be given the silence of the House.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm it’s actually a legal obligation—one of the few blanket obligations the law places on all New Zealanders—to be enrolled to vote with an up-to-date address from the age of 18, so it shouldn’t be much of a problem to be enrolled 13 days before an election, and, if so, does he believe that New Zealanders of all races are equally capable of fulfilling this basic requirement?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, and yes. I have always been troubled by a particular party claiming that their voters are disadvantaged by any changes, which would imply that their voters are less capable than other voters of getting themselves enrolled—which is a strange way to talk about your voters.
Question No. 2—Economic Growth
2. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What recent changes has the Government made regarding economic growth and supermarket competition?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): Last night, the Government passed amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Act. The changes streamline the fast-track process, making it more efficient and delivering important projects that will grow the economy. The changes also promote greater competition in the supermarket sector by speeding up consent and approval processes to get a new supermarket open. The Government is serious about lifting economic growth and getting a better deal for Kiwi shoppers. Our fast track changes do both of those things.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why did the Government make changes to support supermarket competition?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We heard loud and clear from a range of people that standard resource consent processes can hold new supermarkets back and tie them up in red tape for years. Restrictive zoning, slow consenting, and cumbersome regulations have caused widespread frustrations that have seen less choice and higher prices for Kiwi shoppers because of a lack of competition. The fast-track process will shorten the time required to gain consent for a new supermarket to just a few months, increasing grocery competition. This is good news for shoppers; it’s about saying yes.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What else is the Government doing for supermarket competition?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s focus is on regulatory, enforcement, and structural areas. Our work includes improving the Overseas Investment Act to better support grocery investments and amending the Commerce Act to better combat predatory pricing. We are also looking to trial the use of digital labels for lower-risk imported goods to reduce onerous food labelling requirements on new supermarkets who seek to enter our grocery market. We have selected Christchurch City Council to be a single building consent authority to standardise decisions for grocery developments. There is a wide range of other work under way, which, together, will help enhance grocery competition for shoppers.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the changes to the Fast-track Approvals Act help grow the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The fast track regime will support growth by kick-starting projects right across the country—projects that will create jobs and help lift the incomes of Kiwi families and communities. The Act is generally working well, with six projects already consented and three more expected to have decisions before Christmas. Over the past few months, expert panels and panel conveners, applicants, Government officials, and councils identified areas where improvements could be made. Many of those were reflected in the changes made in this House last night. Officials estimate that the amendments could reduce the combined processing and consideration times by a further six weeks. That means more projects coming through the pipeline faster, and that’s good for growth. All those in this House who stand on the side of job creation and income growth should have voted for that bill.
Question No. 3—Women
3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding women’s pay?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): Yes, in the context they were given.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she claim that Australia’s mandatory pay gap reporting system cost the Australian Government billions?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: That was the number that I had been advised at the time. That has since been revised, and we understand the set-up costs of the Australian regulator were substantial, only to deliver very minimal gain.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What has changed since August 2023, when she said she supported large companies being required to report on their gender pay gaps?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Nothing’s changed. I do support large companies registering their pay gaps, but we don’t believe in compulsion. In fact, we have a voluntary pay gap calculator, which has had 80,000 page visits, 11,500 unique visitors, and, as a result, we’ve seen the pay gap drop a full 3 percent to the lowest ever on record at 5.2 percent.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What proportion of reduction in the gender pay gap is due to collective agreements or pay equity settlements?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I would have to get that question put on notice for the exact figure, but what I would say is that the representatives of those very hard-working union members who dutifully pay their levies to those union representatives really should start to try to utilise the new framework and raise claims again to prove that it works.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the chief executive of her ministry correct that at no point since the Government passed pay equity changes under urgency, has she asked for or received advice from the Ministry for Women on pay equity?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Yes, she is correct.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is she concerned that the chief executive of her ministry was unable to confirm her claim that changes to pay equity and cancelling 33 pay equity claims “can only be a good thing for women”?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I have absolute faith in the chief executive of the Ministry for Women, but, as has been traversed ad nauseam in this House but that member still does not seem to understand, pay equity and the pay gap cannot be conflated. There are multiple factors that go into the pay gap in New Zealand. I’m explaining this slowly so it might sink in.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why, when, effectively, Pasifika women have been working for free since 9 October, Māori women since 18 October, Asian women since 25 October, and Pākehā women since 25 November, has she cancelled 33 pay equity claims, locked out secondary teachers from future pay equity claims, and won’t support mandatory gender pay gap reporting?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I have absolutely no responsibility for a number of those situations that that member has raised.
Question No. 4—Justice
4. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?
SPEAKER: Just a minute. It’s pretty simple. If someone is asking a question, no one else is talking. There was a lot of talking during Tom Rutherford’s question. No, we don’t want to hear it again.
Tom Rutherford: Oh, good.
SPEAKER: But it would be a good idea just to at least let the Minister start before deciding to commentate on his answer.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): We’re making great progress. We had a target of reducing the number of victims of serious violent crime by 20,000. It’s already down by 38,000, but we know that there is a lot more work to do, and we don’t rest on our laurels for a moment, because there are still far too many victims of crime. That’s why today’s Crimes Amendment Bill, which will have its first reading, will bring in a number of initiatives to ensure that criminals face stronger penalties for attacking first responders, for coward punches, for human trafficking, and for retail crime.
Tom Rutherford: What will the Crimes Amendment Bill do?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it creates specific offences for assaulting first responders and prison officers, as committed to in the National - New Zealand First coalition. Those who commit acts of violence against these people who rush towards danger to help their fellow New Zealanders face greater consequences. It also fulfils the coalition commitment to create two new, specific coward punch offences, where people can be killed or suffer life-long injuries from these atrocious acts, and yet, often, the perpetrators receive lenient sentences. The Government is also seeking to strengthen trafficking and people smuggling laws to stop criminals using loopholes to evade consequences that often affect the most vulnerable people.
Tom Rutherford: What other changes will the Crimes Amendment Bill make?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, there’s a number of areas in the retail space, which has been an ongoing—
Hon Shane Jones: Gangs! Gangs!
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Gangs have been dealt with in previous legislation, Mr Jones, but, in so far as they are connected with retail crime, they will suffer the consequences here as well. Too often, business owners have been left feeling helpless as thieves walk out with whatever they please. We’ll clarify the citizen’s arrest powers so, if it’s safe and appropriate to do so, people can hold on to these offenders until the police arrive. That will make a difference. It also introduces a new shoplifting regime with an instant fine to bring about swift consequences in that circumstance.
Tom Rutherford: How will the Crimes Amendment Bill make a difference for victims?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The victims of retail crime will now have greater ability to hold those who steal from them, and not just from them but from their fellow law-abiding customers, to hold them to account by holding on to them until the police arrive, if it’s safe to do so, but also by bringing swift consequences through an infringement regime.
Tākuta Ferris: How has the Government progressed in 2025 with its plan to lower Māori overrepresentation in the justice system?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Very well, in the sense that we’re very much focused on the fact that Māori are overrepresented in the number of victims of crime. That is why we are very focused on reducing the number of victims of crime, which will have a bigger impact on Māori communities as they continue to be overrepresented as victims of crime. Everything we do, in our Government, is to reduce the number of victims of crime—Māori, Pākehā, and every other ethnic group in this country.
Tākuta Ferris: Has the Minister’s focus on lowering the percentage of Māori as victims of crime had any impact on the Minister’s goal of lowering Māori overrepresentation in justice?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, and that is the thing: if they’re more likely to be victims of crime, reducing the overall number of victims of crime has a real impact and success for Māori. When I go about the country—most recently, I was in Huntly, in an audience largely of Māori New Zealanders; they were pushing me to be even firmer on consequences for crime, because they wanted to live in a safe community, and they want their family to feel safe. Māori are no different to any other New Zealanders in that desire.
SPEAKER: I’ll make the point that the Minister doesn’t need the complementary support from his own side. He’s very capable of answering on his own.
Hon Louise Upston: Can the Minister advise what progress has been made to restore real consequences for sexual violence?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, there’s been very significant progress in this area over the last three years. We brought back three-strikes so that that very small number of perpetrators of serious sexual violence are kept out of circulation for longer. We’ve restricted the ability to have massive discounts for sentences for those people who are actually convicted of serious sexual crimes so they actually face real consequences for those. We’ve changed the rules so that permanent name suppression is not available to adult sexual offenders unless the victim agrees. We’ve brought in stalking legislation that has been talked about for years and now sends a very clear signal then. And we’ve ended the culture of excuses that was exemplified by funding cultural reports, which seemed to send the idea that it wasn’t your fault; it was somebody else’s fault for the crime that was perpetrated. I can’t think of another Government, recently, that has done more to make excellent progress in sending a very clear message around society’s expectations on sexual violence.
Question No. 5—Disability Issues
5. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement that the Government is committed to “breaking down barriers and improving the lives of disabled people”; if not, why not?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes. That’s why we took immediate action to stabilise the disability support system and invested a record $2.1 billion funding boost to Disability Support Services (DSS) in the last two Budgets. That’s also why we’ve released the New Zealand Disability Strategy which shows the measurable actions that we will take over the next five years to improve the lives of disabled New Zealanders. Whaikaha has also recently launched the first all-of-Government internship programme that will see a group of disabled people employed in the Public Service. Our Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled people and their families.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why was the National Enabling Good Lives Leadership Group downgraded such that it is no longer a ministerial advisory group?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would disagree that it's been downgraded and I'd like to actually quote from a letter that has been received just recently—just this week, in fact—from the chair of the National Enabling Good Lives Leadership Group that says, and I quote, they “are writing to express our appreciation to Whaikaha—Ministry of Disability Issues and Cabinet for formally acknowledging Enabling Good Lives as a foundation, touchstone, and guide within the New Zealand Disability Strategy.”
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did the chief executive of Whaikaha tell a select committee during scrutiny week last week that the core relationship with the National Enabling Good Lives Leadership Group will no longer be with the Minister but will be with the Ministry?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because that's accurate. As I've just quoted from the chair of the National Enabling Good Lives Leadership Group, they have acknowledged the work that is going—I don't agree that it's downgraded. I think it's a really important relationship and, as I said, the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) principles are a cornerstone of our New Zealand Disability Strategy and are fundamental to not only the stabilising but strengthening work of DSS.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did she choose to stop work on My Home My Choice, a programme that works on alternatives to residential care for disabled people?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That was a pilot initiative that was started by Whaikaha. When we have focused our efforts on the disability support system, it is first about stabilising—and, as I said, we've invested a record $2.1 billion into Disability Support Services. Part of that, and the really exciting news in terms of what comes into effect in February next year with the changes we've made, is greater choice and control for disabled people, including for residential care. I'm surprised that member isn't celebrating a record investment and greater choice and control for disabled people, which is exactly the EGL principles.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is she concerned that she's stopped My Home My Choice at a time when young people are increasingly being forced to live in aged-care homes because there aren't any alternatives?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I'm not sure that that member listened to the answer that I gave around the stabilisation and the strengthening of the disability support system, along with a record investment of $2.1 billion, which is all around how we ensure that the lives of disabled New Zealanders who access DSS have greater choice and control and that there also is a stable system that is fair and consistent throughout New Zealand.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What has she done about the increasing number of young disabled people living in aged-care homes other than cutting the one programme designed to address the issue?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I would reject that assertion. I do agree that it is challenging for younger people who because of a lack of access in the area they live—there is access to suitable residential care. But I would just put on record: that was a pilot, it was not across New Zealand, it was in a couple of locations. What we need to do is to stabilise access to residential support, which is exactly what we’ve done. That’s why the record investment of $2.1 billion into DSS is so important. The changes that come into effect in February next year give greater choice and control for disabled people in terms of where they live and how they live, and how and what services they access to support them.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How can she say that her Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled people when she’s taking away disabled people’s choice and control over where they live, she’s withdrawn support—Government support—for the EGL approach, and the disability unemployment rate is at an eight-year high?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I absolutely reject the comments that member has made, and I’m not sure that she listened to my answers in terms of how important the Enabling Good Lives principles are. It was a former National Government that introduced them in the first place, they are woven through the New Zealand Disability Strategy, and they are fundamentally at the heart of the changes we have made that come into effect on 1 February next year around flexible funding, which means there is zero—zero—purchasing guidelines, and total and absolute choice and control for disabled people.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: No one wants that, either.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: And that member’s saying that disabled people don’t want that; well, that’s not what they’re telling me. They want choice and control, and our Government is giving it to them.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How can the Minister claim the Government is breaking down barriers when the Whaikaha—Ministry of Disabled People annual report for the last financial year confirms significant data gaps for Māori disability outcomes, and no clear funding breakdown for kaupapa Māori providers, leaving tangata whaikaha Māori without transparent accountability or targeted investment?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I would say that across many areas of Government, data needs to be improved in terms of the breakdown for Māori, and I’m happy to go away and have a look at what improvements we can make.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Why has the Government failed to set a clear timeline for closing the significant data gaps on accessibility and Māori-specific disability outcomes identified in the Whaikaha—Ministry of Disabled People annual report for the last financial year, and when will the Minister commit to delivering disaggregated data that enables targeted action for tangata whaikaha Māori?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I would just say that our Government is focused on improving the lives of disabled New Zealanders, from one end of the country to the other. As I’ve said, I’m happy to look at what improvements can be made around data, but our Government is absolutely focused on improving their lives.
Question No. 6—Tourism and Hospitality
6. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made to support major events in New Zealand?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): Last week, I announced the first tranche of events from our major events package. The line-up includes many exciting international and home-grown music acts, sports matches, and arts and cultural events kicking off in 2026. The first round is an integral part of the $70 million major events and tourism package designed to drive economic activity and confidence throughout the country. Tourism and major events are a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. More world-class events means more visitors, more jobs, and a growing economy.
David MacLeod: What are the successful events?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The first tranche includes 20 events. Amongst the highlights, American rockers Linkin Park will play in Auckland, the Ultra Music Festival brings its Miami-famous electronic dance music to Wellington, and our local legend Six60 are collaborating with Synthony for the very first time in Christchurch. In total, we will be supporting over 70 events either directly or indirectly through the Events Attraction Package and the Events Boost Fund. This is just the beginning. We’ll continue to set the stage for a massive year in 2026 and I’m looking forward to announcing other high-profile events in the new year.
David MacLeod: What benefits does she expect to see as a result of this announcement?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: When major events come to town, the economic ripple effect is huge. For every dollar spent on live performance, $3.20 is returned in benefits to the wider community. We know it’s looking positive, with the latest visitor statistics showing an increase of 22,500 visitors in October 2025, compared to a year before. Events don’t just bring more visitors and economic benefits; they bring life and energy to our cities, creating vibrant communities and unforgettable experiences. That’s why we’ve invested in an exciting calendar of events designed to strike a chord with everyone.
David MacLeod: What feedback has she seen on this announcement?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback’s been incredibly positive. David Higgins from Duco Events has said, “Having support from the Government is very helpful. It enables us to confidently go big and put on massive shows that otherwise might not happen, and it makes New Zealand a nice place to live.” The Otago Rally organiser, Roger Oakley, was ecstatic, and said, “We’re heading into the 50th anniversary event for the Otago Rally next year and this funding will help us to bring it to the next level—something this remarkable milestone deserves.” New Zealand has an excellent global reputation for delivering world-class events and I’m looking forward to announcing even further events in the coming months.
Question No. 7—Māori Development
7. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Māori Development: Is he concerned by the warnings of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that New Zealand is at serious risk of weakening Māori rights and entrenching disparities for Māori, and, if so, what is he doing to address these warnings?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister for Pacific Peoples) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: The Government takes its international human rights obligations seriously and remains committed to ensuring equitable outcomes for Māori. We acknowledge the concerns raised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD, and will continue to engage constructively with the committee through a regular reporting process. Te Puni Kōkiri are contributing through the cross-Government response to CERD’s concluding observations, which is led through the Ministry of Justice.
Teanau Tuiono: What will he do to address the concerns of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that many of the Government’s policies, including scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora and budget cuts to Māori services—and I quote—“may seriously risk weakening the legal, institutional, and policy framework for the implementation of the Racial Discrimination Convention.”?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said in my primary response, the ministry is working through the concluding observations, but as it relates to the Māori Health Authority, I’d also note that the committee recommended established bodies composed of Māori and Pacific health experts—the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee is exactly that.
Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree with Lady Tureiti Moxon that this report is unprecedented in its length and its language, CERD is clear New Zealand is moving backwards on racial equality, and Māori rights are under serious threat, and, if not, why not?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: No, I do not, and I enjoyed the conversation with her this time last week.
Teanau Tuiono: Is he embarrassed that, unlike the last review, this report finds virtually no positive progress by New Zealand on Māori rights or racial equality?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: No. I’m pleased by the positive recommendations that the report does resolve to, including noting the initiatives taken by Police to address systemic bias in policing practices and the increase in the number of Māori judges in district courts.
Teanau Tuiono: Have any Government policies worsened outcomes for Māori?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Our ambitions are to improve the outcomes and improve equitable positions for Māori.
Hon Shane Jones: Is the Minister aware that a number of the people who sit on these UN pettifogging committees come from countries with far worse race relations than New Zealand?
SPEAKER: You can have a go at asking the question again without the emoluments in it that rule it slightly out of the Standing Orders—as the member himself has pointed out to me in recent days.
Hon Shane Jones: Thank you for that elucidation.
SPEAKER: It’s an opportunity. Carry on.
Hon Shane Jones: Is the Minister aware that a number of the people that sit upon the United Nations committee hail from nations who have their own race relations problems that are worse than our nation State of New Zealand?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said in my primary, I acknowledge that we have work to do and we have a process to do that, and I believe other members of the committee also have issues that they’re trying to work through also.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Justice had an extensive and constructive conversation with members of the committee over the course of their inquiry and pointed out many of the areas where this Government is making excellent progress in advancing outcomes for Māori?
SPEAKER: That’s great—now, where’s the question?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware—is he aware?
SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. Well, good. Are you aware?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I am aware. I am aware of the—
SPEAKER: That’ll do then. That’s right [Interruption] That’s fine.
Teanau Tuiono: Does he accept the finding that the Government’s efforts to remove Treaty clauses from legislation—and I quote—“risk entrenching historical, structural, and systemic discrimination against Māori”, and, if so, will the Government finally leave Te Tiriti o Waitangi alone?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is that concerns of this nature, as expressed by CERD, are being worked through by the Ministry of Justice, which has the lead, and we remain committed to reducing inequalities and better outcomes for Māori.
Question No. 8—Universities
8. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Universities: What recent announcement has he made about the Waikato Medical School?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister for Universities): Last week, myself and the Minister of Health, the Hon Simeon Brown, announced that construction is now under way on Waikato’s new medical school. With $82.85 million in Government funding, this new school represents a major long-term investment in medical education across the Waikato region and New Zealand and will change the medical education landscape. It’s an exciting development and a major milestone in the Government’s plan to train more GPs. This Government is focused on fixing the basics and I’m proud to see the construction start on this exciting new school. I want to acknowledge the many people over many years who have nourished this vision.
Ryan Hamilton: How will the new school strengthen medical education in New Zealand?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We are building for the future, and this new school will help develop the health workforce New Zealand needs. From 2028, the Waikato Medical School will train an additional 120 doctors each year, making the medical school one of the most significant workforce investments in a generation. The school’s teaching model places particular emphasis on primary care and rural GPs; areas that are currently challenging. It’s a good example of how universities are working to align student skills with the needs of the country and will provide a significant boost to tertiary education, as well as creating opportunities for the local workforce.
Ryan Hamilton: How will this approach strengthen primary care in New Zealand?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This new school supports the Government’s clear focus on strengthening primary care, especially for regional New Zealand. Providing access to medical education locally means students can train closer to home while helping build a resilient, regionally connected workforce. After their first year on campus in Waikato, students will spend three years undertaking clinical placements in a regional or provincial setting. Under a wider “train in place, stay in place” model, these trainees are more likely to then live and work in the regions. This will help people see a doctor more easily and improve the distribution of doctors across the country.
Ryan Hamilton: What feedback has he seen about the new school?
Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have received positive feedback from academics, practitioners, and some of the parents of the over 300 New Zealand citizens currently training in Australian medical schools. The Waikato Chamber of Commerce expressed their support for the school, highlighting its transformative potential. The Rural Health Network expressed delight with the announcement of a third medical school. The message from throughout the country is clear: this new medical school is a game changer.
Question No. 9—Veterans
9. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Veterans: Is he committed to ensuring that veterans receive their full entitlements from the Crown following the High Court rulings on Tā Wira Gardiner's case; if not, why not?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister for Veterans: Yes.
Greg O'Connor: Will he rule out any legislative change that will override the High Court’s ruling on veterans’ entitlements; if not, why not?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister, the Government is carefully considering its response. We need to fully understand the impact on claims before making a decision, and I'm not in a position to rule any response in or out.
Greg O'Connor: Does he agree that when the High Court has twice clarified how Veterans’ Affairs should be deciding veterans’ claims, any attempt to relitigate or legislate to narrow veterans’ rights would be an act of bad faith to those who have risked their lives for New Zealand?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it's very important to allow the Government to do its job, just as the previous Government had to wrestle with exactly the same issue when it also appealed against the decisions of the Veterans’ Entitlement Appeal Board. So I think it is a very serious issue, and the Government is taking it seriously. The Minister will, of course, as a very astute and careful Minister, put his best efforts into this.
Greg O'Connor: Why do veterans who have been injured or died from having served their country, and their families, have to repeatedly go to court to receive the care and support they are entitled to?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, the member might wonder why the previous Government also appealed the decision. I think it's very important to understand that—[Interruption] Just calm down. I think it is very important for this to be taken seriously, as the previous Government had to, and to consider all the implications of this. It's a very serious matter, and the Government is carefully considering its response. Instead of getting excited about it, just wait, listen, and work with the Government.
Greg O'Connor: What does he have to say to all those veterans and their whānau who have been declined support as a result of an interpretation of the Act which Justice Grau described as “the very opposite of benevolence and instead appears to be about resources.”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I'd say it's a good thing that this Government's in charge, not the previous one. Since the High Court's decision, Veterans’ Affairs has been processing claims in line with the court's interpretation, and additional funding was made available in Budget 2025 to do this—not something that had happened under the previous regime.
Greg O'Connor: Does the Minister realise that to qualify for veterans support, a veteran must have served in a war zone?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I just suggest that member not try and tell his grandma how to suck eggs.
SPEAKER: It could be described as a scrap between the grandparents.
Hon Judith Collins: I'm sure you and I would never have such an argument.
SPEAKER: Lucky it's Christmas.
Question No. 10—Energy
10. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) to the Minister for Energy: Is he confident in the viability of the offshore wind industry in Taranaki?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy): Yes.
Scott Willis: Is the decision of JERA Nex bp Ltd—a company registered in England and Wales which was intending to build a 500-megawatt to 1 gigawatt of offshore wind farm in South Taranaki Bight—to withdraw from operations in New Zealand a sign of a good health of the industry?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the entity that has been referred to is owned by BP and is based out of the UK. Investment decisions are matters for individual companies. I am confident that offshore wind in New Zealand is viable. The Government is committed to creating a regime to support offshore wind, and we’re taking significant steps to make that a reality.
Scott Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a letter from JERA Nex bp Ltd to me, confirming their intention to cease operations in New Zealand.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Scott Willis: What are the implications for the offshore wind industry with Taranaki Offshore Partnership indicating that the planned seabed mining operation would make offshore wind in the area unfeasible; and BlueFloat, already having withdrawn from New Zealand, citing Trans-Tasman Resources’ seabed mining as a leading reason?
Hon SIMON WATTS: I’m very happy to help the member with a little bit of positive news in regards to developments in the offshore wind area. Only a week ago, Genesis and the entity in which the member just noted, Taranaki Offshore Partnership, have entered into a memorandum of understanding to explore offshore wind development in New Zealand. More electricity generation has been commissioned in the past 18 months by this Government than the entirety of the last 15 years. So if the member wants a little bit of advice: support the Resource Management Act, support fast track, and make sure he supports LNG.
Scott Willis: Is he aware of the submissions from the offshore wind developers on the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining fast-track application showing the incompatibility of seabed mining and offshore wind, and does the failure of the fast-track panel to seek comment from him, as Minister for Energy, indicate a significant failing of the fast-track regime?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Again, I’d be very happy to send the member a copy of a press release that I issued—I think, probably, a couple of months ago—in regards to decisions by this Government to draft an amendment to deal with the reality that we are going to be undertaking offshore exploration in conjunction with undertaking offshore wind and making sure that those two economic growth opportunities for this country can coexist in the Taranaki region. This Government wants economic growth, we are looking to enable that through an amendment, and that’s currently being worked through.
Scott Willis: Does the over six-month delay in passing the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and the withdrawal of yet another offshore wind developer, mean that the Minister for Energy has capitulated to the Minister for Resources, and offshore wind energy is simply dead in the water under this Government, which is instead prioritising seabed mining?
Hon SIMON WATTS: No. The reality is that this is a very busy Government. We’ve got a significant work programme under way. As I noted, we are currently drafting the Amendment Paper required to deal with the exclusivity issue that the member has noted, and the industry has noted. I will reinforce again that if the Green Party really wanted to see more renewable energy in this country, then they would support fast track.
Scott Willis: Will the Minister be renaming the Electrify NZ programme the “Mining NZ” programme on the basis of his Government’s actually revealed priorities?
Hon SIMON WATTS: No.
Question No. 11—Agriculture
11. Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has the Minister made regarding wool?
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): On Monday, I had the privilege to announce and attend the completion of the first commercial consignment of deconstructed woollen particles at Wool Source’s facility at Lincoln University, a shipment now bound for Japan for use in hair care products, showcasing this revolutionary new process, supported by $3.5 million in funding through the Ministry of Primary Industries.
Dr David Wilson: Why are these announcements significant for the wool industry?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: Deconstruction of wool and fibre technology is the moon shot for the New Zealand wool industry. Deconstructing woollen pigments, particles, and powders into bioagents for inks, dyes, and nutraceuticals takes wool onto a whole new commercial playing field. It has the potential to capture very high returns, support much higher farm gate returns, and importantly, has the potential to scale and to take significant quantities of New Zealand wool. Importantly, this world-leading technology has been developed by WRONZ, the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand at Lincoln University, and the IP is owned by New Zealand farmers and industry.
Dr David Wilson: What other initiatives are currently under way in the wool sector?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: One of my priorities has been re-establishing mandated leadership for the wool sector. Since the demise of the Wool Board and industry levy in 2011, the sector has been fragmented, lacking coordination and leadership. The Wool Alliance has been formed to explore an enduring industry model, a collaborative initiative designed to develop a sustainable, long-term industry model. The alliance brings together Wool Impact, Campaign for Wool New Zealand, and the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand, with the support from Beef + Lamb New Zealand, and is chaired by former chairman of Fonterra, John Monaghan. I'm pleased to report that farmer and industry consultation is underway with the aim of having a formal structure formalised by the end of June 2026.
Dr David Wilson: What have been the highlights of the wool sector in 2025?
Hon MARK PATTERSON: Look, the ultimate highlight and result has been the increase in the wool price: up 25 to 40 percent, depending on the micron, year on year as a return to natural fibres and woollen products. A particular highlight, and I must acknowledge the Hon Nicola Willis, was the Government's announcement to preference woollen fibres in Government buildings. It has been well received by farmers, by industry, by the public, and has attracted international recognition. But the greatest reward for me has been witnessing the revival of the sector, the return of pride for our wool growers and our industry, a sense of collaboration and purpose, and to see investment starting to flow back into the sector, with the knowledge that their Government is right behind them.
Jenny Marcroft: Can the Minister confirm that he has set a high “baa” for the wool industry?
SPEAKER: Well, next minute you'll be asking him to demonstrate, so we'll just move on.
Question No. 12—Vocational Education
12. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) to the Minister for Vocational Education: Will Industry Skills Boards be able to carry out their full mandate from 1 January 2026; if not, why not?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): The Industry Skills Boards (ISBs) will be operational from 1 January 2026. The governance boards are in place now. They are currently going through the process of appointing chief executives and making offers to appropriate staff from the Workforce Development Councils (WDCs). They will certainly be operational from 1 January 2026, but like any new organisation, they will build capacity and capability as they evolve and progress. But importantly, they have a very clear expectation of what their core functions are and what is most important for them to concentrate on early.
Shanan Halbert: Has she or any of the agencies she is responsible for provided the Minister of Education with advice on the feasibility of Industry Skills Boards being able to deliver on their role in replacing NCEA?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, of course replacing NCEA and undertaking curriculum development for the compulsory sector is not a core part of the ISBs’ business, but, of course, we are incredibly supportive of the excellent work that Minister Stanford is doing to progress vocational pathways in schools, and we look forward to ISBs contributing positively to that work. While ISBs have a smaller number of core functions, it’s always been anticipated that there’ll be additional functions from time to time, like supporting the schools’ vocational pathways, like researching apprentice success, and other specific industry initiatives. They’ll be undertaken as additional funding is made available for those tasks.
Shanan Halbert: Will Industry Skills Boards need more funding and assistance to deliver on their part of the Government’s plan to replace NCEA?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I’ll just repeat some of the things that I said in the previous answer, which is that they have core functions that they are core funded for and there will be other initiatives from time to time, like supporting the vocational pathways that Minister Stanford is doing such a wonderful job in bringing forward. We are delighted to be able to be part of that very positive work to ensure there are pathways. There’ll be other functions and other initiatives such as the research we’d like them to do on the success of apprenticeships, and there’ll be other workforce initiatives that industries will want and we will do those from time to time when funding is available for those initiatives.
Shanan Halbert: Has anyone who will be on an Industry Skills Board raised concerns with her around their ability to design curriculum with less funding and less staff compared to the Workforce Development Councils?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, of course the Workforce Development Councils didn’t develop curriculum for the compulsory schooling sector either and there will be less funding available for the ISBs than the WDCs, but I have high expectations of them being more efficient than the WDCs were. So again, there will be the core functions that they will undertake from their core funding and then there may be additional functions from time to time with additional funding.
Shanan Halbert: Why has she done nothing to help ensure Industry Skills Boards will be able to deliver as part of the Government’s plan to replace NCEA?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, that’s interesting because I’ve done a considerable amount to ensure there are boards in place, there are chief executives being appointed, there are staff being appointed, and we are working closely with Minister Stanford in the wonderful work that she is doing on vocational pathways. We look forward to the ISBs being able to support those pathways from compulsory schooling into tertiary education.
Shanan Halbert: Did she have any input in Industry Skills Boards being part of the NCEA replacement or was she just told it was happening?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Of course I had input to it. There were core functions that were set and then we knew that from time to time there will be additional functions. We are not only pleased to be involved in it but absolutely delighted because what it means is there is now a pathway from secondary schooling into vocational education through the vocational pathways. It’s to enable a seamless movement, so we’re delighted to be part of this initiative.
Bills
Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill
Introduction
SPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.
CLERK: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, introduction.
Bills
Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I present a legislative statement on the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I move, That the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
I will keep this very short and avoid covering a hell of a lot of old ground that we’ve traversed this morning and last night. This bill is quite simple. It moves the dial forward on welfare outcomes and goals and provides a sensible time frame for pork farmers to adapt to these changes. These changes, as has been mentioned, will reduce the length of time pigs will be in farrowing crates from the current 33 days to just seven—three days pre-farrowing; four days post-farrowing.
This puts us amongst the leading countries in the world. Very few other countries do this, and most other countries are still at 33 days. The other change is that the bill increases the grower space by 13.3 percent and also we are reducing the amount of time that pigs can spend in mating stalls down to three hours. These are pragmatic changes and the sensible time frame we are introducing for the transition for farmers will ensure they are able to adapt to these changes.
These changes are not simple. They are not easy. They require a huge investment, and in many cases farmers will need to disestablish their entire facilities and rebuild from the ground up. This is a major cost we’re imposing upon these farmers. It is not simple. It is not easy. Thus they need the 10 years.
I repeat that very few other countries have standards this high. These changes are very pragmatic, and the key thing here is that this ensures we will still have a domestic pork sector, and I just want to labour this point a little bit. We’ve heard a lot of people talking about this idea that customers and overseas consumers and all these people are going to want this and we’re just going to have to do it anyway. Well, yeah, OK; that’s how markets work. If there is a market signal, then people will respond. Farmers will respond to a market signal. The challenge we have here is that the market signal that our pork producers are getting right now is that people would rather buy cheap from overseas at lower welfare standards.
So you can say, “Oh, everyone demands this.”, but the reality is that they may say that in a survey—it doesn’t cost them anything to respond to a survey—but when they have to put money on the table, that’s really their choice, and that is the signal they’re sending. They don’t want to pay for extra. They’re happy with the standards that are there. So it’s important that if we want to maintain a pork sector in this country, we cannot get too far. We obviously need to have leading welfare, but from what I’m hearing from the Opposition, we would have no pork sector in this country, and we would be importing everything.
It amazes me at times. We heard yesterday during the fast-track bill one of the members opposite was going on about, “What are you wasting your time talking about this for? How is this going to make food cheaper in the supermarket in Wainuiomata? How is any of this going to change the dial on the cost of living?” Well, I did want to get up and explain how transport and energy prices all impact on how much your food costs to actually produce and get to market, but for all these members opposite who want to jump up and say that people want this, and at other times they talk about the cost of living and how can we make food less expensive, answer this for me. If you do what you want to do and we don’t have a pork sector or we force our pork sector to do all this or go even higher and it pushes up the prices, how does that make their Christmas ham any cheaper?
Finally, I just want to say that I hope everyone does enjoy their Christmas hams this year, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the ACT Party votes to be cast by the National Party for the next hour so that members can attend a farewell for our long-serving chief of staff, Andrew Ketels.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought but I don’t think you need to. I can grant that leave.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We've spent a large amount of time today traversing this bill, and it is extremely disappointing that it is going to be passed in the House today. Labour will continue to oppose this bill, and I will take the House through the reasons for that. A significant number of those reasons are related to the science in terms of what is best for sows and for piglets, and I will come to that quite substantively in my speech.
To start with, I would like to talk again about the background to this bill. In 2020, there was a High Court case that found that current practices around confining pigs in farrowing crates and other forms of confinement were at odds with the purposes and objectives of the Animal Welfare Act. Essentially, the operations of what was happening on farm were illegal and invalid. Cabinet took decisions at that point to put in place temporary regulations with a plan to move to finalising improved regulations for pig and piglet welfare, and those temporary regulations were due to expire next week on 18 December.
During our previous term in Government, it was the Labour Party—and I'll put on record, because we do hear often in Opposition speeches how there's been substantial consultation. Substantial consultation happened under the Labour Government. It was led by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), and it was led by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC). That consultation was based on a number of options about improving the space requirement for pigs in their environment. Then, around the time final advice came through to Government, the Government changed, and so it wasn't able to be implemented in time for the Government changing.
The Associate Minister of Agriculture has been in his role now for two years. What he has done in that time: instead of implementing the advice from NAWAC, he allowed the pork lobby to go back to lobby further, and he didn't consult with the SPCA. Now, on my watch, that's appalling, to not consult with the SPCA on such an important matter. They were sidelined; they were blindsided. When the law was introduced to Parliament, they had had no knowledge of what was going to come before this House, and that is not good enough.
Now, there's a number of issues with the substance of this bill that the Labour Party takes issue with, and I'm going to go through those today. What is incredibly disappointing is that in many occasions relating to animal welfare changes, we can reach bipartisan, cross-party support. We should be striving to reach agreement between industry and other stakeholders such as animal welfare organisations, because that is how we get certainty and stability for industry and for a sector that is important like this one. What we don't want to do is set up a flip-flop policy arrangement, but that is what is going to happen here, because we're not going to be able to abide by what has been introduced to law here; we're going to have to do something different, and that doesn't provide certainty for industry. It's not good for anybody.
I'm extremely disappointed that unlike Mr Peters’ approach around greyhounds, for example, where he has worked closely with the Opposition to actually come up with a programme of work that we all agree on—it actually means we can work together for the good of the animals involved. So that is my plea, that, actually, on issues like this, we shouldn't be having this debate across the House, because it is important that we support these sectors as well. For the record, I've met with New Zealand Pork and given them that message, and I've met with the SPCA and given them that message, that I would expect the two parties to sit down and come up with some solutions and potentially compromise around that.
Here are the issues. The first is that we are going to be waiting for 10 whole years for some minor improvements to pig welfare—10 years. Now, the industry hasn't actually asked for 10 years; five years would be far more reasonable. I accept that there will have to be investment for industry—I accept that—but it does not have to be 10 years. When we have law currently in place that has been found by the court to be at odds with the purpose of the Act, that we know does not meet high standards for animal welfare, we should be working to change that as soon as possible. So when it comes to two components of the substance of this bill, around farrowing crates and around the grower pig requirements, waiting for 10 years is far too long, and that cannot stand.
There is one area where I do support what the Minister has done, and that is around improvements for time spent in a mating stall. For that to come in place in one year, that is a good thing, so I do want to give credit where it's due. That is a good thing and I support that, and the Labour Party voted for those amendments as part of the bill.
Let's talk about grower pigs. Only a 13.3 percent increase in the containment size for grower pigs, significantly less than what was proposed by NAWAC—significantly less. These are pigs that are being grown for sale for provision of meat, and when they are contained, they should be held in the best animal welfare standards possible, because pigs are sentient, and ensuring that they can actually move and not be constrained in their environment is a really important part of their welfare. So what the Minister has done is sided with the exact recommendations of the pork industry and completely sidelined NAWAC, and that is unheard of.
You know, one of the things the science advisor said to me was that during his consultation process, the most recent round, the SPCA were consulted because they were part of NAWAC. That's actually wrong. The SPCA representative was no longer on NAWAC when NAWAC were consulted. They were replaced when they left NAWAC by a farmer, so there's actually no representative of the SPCA currently on NAWAC and they weren’t part of that consultation. So there's some real concern here around NAWAC being undermined in terms of their responsibility to provide that independent advice to the Minister that comes from a broad range of people sitting around that table with a range of interests and expertise.
That’s grower pigs and mating stalls, but the biggest issue, certainly for the public, is around farrowing crates, and I think we've been sold some misinformation, frankly, around the science on this. What has come through the Primary Production Committee process which has been very helpful, from a group of New Zealand animal welfare scientists—many of whom have worked as veterinarians, many of whom have worked specifically in animal welfare science, have worked for MPI, have sat on NAWAC before. Some of the comments they've made in their submissions—and I'm going to put them on record. Here's one: the current proposal to allow sows to be confined for seven days without increasing pen or crate size is particularly problematic. Evidence suggests that this approach may actually increase piglet mortality as sows released into undersized pens can accidentally crush piglets due to restricted movement.
They've also looked at some of the research. Specifically, Baxter et al talk about how “A well-designed and managed system without permanent crating can achieve the same performance as conventional farrowing crates.” Finally, another study from 2002: when considering the piglets’ needs, the European Food Safety Authority concluded that “Reducing the space available to the lactating sow below 6.6 m2 [will reduce] her freedom of movement and increase the mortality of [her] piglets.” So, actually, there has been a lot of scientific evidence that is at odds with what the MPI science summary has produced.
Because the select committee looked at this for such a short period of time, we weren't able to deeply delve into that science, and that, again, is not good enough. That is not a good process for this Parliament to be following for such an important industry and the certainty it requires. So my view is that we need certainty. My view is that we need some agreement between the industry and between animal welfare organisations around what standards two parties can compromise on and live with into the future so that we can improve animal welfare. Firstly, it must be less than 10 years, and there must be improvements around the farrowing system and significant improvements into the space allowance for grower pigs.
The Labour Party will not be supporting this bill. When we return to Government, we will be doing something differently. We will involve all stakeholders in those decisions and not just the ones that we happen to side with because of our backgrounds. I do not commend this bill to the House.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have a powerful principle in our Animal Welfare Act that upholds an idea developed in New Zealand at Massey University that characterises animal welfare and the idea that animals, even when farmed, should still live a good life. It’s the concept of the five domains. Those five domains are freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, injury, or disease, freedom to express normal behaviour, and freedom from fear and distress. I cannot imagine anybody who doesn’t see film footage or photographs of a mother pig in a farrowing crate where she cannot turn around, she cannot express normal behaviour, she cannot build a nest, which is a profound instinct of mother pigs in the 24 hours before they give birth, she cannot properly tend to her young—I cannot imagine anyone who seriously thinks that that is not distressing for the mother pig or that it allows them to express their natural behaviour. Certainly it was the finding of the High Court in 2020 that the continued caging of pigs was inconsistent with our Animal Welfare Act.
This legislation the Minister is passing—that the Government is passing—is a means of essentially getting around the Animal Welfare Act because rather than an Order in Council that establishes a new code for pigs, it has been passed in primary legislation. This point has been made by legal experts and other submitters. Crown Law advised that was it not done in primary legislation, this new regime could be challenged again at the High Court.
In that regard, it is sort of cooking the books on our strong animal welfare law whereby the new codes of welfare, as signed off by the Minister, must be treated as complying with the purpose of this Act, even though by any reasonable measure they do not comply with the purposes of the Animal Welfare Act.
The animal welfare science is very clear on the basic principles of what life is like for a mother pig and piglets. To be clear, the Minister suggested that countries like Sweden and Norway have moved to temporary crating, which is what this legislation will do: it will move New Zealand to temporary crating. But it will do it in 10 years’ time, with the option of extending the status quo of five years for a mother pig in a cage by another five years in 10 years’ time. So, it could be potentially 15 more years of the status quo that our own courts have said are utterly unacceptable.
There is a hugely missed opportunity here because it turns out, even in the Government’s own evaluation of what it would cost to move to free farrowing, for a 350-sow farm it would cost $595,000 as the capital cost. What the Minister is proposing costs $507,000 for a 350-sow farm as the capital cost. That is a nominal in the scheme of things, over even a 10-year transition difference. The missed opportunity is that had the Government had the courage to move the way the whole world is moving in this space, to uphold the actual principle embodied in our strong Animal Welfare Act—
SPEAKER: Look, I don’t mean to interrupt the member, but I think you might want to rephrase—
STEVE ABEL: Use of the word “courage”?
SPEAKER: Yeah, you can’t use that word. You might want to say “foresight” or some other such word.
STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Speaker—yes. Had the Government had the foresight to recognise the opportunity of moving New Zealand to something that is both consistent with the strong public feeling on this matter—overwhelmingly over many years, polling has showed that most New Zealanders do not want to see pigs in cages—had they seized the nettle, so to speak, and actually taken that step of phasing out farrowing crates, even if it was in 10 years’ time, it would both set us on a course that is consistent with the courage we did take when we phased our sow stalls. It would set us on that course and eliminate any uncertainty about the expectations of how animals are treated in our agricultural systems in this country. We would put ourselves where we really want to be, which is as a genuine world leader in the animal welfare space. The New Zealand public don’t want to see animals suffering. We have an expectation that if we’re going to farm animals, it’s done in a humane way that upholds the highest standards of welfare.
That missed opportunity is a big problem for the pork industry, for the pig farming industry, because whilst the Minister has said this is to give some sort of certainty to that industry, in fact the legislation does the exact opposite because it does not have the support of the whole House, it does not have public support, and the industry can be certain that if there is a change in Government, there will be a change in this legislation. I believe and I want to offer an olive branch to the pork industry: NZ Pork and the pig farmers. Let us sit down and work out a way forward that does fulfil the highest and best expectations of the Animal Welfare Act and the public expectation, think about what is necessary to move to free farrowing farming in this country, recognise the costs involved in that, and recognise the challenges for the industry. But let us understand that is the way that we need to move and we need to find ways to do it.
I agree with the concerns that it would be ludicrous for us to have a situation where pig production in New Zealand was no longer viable and all of the pork we consume was imported. Currently, 60 percent of it is. I have a bill to say that no animal products imported into this country should be inconsistent with our Animal Welfare Act. That would assist some way in that. But I agree with the concern that we don’t want to wipe out the existing domestic production. We want to bring it to a high standard and we ideally want to have more domestic production and less consumption from overseas, but that cannot be done at the cost of animal welfare. It cannot be accepted at the ongoing suffering of mother pigs in cages.
Finally, I want to say, the Minister said that the market can decide what welfare standards are tolerable. That was the essential essence of what the Minister proposed: that if the market determines and the customer is willing to pay, then the welfare standards will improve. That is categorically not how animal welfare works, because by that logic we would allow everything to fall to the very lowest common denominator. There would be no animal welfare because the most abusive means of farming would be sustained and they would undercut all other means.
The logic of the Minister’s assertion around the market is the same error that has been made in the conflation of the question of cost to farmers and the impact on animals. The High Court has been very clear that practicality and economic impacts cannot override the welfare considerations under the Act. That is to say, animal welfare comes first in this regard. It is not to diminish that there are economic challenges, but we must first and foremost consider the animal welfare under the Act.
This bill fails on multiple counts. I do not believe it gives industry certainty. It certainly locks in a miserable existence for mother pigs and piglets for another 10 years at least, and it is not consistent with what I believe most New Zealanders believe our farming should be. It should be world leading in preserving the dignity and the wellbeing of animals, as well as being a means to making an honest living for farmers, as well as providing food to people. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is about balancing the welfare concerns of sows and of piglets. It will save 14 percent of piglet deaths and also give farmers a pathway towards the changes that have been introduced in this bill. I commend it to the House.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): New Zealand First will support this bill. It was clear that indoor farming for pigs does need to change, and there's a High Court ruling that we respect on this side of the House making that so. We do have to upgrade our animal welfare provisions in regard of indoor farming of pigs.
This is a complex issue. This is, as Miles Anderson just said, not overt cruelty to sows for the sake of it. This is a restriction of some movement of sows to protect piglets, and the data—our data and the Ministry for Primary Industry’s data does show that there is a 14 percent higher mortality rate for piglets in these non - farrowing crate situations. There is a balance to be struck here. It is some restrictions to the sow against some protection for the piglets.
This legislation will dramatically reduce the amount of time, over time—as is said there is a quite a long transition here—that sows can be constrained in farrowing crates. From, I think it's four weeks down to about seven days. It also reduces the time in containment in a mating stall to three hours at a time. And the Minister has bought those requirements forward a year, as a result of the select committee, which I think is a good decision.
But there is a bigger issue here. Do we want to have a domestic pork industry? It is that simple—do we want to have a domestic pork industry? The reality is 60 percent of the pork that is consumed in New Zealand is imported, much of it from jurisdictions that have animal welfare regulations well below our existing regulations, let alone where we're going to. It's easy to moralise around this stuff, but the reality on the ground is it's $600,000 for an average 350-sow piggery, indoor piggery, to convert, plus $34,000 a year. That is material.
In 2001, there were 600 commercial piggeries in this country. I was surprised—when this court ruling first came about in the first term that I was in Parliament, I was actually really shocked to find out that there were 92 commercial piggeries left in New Zealand. There are now estimated between 70 and 80. This is not an industry that's booming in any way that can afford to take a $600,000 capital hit without a decent transition time or a $34,000 blow to their bottom line on an annual basis.
Remember, only about just over half of these 70 or 80 farms that we're talking about actually are in containment. So many of our pig farms—I think Havoc pork’s one that's a pretty well-known brand, but there is a consumer choice; if people do want to support those and I would encourage them to, those outdoor piggeries. But for the 44—the 44—New Zealand First will stand beside them. We will not see them run out of business unnecessarily because we are prepared to import vast quantities of imported pork to replace their output. We will work with them. We support the Minister and parties on this side—the Government—and the measures that we brought in. It's a very clear decision from New Zealand First. Thank you.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take the call on this bill and to acknowledge our support for the bill. I think the issues have been well canvassed across the readings and in the committee stage. I do, again, want to bring the House’s attention to the extensive consultation undertaken, since 2022, on this bill, including with industry experts, animal welfare groups, and the industry itself. I commend the bill to the House.
SPEAKER: Steve—
Hon Member: Scott.
SPEAKER: Scott Willis.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker—and I appreciate not being called Steve Abel, although sometimes people do mistake us. Steve’s balder than I am, and he has facial hair.
SPEAKER: Look, there’s certainly a visible similarity, but as soon as you open your mouths and start talking, Steve Abel’s got it all over you.
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SCOTT WILLIS: Certainly, on this bill, I’ll take that—I’ll take that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say, I was disappointed in the debate we had on the title and commencement when my amendment was ruled out of order—out of order in that it was ruled inaccurate. I thought that was a really unfair statement, because my title suggestion that I think the Minister should really adopt was “The Industrial Pork Producers’ Regulation for Pig Crate Containment Amendment Bill”, which I think describes exactly what this bill is all about. It certainly describes who the Minister listened to in devising the standards.
We have canvassed where this bill came from; that it is part of the corporate industrial food regime. It’s not really protecting farmers; it’s supporting an industry that doesn’t consider animals as sentient beings but simply as part of a food chain and that what happens to them doesn’t really matter. That’s the real issue that we have with this bill. It is not supporting our progressive farmers; it’s not supporting animal welfare; it’s not supporting better nutrition and food for our communities. It’s certainly placing those laggards—those people who were unable or unwilling to make changes—in a really difficult position, because they know that in 2026, there will be a change of Government, and this legislation will not stand.
We are concerned that this bill, rather than providing any certainty, simply upends the situation and extends the anxiety for our rural sector even further. I look around, and I know there are some people here who do understand parts of what happens in rural Aotearoa. If we want to keep trading on the “clean, green Aotearoa” brand—and we are already at risk of breaching our free-trade agreement with the EU because of this Government’s walk-back of methane targets, of climate action, of freshwater standards—we need to instead insist on higher quality production. That means better animal welfare. That means we make sure that what we’re producing is something we can be proud of—something that we can label and something we can note.
The question that came from the other side of the House just before was, “Why don’t we choose that?” Well, we need to know what we’re choosing. We need it to be labelled. We need to have a clear indication of whether we’re eating pork that’s been produced in cages—we need to know that. We need to know whether we’re eating pork or buying pork that’s been produced in other jurisdictions that haven’t lived up to even our weak standards—we need to know that. My colleague Steve Abel has a bill that will fix that. That’s something that we should just do. This should not be something that we even have to debate; we should have the ability to join forces across the House to make this happen.
A future where we move more to industrial food, industrial production, and factory-style farming is not a future that most New Zealanders want. It’s not a future that provides for everyone. We can do so much better than accepting this pathetic attempt to mollify the industry rather than address the real issues of animal welfare, of informed consumers who want better food, want to know the provenance of their food, and want to understand that, when they are purchasing something, they’re doing better and they’re not making life and the world worse. We will continue to oppose this bill, and we will change things next term.
Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in the third reading of this piece of legislation. I do rise alongside my colleague Rachel Boyack to confirm that the Labour Party will be opposing this bill at its third reading, which should come as no surprise to members in this House. I too would like to just traverse how we got here, but before I do that, I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the over 8,000 people who took time to submit on this piece of legislation, and over 90 percent of those people opposed this legislation.
I want to talk a little bit about what this bill does and why we find ourselves here, but I also want to talk about the issues around the consultation process, which I think is something that we do need to continue to highlight. If we think about those over 8,000 people that submitted on this bill, so many of them didn't get the opportunity to appear before the Primary Production Committee that I'm sure would have loved the opportunity. This was because of the fact that we had to have a truncated report-back period. In my view, that is not the best way of making legislation. I do understand that it was time-limited, and I'll also talk a little bit about that, but when we don't have the ability for those that submit to us with written submissions that wish to make oral submissions, I do think that we are failing democracy somewhat.
Again, I do want to point that out to the ACT Minister that was speaking in the House last night who said that many voices make better law. I think that that's something that perhaps the Government might want to listen to, considering it was one of their Ministers that made that comment.
What this bill does is, basically, its primary intent is to address the imminent expiry of a couple of clauses—26 and 27—which are around the use of farrowing crates and mating stalls. That is due to expire on 18 December. I do want to acknowledge that members of the Labour Party do support the amendments that the Minister made with regard to the mating stalls, and we think that that's a good thing and that the changes must come into play as of this time next year, roughly.
Also the amendment that the Minister has made around the record-keeping having to be under way as of this time next year—I think that that is a very important thing because record-keeping does ensure that there is the opportunity for the farmers to show that they are doing what they need to be doing should someone question them, so I think that it's a protection also for them and I acknowledge the Minister for making those good decisions there.
We are here in this situation because in November 2020 there was the court ruling to say that the farrowing crates and the mating stalls associated with the minimum standards in the pigs code were unlawful and invalid, and that is part of the reason why we find ourselves here, although it is somewhat concerning when, in the time of the previous Government, there was a substantial amount of consultation that was under way and undertaken around this particular issue because of all the consultation, and it was very wide. It was wide—it was industry, it was animal welfare groups, it was the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the like.
There was a huge public consultation, and as my colleague Rachel Boyack mentioned earlier on, by the time that consultation was all put together in a report and came before Ministers, the election happened and there was a change of Government. What would have been more beneficial would be to have seen the current Minister for animal welfare just pick up those recommendations and actually look to make a decision based on that current report, but instead he chose to go out for further consultation. But it seems that it was only consultation with the pork industry and not the likes of animal welfare agencies. I understand that there are several, but the SPCA is the one that he should have actually consulted with, given that they are the largest organisation.
As my colleague Rachel Boyack also mentioned, when he said that he consulted with NAWAC and that there was an SPCA representative on NAWAC, so therefore he was consulting with the SPCA—well, that is not correct, because the SPCA person on NAWAC was no longer on NAWAC at the time of consultation. I don't think that it was very fair of the Minister to say that given in the previous round of consultation with the previous Government, the SPCA was consulted then and therefore did not need to be consulted this time, when in fact the pork industry was also consulted last time, but he chose to consult with them specifically this time. I don’t think there was a lot of fairness in that.
My colleague Rachel Boyack talked about the idea and the willingness of this side of the House to work in a more bipartisan way. When it comes to things like agriculture—even education and infrastructure—I think it's important that we do look for more ways to work together in a bipartisan way. Sadly, this did not happen in this situation.
She also raised a really valid point about getting industry and animal welfare bodies in the room together to try and nut out a way forward where I guess not everyone is necessarily going to be happy with the outcome and that compromise would have to be made. But at least then everybody would have had the opportunity to have their say and have their input.
I do want to raise concerns—like, I understand that this was a time-limited situation where we had to get this legislation in the House by 18 December, which is next week. It is concerning that there was only seven days’ notice for public submissions. I do think that the fact that the Minister waited for nearly two years to look to do something, bring something to the House, is of concern and should not have meant that the public had less of an opportunity to engage with the process.
Suze Redmayne: What happened between 2020 and 2025?
Hon JO LUXTON: The member across the House asks what happened between 2022 and 2025. There was a huge amount of consultation undertaken, as I said before, but I'm happy to repeat it for the member; she might have missed it. There was a lot of consultation with stakeholders, animal welfare groups, NAWAC, and the Ministry for Primary Industries, and they put together a report that was presented to me not long prior to when I was actually the Minister, just prior to the election. The election happened and there was a change of Government, so, unfortunately, we weren't able to act on it, and it would have been nice to see the current Minister just pick up that piece of work and run with it rather than going down the path he chose to go down.
The Minister that spoke earlier—Patterson—asked if we want to have a domestic pork industry. Absolutely, we want to have a domestic pork industry. We want a pork industry that is a success in New Zealand. He did mention that there is a small number, which is unfortunate, so we need to do all we can to support our pork industry and grow our pork industry. The fact that we have a huge amount of imported pork is really concerning, so it is up to us as Kiwis to make sure that when we go out, we are supporting our New Zealand pork industry.
Before I finish, I just want to say to the House and to those that I'm sure are out there listening and watching intently that whether it be lamb or ham this Christmas, make sure you either buy New Zealand made, or look for the labels that say “100 percent New Zealand ham and pork” to ensure that you are buying New Zealand - grown ham.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would echo the previous sentiment in regard to buying New Zealand ham, lamb, don’t forget about beef though.
Look, we heard a lot about the science during the committee of the whole House, and I’d just make the comment it is quite easy to pick the data that fits your argument. But what Dr John Roche did is he actually looked at all of evidence—and a vast amount of evidence. That’s where we got the recommendation on this bill. It does take a balanced approach, balancing the welfare of the sow and the piglets. I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call. Arena Williams
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, here we are: a couple of weeks before Christmas, and food prices are going up, the affordability crisis is hitting families all around the country, and the Government is desperate to find a villain that is not their mismanagement of the situation. In this case, it’s animal welfare; it’s those people out there who say that we should be treating the pigs well, because, in this case, good old Government is coming to the rescue with some good news for the consumers, if we would have it their way. They would have us believe that the reason why consumers are paying more for their hams is because somehow it’s out of control to expect that Aotearoa New Zealand would have a situation where the rules were on par with other countries that we like to compare ourselves to, the standards that apply to pork grown in this country.
The most vociferous advocates on that side of the House for New Zealand’s pork industry, in this debate, have been exactly those MPs who will not vote for the legislative solution put forward by Steve Abel that would make regulations in New Zealand apply to those imported products, that would not ensure that New Zealand farmers who are getting their pork on the shelves at the supermarket this Christmas are entitled to fair margins, and that the profit being made on those products on the shelves in the duopoly are fairly priced, and that they are alongside products of a similar value and not competing for space with products imported from Latvia or Belarus or unclear where they are from. No. We’re having a debate about the evils of crating and the evils of regulations which came into effect because the court said, “No. We’ve got to do better. We’ve got to catch up faster. This isn’t legal.”, because, then, the Act that we are trying to follow here is called the Animal Welfare Act. The problem here with the regulations is they must ensure standards for the welfare of animals.
The problem here is that the Government has created a very strange backdoor solution to regions because what the problem really is is that they want animal welfare not to apply to just three regulations in the code when they apply to pigs. Essentially, what they have done in this bill is taken away any minimum requirements whatsoever and then implanted, by primary legislation, exactly what industry wanted, under the cover of an improvement in the cost of living for New Zealanders.
I think most New Zealanders are more sensible than that. I think this Government also knows that: that most Kiwis are really worried about the average household costs going up 2.4 percent last year, food prices rising 4.7 percent, and most New Zealanders saying at this Christmas time that their most significant concern is rising costs. So the Government have used that as a political tool to cloak what is happening here, which is bending over for an industry that knew it had to change, knew it had to follow international best practice, and didn’t want to.
So the Government has reached out and into regulations through primary legislation, and stretched the constitutional boundaries of what they were able to do to make that happen. Instead of actually being clear with New Zealanders and saying “Look, we don’t want the Animal Welfare Act to apply. We’re actually going to make up a bill which says that the Animal Welfare Act doesn’t apply to pigs.”, they’ve chosen to go around the back way and not consult with people they knew would object to that and they’ve offered a shortened consultation period for the people that did.
Now we are faced with the situation in New Zealand where we are going backwards, once again, and where the people being blamed for the rising cost of living and the rising cost of the ham on the Christmas table are the wrong people, because New Zealanders should look over there and see a Government that will not address the underlying problems here: that the duopoly was found to be making a million dollars in excess profits per day—nothing addresses that in this bill.
We will see the rising cost of meat, which was 7 percent in the last year, continuing under the guise of a Government that’s making some progress because they are ignoring animal welfare in all of its forms for these specific three regulations which only apply to pigs. That is not a solution; that is a failure to confront the market conditions which are leading to New Zealanders’ costs going up. It is making consumers worse off, not better off, and it is worsening the affordability crisis. New Zealanders know that. That is why this Government is unpopular with most people who say that the cost of living is their number one concern.
New Zealanders will not fall for this. This is not a good solution. It will not endure. Labour will fix this when we are back in.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to talk in this third reading of this very important bill—the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. It’s got a date that we’ve got to get this done by for the clear reasons that have already been commented on. This bill has had extensive consultation, as many people have already talked to. It ensures that New Zealand retains its reputation for high animal-welfare outcomes, while making sure that we keep a viable pork-farming industry here in New Zealand. The bill is well balanced on a number of different matters, and I commend the bill to the House.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sorry, I was a little slow there. This is bill is a bit of a lost opportunity and the Minister in the seat exposed the reasons why this Government fails to take up those opportunities. He said that market signals should determine what the pork industry should do. Why not, for once, get ahead of the market signals and be out front and create a product that the world wants? The reality is that the ethics around animal welfare, and consumer views towards them, are changing internationally. We can be criticised a little, I guess, for not having sorted this out because what we did, following the court action that deemed the regulations to be illegal under the Act, we actually gave the industry some time to transition; that was this month. Unfortunately, the industry sought to reverse that direction of travel, talk to the coalition Government, and actually kicked us down the road for another 10 years, which is, effectively, what we are doing here.
The pork industry, as was pointed out before by the Hon Mark Patterson, has shrunk considerably. In fact, 45 percent of the industry, now, is outdoor. Can I say that my experience, as a young 7- or 8-year-old, was going from a cow shed to the pig shed to feed out the skim milk while we took the butter or the cream to the butter factory. I grew up with pigs, with a system of raising pigs in plenty of space. They were indoors, but not in the confinement that we see today. The pork industry, and the pig industry, has changed dramatically. The intensification, the systems that we take from offshore places like Denmark, where I’ve seen the very intensive systems that they need to produce protein, have been brought onshore to here. We have, within the industry, a tension between the outdoor systems and the indoor systems. The indoor systems are increasingly being deemed as unethical and not supportive of what people expect of animal welfare systems for animals across the globe. We’re a country that relies on good management of animals for our wealth and for our wellbeing. We must try to do the very best we can, using the knowledge that we learn.
We know there are different systems for outdoor and for indoor, and the Minister has made some adjustments—kicked down the road for another 10 years—to what he says, or thinks, will be the market signals for good animal welfare systems. I’d suggest that by the time this Government’s transition out to 2035 comes into place, actually, the demand for that kind of pork will have shrunk dramatically because, I think, the world is moving to scrutinise the systems of food production.
The question is why didn’t the coalition Government—I know the answer, of course—seize the opportunity to work with the pork industry, to put it ahead of the game? It is a very traditional industry. In fact, we found that out through COVID-19 and I found out because I was the Minister and we wrote out cheques for millions and millions of dollars. We purchased pork because the pork industry is a system of production that just pokes them in at one end, and pokes them out at the other end, and has very little flexibility. In fact, very little, if no exports, even to the Pacific neighbours that we have—they have high demand for pork; Australia has—but the pork industry has been focused on the domestic consumption.
Most New Zealand animal production systems are worthy of world status, and of export status, and that’s what they do, except pork. The question has always been for that industry: why don’t you focus offshore? Give yourself some market flexibility because we are importing a lot and we can export some as well.
Mike Butterick: We already do.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: If we’ve got systems—not much, if any. Not much if any, and I’d be interested to hear from that member if he thinks there are some markets. Can I say that, we probably, and I know there will be a lot of outdoor systems and some of the indoor systems—there are good farmers—but the regulations that we have are outdated. Naywack, our independent animal welfare advisory body, has said they’re outdated. In fact, they’ve said the systems we have, and the systems that are being endorsed today and prolonged, are actually outside the scope of the Animal Welfare Bill that was worked on in the 1990s. It was updated in the early 2000s, but that bill has identified sentience. It’s identified the need to look after animals, in an ethical way that acknowledges their senses. I don’t want to get into that. I’m no vet, I’m no expert, but I’ve heard enough to know that we run pretty good systems, but we do have to be mindful—as we do with beef production, as we do with sheep production—to make changes where necessary. We’ve stopped mulesing with merinos; we’ve stopped—well, we should be stopping—the bobby calf system; I don’t know how to call it, really, in a nice polite way: that is we stop knocking bobby calves on the heads on the farm. We have to do that; stop chopping off cows’ tails. We’ve done that, as we understand and we learn that these things are not right.
In terms of pig production, pork production, most of the world is saying that, actually, confining sows in the way that this piece of legislation will allow to continue, is not right. The argument around “Well, it will protect a few piglets”, actually, is a contested one. The members on that side of the House are saying, “Oh, Ministry for Primary Industries has done some extensive research.”; that will be investigated. In my view, that will be challenged and exposed as not being entirely complete. I hope that it’s not misleading because the Government has relied on that—on one report—and if that one report is exposed as being inaccurate or misleading, then we have a problem with the science that this Government relies on to make many, many decisions. That’s another issue, and I think time will expose that as being either of value or not to this whole debate.
It is important that, internationally, anyone who might be interested in this knows that we, in Labour and in Opposition, are absolutely committed—beyond next year when we get into Government—to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare, as we are now obliged to do under some trade agreements. But it’s not just those trade agreements; we do it because it’s the right thing to do. As a country dependent, as I’ve said before, on the utilisation—the ethical utilisation—of animals for our wealth creation, we will continue to do our best, believe me, in spite of what might be temporary interruptions or lost opportunities, as this bill is, to try and move us ahead of the game.
I would be supportive, and as a former trade Minister, of the ability for us to put in place standards—as is allowed in trade agreements, carefully—that ensure that if we open the door to consumption of pork in this country, and we set a standard for how that’s produced, we don’t make choices or single out any countries or any trading partners but we say that’s the standard. We’re allowed to do that. But, actually, this is a lost opportunity to do that because we won’t be at the head of the game. We won’t be at the head of the game, and that, unfortunately, is a lost opportunity.
This has been a bit of a torrid process. It is a highly emotional process. If the Government thinks this is unusual, any piece of legislation regarding animals—as we move forward over time—will be highly emotive. That’s the reality. Over 8,000 submissions in a very short space of time on this one bill alone. That’s an indication of the importance that, as Governments, we get this right into the future. This is a lost opportunity. It won’t, unfortunately, offer the certainty to the pork industry that they need, and for that I apologise. Maybe, it should have been, could have been, sorted. There was always going to be a transition, always a cost, but if that cost is seen as wise investment over time, then that’s smart. We can’t support the bill because it is a lost opportunity. We will work with the industry once we’re back in Government to ensure that they have a future.
SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): National backs our farmers a hundred percent. Pork farmers are like all farmers across the country: the backbone of New Zealand. They just want to be able to get on and do what they do best, and that is farm. This bill enhances welfare outcomes for pigs, gives farmers the confidence to invest, and the certainty they need to do what they do best, and that is farm.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I just want to say thank you to all the farmers in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill 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.
Bills
Crimes Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Crimes Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the committee be instructed to consider the amendments set out on Amendment Paper 436 in my name and, if it sees fit, to recommend amendments accordingly, despite Standing Order 246(2).
This Government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order, and ensuring victims’ interests are at the centre of the justice system. The vital part of that is making sure criminals face real consequences for crime. This bill is a wide-ranging one. It amends the Crimes Act to ensure criminals face longer penalties for coward punches, attacking first responders, retail crime, human trafficking, and further retail crime.
We know how dangerous coward punches are. People can be killed or suffer lifelong brain injuries, yet perpetrators often receive lenient sentences, and that changes with this legislation. The bill introduces two specific offences that reflect the gravity of the crime. Where a victim suffers grievous bodily harm from a strike to the head or neck, the maximum penalty will be eight or 15 years’ imprisonment, depending on the intent of the perpetrator. The bill also adds an offence of manslaughter by strike to the head or neck, which affirms that this conduct is manslaughter if it does not constitute infanticide or murder. The maximum penalty will be life imprisonment. This offence does not limit or affect the application of manslaughter under section 171 of the Crimes Act.
Our culpable homicide regime is longstanding, and there are inherent complexities of this regime. The select committee will be able to hear submissions and consider whether we've struck the right balance on this. Both of these coward punch offences will be added to the three-strikes regime to ensure mandatory sentences in line with that regime.
The bill also strengthens the consequences for assaulting first responders and corrections officers by introducing three new offences. Where others may flee, the first responders and prison officers run towards danger to help those who need urgent assistance. Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for those acts of violence. Our hard-working police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and correction officers deserve better. These offences represent two-year increases on the maximum penalties that would currently apply. The most serious offence for seven years in prison will also be added to the three-strikes regime. These new offences will apply whether they're on duty or not, and whether they're responding to emergencies at the time or not.
Retail crime is an ongoing challenge. All around New Zealand, business owners and hard-working New Zealanders are being victimised. About 230,000 people work in our retail sector. Many of them are young New Zealanders just trying to make some extra money and make a living, and they shouldn't have to feel unsafe in their working environment, like many have—and, of course, the cost of retail crime borne by law-abiding citizens is costing the country billions of dollars. For too long, business owners have been left feeling helpless as thieves walk out of these stores whenever they please with stolen goods. Currently, citizen’s arrests can only be carried out if the offence is three or more years’ imprisonment, or after 9 p.m. at night.
Now, we don't think that makes any sense. Retailers shouldn't have to flip through a copy of the Crimes Act or check the clock before they try and stop somebody stealing from their livelihood. That's why the bill simplifies the citizen’s arrest provisions to apply to any Crimes Act offence at any time of the day. To anticipate some of the arguments that might be thrown across the House, members of the public are not obliged to carry out a citizen’s arrest; it's only if they think it's appropriate in the circumstances. If they think it's appropriate to hold on to somebody until the police arrive, then they have that option—and, of course, they must contact the police and follow all the instructions given by the police.
The bill also makes it easier for the police to swiftly punish shoplifters who are not prosecuted through the courts for theft by introducing an infringement regime, which doesn't result in criminal conditions but sends a clear message. The Amendment Paper I have tabled alongside the bill will introduce a new shoplifting infringement into the Summary Offences Act. The infringement will apply when somebody removes property from a retail premises without reasonable excuse. It will give the police an additional tool to respond swiftly and directly to the behaviour.
The bill also adds a new offence of theft that is done in a threatening or disorderly manner—something that retailers are often faced with, and we want to make life easier. I want to thank the Ministerial Advisory Group for their work on these issues.
Finally, we're strengthening the exploitation offences. Since 2009, more than 50 victims of people trafficking have been identified, but only four prosecutions have been undertaken. Just two of these prosecutions have led to a conviction, and we believe it could be the tip of the iceberg. The bill increases the penalties for two offences in dealing in slaves and in dealing with people under the age of 18. This aligns them with the 20-year maximum imprisonment penalty for people trafficking. We're modernising our trafficking offence for both international and domestic trafficking, and making the offence more consistent with international standards. We're also ensuring that child trafficking is easier to prosecute by vote by removing the requirement for a child to have been deceived or coerced. It clarifies that a trafficked person or child cannot consent to any part of the offence. I want to thank my colleague Greg Fleming for his work on the member’s bill that advanced this penalty change, and to all the submitters and advocates for change in this area.
In conclusion, this bill puts victims first and cracks down on people traffickers and people smugglers. We're restoring law and order and continuing our efforts to reduce the number of victims of crime. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was trying to imagine how this bill with so many changes might have come about in the shape of what it has. In all my years working on justice policy as a public servant, as an adviser, have I ever seen such a hotchpotch of different measures all jammed into one bill? I wonder whether Paul Goldsmith was maybe sitting at his desk late one night and the phone rang and Christopher Luxon gave him a call and said, “I just want to say one thing to you, Paul. I’ve been looking over my key performance indicators and you’re not up to scratch. You’re not really measuring up, here. There’s a whole bunch of deliverables that you haven’t done.” So this bill was basically Paul Goldsmith sweeping his desk of all the work he was meant to do over the course of the year and putting it into one bill, and giving that over to officials to legislate into one omnibus bill, which we’re debating here today.
There’s a whole range of things in this bill. Some of the things are actually not such a bad idea, some are sort of in between, and some are just plain dangerous, so I’ll focus on the dangerous ones in my brief speech today. So the dangerous one that we like the least is the citizens arrest provision. The reason we say that is because the police themselves say that this is dangerous. Officials, both from the Ministry of Justice and from Police, have warned the Government that this is a dangerous piece of legislation. They say, in advice, that it would escalate low-level theft into more violent situations and potentially endanger the lives of those people who were the business owners. It even suggests, in some of the Police advice that we received, that there will be a situation—if a business owner had detained and restrained an alleged offender, and if they were there for a period of time, that business owner might even be able to be charged with kidnapping if they were held in certain ways. Police has acknowledged that it actually exposes those very people that this legislation is trying to protect to even greater harms, from not only being arrested themselves but also from violence that’s escalated in their shop premises.
The second group of those people that spoke against this—some are on the Minister of Justice’s own retail crime advisory board; that would be the head of Retail NZ, Carolyn Young. She was very concerned that this legislation, and she actually states—she is concerned that retailers could get hurt or even killed as a result of introducing this measure; that front-line retail workers, who are often young people in their first job, do not go to work to do law enforcement. That’s essentially what this bill is doing: it’s requiring retailers to act as law enforcement officers.
The third group of people I’d like to refer to, who also said that this was a real concern, are small-business owners themselves. There was commentary within ethnic media and communications about the concerns of those small-business owners, that offenders would be preparing themselves with weapons more so than they are now, and that this would escalate situations where they already found themselves in a dangerous situation. This begs the question: if the police don’t support it, if the Ministry of Justice don’t support it, if Retail NZ don’t support it, and small-business owners themselves don’t even support it, who does? The answer to that is the committee of one: Sunny Kaushal, who’s given this as an idea to try and fix it. That’s the only person we know who actually has supported this.
I’m going to refer to one of my favourite quotes, out of all those I’ve just referenced. The best quote actually comes from a police officer, a detective. The police detective says, “The real solution was more police staff.” But that is, unfortunately, what this Government has completely failed to deliver on, because they promised New Zealanders in two years they would have 500 more police by 27 November—that’s just passed—and right now they have 240 police officers. They didn’t even make the halfway mark. So the real solution to this problem that’s being addressed is by having our front line resourced, and having enough police officers to respond to crime. What is going to happen is there will be retailers calling the police, restraining someone, and there won’t be someone there to come out and attend the job. That is the real problem.
We look forward to the select committee. We invite New Zealanders to all come and submit on Christmas stocking number one, a grab bag of focus group records that have been put together in this Christmas selection by Paul Goldsmith, to submit your ideas on the variety of different ideas.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to oppose the Crimes Amendment Bill, because, to be honest, this is a shocking, shocking bill. Are there things in here that are potential options? But, do you know what, I think that a good analogy is just because you are making a muffin for someone and you have a component of muffin being poisonous, it doesn’t mean that the entire muffin is OK to eat, and this is a really good example of what we’re seeing here with this bill. There are some good components to this bill, for sure. However, I want to focus my attention and my contribution on the things that are more concerning.
The first thing kind of goes without saying, which is the retail climate aspect of this. Again, I do believe that the inclusion of more and more into this smorgasbord of a bill is very much an indication that either the Government wants to rush things further along and make things look like they’re tying more things into one bill to try to get as many things over the line as possible before they are kicked out of Government, or it’s simply the fact that in the bill itself, they want to package some nice things in here just so that they can say, “Look, other political parties have decided to vote against this because of our having this really horrendous aspect of the retail crimes in this as the main focus of this bill. But do you know what? We’re going to chuck some other stuff in here, as well.”
I do want to start by focusing on the citizen’s arrests, which, like I’ve said, is the big focus in this bill. It is astonishing—it is absolutely astonishing—to see a Government that cares so little about genuine evidence that they are willing to go against the advice of the police and they’re willing to go against the advice of the Ministry of Justice in order to do something that nobody really wants, except for, as we have pointed out, one person.
Rima Nakhle: Except for the victims—that’s all.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I love the fact that the other side of the House—I was going to say “the Opposition”—talks about victims. You know, there is actually no evidence—no evidence—that suggests that this is going to be better for victims. What this is going to be is a race to the bottom for people to be more and more armed, and members on that side of the House need to deal with the fact that more and more people are going to be getting hurt as a result of this bill, because that’s what is going to happen if this bill is introduced.
Do you know what? Even Retail New Zealand have said, “Oh, this is not something that we wanted. Actually, we don’t agree with the chair of the ministerial advisory group on this. We don’t agree when it comes to the use of force.” Why? For Retail New Zealand to say something like that, it means that they also need to consider their responsibility to their employees, including the people who are just coming out of school and having their first job, and who are now having to deal with the fact that they themselves may be compelled to do this by their work. What’s that going to do for insurance, what is it going to do from the perspective of health and safety, and what is it going to do for the general safety of all individuals involved?
With something like this, the other really astonishing thing—and we are more than happy to tease this out in the select committee. The really astonishing thing about this bill, and particularly about the citizen’s arrests, is that there is no safeguard and no provision for children. There is nothing in this bill that says that that person—at least, not that I can see—has to be over a certain age, and so what this Government has done is it has introduced a bill that allows for the use of force on children. Let that sink in—that’s what this bill has the potential to do.
Ironically, then those members come back and talk about other aspects of this in terms of how they are going to be victim-focused. Well, they may tell themselves that they are victim-focused to get them through the night and to help them sleep, but the fact is that we’re going to be seeing more children hurt, and the Green Party will not stand for that. We will not support this bill.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise in support of the Crimes Amendment Bill. It’s been two years, and the Opposition still don’t get it. They didn’t listen to New Zealanders; they didn’t hear what people’s concerns were in the community; and, again, they’re not listening to New Zealanders and learning the lesson.
The Hon Ginny Andersen tried to grade the great Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith; he’s actually doing an excellent job, supported by Minister McKee. We’ve got the amazing Police team—I see Minister Costello supporting Minister Mitchell—and we’re actually making a difference. New Zealanders can just go on to the website and actually see what we’re doing on our targets, and we can actually read “Target 4: Reducing violent crime”. What do we think that’s doing, people? Well, it’s on track. There has been a reduction of 38,000 people facing violent crime. I would call that a success, and Minister Goldsmith can hold his head high.
We’re very pleased to support this, because ACT actually cares about focusing on what matters, and that’s making Kiwis safe in their homes, their shops, and their communities. We’ve already seen the successful three strikes; we’ve seen a toughening up of sentences, and this bill is, again, listening to the concerns of the community and delivering it. We’re going to see some more clarity around retailers’ citizen’s arrests—yes, we can work through the issues, but that’s great that that’s in there.
We’ve got the protection of front-line workers: police, paramedics, corrections officers—they deserve to be looked after, and that’s what we’re doing. Coward punches have been a real concern in our community; again, we’re going to have a look at that area. There might be some more work to do around maybe minimum sentences and making sure that that coward punch law is actually effective, but we’re going to do that in the Justice Committee, because that’s what we do. These reforms are necessary, particularly around the ones for human trafficking and also making sure that vulnerable children are looked after.
Look, we’re very proud to support this in a Government that’s actually listened and is getting on with dealing with crime.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill. The word “astonishing” was raised several times by the Green Party member Lawrence Xu-Nan, and it is astonishing that the party that is advocating for defunding the Police now does not want anybody to have power. They don’t want the Police; they don’t want individuals to have powers to protect their own property. I’m not quite sure where they’re sitting. I would agree; it is astonishing.
It is also astonishing that the party that has repeatedly advocated or presented themselves as being the ones who are advocating for oppressed workers just completely glossed over the fact that this bill represents a modernisation of our legislation in terms of the laws around trafficking, recognising the seriousness of the offences, recognising the need to standardise the penalties, and actually doing some proactive steps to deliver the things that that party claims they represent.
In amongst this discussion that we’ve had repeatedly about putting this burden on businesses because—what was the word? Low-level theft will escalate into serious violence? Have we not seen the news lately? It is already escalating into serious violence, committed by young people. This is providing a tool to give protection to small businesses, should they choose, to be protected if they have to take power into their own hands, and that can only be seen as a good thing.
Next, I would highlight the protection for our first responders. New Zealand First was ensuring that this was part of our coalition agreement commitment, because it is our first responders across the board that we rely upon to protect the public from serious offences, and from harm generally, and when they’re racing into the fight, they need to be protected across the board for the great work that they do, again glossed over by the parties on the other side of the House.
Finally, something that New Zealand First has campaigned for in 2020 and 2023 is the “coward punch” legislation. This is an incredibly horrible crime that has cost the lives of innocent people and has to be addressed, and we are grateful that this piece of legislation is addressing it. I am astounded, astonished I would say, at the fact we were actually being criticised for doing too much in this piece of legislation. That is why we are here: to do too much, to make sure we get the stuff done. We will deliver, and I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): We just had the Hon Ginny Andersen question the value of the focus and the work of the retail crime advisory group. I’m not sure that any member of the Opposition turned up to any of the forums that were held across the country, so I’m not sure how they can comment on the value of those forums. However, I did. The attendees at the Whanganui retail crime forum—the retailers, the small business owners, the local government representatives, the business associations, the staff of the large retailers—were all overwhelmingly supportive of what’s in this bill. I commend it to the House.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and, if it’s not too early to say so, merry Christmas. I may not look like the candidate who would be thinking about what I get the Government for Christmas this year, but I have been and I think I’ve landed on an Oxford English Dictionary, so the Government can look up the term “urgency” and understand when it should truly be used. It feels like I begin my speech like this almost every week, but it is important—it is important—because I did note the Hon Chris Bishop’s comments about urgency earlier in the week. So I went to the lovely people at the Parliamentary Library, to let me know how many hours under this Government we’ve been under urgency, compared to how many hours under the previous Government had been under urgency, and just for the information of the public: 30.4 percent of parliamentary hours, to date, under this Parliament have been under the use of urgency—
Hon Member: Stick to the bill.
VANUSHI WALTERS: —this is a bill that’s being heard under urgency—15.7 hours in the previous Parliament. That is almost double. That’s extraordinary. So I will continue to remind Government members that urgency is for actual urgent things.
Now, my colleague Ginny Andersen did speak about the patchwork bill. The complaint is not so much about getting a lot done; it’s about putting very different things into one bill. The reason it’s a problem is because any Government should be striving for cross-party agreement, and when you put in a set of things that are extremely controversial, with a set of things that parties can agree to, you, essentially, set the House up for an improper process. That is the complaint. I will speak about the last-minute amendment later, but it is a problem.
I just wanted to highlight two issues with the section 7 vet—or it’s actually legal advice because the bill was deemed to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) at the time that it was reviewed, and noting that changes have been made. But in terms of the citizen’s arrest powers, it absolutely is a problem. We’ve heard that from the Police Association, as well, who say that the bill is flawed; from the manufacturers association; from retailers New Zealand; and from the people that we talk to.
But what I was troubled by was the very light analysis of that power in the legal advice. I’ll read it out to you. It says just this: “The bill does limit freedom of expression in the new requirement for citizens who make arrests, to contact the police and that that compels speech. However, this is readily justifiable under section 5 of NZBORA and, therefore, not inconsistent with NZBORA.” That is it. That is not analysis, is one point. The second point is that it doesn’t look at the fact that this bill empowers citizens, the public, to, essentially, perform a public function. This is our new free police service, as some have said to us—I think it was First Union—and, therefore, potentially, you could argue that there should have been a broader analysis of that issue, in terms of the legal advice provided, but there simply wasn’t.
Also, in terms of the attack to head or neck, the analysis says that it doesn’t directly touch on the BORA issue. However, the bill would have the effect of adding the new offence responding to strikes to the head or neck to the list of qualifying offences in respect of which extended supervision orders can be made under the Parole Act. And you’re all, at this stage, saying “Ah ha!”, especially Justice Committee members, because we’ve had a declaration of inconsistency come to the committee on this issue. So if there are powers being added that would, in effect, extend the impact of this, then, yes, it does have a direct impact.
So there’s absolutely a lot to unpack at select committee. I look forward to hearing from a number of submitters who have already expressed the fact that they have concerns about these two parts of the bill—but I do look forward to them bringing their concerns directly to the Government members, who I hope will be listening at that stage to some very serious rights-based concerns that they will, no doubt, raise. Thank you.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): What saddens me to my core is that we’re having philosophical conversations across the House about the use of urgency. There is urgency for victims, and that’s the reason why this bill is what it is, and that’s the reason why we’re talking about it in urgency: because, to us, the rights of victims and protecting them is absolutely urgent. I commend this bill to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I’m going to pick the challenge up there and talk about victims, because I’m quite concerned about how many victims will come out of a piece of legislation that actually puts shopkeepers in serious danger. I want to tell one story from my electorate, and it is absolutely true. I went in to talk to a guy who runs a liquor store in my area; he had had someone come into his store and take things, and it was incredibly frightening—and he is expected to make a citizen’s arrest? I think that would be crazy. We discussed it, and he thought it would be absolutely crazy for him to do it. He lives in that store, and his family live upstairs. There will be blood on the hands of this Government if it allows that process to be the one that is a choice for people, because, actually, even if you arrest someone in that situation, you’ve got to hold them there until the police get there. Guess what, we haven’t got enough police to get there at the moment, because we’re actually not even getting the police promised by this Government. We’re not even getting the officers on the ground, so who’s going to come and sort out the situation? It is a very dangerous little pathway that this Government is going down.
However, I want to throw a Christmas bouquet in my speech here, because I am very pleased to see the changes in terms of trafficking. Those are really good changes. Now, the devil will be in the detail. I have talked to a group called ECPAT, who did a really good report on this area, and they are looking at what is going on, and it will be very important that we listen to people like that who are experts in this area. So far, it is a very important change we’re going to see happen, because what we’re going to have is a definition of trafficking, and we’re going to have children treated as children in that situation, and we might see more prosecution under this piece of law and stopping behaviour that is coercive and power based. That’s a really important thing. It needed its own piece of legislation, in my opinion, because it’s a really important piece of work. It would have meant that the Greens would probably have voted with the Government on this one, if it had been separated out, because it is extremely important, and I’m pretty sure there’s consensus around the House about this piece of work.
This is an important piece of work. I am pleased to see it here. I look forward to being able to debate it further. I think it is incredibly important when we start to take away the idea of consent when we’re looking at children like that. ECPAT have done a report on this, and I went to the ECPAT launch, and they were talking—there were people who had been through the process of being exploited as children, and they were talking about this phrase; it was called “a box for a box”. It was a phrase where people were being given a box of alcohol for their sexual use, basically. It was utterly exploitative, but people who are doing that sort of thing in this country are not being held to account in the way that they should be, and they weren’t being prosecuted before, because it was too hard, and hopefully they will be prosecuted under this law.
What it will mean if they are prosecuted under this law is that we start to see the problem and how widespread it is, because it’s no longer a definition of trafficking that’s all about people being brought into the country—yes, that happens—it’s also a definition that’s broader. It’s about that exploitative factor; it’s about the abuse of power. It is incredibly important that we start to prosecute so that we can see the problem for what it is. Presently, there’s just very few—it’s very, very rare to prosecute under the law as it is.
That’s my bouquet for the day, but I want to return to the issue of citizen’s arrests. That itself is a very, very difficult thing. It has already existed in some form, but it’s a very difficult process to work through, and it’s not being given enough time and attention. It may have consequences for people like my liquor store owner. I know, having had that conversation with him, that he won’t be going near it with a barge pole. He’ll be doing the right thing and staying out of the way in that situation so he doesn’t get hurt. Others might not be as wise as him, and they’re being encouraged by this Government to take their lives in their hands and the lives of their children in their hands—and that is absolutely not acceptable. Thank you.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. What an absolute disgrace it is to see members on the other side who are completely soft on crime. Have they not learnt anything in their two years in Opposition? That actually, this is a country and Government that is focused on putting victims first. The speeches they presented have been weak, they have been soft, and it is demonstrated in the lack of contributions they’ve actually made to this debate.
This is a good thing because it puts victims first. I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
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.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Crimes Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Instruction to Justice Committee
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the select committee’s powers be extended under Standing Order 298(1) to consider the amendments set out on Amendment Paper 436 in my name, and, if it sees fit, to recommend amendments accordingly, despite Standing Order 264(2).
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is extraordinary that here we are under urgency, that the Government is more interested in getting through the debate as quick as possible, that they have rushed this through to the extent where they haven't even fully included what they intended to put in the bill. It is extraordinary that the Minister has to come to the House and move a motion that the select committee consider this Amendment Paper when if he'd done his job properly, it would have been included in the bill to begin with.
This isn't a situation where we are in a second reading and the House is set to consider the committee of the whole House stage. This bill has only just been introduced and we have just debated it at first reading, and now he moves that this House move an instruction, essentially, to the committee to consider this Amendment Paper. The Minister should be embarrassed. Why on earth didn't he do his job in the first place and make sure that the things he wanted to propose were included in the bill?
And then we have to sit through an hour of pretty pitiful attempts to do an audition to become a Minister from the backbenches of the National Party. I hate to put it to them; they were not very good auditions and I don't think they're going to work. If they were really a Government that was laser focused on crime, they can't be very laser focused when they don't—
Carl Bates: If you knew your numbers, it wasn’t an hour. Simple maths.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —even include the things that they want to propose. There's a reason that Carl Bates is yelling out, because my comment about them never becoming a Minister has hit a nerve. It has hit a nerve—
Carl Bates: I was talking about your maths—your inability to do maths.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —because he knows that the truth is being spoken. Getting louder, Mr Bates, doesn't plead your case even better. There's a reason he always sits by himself, and there's a reason he'll never be a Minister, and it's on display right here today.
This is an embarrassment. Why are we, as a Parliament, having to sit under urgency yet again by a Government that is scared of debate from the public? We've just had the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill go through all the stages, we're about to have the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill go through all stages, and yet here we are with a bill that is incomplete.
Paul Goldsmith has not done his job. He is a part-time Minister, as far as I'm concerned. He's too busy running around trying to defend $3,200 lunches by Sunny Kaushal under his administration. He should have been concentrating on the bill. This Amendment Paper doesn't actually propose anything that is egregious, necessarily. The point of this debate and the reason that it is actually debatable is because when Standing Orders were scribed, they envisaged when a Government made a mistake like this that it warrants time of the House to discuss it.
That is significant. It is so significant that they said that if a Government isn't going to get its act together and isn't actually going to do the work properly, it has to come down to the House and move a motion that the select committee consider an Amendment Paper to change a bill that we've only just debated at the first reading, that has only just been introduced, then yes, that does warrant putting aside the time of the House to debate it.
Now, we've got backbenchers on the other side who are desperate to get home and they're packing a bit of a sad—
Carl Bates: No, happy to be here. Happy to do the work.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —because their Ministers have put Parliament into urgency. There's Carl Bates again; off he goes. Still not going to work, brother. Keep at it, though. Keep at it. I'll tell you what; if you yell loud enough, the people that are about to vote you out in Whanganui might hear you.
Look, this is a disgrace. They should not have had to rush things through urgency. If they weren't so focused on getting things through so quickly, I reckon they wouldn't have made this mistake. It's got nothing to do with the fact that we are nearly at the end of the year. It's got nothing to do with the fact that this is a good or a bad idea; that is actually irrelevant in this debate. This debate is purely and simply about why we are having to put aside Parliament's time to fix up Paul Goldsmith's mistake. Why didn't he just have this sorted to begin with? If they had their ducks in a row, we would have been able to debate the substance of this.
Now, just to prove the point that this is a monumental muck-up, Paul Goldsmith put out a press release today celebrating the passage of the first reading of this bill which included this. He didn't even know that this wasn't included. And today during question time, when he was facing a patsy from one of his mates, he talked about this as one of the benefits of the bill.
Well, it's not even in the bill and it won't be until Parliament agrees to this motion. He got ahead of himself yet again. I reckon it's because they didn't even know. They didn't even know that they had made a mistake until they'd issued a press release, until they had done question time about it and said, “This bill is so good, we're going to be able to issue fines to shoplifters.” Then they've realised, “Actually, we didn't include that. We're going to have to move a motion in the House so that the select committee can debate this.”
This is an embarrassing moment for Paul Goldsmith and I hope it gets covered by the media because he should front up to this. Why are they putting Parliament through urgency when they haven't even got their act together and they haven't even got their ducks in a row?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): They are 10-minute calls.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Kieran McAnulty made a fair point, which is that it would be good for the public to know why this one got missed off the initial cut. The theory that I put forward in the first reading speech is that he got a call from the Prime Minister, he had to meet his KPIs, he cleared his whole desk of all the work that he hadn’t done, got it in a bin, gave it to the officials to go and draft up a bill, and this one stayed on the desk. I reckon this one was still on his desk, and he missed it when he did the clear-out to figure out what was going in this bill, because this one is not in it. This is introducing, as we understand, a ticketing system for retail crime. Even though, as mentioned, the Government’s press release included this as part of the mechanisms, or the provisions, in the primary legislation, it is in fact an incorrect media statement because the provision for infringement notices for retail crime is in this Amendment Paper, not in the primary legislation. I think the general public needs to know—if this Government is passing, under urgency, bills when they don’t even have their act together to get everything in the primary legislation—what the reason for this is. Was it missed off? What’s the purpose for doing that?
I’ve got another problem. The problem, with this situation that we’re trying to fix, is that the number one concern of retailers is that when they’ve had retail crime occur, they call the police, and no one comes. That’s the problem; they want a police officer to turn up at their premises when a crime has happened. Now, the Government’s response to this problem is to issue tickets. Well, that’s great, but who’s going to issue the ticket? There’s still not a constable to turn up to issue the ticket. I’m interested to know—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order! My understanding is this debate is not on the merits of the policy that we’re discussing; it is purely and simply on the motion.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ve just taken some advice, and the Minister is correct; it’s very constrained to the motion question.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to seek your guidance because, if I heard it correctly, within the motion that the Minister moved, it included the Amendment Paper number. Therefore, the Amendment Paper number, or the numbered amendment that this pertains to, is also part of the motion that’s debatable. I’m just seeking your guidance on that.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just double check that. In response to that point of order, the detail in the Amendment Paper itself is not debatable; the powers that it is giving to the select committee to make recommendations or consider the Amendment Paper is the purpose of this debate.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: So we can talk about Paul Goldsmith not doing his job, but we can’t talk about the amendment? That’s clear. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Right. As long as we all understand. Thank you.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Right, back to the point of this being an almighty stuff up, because that’s what the topic is. I’m really interested to know, from the Minister, if he’d like to take a call, as to how exactly this occurred. The other point I’d like to raise, in relation to this—I think that this is important because, if we think about it procedurally, this was not included in the main bill. There was no ability to debate it in that Part, so the problem we have is that, currently, the Police infringement system is at end of life—the Police infringement system is at end of life. There is no further capacity to issue tickets. This movement kicks out the implementation date by six months; that’s what’s going on in this here. It kicks it out by six months or by Order in Council—so we’ll do it when we feel like it or when six months kicks in. The reason for this is that Police are busily building the system, without funding, to make this happen. The real reason we’re here is that there is currently no capacity in the Police system to issue additional infringement notices. I suspect the Minister has been informed of this late in the piece. He’s figured out that the current Police system can’t handle additional workload, and so this bill is kicking the implementation date down the line while people busily try and build an electronic system, not the manual system—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m just going to interrupt the member there. I was waiting on you to come back to the debatable point.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This is an astronomical stuff-up on the side of the Government because there’s no system in place to deliver what they’re promising in the amendment bill.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the motion be amended to insert “and Standing Order 295(1)(b)” after “Standing Order 264(2)”.
I do want to speak to the referral motion specifically. Now, the previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, is absolutely correct in the sense of the potential fishhook that this motion will bring because what the Standing Order 264—by the way, thank you to the previous two speakers for buying me some time to actually look at the Standing Orders and what it entails. Standing Orders 264(2), if I heard it correctly, is that basically what the Minister is doing is waiving a bill that may make consequential amendments to a number of Acts affected by its provisions.
Now, the reason I’m assuming that the Minister has brought this to the House’s attention and requires a debatable motion on this is because of the fact that the principle bill itself, which is the Crimes Amendment Bill, can only have one principle Act attached to it, which is the Crimes Act. However, the Amendment Paper 436 that both of the two previous speakers has spoken on is not a consequential amendment to the Crimes Act. In fact, it’s a separate and distinct amendment, which is the Summary Offences Act 1981. That is the problem: it should be a bill that is introduced separately because it amends a separate Act, and it should have been brought separately to the House as a separate bill, not an Amendment Paper on another unrelated, semi-related but not consequential amendment to another bill.
So the question then is why did the Minister choose to include this as an amendment rather than a distinct separate bill that amends a distinct separate principle Act? And that is what we’re waiving here, I’m assuming, when it comes to Standing Order 264(1).
But I think there’s more to this. The reason for that is when I saw the Minister had released this amendment bill, I did wonder, you know, what is this Amendment Paper that is inserting a separate thing that amends the Summary Offences Act? I’m trying to think of other instances where something like this could have happened. The only example that I could think of while just doing some quick Hansard research was I remembered that last year in Budget urgency—because it was literally my first Budget urgency in this House—the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the Hon David Parker, and also the Hon Kieran McAnulty having this really intense discussion on a bill, with points of order on something that I had no awareness of, but I do remember it had something to do with a particular motion.
So I went back and tried to dig it up and I think it possibly is something along the lines of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, and that was the motion and instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. And this is the thing, because it’s trying to use a similar power in terms of the referral motion here as I think what they’re trying to do in the other referral motion, which is that the committee’s power be extended. This was also moved, actually, by the Hon Paul Goldsmith as the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, that the committee’s power be extended under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to consider an out-of-scope amendment set out on Amendment Paper 41 in the name of the Hon Simeon Brown.
So this is where it got me thinking on how these sort of things tie into each other. This is where I thought in terms of my amendments that I’m coming to—and, you know, understanding that other people may want to speak on both the motion itself as well as my amendment to the motion—is the introduction of Standing Order 295(1)(b). It is curious when it comes to Standing Order 264(2)—if that’s indeed the one that the Hon Paul Goldsmith has moved—because it just simply says bills are to relate to one subject area, but it may not necessarily expand the scope of the select committee. Maybe it does, but basically, it just says to avoid the bill making consequential amendments.
I already mentioned that the Amendment Paper that is in question here may be amending a separate bill altogether, so under the strict reading of the Standing Orders it cannot be considered a consequential amendment. But going back to the other one that we were considering, Standing Order 295(1)(b), it is in terms of the speech of the member moving the first reading. This says, “(1) The member moving the bill’s first reading must, on the commencement of that member’s speech,— … (b) if it is proposed to move for any special powers or instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill, indicate the terms of that proposed motion.”
So I guess in this case, what I’m trying to do with the Amendment Paper—and potentially now with that amendment the Minister’s able to speak on it and contribute and have another go at this—is whether simply moving the amendment around Standing Order 264(2) is sufficient enough to provide the power to the select committee to actually do what they need to do, which is consider an amendment that is not a consequential amendment to the principal Act.
However, with my amendment of Standing Order 295(1)(b), it does potentially specify the required special power that’s needed and explicitly states in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill, indicating the terms of the proposed motion, which is the consideration of this amendment, which is Amendment Paper 436.
So I do want to check with the Minister, now that the Minister can have another go at speaking on this—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he though?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, will he? That’s an excellent question. Will the Minister consider taking a call and address some of these broader concerns of this—and you know, we love the fact that we’re talking about Standing Orders. This is my jam: anything constitutional, everything Standing Orders related. But I do want to know just simply if the motion that the Minister moved is sufficient to allow for that power. So I do want to check if the Minister is willing to take another call and address the Amendment Paper that I raised in terms of Standing Order 295(1)(b).
I’ll also be interested to hear in terms of other people’s thoughts on that potential amendment in terms of the dichotomy that we have created and the power that is granted. Because again, this is a very interesting and peculiar parliamentary power that we’re looking at here for a select committee to be granted the additional ability to consider two different—OK, technically not two different subject matters; I want to clarify that because I do think that if we want to consider two subject matters, the Minister, I’m assuming, will also have to move an amendment that waives Standing Order 264(1), which is “Except as otherwise permitted by the Standing Orders, a bill must relate to one subject area only.” I’m assuming—because the referral motion, as far as I could hear, doesn’t actually exempt the House or the select committee under Standing Order 264(1)—we’re still considering this bill under one subject matter. It is simply the consequential amendment portion.
But again, I will be interested to know, why there has been a separate thing that has been introduced that couldn’t be introduced as a separate bill altogether, why it has to be tied into the Crimes Amendment Bill, whether those two things indeed are considered as two separate subject matters, and whether we should really consider an amendment that also includes Standing Order 264(1) because that potentially expands it out even further?
So I am interested in what other members think of both the waiving of Standing Order 264(2), but also my amendment, which I will hand over to the Clerk shortly, of the inclusion of Standing Order 295(1)(b).
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, as colleagues have said, this is a little bit embarrassing—this is a little bit embarrassing. It's starting to feel like there might be a biscuit tin in the Minister's office and every now and then he just kind of puts his hand in there and picks out a random handful of ideas and chucks them all in one bill and, this time, one’s happened at late notice. But it looks like chaos. It really does look like chaos. This is our justice policy.
But I think what my concern is, is that really, this bill being introduced at this stage under urgency really proves my point about the type of things that shouldn't be introduced under urgency. The reason for that is that this is a bill that—and I won't talk about the substance, but it does introduce policy, but it also delays the implementation of that policy.
It’s saying, “Let's introduce this new law that's very, very urgent. But hang on, we're going to delay when it comes into force by up to six months because we're not ready.” Now, come on, like, that's extremely clear in terms of something that should not be introduced in urgency.
What I'm speaking to is whether this amendment should be here at all, whether it's appropriate for it to be considered as a matter under urgency, which it clearly—clearly—isn't.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I remind the member; we are talking about the select committee's powers to consider this.
VANUSHI WALTERS: The referral to select committee.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Yes.
VANUSHI WALTERS: So my view is that it shouldn't be referred to select committee under urgency, because that is the nature of how the bill is being proposed to be referred to select committee. But the issue of why we're here again and why the Minister feels that he needs to refer the bill to select committee, in my view, is a bigger issue for this House, and it is about the House’s time.
While it is, in my view, embarrassing that this referral is having to happen, it's also indicative of a House who, potentially, has insufficient time to be able to consider what it needs to. I'd like to speak to what we should be doing, what a House should be doing, instead of referring this kind of tack on to select committee to be considered, which I do think is not the proper process. I think there are other things that this House could be doing to improve our processes.
This is a beautiful time to consider it, because we have a Standing Orders Committee who are currently considering what are the best practice processes that we should have to enable legislation to go through the pipeline to avoid the mishmash bill situation, to avoid bills having to be referred to select committee last minute. Geoffrey Palmer speaks very well, kind of on repeat on these issues, and perhaps at some stage the House will take notice. But he speaks, as a start, to the number of MPs in the House, to the fact that it has remained the same for a considerable number of years.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the debate and point.
VANUSHI WALTERS: So what I'm speaking to is the things we could put into place so that we don't need to think about referring matters like this to a select committee. The procedures of the House are not adequate and I'm outlining why we're in the place we are that the Minister has to—his only course of action to be doing this.
If we had more MPs, more House time—if we had, you know, more MPs with more select committees, then there would be more House time. If we had more House time on the agenda, that would also allow the Minister then to do, as colleagues have suggested—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member again, but this is a very tight debating point. It's starting to expand in your discussion. Please, come back to this.
VANUSHI WALTERS: Absolutely. I'm just indicating that there's work that could be done to avoid this very scenario where the House is spending additional time debating a referral to select committee. We don't need to be having this debate. We're having this the debate because we don't have adequate measures.
Let's say that this motion fails—let's say this motion fails. What are the Minister's options at that stage if he truly believes that this policy needs to get through the pipeline urgently? Well, it's not the end of the world if this motion fails, because the Minister could then talk to the select committee and suggest that they consider other issues as well. The select committee themselves can then make a decision; the chair can make a decision. Then if there's a challenge from any parties, it would then go to the Speaker to make a decision as to whether that new issue was in scope or out of scope. The select committee could actually consider other issues on their own vote and a Chair's decision that would allow them to consider this issue without this being referred to select committee; I believe it's happened before in finance and expenditure. It's not entirely the end of this issue if this motion doesn't fail.
I think that's important for the House to know before it goes to a vote on whether we should be referring it to select committee or not. But then, of course, it's ultimately up to the Speaker of the House to determine whether the issue is heard or not. So I can understand why the Minister would want, for clarity's sake, to have the debate and the discussion at this end of things as opposed to it continuing to be an embarrassment over the course of the coming three months, as perhaps an excellent select committee—we have an excellent select committee chair—says, “Well, no. We're not going to accept this because, really, the Minister should have been organised, should have put it in the original bill, and we will not use our powers to now look beyond the scope and make a referral to the Speaker that it be accepted.” I can completely understand that this, of all the embarrassing options available to the Minister at this stage, this is probably the least embarrassing one.
But I would put it to have, if I could, that actually, that is the option that is the most appropriate in this case, because it is clearly a mistake on his part, and really an independent group, as select committees are, is the appropriate place for a discussion to happen about whether it is appropriate for this additional different issue to be included or not. Unfortunately, the Minister isn't leaving it to the select committee chair to do that, which I think is really unfortunate because he is a very fair chair and I'm sure he would consider whether, in fact, this issue should be included or not. I do think that that's a shame.
Now, there is another question here, which is whether the scope of the Standing Orders is sufficient and whether this is, again, the best option or not in terms of including matters that are outside the scope of bills. I do wonder whether the Business Committee presents another option in terms of the Minister's avenue of including this issue as a matter for discussion as we head into next year, and if it is an option, why the Minister didn't consider going through that pathway in terms of having a robust debate, perhaps over a longer period of time, about whether it was appropriate or not.
Now, you know, I'm very goodwilled. Perhaps the Minister wanted the House to have the full discussion. In many ways the House as a whole is the most appropriate place for this discussion to be had. But I would put it to him that actually it is to avoid the embarrassment of having to table an item at Business Committee and further expose for a longer period of time the fact that a mistake has been made.
So I think it is unfortunate that we're having to use the House's time—the House's time is very valuable—due to a mistake—
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Extremely valuable.
VANUSHI WALTERS: It is extremely valuable—that the Minister has made. I do think it points to chaos in in terms of those ministerial offices. I think the public should be very worried that these matters either weren't considered when the bill was first created, or people believe that it was included and it was simply misplaced or ignored in the final version that was submitted.
Now, the other problem that we've got is the fact that given this is an amendment, it didn't go through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) vet, and therefore, my view is the Minister should be submitting this as a new bill as part of good process. The House deserves to know whether there's consistency or not with the BORA vet. The House deserves to know what the regulatory impact of this particular bill will be.
There's been a habit of making significant amendments by this Government at late notice, and I don't believe that that produces the best legislation. I think as a matter of principle, we should potentially consider objecting to this proposal. Hopefully, that will mean in the coming months, Ministers will be very careful about the legislation that they're submitting to this House.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I’m not going to take the full time. My dear mother, who’s not with us now, had this saying which she used quite often: “I am sick and tired of you making the same silly mistakes.” I heard that all too often myself. But I think it’s very, very appropriate—that in urgency, once again we have an experienced Minister making the same silly mistakes. This Government over the last 12 months has had more urgency, more desperate legislation, than anyone else. Once again, at the eleventh hour, when the poor people who might be out there watching TV and watching Parliament at home going, “What the hell is going on? They’re in urgency and nothing seems to be happening.” Well, they might say, “Well, the Opposition’s holding out.”—we have a responsibility, in Opposition, to keep the Government honest. When it makes those silly mistakes, we have to expose them. So it would be irresponsible to the country if we were not to debate these issues properly.
The Minister of Justice has been around for quite a long time, there’s no excuse for being naïve or not being aware of the challenges here. But to bring in after—after—we’ve had a debate in the House, an Amendment Paper—436—to then try and refer to a select committee without any scrutiny of the House is simply irresponsible and actually flouting—flouting—the principles of democracy in this country. There’ll be many people out there who know that’s actually the way this Government has operated. But to do it so blatantly, as we approach Christmas, as everyone’s looking for a break, and this Government once again trying to slip in a piece of legislation and an amendment that should have the scrutiny of the whole House.
I’ve got some very smart and astute colleagues who’ll refer to the technical points of this debate, but for the public out there who are saying “What’s this all about?”, I’ll just read out the principles. Can I just quote, it’s an explanatory note of the Amendment Paper—and it’s not to get into the amendment, Madam Speaker, I’m not doing that; it’s to try and explain what an amendment means, why everyone is getting excited about an amendment to a piece of legislation that’s just been debated. It says, “Clause 2 of the Bill is amended to provide for a delayed commencement for the provisions contained in this Amendment Paper. These clauses will come into force on”—
Simon Court: Madam Speaker, point of order. Apologies to the member on his feet. It’s quite clear, in Standing Order 298(3), that the debate “may not extend to the principles, objects, or provisions” that the member was just speaking on. Madam Speaker, I just ask if you’d give some guidance to the member.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I don’t need guidance, and I don’t think the House does, because we’ve already made it really clear. If we cannot keep the debate tight, then that will be it.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker.
I guess many people out there will be confused as to what is a piece of legislation, or a bill, introduced under urgency and tabling it, and then what’s an amendment—you know, before there’s been any debate.
I guess, in summary, if I can, this is a substantive change to a piece of legislation that’s not just an amendment, it’s actually a delay provision. So the question is: why would the Government try to slip it in at the last minute? To be kind, it might just be an honest, stupid mistake. It might be. But we’ve had no opportunity to debate this and the principles of provisions of it—we’re not allowed to do it in this debate. So if it was to go through, then it just slips straight into select committee without any scrutiny of the House. That’s kind of unconstitutional. So I appreciate the Standing Orders on this, and I’m not going to deviate from that, Madam Speaker, but that’s why we are all concerned about the process. And it is a process that, once again, challenges the constitutional arrangements of our democracy.
We’ve had, as I say, more urgency in this period of Parliament, under this coalition Government, than I’ve ever seen in my time in Parliament—that’s a couple of years! It is really important that we do everything that we can. I’ll be followed by astute lawyers who will go to the detail of this and the Standing Orders, and I would never profess to be an expert on Standing Orders—I’ve got a lot smarter people around me—other than to know that the principles of Parliament and the oversight of legislation are something that our ancestors fought for—fought for—died for, and we have a responsibility to uphold. And any coalition Government, just because it’s got the numbers, that thinks they can come in and just ram anything through Parliament—we in Opposition have a responsibility to stand up and point out—
Stuart Smith: This is a general debate.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —the risks of that. Well, it is. It’s a general debate on the provisions of democracy, and on the Standing Orders of this House, which are supposed to—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): To interrupt the member, it is not a—
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to guide how we operate.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It is not a debate on democracy; it is a debate on the select committee’s powers, under that Standing Order, to consider the amendments.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess that the process we are overseeing here, with—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): And that point’s been well canvassed and well made.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —the tabling of this amendment, I would suggest it does go to challenge the principles.
Madam Speaker, I said I’d never unnecessarily waste the time of this House, and I will hand over to my colleagues, but it is absolutely essential that people understand that this is another silly mistake. My mother—and myself—would be sick and tired of this over and over and over again.
STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): 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.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The amendment moved by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is out of order as being of no effect. The Minister complied with Standing Order 295(1)(b) during his speech on the bill’s first reading.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the select committee’s powers be extended under Standing Order 298(1) to consider the amendments set out on Amendment Paper 436 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and, if it sees fit, to recommend amendments accordingly, despite Standing Order 264(2).
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.
GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. As I know the House is never able to go backwards, it is frustrating. I want to bring that to you, in terms of the amendment. There were, if I can count, three speakers who spoke to the original paper, and then, when our Green colleague put his amendment on the Table himself, two others spoke to it. As we look at the Standing Orders and how it works, these are debatable motions, which should have fulsome engagement. I just want to ask that you consider that and take it on board, because I think there is frustration because of this and because of what has happened previously in other processes in this House. There is frustration in the Opposition about this, and we need to make sure our voices are heard.
STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): Speaking to the point of order—thank you, Madam Speaker; I don’t want to take up much time at all—I just wanted to point out that actually the debate had got very broad. That’s how it, quite rightly, in my view, went to the vote.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We don’t need any more debate on it. I take your point; however, it may be seen to be like that to you, but I gave several warnings about the breadth of the debates that were happening. There were five speakers that spoke on it, for about 40 minutes, and it was a simple, very tight question that was being put, and I think, in my opinion, it was well canvassed.
Bills
Public Works Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I present a legislative statement on the Public Works Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Public Works Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 14 May 2026.
New Zealand has an infrastructure deficit. The Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Act was passed in August to help address this by speeding up land acquisition for critical infrastructure projects. I now present further reforms to the Public Works Act 1981 that will improve the public works system as a whole.
The Public Works Act enables central and local government to acquire and manage private to deliver projects for public benefit. It is a crucial mechanism that supports public infrastructure projects and also enables the construction of roads, schools, and hospitals. However, the Act is outdated and requires modernisation to fulfil the needs of current and future New Zealanders and to support New Zealand’s economic growth.
The bill makes targeted amendments to improve the Act’s efficiency, effectiveness, and clarity in relation to land acquisition. The bill does not change the Act's processes for disposing of land no longer required for a public work. The changes made by the bill were informed by an expert advisory panel, and, on behalf of Minister Penk, I wish to thank the members of the panel for their input.
The bill better enables a joint approach to project delivery. Central and local government will now be able to coordinate land acquisition for connected public works. They will also be able to acquire land should they need to relocate third party infrastructure if that third party could otherwise acquire the land for a public work. The bill will enable Transpower to initiate acquisition negotiations and undertake some public works processes without having to rely on ministerial approval. However, compulsory acquisition powers will remain with the Minister for Land Information. These changes will support Transpower to upgrade and build the infrastructure necessary to meet the Government’s energy goals of doubling supply of renewable energy.
The bill maintains the Crown’s practice of avoiding acquiring Māori land where it can and introduces additional safeguards in an acquisition process should it arise. Compulsory acquisition of protected Māori land will be jointly decided on by the Minister for Land Information and either the Minister for Māori Crown Relations or the Minister for Māori Development, depending on the type of protected Māori land. The minimum negotiation period for acquiring Māori freehold land with more than four beneficial owners or vested shareholders is extended from three to six months.
This bill retains requirements for negotiations in good faith. After providing owners of land with an estimate of compensation based on a valuation carried out by a registered valuer, landowners can only object to land being taken at the Environment Court. The bill makes targeted amendments to improve the efficiency of objection processes. Where a designation is in place, the Environment Court will not be able to consider whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods. This will reduce certification with the Resource Management Act processes. And I also note that changes to the resource management framework are being progressed alongside this bill, and officials will keep an eye on those reforms to identify any impacts on this Act, including for objections or designation requirements.
The bill clarifies that compensation matters are not within the scope of the Environment Court’s objection proceedings as they are instead handled at the Land Valuation Tribunal. And objection proceedings will also be streamlined by requiring objectors to state the grounds for objection in line with matters provided by the Act. These changes will not apply to the recently enacted amendments for critical infrastructure projects where landowners can make submissions to the Minister for Land Information or local authority in this case, rather than objecting at the Environment Court. It also will make changes in regards to compensation provisions, which will recognise the need for fair, equitable, and consistent compensation settings for an effective public works system.
The bill also introduces provisions and acquisition processes to enable faster acquisition of land to support emergency recovery. This will support timely and efficient restoration of damaged public works or their functions following an emergency. Currently, bespoke legislation is required to speed up acquisition processes following significant emergency works and events, which delays recovery.
Lastly, the new regulation-making powers of the Act can require the Act’s users to provide information to Land Information New Zealand, who must also report annually to the Minister on the operation of the Act, and this will support the public works system’s long-term effectiveness by helping identify and respond to barriers to efficiency.
The bill modernises the Act’s delegation clause by relying on the Public Service Act’s general power of delegation, and these provisions, of course, would enable the Public Works Act powers to be delegated to agencies that frequently use the Public Works Act. However, compulsory acquisition decisions remain with the Minister for Land Information.
With all that, and I appreciate the hard and diligent work by Minister Penk for this very excellent bill, I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labour will be cautiously supporting this bill to select committee. We are aware that the Public Works Act has been around for a long time and has been a very important tool for Government, for councils, and for infrastructure projects. Things have moved on in some areas, and some things have got stuck in others. So it is timely to review this. But given the current, I guess, climate of the coalition Government, we have some major concerns. I think no one can dispute the objective of developing infrastructure around the country, and the Government's made a lot of noise about that. In fact, the previous Government had a fast-track process for genuine infrastructural improvement and housing, so the concept is one that we support, but the safeguards are the ones where we kind of end up in dispute on.
Faster delivery of public works—that's a great ideal. We have the Resource Management Act changes, which I guess will look pretty much like the effort that Labour put in—they say with additional property rights. Well, I'm not going to get into that at the moment, but property rights are at the heart of the Public Works Act and the Act has always respected and upheld property rights over land—usually, land—that is required for infrastructural development. That has been one of the things that has had broad support across the House for.
Hūhana Lyndon: Towns, cities, infrastructure all on whenua Māori.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: So the legislation, as I say, will go from this House into select committee. There will be many, many issues. I hear a little bit of chirping on my left here about Māori land. We accept that there have often been some challenges around the Public Works Act and around dealing with Māori landowners. It's more complex than a single individual, although even individuals, as we've seen on some projects, have dug their heels in and actually been difficult to work through to a resolution, which has meant the delay in many, many worthwhile projects around the country.
We are concerned about Māori rights and the ability of multiple Māori landowners—who have the right to have a say over a piece of land and have often been allocated land under a settlement regime and then the Crown comes knocking on the door asking for that land again. There are a number of safeguards: firstly, one that isn't always in place is that Māori-owned land will be valued as though it was freehold land. I think that there'll be precedence taken from this that Māori will appreciate down the track but it's not to dwell on at this point other than to say there are some references to and some safeguards in this legislation to acknowledge the difference for Māori landowners, and we will be clearly investigating that at the select committee stage.
The Crown and local authorities do need to, as I said before, get on and acquire some land, often for roading, but the other specific reference in this piece of legislation is to Transpower. Transpower is, of course, the lifeline for electricity distribution through the country. We support the upgrades that will mean electrification. What we don't support is the privatisation. So that’s one of the things that we will be thoroughly investigating to make sure that we don't add powers to the Minister or to Government through the Public Works Act or this amendment that allow Transpower to get on and build whatever they like and then charge back to electricity users a capital charge on that. As we already know, we have in the electricity sector some super-profits going out off the back of monopolistic behaviour. So scrutinising the provisions for Transpower will be one of the things that Labour in Opposition will be doing.
They say there has been targeted consultation to develop this up. We're hoping that there are no major glitches in this, as I say, other than oversight that we will be looking for through the select committee process. The Environment Court have had their wings clipped and, in my view, won't be able to look at alternatives. These are some of the areas of concern that Labour has. We’ll be working with other Opposition parties to make sure this piece of legislation does deliver progress, not just profits for a few.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of Te Rōpū Kākāriki and, of course, oppose what is coming through the pipeline right now. We’ve had RMA reforms; now we’ve got fast track, and we’ve got public works takings. Where is the natural justice—where is the natural justice—for a landowner? Whether you are Māori or general title, where is the natural justice? As we’ve heard already, there’s support on this side of the House, yet you can’t even go to the Environment Court. You can’t go to the Environment Court when you have concerns. Rather, you have to go to a Minister or local body, who have probably already made up their mind in terms of a predetermined outcome, and give them a submission—a submission that hopefully they might listen to your concerns as a landowner.
Public works has cast a dark shadow across Aotearoa for generations, and we cannot forget the way in which public works takings have established towns, cities, hospitals, schools, endowment lands, harbour board lands—you name it; Māori lost it, and we were never compensated. We were given a paraikete whero, and we were cast aside and were meant to exist on reserve lands that never even happened; kia ora Nelson Tenths—kia ora. When we come into the House and we say, “this is for the good of all New Zealand”, “this is critical infrastructure”, and “this is for emergency response”, well, often, Māori have already experienced this raupatu through the Public Works Act, and, now, it’s coming for all Joe Public of Aotearoa. That’s the disappointment that we have on this side, over here. Property rights do matter—absolutely—Māori mai, Pākehā mai, tauiwi mai. When I think about the 489 landowners from Waipū over to Whangārei and beyond—from Te Hurihanga a Kawharu, aka the Brynderwyns—there is a huge footprint of landowner loss for the four-lane highway that this Government puts up as some awesome solution for Tai Tokerau.
Andy Foster: You support it.
HŪHANA LYNDON: No—a four-lane highway should not be an excuse to raupatu 489 landowners who are now sitting in limbo. May I introduce Auntie Linda [holds up image], on the front page of the Northern Advocate on Saturday, raising the fact that their whānau have had intergenerational connection to their farm; to where her father’s ashes are buried; to the fact that they have planted natives; and they have orchards growing, as well as an awesome, productive farm. They are now in limbo alongside all of these landowners. Even Whangārei district councillors are at risk of losing their land. What do we tell Auntie Linda and all the landowners who are at risk for the public good, for this critical infrastructure and for a four-lane highway that is going to run smack-bang through. Their entire farm is going; their entire whenua, their intergenerational connection, where their mokopuna have been raised and will inherit this farm, is now gone. Now, what we have is that, somehow, they have to put a submission in to a Minister because they can’t go to the Environment Court. It’s been a tāhae of the process. There is no fairness in what is coming through in this legislation. Allow the landowner to go to the Environment Court—someone who does not have a predetermined outcome for the good of all New Zealanders. Auntie Linda has to go to a Minister and beg to protect their whenua.
I don’t know how many members of this Whare have lost their lands, but I know I have, and my
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Whangārei-tererenga-parāoa, is covered with public works takings. This whānau here is front-line, ground zero, public works takings 2025 and beyond. These landowners are calling, and they are meeting—I’ve got heaps of emails now from landowners all concerned at the fact that they will be sacrificed for a four-lane highway. Where is the informed consent? Where is the consent of these landowners to even have a chance to survive and protect what little bit of whenua that they might have? No, you’re going to give them and incentive payment and say, “If you’re an early taker, here you go; here’s your paraikete whero. Take it and move on.” Well, you tell Auntie Linda’s mokopuna—where is their tomorrow? They’re going to have to go and move to town—
Simon Court: Four lanes.
HŪHANA LYNDON: —or find somewhere else.
Simon Court: Four lanes to Auckland.
HŪHANA LYNDON: No, no, no—you can yell as much as you like and try to contradict what I’m sharing, but this is lived experience. This is lived experience when you have a town built on top of you and endowment lands that took all the whenua for the purposes of Whangārei Boys’ High School. You don’t even have a clue of the depths to which we oppose this.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.
SIMON COURT (ACT): For decades the Public Works Act has worked on 1980s’ principles and processes while New Zealand is crying out for 21st century infrastructure. This bill finally updates the system so we can build the roads that that member so loves, energy networks, and public facilities. Kiwis rely on these things, and they don’t want to be drowning in paperwork and process in order to get them.
ACT supports these reforms, which are speeding up delivery and protecting property rights of all citizens, including Māori, and providing for fairer compensation. Infrastructure delays aren’t just frustrating, are they, everyone? They are pushing up the cost of living, because every unnecessary month of red tape adds to higher rates, higher taxes, and higher prices for everything we use and consume.
This bill moves us closer to an efficient transparent regime that treats landowners with respect, unlike that member, and holds Government agencies to account. Emergency land acquisition of course should not require a new Act of Parliament every time a disaster strikes, right, Ayesha Verrall? You know all about disasters. ACT backs a predictable, rules-based system that safeguards the rights of property owners, delivers infrastructure, and helps clean up after a disaster, even in extraordinary circumstances. The ACT Party commends this bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Speaker. The Public Works Act (PWA) is an important and necessary piece of legislation, and this bill is updating that legislation. When I first looked at it, it looked a little bit like déjà vu, because we had a little bit of a look at the PWA earlier in this term.
Taking private property compulsorily is a big deal. It should be used sparingly, where that property is required—required—to deliver specified infrastructure for the benefit of our wider community.
We’ve already heard from the member for the Green Party that the connection to land is really, really important, and it’s much more for many people than just simply a mere financial asset. She certainly described the connection of her whānau to land, in her instance. But for many people, too—for all New Zealanders—sometimes it is a home. Sometimes it is a place of memories, a place where you shared time with family and friends. Maybe it’s where your children grew up. It’s a place of emotion; of connection, of blood, sweat, and tears in terms of investing in a property, the work you’ve done, the trees you’ve planted, and all those projects big and small. It’s a place to stand. It’s a place of connection. It’s a place—tūrangawaewae, if you like.
But sometimes there is a community need which says that compulsory acquisition is required. As I said, taking land compulsorily is a big deal. It should only be done when absolutely needed. It should be done fairly and in good faith, transparently, empathetically, and with good engagement.
The bill, as I read it, does that. It expands the ability, for example, to use incentive payments. It also recognises the significance of that compulsory acquisition by lifting the compensation payments when compulsory acquisition is absolutely required.
As we’ve just heard from Simon Court, we also need to make sure that we have an efficient process so that we as a nation can deliver essential infrastructure in a timely, cost-effective way with maximum certainty.
This Government, of course, is working very, very hard to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic impediments everywhere. This is just part of that, which is essential to lifting our collective living standards.
I note the inclusion of a restriction on the Environment Court considering alternative options only where there is a designation already in place—in other words, there’s a lot of work already been done to decide that that piece of land, that particular area, is required for that piece of infrastructure.
It’s good to see the provision for collaboration between agencies, so we don’t have different agencies—maybe local government, central government agencies—who are having to do things twice. We want to do things once and do things effectively and efficiently while doing them empathetically and transparently with the landowners who are affected.
It's also really pleasing to see the specific inclusion of Transpower. It seems weird that Transpower wasn’t already considered there, because, I mean, if you think about essential infrastructure, I don’t think there’s any more essential infrastructure than the national grid. I had a meeting the other day with somebody in the energy industry who said that the energy industry represents just 3 percent of our GDP but, without it, the other 97 percent wouldn’t operate either. So it’s 3 percent, but it’s also 100 percent. Without electricity, we would have no economy.
It's also pleasing to see provision for the use of the Public Works Act in an efficient way in terms of emergency recovery.
I look forward to, as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, to receiving submissions on the bill, considering submissions on the bill and to, in time, reporting the bill back to the House. I commend it to the House.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
A person’s blood is nourished by food, a person’s sustenance derives from the land and soils.
Of all the bills before us this week, this is the most terrifying to all Māori. To Māori, public works is synonymous with raupatu—confiscation. Ruapekapeka, Rangiriri, Rangiaowhia, Ōrākau, Pukehinahina, Maungapōhatu, Parihaka, Waeranga a Hika, Wairau, Waikato, Takaparawhau, and even Ihumātao. The list is endless, and this bill ensures it continues. It reaches into our whenua, our histories, our wāhi tapu and whakapapa with the same heavy hand that began confiscation Māori land under the first Public Works Act in 1864.
Yes, today’s version is an improvement on the last, but its intent remains the same: it is another form of raupatu. Every hapū in Aotearoa has felt the Public Works Act. There is no part of this country where Māori have not been pushed aside or built over in the name of public good.
The clearest example is highways, just like Hūhana Lyndon explained before. Highways are the sabre of raupatu—straight lines, cutting through whenua, displacing whānau, and destroying wāhi tapu. Look at Waikanae. Wī Parata gifted much of the township to the people of Aotearoa—a profound act of generosity. Yet, his own whānau later became casualties of public works takings. If that is the legacy of public works for a whānau that gave so much, then what hope is there for Māori with little ancestral lands left—and for the mokopuna who dream of returning to their papatipu, their ancestral lands.
Whenua is not a commodity to Māori; it is whakapapa, it is identity, and it is a sense of belonging. As kaitiaki, it is innately Māori to care for and to preserve our whenua and our taiao for the next generations. We do this not just by occupation, but through our way of life; our reo, our tikanga, and our whanaungatanga. It is where we lay our bones and what effectively makes us tangata whenua.
You can sit and listen all day to the Government celebrating smoother, faster, more convenient land acquisition processes, but it comes at the expense of tangata whenua. Even shifting notices fully online puts many whānau, especially our kaumātua, at risk of not being notified at all. That is how wāhi tapu get bulldozed. That is how urupā are disturbed. That is raupatu in 2025: not with muskets, but with policy settings and website notifications.
You cannot compensate whakapapa, you cannot replace papatipu, and you cannot claim to honour Te Tiriti while making Māori land something the Crown can price and take at will. It does not matter how much compensation the Crown offers if Māori can never say no. Allowing one Treaty partner to confiscate the land of another is a gross violation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and of hapū rangatiratanga.
This bill opens the door for takings to support fast-track projects—projects rammed through without consultation, immune from court challenge, and invisible to the public. Now, the Crown can seize any land, whether communities agree to it or not, for developments that nobody asked for.
This is how communities are destroyed. This is how whakapapa is severed. This is how mana motuhake is extinguished, and mokopuna are left with no whenua, no tikanga, and no identity. This is how colonisation is entrenched in 2025.
It goes without saying, Te Pāti Māori vehemently opposes this bill. We do not commend it to the House. We urge this Parliament to destroy it. And to every member who speaks proudly about iwi settling historic grievances, walk your talk and shut this bill down, because the only thing it guarantees is that those same wrongs will happen again. Kia ora.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I commend this bill to the House.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to talk to what is just the first reading of the Public Works Amendment Bill, and I say that because we have been rushing bills through all stages in urgency—the second reading, committee stage, and third reading all at once with substantial Amendment Papers in the process.
We have heard why I think it's important to note that this bill is going to a select committee. We’ve heard two very passionate speeches about the importance of Māori land and land owned by Māori, their whenua, and how taking that is particularly meaningful, particularly in the context of the history of Aotearoa when so much has been taken. And we know that. This bill is going to go to a select committee. It’s a Government bill, so it’s going there.
There were some very real concerns raised. We heard about consultation requirements and everything being electronic. Not everybody has a computer. Everybody here might have lots of computers, lots of devices, but not everybody does. So perhaps this is something that the select committee can look at to see whether some amendments are needed to require additional types of consultation, maybe for some land classes, maybe for everyone; maybe it depends on where you are in the country, I don't know. But I hope the select committee will look at that issue and other issues as well.
Raised in those speeches was the importance of your rohe, your whenua. If specific land needs to be taken for something—and I won’t get into the arguments; these are hypothetical projects that I'm sure will have some sort of value—and it’s going to mean that people who have already lost a lot of land will have no land or hardly any land, then surely there are mechanisms that can be looked at to provide additional land if whenua is the real issue there. So I really hope that the select committee—it’ not one that I’m on—does look at what I know will be a lot of submissions on this topic, and I encourage everybody to come with a very open mind and be very cognisant of that history. Don’t just rubbish and talk about the importance of four-lane roads to Auckland.
Whilst roads are very important in that part of the world to the economy and we've got all sorts of problems with the roads and with climate change and thinking about how we transport things around the country, please, I say to the Government members, listen to those concerns and have an open mind and see. I’m sure it will be within the scope of the bill to come up with solutions for that, because there are other elements of this bill that are doing some good things. We’ve heard that the Public Works Act is an old, clunky piece of legislation and the settings in it have not been updated for some time. So issues like the amount of compensation that people get when their land is taken are things the bill is looking to change.
I commend the use of a review group that I'm sure has had a lot of expertise in this legislation. I used to work around the edges of it, and the time periods were exceptionally long if people didn't agree with the compensation arrangements or they didn't agree to their land being taken. It’s fair enough that people don't want their land being taken and that there must be some way for there to be a process. That’s important. However, the Public Works Act process as it stands at the moment is clunky.
So that again is another reason why Labour wants these things to be discussed in a sensible way at a select committee. I note this issue of the Environment Court not looking at alternatives, and I presume that's because under the Resource Management Act (RMA), if you have a designation, then you already have to go through that alternatives test. And I would like the select committee to look at whether that aligns with the work that Labour did with the Natural and Built Environment Act, which updated all the designation provisions that are now back in the RMA. I’m advised that these all go into this this Government's Planning Bill as well—that all that work could have been done two years ago, and that those improvements are in the new legislation. Hopefully, that is something that that select committee will also look at.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): This bill will make the land acquisition process faster but also fair. This will see a better outcome for the landowner and help reduce the cost of building infrastructure. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to begin by echoing what my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking said, when she opened, because we’ve been here, debating so many bills in all-stages urgency—some of which really didn’t need to be debated under urgency. But it’s actually quite refreshing to be taking a call on the first reading of a bill that is actually going to make it to a select committee. So I do want to acknowledge that and begin with that.
I do also want to say, in my opening, that some of those bill that we did debate under urgency all stages were things like the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, which was a bill that was ostensibly about increasing supermarket competition but was actually about increasing ministerial powers and reducing environmental protections. When we didn’t vote for that bill, we got slapped around by members on the Government benches who claimed that members on this side of the House were anti-progress, for some reason, or anti-development or anti-infrastructure or anti – strengthening our economy. I want to point out that the reason that we are supporting this bill to select committee stage, at least, is because we’re not any of those things; it’s because we do actually support strengthening the economy, we do support building infrastructure. We, in fact, supported the construction sector much more than this Government has, which is why we have seen losses to the tune of—what is it?—tens of thousands. It is 20,000 jobs in the construction sector alone that have been lost.
Hon James Meager: Thanks, Labour!
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: No. Thanks, James Meager to your Government and decisions that your Government has made to stop building, to stop construction. Many of us on this side of the House have been meeting with those from the construction sector. So you might sit there and heckle and say “Blame Labour.”; that’s not what the construction sector is saying, just FYI. They have all left the country and left to Australia, largely, because there are many more opportunities there for construction because this Government has stopped all te building jobs. So it’s nice to see that, for once, they’re taking a step towards supporting infrastructure and the construction sector.
We’re happy to support it to select committee, as my colleagues on this side of the House have said, this is the review of the Public Works Act that I understand hasn’t been reviewed for something like 30 or 35 years. So it’s probably about time that there was a review done. It was reasonably targeted. It is about the delivery of public works. So we’re reasonably supportive around this.
We do have some questions about the so-called streamlining amendments in this particular bill, and that is partly because of what I started with—that when they pass so many bills under all-stages urgency, it is difficult to make sure that the laws that they are making are actually fit for purpose.
We have some questions around Māori rights, as well. It’s been raised by other colleagues on this side of the House. That is also largely because of the erosion of trust between this Government and Māori, because so much of what they have done and passed has suppressed Māori rights. So of course we want to interrogate this bill at select committee and make sure that this doesn’t do that, as well. The one thing that I will note, that my colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor noted as well, is that there is a requirement that Māori freehold land is valued as if it were general land when it’s acquired for a public work. So that gives us, I guess, some level of comfort. But, again, as Rachel Brooking said, if there are other implications for Māori land for whenua Māori, then we want to make sure that it is teased out, that it is interrogated very well at the select committee stage.
Finally, the point that I’ll make is around the impending resource management (RM) reform. We know that this Government had decided, two years ago, to chuck out all the work that Labour in Government did, to only come up with two other bills—the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—that do, largely, what Labour was going to do, but shifts the emphasis to property rights, which, of course, we don’t necessarily agree with. I would like to see what the impacts—
Hon Rachel Brooking: And take away Māori rights.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —of that RM reform—and take away Māori rights, as my colleague Rachel Brooking said; absolutely right—is on this planning bill, as well. Ultimately, they do deal with some similar things, as well. We will be looking out for all of that at the select committee stage.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I commend the bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Works Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
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.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
Instruction to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I move, That the Public Works Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 May 2026.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Works Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 May 2026.
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.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask members in the House to remember that when a vote is being taken, it is done in silence. You’ll note that the Clerk often has to use his earpiece, and it makes it really difficult with the background noise.
Members, we are now breaking for the dinner break, and will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Bills
Electoral Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Electoral 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 PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Effective democracy relies on well-run elections, and after each election we examine what’s working well and what can be improved, and many aspects of our electoral system are in good working order and have been for many, many years. There were some lessons learnt at the last election around some of the processes and the matters in terms of ensuring that votes were not missed and mistakes were made, and a very thorough enquiry was made of all that. And some changes have been made to the way that the Electoral Commission operates, and I have great confidence in the refreshed board to do that.
One area that has been coming under particular strain has been the timeliness of the vote. It now takes a week longer to get the official results after an election than it did prior to 2020—it used to take two weeks, now it's three weeks, and that's an extra week of uncertainty for New Zealanders. It's quite often the case in an MMP environment that coalition negotiations don't start until after the final vote is confirmed, so that extends the period of uncertainty for New Zealanders. The advice that we've received from the Electoral Commission was that if we continued under the current arrangements where more and more people were having special votes, which take a lot longer to process, then that delay in the count would extend further.
That's why the Government has decided to close enrolments 13 days before the election day, which is the day before early voting starts, which is clarified by this bill as 12 days before the election day. I've been aware of some debate about whether it would make a difference to the timeliness of the vote. I can tell the House that based on the commission’s latest forecasts, which were provided to the Justice Committee, if we didn't have this new enrolment deadline, it's highly likely that the count would take up to 23 days at the next election, which would mean there's a chance of missing the legal deadline for the return of the writ. And so we'd be extending towards four weeks. That would continue to increase because of predictions of more and more special votes. And that is why we're intervening.
So voting is a right, but it's also a responsibility, and it is part of the law and has been a law for a very long time that enrolling is compulsory in this country. And New Zealanders are expected to enrol once they're 18 and update those enrolments if they move house. What we're suggesting is that they need to be enrolled 13 days before the election in order to reduce pressure on the vote.
The problem that we'd had was one of the primary functions of the Electoral Commission is to ensure that people are enrolled to do what they are obliged to do legally. However, of course, changes had been made so that people could enrol on election day itself, by the previous Labour Government. Now, then of course, it immediately means that the Electoral Commission is sending a mixed message; they're saying on the one hand you need to enrol, but on the other hand they're saying, “But by the way, you don't need to bother because you can enrol when you turn up to vote.” And more and more people were getting the second message, and we'd had many people enrolling on election day, having special votes and taking longer to have the count.
Now, I'm sure there will be many, many speeches from the other side saying that the end of the world will occur and our democracy is at an end, and I just simply make the point that this is a reasonable expectation in democracy. If you live over in Australia, you need to be enrolled 26 days, on average, before the election, and democracy hasn't collapsed over there. And we've got more than a year for people to get enrolled. And we've got every confidence that with a good, clear campaign, which the Electoral Commission is well funded to do, people will have every opportunity to get enrolled well before writ day, which is the goal. You want to be enrolled before writ day, and then you don't have to have a special vote.
It's not the only enrolment change that we're making to speed up the count. We're also making a concerted effort to turn the ship around and address the trends of later enrolments with more special votes. So we'll be able to allow the Electoral Commission to update addresses, details on the electoral rolls automatically and to begin processing special votes earlier where they can. It will remove unnecessary information from the electoral rolls to make it easier to keep them up to date and to allow people to be contacted digitally about their enrolment status.
Restoring real consequences for crime is also very important to this Government and the bill will ban sentenced prisoners from voting as well. Currently, if you're in prison for three years, you lose the vote, and this bill extends that to all convicted prisoners. Following a recommendation from the Justice Committee, it will apply only to crimes committed after the commencement of this Act and over time more sentenced prisoners will be captured by the ban. I intend to lodge an Amendment Paper to modify the related settings for people suspected or convicted of a criminal offence who are detained in a hospital or secure facility under mental health grounds instead of prison. The bill currently would allow all people in these circumstances to enrol and vote.
Hon Rachel Brooking: “Oh, you might not vote for National, so we’d better detain you and not let you vote”—that is terrible.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: If you were to listen, this Amendment Paper will retain the current settings—the current settings—where detained people will be disqualified from enrolling once they have been detained for more than three years. So if members on the other side are very upset about that, that is the law that was in place when they were in Government, and that's what we're going to be retaining.
The bill also makes a wide range of other changes to make sure our electoral system is sustainable and up to date. Many of these changes were recommended by the Justice Committee following its review of the 2023 election.
I'd like to thank those members of the public who took time to make their submissions to the Justice Committee. I also mentioned earlier that the committee has recommended amending the bill around prisoners sentenced to fewer than three years. The ban only applies to crimes committed after the bill commences. The change aims to resolve an inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. All prisoners sentenced to three years or more remain disqualified, as they currently are under the Electoral Act.
The committee also made some recommendations to clarify and refine a few proposals in the bill. For example, voter disqualification has been extended to include 17-year-olds who may be provisionally enrolled. This change will ensure that they cannot be enrolled when they turn 18 if they are serving a prison sentence, but it will likewise ensure that they'll be supported to enrol if they choose to do so when they're released. And the committee also clarified how automatic enrolment updates would apply to people on the dormant roll and made changes to ensure a consistent and efficient application of the Māori electoral option for out of cycle local elections.
The committee also raised some matters it considers worth exploring in the future: whether it would be possible to expand automatic updates to include new enrolments. And of course, there are some complications around that given we have a general roll and a Māori roll, but that's worth considering down the line.
We want to see a system that's efficient and effective and continues to hold the trust of New Zealanders as a very important part of our functioning democracy. This bill moves us in the direction, and I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Out of all the unethical, shady, and dishonest things this Government has done, I think this one is possibly the worst. It is stopping people from voting in the next general election.
Democracy is the safeguard against power being concentrated in the hands of a few. Let me repeat that: democracy is important because it is the safeguard of being concentrated in the hands of a few and that's what this bill is actually doing. Democracy is the guarantee that Government remains accountable to the people it serves.
Christopher Luxon wants to stop people from enrolling early, during, or on election day; something that over 100,000 New Zealanders did in the last general election. We know now that when this legislation passes that voters will be refused access to the ballot box or have their votes disallowed, because they did not appropriately update their enrolment details before voting commenced. This creates a very real risk that the legitimacy of our elections is undermined.
We know that it's going to be a tight election, and clearly the Government do too, because they're screwing the scrum to tilt the field in their direction and that's not fair. We know from the Electoral Commission that gave advice to the Justice Committee—and this is really important. The Electoral Commission told the Justice Committee that even with all the changes present in the bill, there will be no difference between the time it took to count the votes at the previous election and the time it will take in the next election. That is advice received from the Electoral Commission at the Justice Committee. So that begs the question, why is this bill being passed now?
So let's talk about who this is going to affect. It affects someone who’s just lost their job in the cuts that this Government has instigated and all the businesses that have gone under, someone who lost their job and has had to move home, it'll affect them. Someone who can't afford the rent and has had to move and change their address and details, it'll affect them. Single parents, young people enrolling for the first time and being able to vote, it'll affect them. Māori and Pasifika we know are disproportionately affected. And all of those people who are so focused on and being able to earn enough money to afford food every week, it'll affect those people too. The very people who have suffered the most at the hands of this bad Government's bad decisions are the same people who are going to be hit again by being punished further and prevented from voting.
The Deputy Prime Minister of the Government has called these people “dropkicks”. He's on the record as calling people who can't enrol before the period required as dropkicks. People who are surviving every single day under this Government just to pay the bills, to feed their children, and to get by in an environment where an unemployment is high, where prices are soaring; they are absolutely compromised under this bill.
We will be looking into those communities, and we'll be doing everything we can to mobilise that vote, because do you know what? When I speak to people out in my community, they are angry. They are damn angry that they have been hurt time and time again by this Government. When they learn that the very Government that has hurt them is now taking away their power to vote them out, that incites anger. We will be harnessing that anger in the upcoming election to vote out this Government and their unethical lawmaking.
We should be encouraging democracy more, strengthening our democracy by encouraging people to vote. Those young people, the first time they're getting out, we should be making it easier and easier to instil good ethics in them about why democracy is important. The more we have votes, the more people engage in our democracy, the healthier our system is—not by handing it out to a few and stopping the rest from voting. We've hopefully moved on over the years to be more enlightened and to know these things. But this is such a step backwards into the dark ages to stop people having a voice, to stop people having their say. To somehow disguise it as efficiency is just absolutely ridiculous.
We are deeply concerned that many people will not be able to vote in the next election because of the bill being passed today. Politicians all have a role in our own communities to make it easier for people to vote so they understand when the time starts, so they understand what to do. By introducing new rules, by saying, “Thirteen days, if your details aren't up to date, you're not able to vote.” Trying to communicate that to all of those people before the election date is virtually impossible. When the Electoral Commission came before the Justice Committee and we asked those questions, we got confirmation that it will be an incredibly difficult task to communicate these changes ahead of the general election.
New Zealanders should not lose their right to vote just because they are late to enrol and that's what this bill is doing. It is saying that if you don't get in there and enrol, you lose your right to vote. My issue with that is, whose right is it to take away another person's right to vote? That is a fundamental right that this bill should not be able to take away. This Government is far more concerned with administrative convenience than a free, fair, and accessible democracy, and that is a crying shame. The right to vote is absolutely fundamental and it is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Every New Zealand citizen who is of age and has that right to vote.
It is absolutely despicable for a Government to introduce a proposal which would take that right away from working Kiwis—from people in New Zealand who are doing it tough and doing the best they can to be having their right to vote taken away. The Government's own Attorney-General has been very clear that the proposal for the 13-day registration appears to constitute an unjustified limit on section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Their own Attorney-General has said this is compromising our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The accepted starting point is a fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. We hear much from that side of the of the House about one person, one vote when we're talking about the interface with indigenous rights—very strong with the one person, one vote ideology that's base is in a liberal democratic thought, but not when it comes to all New Zealanders in every part of our country having the ability to go and vote and make that as easy as possible. That is being stifled, and it is suppressing democracy and that's the truth of it.
We know that 91,000 New Zealanders registered to vote during the voting period at the last election and nearly 134,000 changed electoral districts during that same time frame. That amounts to 231,000 people who will be impacted by this change. That's about 8 percent of the voting public at the last election. That is the real concern: that we have a Government who knows it's going to be a tight election. We have a Government who's changing the rules, who's actually shifting the goal posts and tilting it in their favour. It is the very people that have been marginalised the most by their bad choices and their bad decisions that will be most severely impacted by this anti-democratic legislation. It is absolutely concerning that disenfranchising hardworking New Zealanders will only serve the big end of town, and they know it and that's why they're doing it.
The Government's justification for this change, as we heard from the Minister who spoke earlier, is that it will increase the speed of results. But that does not justify the cost of disenfranchising potentially tens of thousands of New Zealanders. More to the point, as I've already stated, we've had the advice. It will not make a lick of difference in the speed of doing this.
What price do we put on our democracy? What is the price? Is it a day? Is it two days? Is it $1,000? Is it $2,000? What price do you put on having someone who's turned 18, who hasn't enrolled, turning up to the ballot box on the day of election day, wanting to vote in their first general election, and being told by an Electoral Commission official that they are unable to vote because the law was changed by the Government and they are now unable to vote because their details weren't up to date on time? Bureaucracy is preventing democracy and that's what this bill is sadly doing.
I'm really interested to hear the lengthy debates we are sure to hear from that side of the House, justifying how they think it is right to take away someone's right to vote, why they think that that's a good thing to do, and how they think this is going to further New Zealand as a country and make us a stronger, more cohesive, profitable, and absolutely fantastic country in the future by showing some people in our community that they can't vote.
I think this is a sad little bill, and I will conclude on the same note that I started on. I believe that out of all the unethical, shady and dishonest things that this Government has done, this is number one.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Electoral Amendment Bill is an unapologetic, blatant attack on democracy. I would have thought that in this House one of our main jobs is to uphold democracy.
When we are talking about democracy, what are we even talking about? We are talking about the power of people; that is what democracy is supposed to be. Not the power of a few people, but the power of the many. That is what we are supposed to be encouraging in this House, where we have a legitimate Government that has been elected by a fair representation of people and where we have done our job to encourage engagement rather than discourage engagement with our democratic processes. The only way to be legitimate and to be able to make the decisions every day that we do in this House is to have that consent. And to have that consent means upholding everything that we possibly can across all of our systems to ensure, as my colleague the previous speaker, Hon Ginny Andersen, just put onto the floor, that we are actually encouraging and celebrating every part of people turning up to have their say, in select committees and at the ballot box on voting days and voting periods.
At this time, voter cynicism or, if you like, people losing faith and trust in political processes, is at an absolute high, especially—especially—when they feel that they're not being listened to. We have just had, for example, fast-track legislation where thousands of New Zealanders from around the country of all backgrounds and experiences and skills and whakapapa came into this House, put forward their heartfelt and highly skilled analysis and thoughts on what they think about regulatory standards laws and fast-track laws—overwhelming opposition to this Government's bills and laws—and what did this Government do? It did not listen to them at all.
So because of various things, and there is such a long list of those sorts of examples, why would we expect—why would we expect—to hold on to the encouragement of people feeling that they are part of this system? Right now we should be doing everything we can to increase and improve engagement. This bill is about discouraging engagement. They are trying to put up a pretence and a guise that it is about improving the system. It's nothing of the sort. There are other ways of improving the system and the Electoral Commission and other agencies put forward those understandings and solutions; things like how about properly resourcing the Electoral Commission to be able to do a better job, to be able to make voting more accessible across communities because there is not equity across communities. There has never been accessible equity across communities for voting; all sorts of barriers stand in the way. That's what we should be doing. Instead, in this House, this bill is about making it harder to engage in the system.
Now, what happens when we are discouraging people from exercising their fundamental right? It undermines representative democracy. What the bill does, as we know, and two of the most important things that I wanted to pick up on, is it makes it harder for people to vote by moving the enrolment deadline from election day to before advanced voting starts. We already know that that change in our law—I think it was in the last term of Government—actually saw a whole lot of people willing to participate and give legitimacy and consent to any Government of the day: to have their say and to be part of deciding what is governed in this place. Now we are going to lose a whole lot of people who thought that it was actually fair and as it should be to turn up and vote.
This Government can try all they like to pretend that they are trying to improve the system. They are not doing that; this is an unapologetic, blatant attack on some parts of communities—against voting. The evidence and the advice, the official advice, and the Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission have been very clear on who exactly that is going to impact on in a negative way: Māori and Asian people and Pasifika people and young people and people who rent—just as a starting point.
This Government is sending a very clear message to who it thinks matters when it comes to considering their views and opinions. But we already know this because, as I mentioned, we've already seen this Government completely override and disregard people's submissions and people's opinions and thoughts and expert skills on the matters that are passed by this Government. So its impacts—yes, they are about blocking certain people and communities from voting, but what it is really about is wanting to uphold an economic system that continues to privilege the already wealthy, continues to hold an economic system that exploits people and our environment for corporate greed. That is what this is really about: privileging people who, more likely, will vote to uphold an economic system that wants to benefit the few. That is exactly—they know this, they have seen it around the world—what this bill is about
So we heard that in their submission. We heard from the agencies who seek to uphold democratic engagement and democratic integrity to not put these changes in place. And yes, people in prison: this is a right—this is not a privilege—to vote. Everyone should be able to vote, including, yes, people in prison—full stop. The Greens are clear and strong-throated about this being a right for the people of New Zealand: to vote. And again—again—this is another blatant attempt to uphold an economic system and decisions that privilege the few. That is why they are putting this through.
Dr David Wilson: With rights come responsibilities. It’s simple.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: The real solutions for encouraging—OK, let's take on the “simple” bit. I did have that written down, this whole thing about “Oh, it's simple, it's easy.” This is quite typical from this Government, who want to pretend that we do not have inequity and oppressions in this country and that we haven't had discrepancies and discriminations in this country for nearly 200 years, at least, and certainly around the world; whether it be people who struggle with stability, with stable housing, with employment, with health issues, with literacy issues, with losing faith and trust in the system.
How about people in prison? We've just seen a massive—massive—royal commission of inquiry be very clear that there are far too many people in prison who are victims of State abuse. Now this Government wants to punish people again who have been victims of State abuse. Not is it only enough to have violence imposed on entire generations, largely representing Māori and Pasifika people, but, once again, this Government wants to remove their right to vote.
So as we can see, the opposite side have—well, it's not that they have no understanding of inequity, of dispossession, of who has power and who doesn't. They totally understand it and that is why they are making these changes. I want us to be very clear about what is the actual agenda and motivation behind stopping more people from wanting to engage in legitimising any Government of the day.
I thought: look, we've canvassed—but I'll put on the Hansard record just for the sake of it—that the advice received by this Government, from its own agencies and from the expert agencies, all said this is dumb; this should not be what any Government should be doing.
Carl Bates: Where did they say that?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: They've all said—OK, they’ve all inferred this in their advice, in their submissions, in their reports and analysis and research. They've said: “Don't do this. Do not stop prisoners from voting. Do not stop people who have not yet registered from voting. This is bad. This is wrong. This Government does not care about expert advice or research or evidence or the sentiment of its own country.” That's what this Government does not care about. So we are very clear: let's make it 16. We should be encouraging young people to get the culture of voting earlier. Let's make it 16. Let's resource the Electoral Commission properly so that they can actually improve the systems. Let's make sure that we've got civic education in our schools so that people know that they have a right to engage in the system from a very early age. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Epsom electorate, the ACT Party, and the Government in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I just want to break down the three things that we've heard in this debate so far from the Opposition. The first is that someone is going to have taken away their right to vote; the second is that the Government is doing this in a selfish or capricious way; and the third is that that will, somehow, disproportionately affect some New Zealanders more than others.
Well, let's just break those down. Nobody's right is being taken away, because there are rules you have to follow in order to vote. Any electoral system in the world requires people to follow rules before they can vote. One of the rules we have in New Zealand is that you must be enrolled, and, in fact, under the Electoral Act, it is a requirement if you're over 18 to enrol, to vote continuously, and to keep your address updated. The simple fact is that people already have the obligation to do this.
The second argument that is being made is that, somehow, the Government is acting capriciously or selfishly. You know, it's only three years ago that many of the people on that side of the House making speeches today unilaterally—without support from the Opposition—passed a law that would require the disclosure of donations at a much different threshold than had been done previously, to effectively dox people who supported a party but didn't want to be publicly revealed for doing so. When it was revealed that that change would disproportionately affect the parties that they were about to campaign against, did they say, “Oh, we're sorry, this is being done through venal motivations?” No, they did not. They said, “It's all about transparency.” Well, they can't have it both ways.
Finally, they say that this change is going to disproportionately affect some voters more than others—that, somehow, some voters are not capable of doing the very simple task of going to the Electoral Commission website or going to one of the many kiosks the Electoral Commission sets up, and making sure that their electoral details are up to date so that they can live in a democracy and have a benefit from that. That is strange that these people actually tell us that their own voters are incapable of carrying out a procedure that is simpler than ordering a pizza, and yet—
Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to make the point that this side of the House has been listening respectfully to the speeches from the other side. Anyone at home trying to listen to that speech at the moment will not be able to hear it.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Point taken. Just to note that interjections do need to be rare, infrequent, and short, so if I could ask members to not to indulge in sustained barraging, that would support the House, and it would be appreciated.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I add—there's another condition: that they shouldn't only be rare and short, but, preferably, witty. So there's a number of ways that they're failing.
Thank you for the member’s intervention, but, frankly, there's a bigger question at play here. Democracy comes from the words “demos” and “kratos” in Greek: “people power”. There's an assumption that, somehow, the people don't have any obligations to show up and make sure they are enrolled. They've got three years to do it; they should have done it already, according to the current law. The people don't have the power to make sure they are enrolled, but, somehow, they're going to be responsible citizens and cast thoughtful and informed votes to make our democracy work. If you think about it for just a second, that does not wash, but maybe it's a poor reflection on the voters of the people who are barracking on the other side.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.
Francisco Hernandez: Four minutes!
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Oh, you want me to do more than four minutes, do you, Green Party? OK. Look, what a load of made-up histrionics that we have heard from the Opposition. They're telling us that we are trying to stop people voting. As the Hon David Seymour has just said, it is an obligation—a legal obligation—to enrol to vote if you are over 18, which means that what they're saying is that all these people are actually breaking the law if they're not enrolled.
Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s not a legal obligation.
ANDY FOSTER: Well, that's effectively what it is. It says it's a legal obligation, so they're breaking the law if they're not enrolled or not registered. What do we get over months and months and months before we actually get to an election? We are reminded of the election coming up. We're sent a document which says, “Are you in the right place? Is this your right name? Is this the job you've got?”, and you have the opportunity to send that back and say, “No, correct these details.”—that's fine, that's great. But you get that reminder a long, long time in advance before the election, so there are plenty of opportunities to do that.
Secondly, if you are 17, you're able to register to vote. Now, it doesn't mean you can vote, but what it means is that the moment you turn 18, then you'll get put on the roll, so it's easy to do that.
But what have we become? We seem to have become a “just in time”—we know we've got a bit of a “just in time” economy; now it's “just in time” voting. So what are we seeing? We're seeing that in 2026, the Electoral Commission has said, according to the work that was done by the select committee, 776,000 people, they're expecting, will be casting special votes. In 2029, they expect that to go up to 905,000 if we don't make any changes, and it'll be over a million in 2032.
Now, given that we had only 2.8 million people choose to vote in 2023, we're getting now to over a third of the people choosing to vote. What's going to happen on election day is we're going to end up in the situation of going, “We don't actually know what the result is.”—we don't actually know what the result is. That is not terribly helpful. If people have to enrol early to vote on time, at least we've got a better chance of knowing what the result is going to be.
Now, I ask you, if you were looking at a sports match—just think about the All Blacks. We get to full time and we say, “Well, here's the score at the moment. We still don't know who's won because we've got a whole lot of special points to count.” That's effectively what we've got. Think about some of the mayoral elections that have been held recently. On election day, you’re saying, “We don't actually know what the result is. It's moderately close. We don't know what the result is. You're provisionally the person that's won it, but a few days down the track, maybe you're not the person that's won it.” We’re seeing that time and time again. That is not a good way of running any system.
So the advice we're getting is that we are actually wrecking our own electoral system by allowing so many people to enrol effectively on the day, and that is slowing the whole process up. One of the things we want to get out of our electoral system is we want to get a result on the day so that we can actually get on with knowing who our Government is and forming a Government so we can actually get on and do the business of governing, because we've only got a three-year term, so I think that's really, really important.
The second thing that I wanted to talk about is another change that has been recommended here. It is the issue around treating and making sure that we are clearer about treating. I noticed that on this side of the House, nothing's been said about that. Of course, in the Manurewa Marae—at the previous election, not your one—we had a real issue with that. We had a real issue with that. There were some issues there which clearly—if you looked through what happened, clearly you were having people who have been fed, watered, encouraged within 30 metres of the polling booth, and now what this is saying quite clearly is that is not good. We want to make sure that it's a further distance.
I just want to read you something here which was on the marae’s Facebook at the time: “Come on down to the marae āpōpō”—tomorrow—“for our rangatahi activation, a packed, full day of magic and greatness. We have hip-hop classes, karaoke, and much more. Our voting station is also open for our whānau over 14 who need to vote. Happening tomorrow, Tuesday, 3 October from 10 till 4 at our marae—hāngī, coffee, ice cream, hot doughnuts, and haircuts. Share with your whānau and come on down. #ManurewaMarae #rangatahi #voting.” That is wrong, and what this bill is about doing also is about fixing that to make sure that we don't have that again because what we know, for all the other things in the voting system, is that buying votes is unacceptable and that's effectively what this bill is in part fixing. I commend this bill to the House.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): E te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to vehemently oppose the Electoral Amendment Bill. This bill is a blatant attack on the democratic rights of tangata whenua. It strikes at the heart of who gets to participate, whose voices are heard, and whose futures are shaped in this country.
Since this bill was announced, hundreds of Māori have already been deregistered or removed from the Māori roll. If the Government cannot even run a reliable enrolment system, it has no mandate to overhaul the electoral rules. To push ahead anyway is irresponsible and dangerous. Make no mistake: this is voter suppression. Even the Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has warned that these changes breach fundamental constitutional rights and could disenfranchise more than 100,000 people. That is not an accident, that is a choice, and we know exactly who will bear the brunt: rangatahi, Māori, Pasifika, and Asian communities—the communities that this Government consistently sidelines through all its policies. Demographics who statistically do not vote for any of the parties in this coalition. This bill is designed to shrink the voices that challenge them.
This bill hands more power to corporations and lobbyists; by raising the donation disclosure threshold, the Government is inviting more dark money into our politics. It strengthens the hand of corporations, donors, and lobby groups—groups that have already shaped some of the most harmful decisions we’ve seen this term: fast-track approvals tied to political donors; the repeal of world-leading smoke-free policies after industry pressure; tax rewards for landlords and property investors. This bill gives the wealthy an even bigger megaphone and pushes ordinary New Zealanders further into silence. This bill undermines the very integrity it claims to protect. If this Government truly cared about the integrity of the electoral system, they would be investigating the wrongful deregistration of voters. They would be removing barriers, not building new ones. They would be encouraging greater participation and not locking people out.
The Waitangi Tribunal, our courts, and the Independent Electoral Review have all recommended restoring the right of all prisoners to vote. The evidence is very clear and unanimous, yet this bill moves in the opposite direction. It creates another barrier between whānau and the ballot box. It limits Māori participation in the kāwanatanga space. It disproportionately harms rangatahi and Māori again.
This Government is weaponising democracy. This Government is targeting the people who are already being failed by its policies—and that is whānau who are struggling with the cost of living, workers juggling multiple jobs, and the growing number of Māori being swept into the justice system under tough-on-crime rhetoric: people who are less likely to support them; people they would rather see silenced.
When they removed Māori wards, dismantled co-governance, and introduced the Treaty principles bill, the Government claimed that they were strengthening democracy. But this bill has made it very clear for everyone to see that this coalition only cares about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori and other underrepresented groups. The Electoral Amendment Bill confirms what we already knew to be true: this coalition only cares about democracy when it can be weaponised against us.
This bill confirms what we already knew to be true, and that is that—I’ll repeat myself—it’s a bill designed to be weaponised against Māori. They’re more than happy to strip tens of thousands of people of their voting rights to give themselves an advantage at the next election. Te Pāti Māori will not allow that; we will defend the mana of every voter, and we will uphold the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We will fight for a democracy where every whānau, every hapori, and every iwi has the power to shape the future of Aotearoa. Tēnā koutou.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If voting didn't matter, there would be no attempt by lobbyists, by extractive industries, by climate sceptics, foreign Governments, or organisations like the Atlas Network to sway its outcome. If voting didn't matter, there wouldn't be efforts, from America to Aotearoa, to make voting more difficult for some groups. If voting didn't matter, this coalition Government wouldn't be altering voting eligibility or timing. For everyone listening: your vote really matters.
Justice officials say closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout, reduce confidence in the electoral system, and electoral law experts are also questioning why these changes need to stretch for the whole advance-voting period. Let me quote the Human Rights Commission: “The right to vote is a foundational right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act … and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” The bill proposes significant limitations on the right to vote that are likely to unjustifiably restrict participation in elections and disproportionately impact groups that are already underrepresented.
The Green Party strongly opposes this bill. It undermines democracy, it doesn't reduce the dangers of bribery and corruption, and it contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Independent Electoral Review into the 2023 general election made several good recommendations; Minister Goldsmith and this coalition Government have ignored most of them. Do they know better or do they just want to tilt the playing field? A recent Green petition against this bill has over 5,000 signatures and will be presented to the House next week. There are also ActionStation petitions. The public are not missing this attack on democracy. More than 80 percent of submitters oppose this bill as currently drafted. That is overwhelming public opposition. These amendments were not part of any pre-election policy, so there is no mandate for these changes.
The Asian Legal Network coined an excellent phrase, “temporal gerrymandering”. Gerrymandering is usually manipulating the boundaries to advantage certain groups, typically the elites. But the changes in this bill manipulate time, not space. They disadvantage the impoverished, the people that don't live in the same house for four or five years, the people who are thrown out by their landlords, who can't afford the rents. The advice that we had in the Justice Committee is that this bill does disadvantage the young, Pasifika, and Māori. As well as closing enrolment 13 days before election day, this bill disqualifies all sentenced prisoners detained from prison from enrolling and voting. Not only did the Attorney-General disagree with that—and I think it's extraordinary that you will be taking Judith Collins’ vote in favour of this bill when she said that so strongly—the voting age is a huge missed opportunity. We should be going to vote at 16. The Treaty offences—that amounts to denying manaakitanga.
The Green Party believes that democracy is stronger when it's inclusive. Together, we can counter voter suppression. We are not the 1 percent; we are the many. Enrol, now.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Let me share with the House why the left are so aggrieved by this bill. It’s not because they’re worried about what this bill does to the next election; it’s because they’re worried about the overhang they’re going to lose because Te Pāti Māori’s falling apart and their votes are not going to stack up to be much at the next election. With voting are rights and responsibilities. Responsibilities are not something the Opposition has any understanding of, so I look forward to the select committee process as we move this bill through the House, and therefore I commend it to the House.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in strong opposition to this bill. I’ve just been reflecting on some comments made by the Government members: Mr Seymour’s comment about the premise that responsible people always sort out their schedules and therefore always make their deadlines. I’m afraid I do have to point out the headlines from 2019: “David Seymour absent as gun-ban passes first reading” was one by RNZ; in November, “ACT misses climate vote, allowing bill through unanimously”. So just leaving that there, because it simply isn’t true, and for many people, they really do struggle with issues immediately in front of them.
There is one core important value about democracy, and it’s that voters get to select their Government. The circumstance we’re in this evening is we are with a Government who wants to select its voters and that is why we are in fierce opposition to this bill. The fact of putting a bill such as this through two stages of urgency as well, in my view, is entirely inappropriate. In the previous bill, I spoke to the fact that the Parliamentary Library had shared with me that we have spent 30.4 percent of Parliament’s time this Parliament under urgency. Under the previous one it was 15.7 percent. So that’s almost double. It is the fact of that percentage, but also the nature of the bills that are coming through urgency that is massively, massively inappropriate. So the Government just needs to consider that.
The other thing is that voters aren’t fooled by this. I mean, we might get hot and heated in a debate across the House, but actually, the facts are pretty plain and simple here. There was an article that Reuters published earlier this year that said, “New Zealand introduces law that make it harder to vote”. That’s it. The wool is not being pulled over voters’ eyes. They can see exactly what’s going on now.
But the next question is, “Well, what’s about to happen?” I sometimes refer to this bill as the boomerang bill because this is a bill that’s going to come straight back to this House. Reading the Attorney-General’s report is very much like reading the decision of a declaration of inconsistency case: you pass it, the people will challenge it. Mark my words, this bill is a boomerang bill. It will be coming straight back to this House.
Now, it doesn’t need to be rights breaching. This is why we have the Attorney-General’s report. There were things that could have been changed about this bill, but the Government decided not to. The Attorney-General objected to it. The Electoral Commission also said this is not what they would recommend. They recommended a set of other changes that could have been taken on board by the Government, but they simply chose not to.
So let’s walk very, very slowly through how we got here. What’s the problem statement? The problem statement is that by 2032 we’ll have one million special votes and that’ll take longer to count than the statutory time frame that we currently have. So it’s not a problem about 2026, it’s a problem about 2032. Our goal, or the Government’s goal, should be that we have to find a way to ensure that the vote count by 2032 is manageable within a reasonable time frame in the least restrictive way on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is the challenge. So the key question—if that’s the problem statement and that’s the goal—is can anything be done instead of limiting the period of registration? The answer is yes. The Electoral Commission said, “Yes, there is. There’s a set of other recommendations that we would recommend so you don’t have to make this change.” You can modernise and streamline the provisions relating to personal information collected for information purposes. You can enable the Electoral Commission to use Government data to update address information on the electoral rolls—now, that’s going to happen; it’ll only happen after 2026. You can remove the mandatory postal requirements to enable the commission to contact electors digitally.
Now, a lot of this is going to happen, but the Electoral Commission can only operationalise it after 2026. Yet, the Government have made a decision that they urgently, urgently need to remove the right to register. It’s very, very odd. So I’d like the ask the House to take their political hats off because this is very serious. Electoral law is our most protected legislation. Any manager—and many people in this House have been managers—would assess this issue by looking at the problem statement, by looking at the goal of getting to 2032 within a reasonable time frame to ensure that the vote is counted, and looking at what steps you could take so you don’t have to take this rather dramatic step of limiting the right to register.
I want to believe you. I want to believe that it’s not your intention to stop a particular group of people from voting, but there’s a logical way to do it and you’re simply not choosing it. Eyes wide open. You should be honest about that with New Zealand. I really do hope it isn’t because of the particular voters who are going to be impacted: 97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and there were also 134,000 people who changed their details in the last voting period. That’s 231,000 people and 8 percent of voters. It’s significant. It’s not a flippant thing that we ought to be doing in this House. If there’s another option, we should take it.
Responsible managers also think about the financial cost. Now, I talked about this bill as a boomerang bill. Mark my words, it is coming back to the House. It does not come without a cost. There are two key cost lines: number one is that when the bill passes, the Electoral Commission will need to spend money implementing this process. It is not going to be cheap. It’s a systems task and it’s an education task.
What’s the other cost? Boomerang bill, declaration of inconsistency. This is a cost for Crown Law. Now, Crown Law, when we had them in front of us for scrutiny, mid-year through the year, told us that the number of challenges to Government decisions are going up. That comes with a cost. It’s the cost of lawyers. It’s court costs as well as the cost of the House’s time when this bill comes back to us, comes back to the Justice Committee, comes back to this House. There is an obligation to be responsible in this place, and more so—mostly so—when it concerns electoral reform.
There are strange things about this bill that I think the Government is also going to find very difficult to defend in the public. We will have a situation where a person who is found guilty of assault and sentenced to a year in prison and qualifies for home detention, if they’re sentenced to prison on voting day, they won’t be banned from voting if they’re on home detention. However, a person who has been convicted for serious sexual offending, for which a period of imprisonment of at least six years is inevitable, but who is on remand awaiting sentence on election day, that person will also not be banned from voting. I hope the Government are ready to go out and explain the logic of why some people are banned from voting and others are not.
For the members of the public, if they want to understand how grievous a breach of their rights this is, I would urge them to go back and read the Attorney-General’s report on this bill, which says, very clearly, that the Government are in breach. This boomerang bill will come back to us.
Finally, I actually wanted to make a plea to my New Zealand First colleagues. In 2019, a bill was introduced to the House which allowed voting on election day. It passed in 2020 and there are some spectacular speeches that were delivered by your colleagues in New Zealand First about the importance of protecting the right to vote and ensuring accessibility. I would ask you, New Zealand First colleagues, through Mr Speaker, to stand true to those values that you stood for on that day. You can create a splash perhaps, cross the floor, but certainly if there is one bill to cross the floor on, this is the one.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’d just like to draw the House’s attention that the Hansard shows that I recorded votes on all 329 arms amendments and that I was not participating in the third reading but did participate in the first two of the Zero Carbon Act debates of the same year. The reason I raised this is that now that the member knows that, she’s actually knowingly misled the House and ought to withdraw it.
VANUSHI WALTERS: I’m happy to withdraw that.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Those comments are withdrawn.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Often we compare ourselves, here in New Zealand, with some of the other countries around the world—notably, Australia, for example. And, in Australia, you have to be enrolled weeks in advance of the election. So here’s a really good thing to say to people in New Zealand: keen to vote next year? Get yourself organised, enrol, and be organised so that when it comes to time at the election to actually vote, you can have your democratic right. Don’t believe the scaremongering you hear from the other side; they are just worried that their votes are heading in the wrong direction. I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This is a split call. I call on Helen White. [Interruption] Order! Order! I do not want members talking and shouting across the Chamber to each other. If you want to have a conversation, there’s the hallway. I call Helen White.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I think I heard in this debate was our Deputy Prime Minister insult all the voters who were late in the last election. That’s 231,000 people that got insulted tonight and got basically told that they were slackers and that it was their fault. That shows a deep disrespect for democracy. Democracy, and understanding it, isn’t about just saying a few Latin words and thinking you’re the cleverest cock of the walk. It’s about actually respecting a concept which has done our world proud. We are surrounded by the threat of autocracy and we should not be playing with something as important as a democratic right of as many people as we can get through that gate. Because that’s what connects our community.
It’s so important to continue to make sure that as many people participate. We know—we don’t have to argue about it; we know because there are statistics to say it—that if you allow that gateway open to election day, you get a 3 to 7 percent greater turn out and you get a turn out of a lot of different people who wouldn’t otherwise vote. We also know, because we see it around the world, there’s a manipulation going on at the moment. It’s a very serious one where people actually turn people off voting deliberately. It happens in the United States, where there are some real concerns about the impediments that are put in the way to people voting. It happens, and it happens in other countries in even more extreme ways. What it does is it turns the populations of those countries off voting at all; of trusting people like us to make decisions.
Now, I would like to ask a question of the Government and all the people voting tonight for this: what is fair if you had the politically opposite view tonight? What would be fair? Because democracies, they’ve got to rise above the politics of the day. This can’t be an opportunity to knock off a few people voting. We’ve got to think about the long-term survival of democracy, and it’s serious out there. We are seeing dictatorships, we are seeing preferences for kings and autocracies, and what would we be doing this for at this particular time? This couldn’t be more serious.
I want to just talk for a minute about my experience in the area of Mt Albert. I was one of the people waiting for quite some time as we did recount after recount. I got out there and I door-knocked. As I went to the doors, I would often abandoned my plan of which door I was going to because people move. They move and they move and they don’t necessarily have the same address if they’re poor. I’m really glad I did that door-knocking because I won by 18 votes.
I have some faith in that voting process, and if it had gone against me and Melissa Lee had been the MP for Mt Albert, I would have had faith that I had done my darndest and people had had the right to vote. But if, this time, a whole lot of people in various areas of Mt Albert lose their right to vote, I will not be a happy woman if I lose as a result, because I do not believe that is democracy. That would not be a democratic outcome, and it would be highly unjust to those people because 231,000 people could lose their vote—we know that—and—
Carl Bates: No one’s losing their vote. Misinformation.
HELEN WHITE: —it is not acceptable, Carl Bates, for you to tell others what they are to do and to be that judgmental of them. That is a very important thing for us to do: to be as little judgmental as we can in this situation.
I would like people to think really clearly about the consequences of what they’re doing tonight, because it is a very cynical move and you are playing with fire when you do this—absolutely playing with fire. Democracy’s on a brink in this world at the moment. This is the last thing that the New Zealand Parliament, which I am so proud of, should be doing tonight.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The Electoral Amendment Bill seeks to modernise and streamline the electoral administration to deliver a more timely election result. Having just experienced the complexities and challenges of the 2023 election, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an interesting debate, this debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I have to say, from listening to all the contributions so far, that I agree very strongly with my colleague Hon Ginny Andersen when she uses the word “despicable”. That is what this bill is. If we go back to what Andy Foster was just saying, he said at one point, “Oh, why is it that the Opposition aren’t focusing on”—to paraphrase—“the good bits of the bill?”. Well that is because there are so many bad bits, and they are not just bad; they are despicable.
We’ve heard, also from Andy Foster—he said that this is going to make the result of the election faster, but it’s not. The select committee heard about that, and I’m sure there’ll be more on this in the committee stage from those people, but that’s not—
Hon Member: It is true.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —what the case is going to be. There’s people saying it is true, so I look forward to their contributions in the committee stage.
We heard from Vanushi Walters saying, “What is the mischief here?”. What is it that this bill is trying to solve? I hear across the aisle there, “Oh, maybe it is speed.” Well, I hope that there is a very robust discussion about that, because that is not what I heard from the Minister speaking on the other side. What they were talking about—they were using words like “capricious” and saying that no one has the right to vote; that there are always rules. “There are always responsibilities” is what they said, and it is the responsibility of someone to enrol to vote 13 days beforehand. They said, “Well, if somebody can order a pizza on the computer, surely they can enrol to vote.”
That is a despicable thing to say. Ordering pizzas are different from enrolling to vote, and I put it to this Chamber that whilst many of us may, from time to time, use our phones and our computers to order a pizza—I’m guilty. I can do that; I’ve got a phone right here. Parliamentary Service provides it. Not everyone in this country has access to phones and computers like we do in this House—
Hon Member: You still can do it on paper.
Hon Member: Or the library.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —so it is outrageous to compare enrolling online to vote in the same way as ordering a pizza. I heard, just then, from across the House, someone say “they can go to the library”. If the library is a core service that a council is allowed to provide—I presume that that is correct. I presume—
Tom Rutherford: What about the CAB?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —that the Government members are correct that you can go to the library—oh, I think I heard something about other community organisations that may or may not be funded by this Government, and that is possible as well. But, of course, if you have to go to a library, that is different from ordering a pizza, because if you do not have the internet, if you do not have the data, but if you have a home phone, you can ring them up. You can ring up to order a pizza. It is a bit more complicated to enrol to vote on the internet. But I do want to say to anyone listening that it is very important that everybody enrols to vote regardless of this law—that is very important.
Hon Member: It’s a legal requirement.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: As the member opposite says, it’s a legal requirement, but it is part of our democracy that people should be engaged in the process. But what happens is that people want to have their say here. They say, “Don’t have a horrible bill about the Treaty of Waitangi”. They have huge protests about that. They say, “Don’t fast track things that are going to harm our environment.” They protest down Queen Street. And what happens? This Government does not listen to them, and so there is a whole lot of cynicism that is created in this world that is stopping people from voting, and that is a terrible thing.
Lots of people on all sides of politics will use the language such as “Oh well, it’s politicians making those decisions.” But it is not just politicians making those decisions. It is not politicians as a group; it is a type of politician. It is maybe a left-wing or a right-wing type of politician. It is a type of politician who cares about democracy and people being involved in our democracy versus those who just really are into crony capitalism. It is the difference between people who care about authoritarianism and those who don’t. The people who want to stop that from happening and those who think that maybe it’s OK. It is the difference between being cynical and caring about all of those around us.
Not all politicians are trying to do despicable things, but let me be clear: many politicians in this House, on that side of the House, are trying to do despicable things. That despicable thing is a word we’ve already heard in the House tonight, and that is they’re disenfranchising people. This is all about disenfranchising people who will not vote for them, and that is where the cynicism comes in. They know that people who believe what they were saying in the House last night—that they are all about “Yes, yes, yes”, and apparently there are no consequences for anything. People who might want to believe that—and I can see why they would want to believe that, and that they will go out and register to vote. But they also know that there are many people in this country who do not have heaps of data on their cell phones, who do not have a bank of computers in their house, who don’t work a 9-to-5 job, who cannot just go and visit their MP’s office in the day that their MP might be there—and for me, I note that this is in real time Thursday night, and I won’t be in my electorate tomorrow, the great electorate of Dunedin; best electorate, of course.
Hon Member: What about your staff?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I do have great staff, and my great staff will be there, and I am lucky to have my great staff who will help, but I will not be there because we are in urgency in December passing despicable laws. There is no reason to be passing them in urgency—none whatsoever. We’ve had this with a range of laws that have been on the Order Paper and in this urgency motion. We had one to do with resource consents extensions, which might be a fine thing, but it might not. What we know about that is there was no analysis.
Then we’ve had a fast track going through at speed through a select committee—good that there was a select committee process, but then came through second reading, committee of the whole House, and third reading, all at pace for no urgent reason. We were told in the House that the consenting one was a Christmas present; meanwhile, here we are on a Thursday night debating a despicable piece of legislation that wants to disenfranchise voters. That is all that this bill is about.
We’ve heard the numbers—and they are very big—about how many people might not be able to vote because they have not enrolled 13 days before the election date. Of course, we don’t know what the election date is yet, either, but we do know that the election will be within the next 12 months. This Government wants to, under urgency now, in the calendar year of 2025, say “We’re going to change the law for 2026”, but that’s a whole different year. It is December 2025 and there will be an election before December 2026, and that is the reason—I presume—that we are all here on a Thursday night, in urgency, discussing a despicable law. Once again, I urge everybody to enrol to vote.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): We’ve heard a lot about how this law is “despicable”. What I find despicable is the amount of painstaking support the Opposition, in select committee, died to tell us—almost died, figuratively speaking—about how much people in jail that are sentenced for three years or less should retain the right to vote. Three years or less: common assault, you can get three years or less; assault with intent to injure; injury with intent; male assaults female or child. This what they were supporting. That’s what’s despicable. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral 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 (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Electoral Amendment Bill.
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to the Electoral Act 1993, and Schedule
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Electoral Amendment Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 136, Amendments to the Electoral Act 1993, & Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand 1.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair—and yeah, it's not a pleasure to rise and speak first in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, but there is a lot to interrogate in terms of the rationale behind the bill. Certainly, there have been a number of proposals that we have made that we look forward to the Minister considering in good faith.
I did want to just start by acknowledging the submitters who came to the Justice Committee and presented on this bill. Really, there was very strong opposition to a number of proposals—not all the proposals within the bill, but certainly the proposal regarding the limitation of registration was something that came up, and there was mass opposition to that as a proposal. We also had—I think it was Margot Govers who presented to the select committee dressed as a suffragette, and she was a very angry suffragette and expressed her views. But very thorough engagement from both general members of the public but also public law experts, who are extremely critical of these very dramatic changes to our electoral law.
Several people made the point that, for the last 30 years, people have been able to vote either on election day or the day before election day, and that it would be nigh on impossible for the Electoral Commission to achieve the task of educating people within such a short period of time about this incredibly significant change in relation to the bill. So it is a huge change.
The other thing that I just wanted to repeat, again, is my disappointment that we're here at the end of the year and the bill is being taken through two stages under urgency. I've always believed that the value of having the different stages is also the gaps between those stages. The second stage is really a reflection on what we heard at select committee and the report back; that debate should allow us sufficient time to then reflect on the amendments that we are drawing up. However, that hasn't been the case on this instance. Regardless, we do have a substantial number of amendments to go through already, although I would just suggest to the Minister and the Chair that there may be some others that come up through the course of our discussion on the basis of the debate that we have had.
On clause 3, which references the principal Act, the first point I wanted to make was in relation to the Act that we're amending. Again, the Electoral Act, in my view, requires due care because it contains our reserved provisions. I'm not disputing the fact that we're amending that Act; I just would love to hear from the Minister whether his view is that it's appropriate for the Electoral Amendment Bill to go through these two stages under urgency, and to hear some reassurance from the Minister that he does intend to consider each of the amendments thoroughly before making a decision on whether they're to be accepted or not. I hope he will see that I’ve made some really practical proposals through the bill, mostly for clarification—some of which I think will aid the bill’s purported intention of timeliness, or looking after timeliness, as well.
One amendment that I will speak to first is the proposal I've made to include a new clause 3(a). This is, essentially, a sunset clause, and it is there to just really test the concept that the purpose of this bill will actually give effect to what it intends to do, because I think a number of submitters—and certainly some experts—pointed out to us that if believe that they're still able to cast a special vote, they will continue to do so, and so we might not necessarily see that improvement to timeliness in the 2023 election. What we might see is a dramatic increase in the special vote and no ability to improve that time timeliness at all, because it's quite institutionalised in New Zealand culture that that is the period of time that you also get to enrol and to vote.
So the second question there is on whether the Minister would be amenable to accepting my proposal on 3(a)—the amendment (3)(a)—to include that sunset clause. I think I've been quite fair: I suggested a two-year period, so just testing that this is, indeed, what we want to do. The other reason why I suggested a two-year period is because the Electoral Commission told us that there were other measures that they're taking to—
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I think it’s worthwhile just starting out at the outset: we’re going to have a lot of speeches talking about the early enrolments, or the requirements that people be enrolled 13 days before the election, which is one day before early voting starts. Being enrolled before voting starts had been the tradition in New Zealand for a number of decades. What changed, of course, was the tradition of virtually everybody voting on election day over the last decade or so has changed dramatically. So vast numbers of people now vote before the election, in the early voting period. So that’s why the logic of having enrolments concluding before the day before voting starts.
There’s all these amendments. It’s worth just, for people tuning in, this is the committee stage where we’re supposed to look at the detailed elements of the bill. We have literally dozens of amendments. So we will be spending many hours voting. Choices have been made from the Opposition parties to spend their time in, frankly, posturing and voting, rather than actually debating the merits of the bill. So, anyway, that’s over to them. They can do that. I’m not going to be proposing to support any of Vanushi Walters’ amendments, but time will tell. So I’d be very happy to debate the issues of this bill, but we’re going to be in for a very long voting period with the way things are organised.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next one, I am going to go back to Vanushi Walters—is that when you are referring to amendments, because there are a number, could you please refer to the date stamp, the time stamp to help us track it up here at the front. Vanushi Walters.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I may be looking for a bit of guidance from the Chair, because I was very troubled to hear the Minister say that we’ve made a choice between tabling amendments and having a dialogue with him. That, I don’t believe, is the case. I would like the Minister to commit to a thorough conversation about these very significant changes to electoral law, as well as consider each of the amendments in a singular way. I thought that was quite a broad statement about all of the amendments that I’ve made, which cover the scope of the bill and cover many different issues, some which might take a different ideological position to the Minister’s but are open to him to consider, some of which are quite technical, and some of which are about clarifying. So perhaps I’ll just seek some guidance from the Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, just for clarity for the committee: while the discretion of course is the Chair’s, what we will be looking for is relevance and making sure that we are focusing on particular clauses; that is very helpful for the committee. Relevance is really important. Making sure that when issues are addressed, there isn’t repetition; that is another thing that we look for. What we are also looking for is the conduct of the committee and, of course, engagement from the Minister. These are the elements that help us to balance the different priorities. Vanushi Walters, do you want to keep going?
Helen White: Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Helen White.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask some of the questions that are things that I traversed when I was talking in my speech. The first is the incredible number of voters who voted last time in the period that will now be a no-enrolment time. So people came in, in that period, having not been in that 13-day period; they hadn’t pre-enrolled, and they came in. It was well over 200,000 voters that were affected. We know from the submissions and from the evidence out there that this kind of curbing of the opportunity to enrol makes a difference of 3 to 7 percent, and it affects a particular type of voter. So it does have political implications.
Now, in a system like ours, which is MMP, we—even at the current time of polling—can see that, in the left and right camps, with various different parties, there is often only a fraction of a percentage difference between whether you form a Government or not.
So I would like to know from the Minister of Justice, in putting this together, what thought was put into the issue of this within an MMP system where, in fact, we know that there is a change in trend—3 to 7 percent less people vote in this situation—and that has critical impact in our particular system. Because we run an MMP system with a fairly even split between left and right, and populist parties having, basically, an opportunity to be kingmaker in between. What was thought about in terms of that?
I’d also really like to ask about our voters that I talked about in my speech, who I met at the door frequently; the ones that had moved house. Now, that is becoming, unfortunately, more and more common for New Zealanders: that they can’t necessarily afford to own their own house, and the Government has moved our legislation and our protections on renters a further way, and now taken away their security of tenure so that they can be terminated in their employment at any time. That can happen. That means that they have very little control over whether there will be turmoil in their life at that time; they’re not even in control of that calendar. So I want to know, for those voters who move house—and it’s not necessarily anything they are going to choose to do; it’s going to happen to them. What does the Minister have to say about that group of people who are one of the ones strongly impacted? How many of the voters that we are talking about are in that situation? I’d like his comment on that.
I’d like to know what his response is to the comment that was made—and it’s been made frequently, but it was made by the RNZ political reporters—that there was a disproportionate effect on participation in this situation. So I’ve talked about the number of people who are impacted: the 236,000, I think, who voted last time as a result of being able to enrol at this time. I want to know what kind of response he has to the proportionate nature of the issue that he’s trying to solve, the mischief of the length of time, as I understand it, versus the impact on that giant part of the population.
I put in my speech my own personal experience, which was that I actually had to wait, and wait again, as there were recounts etc. I’d like to know from the Minister: why is it a proportionate response? If I’m the person in that situation and, in fact, I wait during those periods, does it mean that there are other reforms coming? Because, in fact, having a recount took a while and that can change the vote.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The issue has been raised about the number of people who have enrolled in the 13 days before the election in the most recent election, and the figure of 200,000 people has been raised. It’s also been raised that around 100,000 people enrolled on election day. The proposition put forward by the Opposition is that somehow these voters would be disenfranchised by this change.
Now, that assumes that that 200,000 people are incapable of understanding that the rules have changed over the course of the year—and we don’t hold that view. The problem that the Electoral Commission has had since the Labour Party pushed through changes six years ago which enabled enrolling on election day, they’ve had a very mixed message. The Electoral Commission has been saying—
Helen White: But this is 13 days.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I know. The Electoral Commission has been saying, “Get enrolled because it is your legal obligation to be enrolled. And every time you move, you need to make sure you update that information so you are properly enrolled for the election at any time.” But they’ve also said, “But by the way, you don’t need to get enrolled because you can just rock up on election day and enrol at the point.” And so people have gone, “Well, which message is it? Do I need to get enrolled before the election or can I just rock up on election day and enrol at that point?”
Of course, more and more people received the second message and enrolled on election day. But there is a real consequence for that. The consequence for that is that if you’re enrolling after writ day, on election day, then you immediately have a special vote and the special vote takes on average of—the advice from the Election Commission is—10 times longer to deal with. And so more and more New Zealanders have been getting the message that you don’t need to enrol during the three-year cycle, but you can enrol on election day, and more and more special votes are happening. That is why it’s been taking longer and longer and longer to process the vote.
We’re going to send a different message this time around. We have every confidence that the people that enrolled on election day and in the 13 days before the election at the last election will have a different message this time. The message will be: “Get enrolled—as is your legal duty—as early as you can, keep enrolled, be enrolled by writ day, and then you’ll be able to vote.” Now, if the proposition from the electorate is that our voters are less capable of being enrolled, that is a very strange message to be sending to your supporters. And I don’t think anybody would suggest that.
In terms of moving houses, the relation to moving houses is that you qualify in the place that you’ve lived in for 30 days. If you move in those 13 days before the election but you’ve been in a house for the last 30 days, then you’ll stay enrolled in that house. That is the situation.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just start by reaffirming what Vanushi Walters mentioned before that because a substantial part of this is in Part 1, we're going to be looking at Part 1 subpart by subpart. So we are currently on Subpart 1, which is on electoral registration. But before that, I want to check with the Minister of Justice if the Minister has received any advice in terms of clause 3, “Principal Act”, on whether the amendment bill that we have presented in front of us contradicts the fundamental purpose of the principal Act, which is the Electoral Act 1993, so I wanted to just kind of put that on the table first.
I also want to check a couple of things that the Minister mentioned earlier, because the Minister has mentioned a couple of things that I think really deserve some sort of unpacking. The Minister mentioned that this is the Electoral Commission sending mixed messages. But would the Minister be able to let us know which part of the Electoral Commission’s advice, or I guess, where they are saying—or any data or survey that has been done from the public that suggests that mixed messages are being sent to people? From what I'm hearing, what the Minister said is either you register as quickly as possible—yes, we understand that's a legal obligation—or you're registered on the day.
Either way, the Electoral Commission is telling people to register, which is the fundamental baseline we're looking at here, so I don't quite understand where the Minister is coming from in terms of mixed messages, because it sounds like, from what the Minister is saying, both messages are saying “Register” and “Choose when you can register.”
Also, in terms of special votes, I'm interested to unpack some of the data and statistics with the Minister, because the Minister says special votes take 10 times longer. I don't deny that in terms of the duration of how long special votes take, but how much of the special vote is from voting on the day? What proportion is that? I can see the Minister looking at the officials. I think that is really important data to address the actual policy problem we're seeing presented here. Special votes also include people who are helping out people in retirement villages who are immobile—those are considered special votes; overseas New Zealanders, those are considered special votes. So what is the proportion of the people who are voting within the 13-day threshold?
Again, we want to unpack some of the broader policy questions. What the Minister is saying—I just want to push back a little bit in terms of what the Opposition is saying in terms of numbers. That's not what the Opposition is saying; that's what the Attorney-General is saying. What we're quoting from is the Attorney-General’s section 7 report. As the Minister would appreciate as well, the magnitude of a section 7 report is something that we rarely see in this House, hence we are putting a much heavier emphasis on what the Attorney-General presents in here.
I think the last question I have for the Minister for this contribution is if you're looking at paragraph 47 of the section 7 report, it says, “Taking into account these factors”—and there are four factors in total—“I conclude that the proposal for the 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA). So my question then to the Minister is: upon receiving this, what sort of work has been done to ensure that maybe there's a way for us to bring it in line with the NZ BORA? It could be a shorter period. Rather than 13 days or seven days, it could be something else. But as it stands, the 13 days that the Attorney-General raises as a concern is retained within the current legislation.
So as the Minister would also know, when we're looking at the NZ BORA and we're looking at checks and balances, the ability to limit is within section 5 of the NZ BORA, so there is a possibility that a right could be limited, but upon balance that right is justified. But what we're seeing is not here and what we're seeing is not within the 13 days. So I would like to just check, finally, with the Minister in terms of what advice the Minister has received to bring that in line with the NZ BORA and to justify the limitation not only just under sections 6 and 4 but also under section 5 of the NZ BORA.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to give a few general questions to the Minister and then speak to some of my amendments. The first general question is on the Minister’s problem statement—the problem definition. I’m just clarifying with the Minister that the key problem definition is the forecast to the 2032 election in terms of the number of specials. It’s close to 1 million, I believe, that are predicted that we would get to at that stage. It’s really about ensuring that, when we get to 2032, we’ve got a system that is well managed and does give us a timely count.
The second general question is around whether the Minister considered the financial implications of moving ahead with the proposal as it is—instead of what the Attorney-General has proposed, given the implications for declarations of inconsistency to run through the courts, potentially over a number of years—and then returning to the House and taking the House’s time, but also the cost to the Election Commission of potentially setting up a system that it will then need to undo, both in terms of education as well as the administrative aspects of the system.
I just wanted to flag the date and timestamp for the amendment that I referred to earlier, which is Thursday, 11 December at 5:45:04. This was the one about the sunset clause to ensure that we could trial the system and see if it works and whether it’s still fit for purpose. I hear from the Minister that that’s not something that he would wish to consider. I didn’t get to finish the end of my argument, so I’ll just finish that one, which is: given the other changes will be made to the system after the 2026 election, there’s potentially an opportunity to line up appropriate changes or to leave them aside if they are no longer needed, because the other systems that we’ve identified appear to be sufficient to allow that vote count to speed up.
I then have a set of amendments which were filed on 8 December. They’re filed as Amendment Papers 448 to 460. A number of them concern clause 4. These are very serious amendments. They propose a number of different dates that the Minister could choose to restrict the registration period.
Now, the Justice Committee did discuss whether it was possible to not go quite as far as 13 days but go someway there to perhaps meet the objective of increasing the time available to count the special votes while still not overly diminishing the right to vote. Indeed, the Attorney-General herself suggested that one remedy to, potentially, bring the proposal within that reasonable limitation assessment could be to move the date back to where it had been prior to the last Government’s change, which was the day prior to the election. Again, remembering that, for 30 years, people have either been able to vote on the day of the election or the day before. Those engrained habits, when you’re talking about something as significant as voting, are significant. Also, given that timeline we’re looking at, the Electoral Commission will have to pick this up next year and then start to operationalise these changes, alongside having to carry out a rather expansive education campaign before the 2026 election, test that it’s working, fix any bugs, and then get us to an election.
I’m just asking whether the Minister would consider any of those alternative options that I’ve put forward in that set of Amendment Papers, or the advice of the Attorney-General, to ensure that, perhaps, we can fall within a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet space, at least in regard to this part of the bill. I would also put it to the Minister that there’s an economic advantage in seriously considering that because of the very strong likelihood that we’ll see this bill come back to us in the form of a declaration of inconsistency and because, potentially, it’s a better position for the Minister to be in and for our justice system to be in for us not to have to pay for that as well.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The question was asked about the percentage of special votes that were related to enrolment status, and the estimate I have received is that between 300 and 350,000 are in that category.
In terms of the comments that have been made, have I considered, or did the Government consider, different options in terms of taking the enrolment back one day or 13 days or 26 days? Yes, we did consider all those options. There's a variety of approaches taken in different countries. By recollection, in the UK it's roughly about 13 days before the election when people need to be enrolled. In Australia, it's roughly 26 days before the election. Again, I object and reject the proposition that New Zealanders are somehow less capable than Australians when it comes to being enrolled for an election. I have greater faith in Kiwis now.
Of course, the reference has been made to the fact that it's been 30 years that it's been the day before the election or on election day. That is true. The previous Labour Government changed the rules to make it available on election day to be enrolled, but before that it was the day before the election. But the point I've made—and I'm repeating myself already, Mr Chair—was that electoral practice has changed significantly in New Zealand in the last decade or so. Most people used to vote on election day, until quite recently. Now, it's changed dramatically, so that a very large number of people vote before the election, as early voting has become more and more encouraged and a part of things. It makes no sense to have a cut-off to enrolment halfway through the voting period or in the middle of the voting period, and so the logic is that we are stopping enrolment the day before voting starts, which is the consistency that we've had for a long period of time.
In terms of the amount of time the Electoral Commission has got to prepare for this, it has been well signalled now for more than six months that this is the move that the Government intends to make. The Electoral Commission has a duty and a focus to encourage New Zealanders to be enrolled. Mr Xu-Nan talked about the mixed message: the simple message that is justified by the legislation is that there is a duty of New Zealanders over the age of 18 to be enrolled and, if they move, to alert, in a short period of time, the Electoral Commission so your electoral status in enrolment is up to date. It's not just used for elections; it's used for things like jury service. That is the role that the job of citizens—to maintain their enrolment status up to date.
But, of course, there's no reason to do that if the other message is out there, which says, “But don't worry, you can just rock up on election day and enrol at that point.” More and more people were getting that message, and that is why we've had the incredible growth of late enrolments over the last few election cycles. So that is the different message that we're going to send, and we've got every confidence in New Zealanders to be able to receive that message.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to ask a couple of questions around Part 1, clause 4(2): “In section 3(1), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: close of registration, in relation to registration as an elector of an electoral district for an election, means the close of the 13th day before polling day for the election”. I just would like to ask the Minister about his view, because we seem to have some tension here in terms of the different advice that’s being provided to this House.
The regulatory impact statement under that—on page 12, it stipulates that the primary objectives are to improve the timeliness of the official vote count and the efficiency of electoral administration. Then it goes on to say specifically the Minister of Justice has expressed an expectation that the vote count should be able to be completed within 14 days of the election day for the 2026 general election. It says these objectives will contribute to the outcomes of concluding elections more quickly, managing the costs of future elections, and providing more effective services to the public and the electoral participants.
But then the interesting point is—and this is what I’d like to know, because there seems to be a contradiction between here and what the Attorney-General is saying—it says that the primary objectives should be considered in the context of other enduring objectives for electoral law, such as encouraging participation and maintaining the integrity of the electoral system. It does seem that the Minister’s priorities, which would be to improve the timeliness of the official vote and to have efficiency within electoral administration—it appears that he’s inserted those objectives to be above or in a higher rank than participation in our democracy.
That seems to be in contradiction to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because it says quite clearly that the proposal at present that electors can register at any time before or on a polling day and then vote in the corresponding election. This bill proposes to change this by providing for a different registration deadline of 13 days. If a person has not registered by the deadline they would be unable to vote in the upcoming election. The rationale for this change is to address delays in the post-election vote count, which have become more pronounced. While acknowledging the public importance of promoting timeliness in counting the vote, I nonetheless consider the specific proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears inconsistent with the right to vote in section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
My question to the Minister is: is he quite simply saying to New Zealanders, against the advice of the Attorney-General and the Bill of Rights vet, that his view that the primary objective to improve timeliness supersedes the right of being able to participate in our democracy, and that particularly relates to the fact that in the clause under Part 1, clause 4—he is changing the law that means the closing on the 13th day before polling day of the election would quite simply exclude a number of people, at least 100,000, from being able to exercise their right to vote? I think it’s really important that we get it on the record that the reason for making this change is that he is saying, against his own Attorney-General’s advice, that timeliness is more important than participating in democracy.
I think that is really the nub of what this bill is going to be about; this clause, here, that New Zealanders are going to want to know about. If this is a Government saying that they want to cut costs and make things run more efficiently by excluding people from exercising their right to vote, then I think they should be clear and just say that out loud. A couple of days here or there—my view and the view of the Labour Party, is that people participating in our democracy doesn’t have a price. That is a fundamental right that goes ahead of all those other things, and, in fact, the Bill of Rights would support that point of view.
I’m interested to hear straight from the Minister if he’s prepared to put on the record that he thinks timeliness is more important than people participating in our democracy, and, if so, why?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The member sort of alleges that, in seeking to find a balance between timeliness and participation, the Government has erred entirely on the side of timeliness. That of course is not the case. If that was the case, then the Government would have decided to take enrolments back to writ day, which is about 30 days before the election. That was the case back 20 or 30 years ago; everybody had to be enrolled by writ day. We haven’t taken that course. Some people argued for that. If you wanted to have the most efficient system possible, everybody would need to be enrolled by writ day and then there’s no special votes for late enrolments, and it's nice and tidy, simple; that’s the most efficient way of doing things. That’s not what we did. We picked a more lenient date which allows people more flexibility and closes enrolments the day before election. So, in making that balance, we very much continued that.
In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications, one way of looking at it is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act approach, some people will argue is almost like a ratchet, you can only get enrolments closer and closer to the election, and that’s OK, but the moment a Government reverses the flow, it immediately is a breach of their human rights. So it’s like a ratchet that can only ever go one way, and that’s not how policy operates. Governments will have a different view. The previous Government decided that it was going to take enrolments closer to the election; this Government has got a different view because we are concerned about other things. So, with respect, we, as a Government, didn’t agree with the advice around that.
Thirdly, again the member continues to talk about a hundred thousand people being excluded from voting. That assumes that people cannot adapt in any way, shape, or form to a different set of requirements and expectations. Yes, a hundred thousand people enrolled on election day, but that is only because they could. Two elections before, they couldn’t have, and so there were zero people enrolling on election day. This coming election, they will have a very clear message from the Electoral Commission that if they want to vote, they need to be enrolled 13 days before the election. We’re very conscious—and I’m repeating myself again, Mr Chair, for the third time, that we’re very confident that people will be able to make those decisions.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’m just encouraging members that I’d quite like to give one person several goes, but if they’re going to take the full five minutes, that becomes very difficult. Celia Wade-Brown.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to interrogate the question of age. The Minister of Justice has chosen to amend the definition of “adult”, leaving “an individual of or over the age of 18 years”. We heard through the evidence in the Justice Committee—which I enjoyed being part of for that period—that there are a number of questions arose about age, and I’ll be interested to see which of these were part of the consideration in choosing to keep it at 18 with some changes. I have Amendment Paper 475, which you’ll be aware of.
There are a number of countries—Argentina, Brazil—but the one that I would know best would be Scotland. They have moved from the age of 18 to the age of 16, and there are a number of reasons for this. One is the idea that they are perfectly competent to analyse and vote. Another one is that they have longer to put up with the results of the election, if you like. But the one that really resonated with me—and the evidence we had from the Independent Electoral Review of the 2023 election was from Scotland, where they found that when people voted at 16 or 17, they were more likely to keep voting. That consistency, that commitment to democracy was better exercised by that cohort of younger people.
It’s an interesting question as to what defines an adult, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s reflections on this. Is it when you can get married? Is it when you take a full-time job and you’re allowed to leave school—at 16? Is it, given we’re in New Zealand, when you’re allowed to drive, that being one of the great markers of reaching some kind of form of independence? Or is it, as Mr Cameron Brewer’s bill about life jackets— you’re allowed to make life-saving decisions once you’re 15; or in fact you can skipper a boat at 15?
The Minister’s left the age at 18 despite there’s—I think it was a few years ago now that the Supreme Court ruled that, actually, saying you could only vote from 18 or over and enrol a little bit earlier so that you’d be ready, as I think the Minister wants us all to be ready to vote and therefore to enrol early. The Supreme Court said that it was unjustified age discrimination not to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.
We had some excellent submissions during the Independent Electoral Review of 2023 and also through the process of select committee. It was good to actually have a decent chunk of select committee to tease out some of these issues. There are some aspects of this bill that the Green Party—and in particular I—do support, like the automatic enrolments, and we may come to a little bit more discussion about the automatic enrolments.
I’m also interested in the potential for how the Minister thinks that these changes are going to be effectively put out there by the Electoral Commission, given I’m not sure that there’s been an appropriate increase in the budget for that election. If you’re going to do the same kind of thing, then maybe you can keep the same kind of budget; but if you’re making some quite radical change to when you can enrol, is there going to be the funding available for the commission?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair, thank you. For the comments around the age, yes, it is not the Government’s intention to change the voting age; we’re retaining it at 18. I do find it rather fascinating hearing a member from the Greens arguing that 16- and 17-year-olds are adults and should be treated that way when it comes to voting purposes. If we were to apply to the same logic to the criminal justice system and suggested that 16- and 17-year-olds were adults and should be held with the same responsibility, they would be calling for the intervention of the United Nations and in a state of absolute apoplexy. So there seems to be a bit of inconsistency on that matter there. But in terms of the voting age, the bill does not amend the age.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to ask particularly what the Minister of Justice had to say about the inconsistencies of his choices with the advice that was given to him by the Electoral Commission. Now, I understand that the commission works to provide an effective and impartial electoral system and it gives advice on that basis, so it’s got to be the expert in the room on this. It is independent. Its whole purpose is to do that.
One of the things that most disturbed me was to see that the Electoral Commission had publicly stated that the changes were unlikely to speed up the counting of votes, and I would like to know what evidence the Minister can point to that would justify permanently restricting enrolment and voting access without a mechanism to reassess that decision.
I’d like to understand how, from the expert, if it was unlikely to actually produce the result the Minister says that he was looking for—he went ahead and decided to ignore that and whether he thinks that’s a dangerous precedent to ignore that advice, in terms of the independence of the group that is set up for that purpose.
I’d also like to know what he has to say—he’s talked about the cost of going out there and telling the public that they have to vote early and they just have to change their habits. But we haven’t heard anything specific about the cost of that campaign. It was something that Vanushi Walters raised in her speech. She talked about that being an enormous cost, and I wonder whether the Minister has had advice on what is it going to cost to actually do a public campaign. Also, what would an effective campaign look like? If we throw lots of taxpayers’ money at this task, actually what happens in terms of measuring uptake on that? Is there a target of people that have to be across the line in terms of enrolment that says that it’s successful and people are actually enrolling to vote in the way that he has reassured us they will just because they change their habits. So I’d like some specifics.
I think also an interesting issue that was raised was the issue about challenges to this. I would like to know: has he asked for advice on the risk of litigation and has he asked for the cost of that process of litigation? It seems to me to be one we’d want to handle on, given we have a cost of living crisis and we shouldn’t be putting money into a situation where it’s just thrown away. So I would like to know about that.
I’d also like to point out to the Minister that there’s been a lot of reference to Australia tonight, but Australia does have compulsory voting, and so it’s ecosystem is quite different. In that situation, people must vote, and that changes the nature of disenfranchising people because you cannot manipulate the Australian system by making sure people don’t vote, or putting hurdles in the way, because everyone at the end of the day must turn up and vote. So it’s a very different system, and I wanted him to comment on that in terms of not having that guardrail in place that is in place in Australia, but taking away in this situation the capacity to go right to election day, given the figures.
I still haven’t actually heard the Minister acknowledge the figures that I put to him, so I’d like to know if he agrees with them. The figure I put to the Minister was that it’s a 3 to 7 percent difference—that it suppresses that many votes, or that many votes are lost. Does he agree with that figure? And has he got advice at any point on what that means in an MMP system where there are fractions of proportionality that can make a huge difference to the system? Again, that’s not the same as other countries, and it seems to me important.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): For the fourth time, I’ll now talk about rejecting the proposition put forward that this is, in any way, suppressing the vote. I reject that Minister’s suggestion that there will be 3 to 7 percent of the voting public affected by this because we have confidence that people will be able to receive a different message and change their behaviour accordingly. So we do not accept that there will be people disenfranchised by this, and so there will be very clear messaging.
The Electoral Commission received an extra $61 million in Budget 2025 to support the 2026 election. At the previous election, the commission spent $11.9 million on advertising campaigns. We’ll expect that they’ll be doing something similar this time around. It’s a core function of the Electoral Commission to encourage people to be enrolled and, to remind the member, that enrolment in New Zealand is compulsory. The law says that you need to be enrolled, and so that is what we will be expecting them to focus on.
In terms of manipulating the vote by changing the enrolment date, of course, it’s very interesting: if this Government changes the enrolment date, we are manipulating the vote. Of course, the Labour Government six years ago changed enrolment date, but that, of course, presumably wasn’t manipulating the vote. So it’s OK if Labour changes the enrolment date and not OK if National and the current Government changes the enrolment date. That’s an interesting approach.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora, Minister. Look, there are a lot of reoccurring statements and things being raised, and they're all important, because, ultimately, a Government's job is to increase democratic participation in a country. Whilst many of these things I will raise have already been said, I'll raise them in light of them having a disproportionate impact on the voters of Te Tai Tonga and te iwi Māori.
As we've heard, there are 236,000-odd people in this very category in the last election, a disproportionately large number of them Māori; for many different reasons, Minister; many different reasons. They're life condition reasons, OK? A large proportion of the Māori population live at the poverty line, in low-income houses; in poverty—in extreme poverty—in homelessness.
All I've heard from the speeches for the bill were, “Oh, you just get on and get organised, mate.” That's so ignorant to the reality of life in New Zealand, in a cost of living crisis, in a housing crisis—all of the types of crises and issues that the vast majority of the Māori population and the people of Te Tai Tonga have to deal with, that many of the well-schooled young men from Tauranga would never have encountered. To just dismiss it as, “Oh, get on and get organised, you've got a whole 13 days.”, is quite staggering to me. It demonstrates a staggering ignorance to the nature of our society, the very society that this Government is elected to represent.
You know, just the dismissal of the Māori reality in our own country; I mean, you're the Minister for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. You should have a good understanding about all of these impacts.
Tom Rutherford: Not the Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Not me.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, no, not the Chair; I'm talking to the Minister who's fronting up the bill. We've spoken largely to the negative impact of that, that we already know from the last election. What we know for the 2026 election is that a population the size of the city of Invercargill will be excluded—will be excluded; official advice.
When I think about the Government's role of increasing the participation in the democracy, all of these things just point to reducing it. We can't help but raise the blanket prisoner voting ban. The bill wasn't introduced like that, but it's just miraculously developed into it. Given all of the negative—you know, the over-representation of Māori not only in prisons but right throughout the justice system, a bill like this just continues to compound and compound and compound the negative outcomes, the negative interactions. I've spoken to them at length today; we've questioned them today, the negative interactions and outcomes of the justice system that Māori continue to face. And here we have it again—and here we have it again.
Māori make up, unfortunately, around 53 percent of the total prison population and are 10.7 times more likely to be serving shorter sentences. These are sentences for relatively low levels of crime. They're parking fines, they're traffic fines, they're not showing up to court, they're missing—they're very low-level things, and throughout the process of this bill, they will be severely punished for this—
Hon Matt Doocey: What a load of rubbish.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: What a load of what? What was that? What was that, Mr Doocey?
Hon Matt Doocey: I think you heard [Inaudible].
TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah—I think the man wouldn't even know what he's talking about. But, anyway, let's keep going. Far from helping to improve the participation rates of Māori, this bill seems determined to just continue to diminish them. We’ve got the official advice from the Electoral Commission that says that the bill actually solves no identified operational problem. The Electoral Commission itself confirms that delays arise from integrity checks and processing special votes, not late enrolment. OK. They also state that there's no evidence that shows early roll closure will speed up the count. So many of the arguments that are being put forward are quite false—
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I need to correct—a couple of members now have pointed to the Electoral Commission saying the changes would not lead to a speeding up of the vote. I queried them on that, and subsequently they gave advice to the Justice Committee contradicting that and making it quite clear that if we didn’t make these changes, their estimate is that it would take 23 days to complete the vote count, rather than the 20 that is allotted at the moment, which is more than the 14 that we always used to be able to do up to two elections ago. So they sent very clear information saying that if we don’t make these changes, it will take longer to count the vote. Of course, all the advice that I’ve had is that if we don’t make these changes at the next election, it will be longer; at the election after that, it will be even longer.
Why does that matter? Well, that’s a good question. Why does it matter? Well, in the New Zealand system that we have under MMP, the tradition has certainly developed over the last few years that most often than not, a coalition is required, and, more often than not, the parties who want to negotiate that coalition do not start those negotiations until the final vote count is made, because there’s, quite often, quite a difference between the initial count and the final vote count. So if the country is waiting for an extended period of time before we get to the final vote count, and then start negotiations over a period of time, there is a long period of uncertainty. Now, so far, the country hasn’t been in any sort of crisis during that period, but there’s nothing to say that we won’t be, at one point. So it is relevant about getting a timely outcome.
Now, for the sixth time, I will make the point that I reject the idea that a large number of voters will be excluded by these changes. There was some advice or suggestion from the Attorney-General that they may be. We certainly do not agree with that, because, like I say, they enrolled on election day at the last election because they could and because they were told they could. This time around, they will be told that they can’t, and we’ve got every confidence that those people will move earlier. In terms of the argument that Māori are somehow less capable of being enrolled during the rest of the term, I just don’t accept that proposition.
In terms of the reference to the need to increase democratic engagement, of course my view is that it is the first and fundamental job of politicians to persuade people to come out and vote for them. That’s the politicians’ job. It’s not anybody else’s job. It is our job, as politicians, to persuade people to come and vote for us. There is a big variation in terms of the voter turnout in our elections, depending on how motivated people are to come out and vote. It’s nobody else’s job but the job of the politicians to persuade people to come and vote for them. So I think that’s the most important thing to remember in this conversation.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Again, just before I take the next call, a different person making the same point does not constitute new material, could I say? The Hon Ginny Andersen.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak to the really impressive amendment done by Vanushi Walters and her amendment in relation to clause 4(1), proposing to change that definition of the “adult”, which is 18 years, with 16 years. I think this is really important because if we are—and we’re going by the regulatory impact statement—knowing that there will be some people who don’t vote and so we’re narrowing the voter base by this change, then it seems to make really good sense that we make up for that by enabling people who are 16 to be able to vote. We could do that with this bill right now. There’s been a really strong grassroots campaign by young New Zealanders called Make It 16, and there are young, informed people who want to have a say. There’s a good argument—and I’m sure that even Mr Goldsmith would agree—that if 16’s old enough to have sex, then surely they can vote too. It seems like a good idea to me.
When I look back into the regulatory impact statement, it says that electors who enrol or update their details after writ day are more likely to be Māori; registered on the Māori roll. In the general 2023 election, 17.3 percent of Māori voters updated their details or enrolled during the voting period, compared to 9.8 percent of non-Māori. Also what they showed is the Electoral Commission data—speaking to the Minister of Justice’s previous point—indicates that special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger proportions of Māori, Asian, and Pasifika communities, and younger people are more likely to cast their special votes. In 2023, 33 percent of 18- to 19-year-old voters enrolled or updated their details during that voting period, as did 48 percent of Māori voters aged 18 to 19.
My proposal to you—as per the amazing amendment tabled by Vanushi Walters—is that if you’re going to disenfranchise a proportion of people by taking away enrolling in the early voting period, surely you could—if you want to stipulate and increase your timeliness and your productivity and cut your budget and do all those things—help that out by simply lowering the voting age to 16. That seems to be a really sensible amendment to ensure early engagement in the voting process. If we’re teaching civics and changing the curriculum and getting people to engage and know about the decision-making process and know about the value of democracy and the strength of the fabric of our communities and how we can all work closer together, why don’t we get young people engaged? Why don’t we do this? If you’re taking away that ability to early vote, then let’s be upfront and let’s say, “Right, be bold.” If 16-year-olds can vote, that would be a really good way of, I guess, making better what is quite a bad situation.
I would really like to hear from the Minister that one of the biggest decisions is to have a sexual relationship with somebody. Does he think that voting is more heavy or more weighty than making the decision to engage in sexual activity with another adult? I’m puzzled as to why voting requires another two years of life experience when that big decision on having sex does not.
I think we could kill two birds with one stone. We could empower our young people. We can increase the voting base. We could encourage younger people to engage in our democracy at an earlier age. I’m sure Erica could write it into the curriculum in a heartbeat with some help from her mates in Canada or Atlas or wherever they are, and we’d all be happier off. I think this is an excellent amendment and I’d love to hear his reckons on it.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): For the second time, I will offer my reckons on the age of 16 as voting, and that is not something that is being proposed to be changed in this legislation. I do look forward to the Labour Party’s views when it comes to the criminal justice system and 16- and 17-year-olds being treated as children and the arguments put forward for that in the fact that they are not able yet to be fully accountable for their actions in the criminal justice system. I struggle to see the consistency of the approach as proposed by member Ginny Andersen on that one.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a subsequent question from the Green Party member regarding age, and this around clarity of age, actually.
Vanushi Walters has also got an amendment for replacing clause 4(1), which would amend section 3(1), with the definition of “adult” so that “the Monday immediately before polling day” would be changed with “the advance polling period”, and “the period beginning on that Monday and ending on polling day” with “the advance polling period”.
The reason for that, really, is clarity, because it would clarify that any person whose 18th birthday falls within the advance polling period could vote in that time. Now, that’s already possible under clause 35’s definition of “advance voter” as including anyone who “is qualified to vote at the election” or clause 8’s amendments to section 89.
But clarity is better here, and that is because electoral law should be clear, certain, and accessible. If there is one type of law that really needs to be clear because it is so inherent to our democracy, it is electoral law. This amendment would clarify that so that any person who turns 18 at any point within the advance voting period would be eligible. It would ensure that no 18-year-old voter would be disenfranchised due to technical ambiguity in the timing and the definitions. I would remind the Minister that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC) repeatedly highlights the importance of clarity and predictability in electoral law to ensure fairness and prevent confusion.
We’ve heard about media stories. I’d just like to mention another one: Radio New Zealand on 4 March 2025 emphasised that youth engagement and lower barriers to earlier participation were something that youth MPs wanted. Those were the MPs that we all supported to come to our Parliament to stoke up the enthusiasm for democracy that the Minister himself has spoken about—and yet, here we are, sending them a signal to say “but when it comes to sloppy lawmaking, it doesn’t matter. There’s going to be a bit of an ambiguity, and we’re not even going to be precise in the way that we write that down.”
I think that the ambiguity about when someone qualifies to vote really risks confusion at voting places. It’s going to put electoral officials into a difficult position, and we already rely on electoral officials to be employed for a very short amount of time. It’s really important for them to know what they are doing and to have processes as simple as possible. Internationally, jurisdictions like Scotland and Austria explicitly provide clear rules ensuring that young voters can participate as soon as they attain the qualifying age, and they take great care with the way that they write the legislation.
So my question for you, Minister, on this is: why do you oppose clarifying voter eligibility when turning 18 during the advance voting period, given the LDAC guidance emphasises certainty and clarity as essential elements of good electoral law, or are you going to support the amendment of Vanushi Walters which clarifies that little change, those few words, so that there will not be ambiguity and people will not have to read across the legislation? Can you guarantee that without the amendment, no eligible young person turning 18 will be refused to vote due to inconsistent interpretation? And, if you can’t guarantee that—and I’m really keen to hear whether you will guarantee that, Minister, because, if you can’t, then why would you reject a simple fix?
It’s a good amendment. This is our chance in the House to make the law better. We’re not asking you to lower the voting age. I personally think that’s a good idea; I do realise it’s out of scope. But having clarity about when someone turns 18 and when they can vote is very, very important.
I would remind you, Minister, that the Children’s Commissioner talked about the failure of this bill to protect young people’s right to vote. The Children’s Commissioner said “the bill fails to protect young people’s right and participate in democracy”. It says that “the bill fails to protect the electoral rights of rangatahi Māori … and [fails to] provide equitable opportunities for their participation” contrary to Te Tiriti obligations—then it is failing.
So why, with nearly 70 percent of voters now casting their ballots early, why will you not ensure, with this tiny little change, in this very well-crafted and serious amendment from my colleague, that we cannot at least have some certainty that those who turn 18 in that eligible period will have clarity about their eligibility to vote. It’s already quite difficult for them trying to work it out. The change in the rules is going to make that more confusing. I would support that amendment, and I hope you will consider it, Minister.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In terms of people who turn 18 after the deadline or after the 13 days beforehand, they are perfectly entitled to enrol before the closing of enrolment. People are able to enrol from the age of 17½ and so they’ve got plenty of time to be enrolled before the election, including if they turn 18 at any time before election day. That’s clause 8 of the bill and we think that’s clear enough.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m seeking to take short calls so I’ll ask my first question and then sit down and hopefully I’ll get another call. In terms of the 236,000 figure that’s been mentioned, would the Minister consider it a policy success or a failure if 236,000 fewer people voted in the next election as a result of these changes?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, of course it would be. Voting turnout fluctuates significantly between elections, totally unrelated to the electoral laws but related more to enthusiasm of voters for particular parties and particular Governments at particular times. That was the point I made to the member and to the House before. It is the primary function of politicians to go out and persuade people to vote for them. We’re not like the Aussies. We don’t say it’s compulsory to vote. People have a choice. Sometimes I’ve been uninspired and haven’t voted at local body elections because I haven’t found anybody inspiring enough to vote for. And so that’s a perfectly reasonable choice that New Zealanders make. If people want to vote or not vote, that’s up to them, but all we can do is ensure that people get a decent chance at it. I’ve lost my train of thought now. I can’t remember what the question was, but I think it’s fully covered.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple more questions on Subpart 4 too. The first, which I’ll ask now and sit back down, is the definition of registration. Is that when someone fully completes the registration and is fully on the roll or is that when someone starts the process of registration? So for example, if I were to fill out the paperwork on the Electoral Commission website would that be counted as me being registered or do I have to fully complete the process to be fully counted as being registered? Thank you, Minister.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll also follow the Chair’s instructions and keep my questions brief and specifically on my amendments. So I did propose—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): And new, perhaps.
VANUSHI WALTERS: And new—a new clause 4A and that was a tabled amendment on 10 December at 5.45.05 p.m. That was a question about a review of that subpart, so just a question about whether the Minister of Justice would consider that.
When my colleague Ingrid Leary was speaking to one of my other amendments, it reminded me of an idea that I’d had which I haven’t drafted up, which is allowing an exception for first-time voters. I’m just acknowledging that for that particular cohort of people, there may be merit in allowing more flexibility for them to enrol to vote right up to polling day just for that group. The reason is I, like other colleagues, am worried that if there is an issue for voting that first time, it may just create that that habit for life of kind of going, “Well, this isn’t for me and I’m not going to try again.” Just asking if the Minister would consider that—I’d be very happy to draft that up.
The last one was Amendment Paper 488. This is an Amendment Paper, and this one proposes, essentially, that people be not allowed to register during that advance period but still be allowed to vote on polling day. I know a little bit of an unusual suggestion, perhaps, but the Minister spoke earlier the fact that—I think he said something like, “People rock up and enrolled and voted at the same time and we’ve gotten to the into the habit of that.” And I wonder if there was any assessment of whether we could just condense our resources to allowing that to happen on that day as kind of a catch-all and whether any numbers were done on that. Thank you.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to move to an amendment and I will give you the date stamp momentarily, but it is basically to delete clause 7, which is the guts of what is really wrong with this bill because clause 7 amends section 88, which is “Applications received after issue of the writ”. In our view, if actually we got rid of clause 5 and clause 7, that would be fantastic, but clause 7 itself might do it.
I just want to talk about why this is such a bad clause. It’s quite a complex one that’s in there at the moment. Section 88 governs what the Electoral Commission can do after the writs are issued and before the writ is returned, so that’s the entire election period. Currently, voters can enrol or update their details during that advance period, including on polling day. But this is the section here that basically, through this bill, removes those exceptions and it rewrites section 88 so that after the close of registration, the Electoral Commission cannot enrol anyone new and cannot update anyone’s details. That blackout period basically lasts from the close of registration until the return of the writ. The close of registration is a hard deadline and there is nothing that can change after that point. I’d just like to make the point that not even an address update can change.
So we’ve talked a little bit about homelessness. There are many more questions about homeless people and also people who move, but to not even be able to do something technical like update an address is particularly draconian and it shows what kind of a freeze that is created. So this section 88 is a major, major change. It is one of the most major changes really that we’ve seen in electoral law reform. It’s going to dramatically narrow the special pathway. It’s going to tighten voter eligibility, reduce flexibility. It removes safety nets. It raises the risk that legitimate electors cannot vote because they missed a deadline. There are many MPs on this side of the House who I’m sure will be coming down to share stories of the concerns that they have from their constituents who are either worried about not voting or found in the local body election that they were suddenly no longer on their local body roll. They are already feeling disenfranchised before this has even come in.
So really, you know, the best thing the Minister could do, given that his logic is flawed when it comes to the likely outcome of this legislation, which is going to disenfranchise voters, is just strike out clause 5, and clause 7 in particular.
So, really, my question to him is, would he make an exception for change of address? Would that be possible? Vanushi Walters has mentioned it for first-time voters, but what about for voters who have changed address? If he wants to make sure it’s not people who have got his, I would say, rather sanctimonious message about voting, perhaps then, people who have changed address within the previous two weeks, could be a good compromise.
Would he consider safety nets? For renters and young people, would he consider safety nets and other types of things where they could get to actually register so that they are not chilled from voting? Would he consider outreach to some of those groups so that if there was a record of the fact that they had not registered, there would be a special effort made by Government agencies to go into the places where those people coalesce, to go into high-renting areas and high-mobility areas, to make sure and remind people?
What is he going to do about people who have made clerical mistakes or spelling mistakes? For example, if they’ve misspelled their name or if their electorate has been spelt incorrectly? Is that going to be fatal to a person’s ability to vote once the registration has passed? Because, currently, on the reading of the legislation, that’s what it looks like. If that’s not the case, now is the Minister’s chance to clarify that for the Hansard, because there will be many, many votes excluded as a result of things to do with even handwriting that cannot be read or where somebody is interpreting the handwriting incorrectly. What I would like to know is, you know, why he is proceeding with this when I hear the message loud and clear: there must be some exceptions for people legitimately able to vote.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In relation to the member’s reference to “sanctimonious message”, I’m puzzled as to what that refers to. If it refers to a message of people being obliged to do what the law requires them to do—that is, to be enrolled, and, if they shift to a new address, to update that enrolment in a timely manner—I hardly think that’s “sanctimonious”; it’s just a statement of the law.
In terms of people moving, if somebody moves within the same electorate, their enrolment will not be affected at all, because they will remain eligible in the same electorate. If somebody moves to a new electorate, within one month of election day—so in the four weeks before the election day, if somebody moves to another electorate, they will not be affected, as they will remain enrolled in their previous electorate, because one needs to be in a particular place for 30 days to be enrolled in it. People who moved to a new electorate more than one month before the election day need to update their address before the 13-day enrolment cut off. If they don’t, well, then, only their party vote will count if they have failed to change their address in that circumstance. So that is the consequences of that. But there will be a clear message.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really stoked to ask my first question in this committee of the whole House stage. What I am going to ask about is one of my colleagues’, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s, tabled amendments. I’ll start there, and then I have some other questions on the age-related stuff. I know it’s been traversed quite a bit, so I’ll make sure it’s something new to add to that discussion.
On the amendments, this is a tabled amendment that was tabled at 8.20 p.m., and it’s the amendment to add a new clause 5A, section 72 amended, and that’s around the rules for determining place of residence within New Zealand. Basically, what my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan wanted to capture is, “What about people who don’t have a fixed address, due to not having a home or being homeless or rough-sleeping?” It doesn’t cancel anything out; it just asks to add in that people who are not residing in a property but live within an open environment of a particular electoral district will be deemed to reside in that electorate or to have resided in that electoral district.
I think the reason that this is so important is because homelessness and rough-sleeping is increasing across the country. If we look to the most recent homelessness insights briefing that we have in New Zealand, we can see that rough-sleeping here in Wellington has increased 24 percent. In Auckland, rough-sleeping has increased 90 percent, and in Christchurch it has increased 73 percent. Those are some pretty large numbers, and those are people who, when the election comes up, might not have an address to be able to point to, to say that they reside in a particular district. That’s really bad, because they’re not going to be able to participate in democracy.
I’m sure there are people who might think that they might not even be interested in participating in democracy, because they’ve got such bigger issues on their plate, but when I think about the conversations that I’ve had with people when I’ve gone out with Downtown Community Ministry (DCM) or the Salvation Army or Te Whare Nukunoa, the women’s homelessness organisation, I know that there are a lot of people who are switched on, who know who their local MP is, who come to our electorate office, who want to participate in democracy, and who, of course, want to be able to vote. I know that at DCM in Wellington, in Lukes Lane in the CBD, they put a lot of effort into trying to make sure that homeless people are enrolled and eligible to vote, but it’s still going to be a challenge if, at the end of the day, they can’t point to a fixed address within that electoral district. We’re hoping that the Minister might consider Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to rectify that.
I guess the other reason that we wanted to include that is because not all homelessness is visible. In this amendment, we talk about an open environment, which could be on the street or could be in a tent on a waterfront. It could be in a lot of different places, but the other concerning thing that we’re trying to address through this amendment is that homelessness is not always visible. Homelessness can include obvious rough-sleeping, but it can also include people who are couch-surfing, people who are sleeping in tents, or people who are sleeping in cars who are changing the location where they’re sleeping or residing, even though it tends to be within the same city or electoral district. There are other forms of homelessness that are a lot harder to identify, including things like overcrowding in houses, which we know is particularly bad for some communities.
We want to ask the Minister whether he will consider that amendment, and we think that it would be a really compassionate approach to ensuring that every person has a voice and an opportunity to participate in our democracy, particularly the people who are, I guess, feeling the harshest end of our democracy or who have fallen through the cracks of our system. Therefore, their participation might lead our system to be a bit more accommodating and fair and compassionate towards their circumstances.
Now, with my last 30 seconds, I want to talk about this age limit that we’ve traversed a bit. We’ve talked about lowering the age limit. Has the Minister considered an age limit on the age of people voting at all? Obviously, you have to be 18, but when do you get too old that your brain might not be up to voting any more? I’m not going to give an age, because I might offend some of my constituents or potential voters, but did you consider an age limit? I know that, for driving, at a certain age you have to take more tests for your licence and get your eyes checked and stuff like that. Did we consider an age limit to voting at all in this country? We don’t support that idea but want to know if that’s maybe a consideration that he had.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In relation to the last question, no, we haven’t considered an upper age limit, and of course the member will be aware that there is a wide variation of capability amongst people of different ages. In relation to the question of rough sleepers and people of no fixed abode, I won’t be entertaining Mr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment. But this bill doesn’t change the existing rules which are in place, which say that if somebody is of no fixed abode or rough sleeping, they can register at the place where they last lived—everybody’s lived somewhere, somewhere—or where they spend most of the time. Where they spend most of the time is another alternative. So there are two alternatives in place, and this legislation hasn’t changed that.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): This would appear to be early to be even considering a closure motion, but members should be aware we’re still not making a lot of progress through this bill.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a genuine question that I am trying to understand—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m sure they are all genuine.
Glen Bennett: “Genuine Ginny”, that’s what we call her—“Genuine Ginny”.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: That’s me. In Part 1, clause 5(2)—and I just want to read this bill out—it says, “any person who is qualified to be registered as an elector of the district and was at the time of the last preceding election—(i) registered as an elector of that district (district A)”. Then it goes on: “…because of a subsequent change of boundaries, that place of residence is now within district A”. It sounds a lot like The Hunger Games to me. I’m just wondering: are there, like, two people selected from each district and they get to fight for the right to vote? Or does this mean that the boundaries have changed? If the boundaries have changed, what does this impact mean? Does President Snow enter the picture at any point in time?
For the average person reading that section, it is really unclear to know what you mean by that. Does it mean that, if boundaries have changed and you’re registered in your old electorate, you have to reregister? There are parts of Hutt South, for example, that were previously in Ōhāriu—for example, Newlands—that, under the boundary changes, come into Hutt South. If those people were registered for Ōhāriu, do they need to change all their details because they are now in Hutt South? I would just like to say that I know you got rid of the Plain Language Act, but reading that it seems like there is something to do with boundaries changing, something to do with district A—we don’t what “district A” means—but what does it actually mean for voters who have been affected by the recent electoral boundary changes?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I think what the member the Hon Ginny Andersen was referring to was matters relating to the dormant roll, but in relation to the question of The Hunger Games, I think that is more relevant to the internal workings of the Labour Party.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I will try and be very brief and put some questions to the Minister. So in relation to clause 6, we keep coming back to the one-month continuous residence criteria: I was just wondering whether there was any consideration of whether that was still the most appropriate way of ensuring integrity of the system and whether it’s comparable to like jurisdictions as well.
In relation to some of my amendments to clause 12, these I thought were very sensible, in particular for anyone who finds themselves to be an eligible voter in that period. I'm thinking of someone who might have been released from prison, obviously hasn't registered beforehand, but technically speaking should be able to then vote; whether the Minister considered being able to allow that as an exception, which I've drafted in those amendments on Thursday 11 December.
I've proposed inserting a new clause 9A, as well; again, sunsetting that clause. I guess that my general question, because the Minister will have seen that I've made this proposal a few times, is whether there was any consideration of an internal review mechanism of some sort, just given the fact that this is electoral law, whether that be a sunset clause or a review clause? Thank you.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): No, we haven't considered a sunset clause but, of course, the electoral law is regularly reconsidered after every election; every three years Governments review it and so that is I think the appropriate way to handle that.
In terms of people recently released from prison, all the advice I've received is that Corrections have a well-organised set of arrangements in order to help people who are released from prison to be re-enrolled. Of course, in relation to where they live, as I said in the previous answer, if they've moved out of prison within 30 days of the election, they would be able to be registered at the previous place where they lived, which, of course, was the prison.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you. Just looking at this issue of homelessness, there is a question in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) report, in terms of section 12 of the NZBORA, and I’m wondering what advice the Minister of Justice has specifically sought or received regarding the unclear residence rules and the risk of breaching them. He has talked about the previous residence—that doesn’t really work for people who jump on buses or get across town. My colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has got a nimble solution which would provide clarity and avoid that NZBORA issue, which would be to add a new section 74(2A) so that where a person is homeless, they may register in the electoral district in which they most commonly sleep, and where they commonly sleep in more than one electoral district, they may choose one of those electoral districts, the one to which they have the greatest affinity.
The homelessness issue is important. I would remind the Minister of the principle that under New Zealand’s constitutional values, the right to vote, under section 12 of the NZBORA, must be interpreted generously, not narrowly.
So the first question really is: did he get that advice—because it doesn’t seem clear—and if he’s not willing to entertain the Greens’ amendment, could he entertain our amendment, which would provide the clarity that has been offered up by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb?
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to take the Minister now to clause 10 of the bill, where I propose a new subclause (4), which creates new section 80(2) to replace “not later than the fifth day of the month following the date of conviction to” with “not later than 10 days following the date of conviction”. This is about where notification needs to happen when someone is an ineligible voter, and given that the purpose of the bill is timeliness, it just seemed odd to me that the notification period was on the fifth day of the next month after their conviction, the reason being you could have someone who was convicted on, say, 1 October and the statutory requirement to report that would be the fifth day of November.
My proposal here is actually about timeliness. I would propose that it is potentially 10 days after the conviction, whenever it happens, which would create some consistency. I do have a second proposal, which, hopefully, will also be received well by the Minister, because, again, it’s a tidy-up for the bill. This is clause 10(4), “Replace section 80(2) with:”, and I suggest inserting, “(2) The Registrar must fulfil their obligation under subsection (2) before the fifth day of the month following the date of the conviction.” It’s neither the polling day nor any part of the advanced polling period for any general election that falls between the date of the conviction and date A or if the polling day or any part of the advanced polling period for any general election falls between the date of the conviction and date A, the close of the polling day for that general election.
The point that I’m making in that is that, if the conviction falls within that voting period, essentially—the period of the election—then it would make sense for reporting to happen more speedily. Using those two as separate amendments might actually make the system more efficient as well. If the Minister would respond, I can leave it there and come back to my next question. Otherwise, I can continue. OK; I can continue. It looks like he’s making a list—joke!
This is also still on clause 10. After clause 10(3)—after section 80(1A), insert “despite paragraph (d) of subsection (1), a person is not disqualified from registration as an elector if they are eligible for a sentence of home detention and are in prisoned only or substantially because of section 80A(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002”. This is a case where you might have someone who would be on home detention but, because a placement couldn’t be found, they end up incarcerated and therefore have their right to vote taken away. This would be just a carve-out exception for them as well. I think that would be a substantially fairer way to treat these particular people who, it would seem, are being disenfranchised on the basis of administrative availability of home detention facilities.
As a side point, I do know that this tends to affect female prisoners a fair bit. This is anecdotal, but I was told by the someone from the Howard League that women who are looking for home detention facilities are often declined because their home residence is also the home detention residence of a former partner or spouse who’s currently there. It’s declined on that basis. They will then find themselves in prison and subject to this rule as well. So, again, it seems like a carve-out would be really useful.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question. I accept that the Minister has told us that he doesn’t believe that the impact of this legislation is going to be fewer people voting, but my specific question, in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), is: what are the less rights-impairing alternatives he considered before adopting the fixed-enrolment cutoff that prevents late-enrolling electors from voting? We have talked about the NZBORA section 12, but we have not talked in detail about the really important elements of what is required. It’s very clear from the Attorney-General that she has said that the enrolment deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on right to vote. Now, the Minister may disagree with the impact, but the question then becomes what is his duty to consider less rights-limiting options?
If we look at the limitation that was justified under section 5 of the NZBORA, the Attorney-General has said that that is OK. Where the NZBORA fails is on the minimum impairment, which is a key failure—that is around the 13 days—and also proportionality, and that is to do with where the Attorney-General has specifically said that the harm to the right to vote—complete exclusion from an election—outweighs the administrative benefit, which is fast accounting. Because it's a core democratic right, even a temporary loss—one election—is considered serious. That conclusion is stated on page 9 of the report. Then, again, there is the formal conclusion, further on in the report, that the limit cannot be demonstrably justified under section 5. It appears in the summary of inconsistencies section on page 7 of the report; it's reinforced in the justification analysis on pages 8 and 9. The logic, therefore, says that under the NZBORA methodology, which is used time and again for bills in this House, an inconsistency with section 12 after a section 5 analysis makes it an unjustified limit on the right to vote.
The Minister has only justified his answer, based on his reckons, on the outcome of the voting, but what we have not heard is the duty, or failure to exercise a duty, to consider less rights-impairing alternatives before adopting that specific methodology, given the gravitas of the NZBORA. My question to you, Minister, is: what did you consider, what advice did you receive, and what reports can you table that showed us that you considered alternatives to what is currently in this bill?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): We won’t be supporting Vanushi Walters’ amendment—I don’t know which; there’s about 100 amendments, but the one tabled on 12 o’clock and 13 minutes past 12—because the bill provides for notifications to the Electoral Commission for people who are disqualified.
In relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) issue, I would remind the committee that the 2017 election—which some on that side of the House would regard as consequential—was carried out with a ban on enrolments on election day. The 2014 election, likewise the 2011 election, the 2008 election—they were all carried out with a ban on enrolments on election day. I’ve talked about the ratchet sort of effect of the BORA approaches, which is to say: when Parliament in 2020 decided that they’re going to change the rules and allow enrolment on election day, there was no discussion around that in relation to rights, but if Parliament was to reverse that change, suddenly it engages human rights. The simple point I make is that Parliaments will form different views on these matters.
Overall, the question is: what is a reasonable expectation in a democracy in terms of people carrying out their civic function, to be enrolled as the law requires them to be so? And what’s a reasonable amount of notice to give people time to get involved? The point that we’ve been making, as a Government, is for more than a year before the election, people will have received the message that they need to get enrolled 13 days before the election. The Electoral Commission will be running campaigns, as they’re fully funded to do, reminding people to get enrolled. Certainly my strong message to the Electoral Commission is that a real focus should be on getting as many people enrolled by writ day as possible so that as many New Zealanders get to cast full votes, not special votes, and that simplifies the situation significantly.
In terms of other things we considered, well, there’s a whole lot of things that this bill also does in relation to these matters in terms of changing the ability to have auto enrolments. One of the difficulties with auto enrolments of new enrolments and people who have enrolled for the first time is that New Zealand has a unique system where there are two different rolls—there’s a general roll and a Māori roll. Auto enrolling becomes difficult if one has to make a choice about which roll to put somebody on. That’s a real issue that we’ve got to work our way through as a country, because it does make it harder for having people automatically enrolled, the nature of the system that we have. That might be something for the next Parliament to consider.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. The first few questions that I have are in terms of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 493. Yeah, another genuine question: could you explain the rationale behind your Amendment Paper? We’re currently deciding whether to support it or not, so any explanation would be very helpful.
I can see that we are now really interrogating the provisions under Subpart 2, which is great because I’ve got an amendment—it’s Amendment Paper 479—and what that does is it, basically, grants people in prison the right to vote. It’s the reverse of the blanket prisoner voting ban provisions that are within this bill as it stands. There are lots of reasons why we’ve brought this amendment forward, and I’m going to talk about those now.
My first question to the Minister is: will he accept my amendment? One of the reasons I want to ask that is because there is a lot of unfairness within the blanket prisoner voting ban, and I’m sure we’re going to get into each of those reasons over the next little while. One big reason is because this blanket prisoner voting ban applies to people who have been sentenced; it does not apply to people who are awaiting sentencing or are remanded in prison. The remand population makes up about half of the people in custody in our prisons and jails. When you ask yourself why we have such a high remand population, one of the reasons for that is because there is a very big court backlog. Actually, we talk about this a lot in the Justice Committee, but we also talk about it a lot in this House as well—access to justice and the way that there have been existing court backlogs. The way that the COVID-19 pandemics and the limitations that were applied during that period have contributed to thousands and thousands and thousands of people awaiting justice through the courts. What that means is that there are a lot of people who are remanded in prison and in jail, and those people are still going to be able to vote but only because they have the unfortunate luck that they are still waiting to be sentenced. Basically, because there is a court backlog, that means that if you are lucky enough to have gotten your sentence and have that access to the rehabilitation that you get when you are sentenced, you also lose the right to vote. However, there is half of the prison population who will still be able to vote. How is that fair when that really is contingent on court backlogs and people’s access to justice.
The fundamental problem we have with it is the blanket disqualification that exists for all prisoners. What we’ve heard from the Minister and what we’ve heard from Government MPs who are proponents of this bill is that they believe that your right to vote is tied to a set of civic responsibilities that you apparently hold. In breaking the law, you are therefore relinquishing your right to vote. That’s the rationale that the Government has put out there. One thing that was really helpful that the Attorney-General laid out in her New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report is how inconsistently that can be applied. Someone could be in prison for one month for a petty, non-serious, non-violent crime, and they lose their right to vote. Then there could be another person who is in prison for, let’s say, murder, and they’ve lost their right to vote. How is it fair that both people in those circumstances both lose the right to vote? Those are not crimes of the same magnitude. There are victimless crimes. There are crimes that people commit that have no victims at all, and they still lose their right to vote. That should not be the same. If that is the rationale, that should not be held to the same standard as people who have created victims or taken somebody else’s life. The fact that it is so broad and so sweeping in terms of those blanket provisions is really deeply unfair. That’s exactly why the Attorney-General pointed out that there is that inconsistency.
The other thing is that disenfranchisement for prisoners. Did the Minister consider that, in the Corrections Act, one of the purposes and principles of the correctional system is supposed to be—[Time expired]
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to check with the Minister because in select committee, when we were considering the legislation, there was quite considerable debate that was related to the Government Amendment Paper pertaining to clause 11 of the bill. The way I understand the law, as it is, is that if a person is incarcerated, they can’t vote, but if they undergo a period of being mentally unwell—and that goes to the point where they need to go to a hospital, like a mental health facility—then they can vote. That’s the way I understood that. There was some discussion, and I understand there’s been a Government amendment to that.
I just want to clarify: for the purposes of the bill and the amendment, is the law staying the way it is? If you’re in jail and you’ve committed an offence, you can’t, but then you go through a period of being mentally unwell, and that deems that you are able then to vote; or does your amendment, which you proposed, mean people who are incarcerated and then put in a mental health facility still can’t vote? Are you confident that there’s sufficient checks and balances between the two systems to enable you to keep tabs on everyone when they’re going through those? One is our criminal justice system, obviously, one is our health system, and they don’t always speak to each other great. We, in the select committee and even the chair asked some very good questions around that. It did seem an interesting methodology or reasoning that someone who is not in a great space, in terms of their own mental health, is deemed to be eligible to vote when someone who might be in a better space mentally but is incarcerated would be deemed to be not able to vote.
As we know, quite often in our prisons, we have people who are on medication. When I’ve visited prisons, I’ve seen that, quite often, you have people who refuse to take their medication when in a prison facility; what then happens is that their wellbeing and their mental health erodes, and prisons are, actually, not able to require or force prisoners to take medication. There’s no ability to do that. That’s only able to be done in a health facility, under a health framework. What happens, very often—and I’ve found instances while visiting prisons—is that someone gets to a point where they’re no longer well, they go to a hospital, the hospital then can administer their medication to the point where they’re stabilised and able to be returned to the prison facility, where, then again, after a period of time, they refuse to take the medication. They go back and forwards often between a prison and a mental health facility.
The proposal here, where someone can’t vote when they’re in a prison but they can vote when they’re in a mental health facility—I am just interested to know if the Minister’s got any clarifications and if his amendment actually makes that any better?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes, the Amendment Paper actually restores the current approach to people who are detained, often on mental health grounds: if you're a detained person for more than three years you lose the right to vote, which is the current regime. The bill as introduced changed that and took away that, and the Amendment Paper brings that back so it maintains the current position around a three-year period.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): There’s still a bit to go, but I would encourage members, as I’ve said earlier today, it’s been my observation that committee of the whole House works much better when there are quick-fire questions to the Minister rather than filling up a five-minute space. I can assure you, a quick-fire session with the Minister, I will continue to give you the call until you’ve exhausted your questions for that round, OK?
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you. Just following on from the previous questions around the relationship between people held under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act—it's currently referenced as 1992—of course, there a bill going through the House that changes some of the duties and the delegations of the Director of Mental Health. There are more proactive reporting requirements and accountabilities.
I've just got a few questions regarding where the director is required to communicate with a person in a way the person can understand, at replacement section 86K, inserted by clause 12. I believe we have an amendment that would make explicit the requirement for translation services to be available. I will have to find the date stamp because we have a number of amendments. Just wondering if the Minister is going to agree that there is a requirement on the Director of Mental Health to have the communication be given in a way the person can receive, and that also refers to the sedation question raised by the Hon Ginny Andersen. Will there be a duty for them to make sure the person is not overly sedated at the point when the offer is made for them to register?
The more concerning question I have, if the Minister can please comment, is around the delegation in replacement section 86L(3): “A delegation must be in writing and may be revoked at any time.” It's a really passively written piece. There's quite a lot of power in that regarding the delegation, which is presumably from the Director of Mental Health to the other subordinates under them. It doesn't say that there has to be any reason given, and it can happen at any time.
I read that as limiting the rights of a person who might have asked for registration to vote, believes that the Director of Mental Health has actioned that, that has been delegated, and then suddenly out of the middle of nowhere there is this kind of all-empowering subsection (3) that says that that can be revoked. It doesn't say by who, and no reason is given. It's a very powerful clause. Would the Minister, please, explain why it's in there? If it's to protect the person, then it probably needs to be rewritten. Otherwise, would the Minister consider removing it?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In relation to communicating in a way that a person can reasonably expect to understand, my expectation is that Health and Corrections officials must communicate with people—prisoners—in a way that they can reasonably expect to be understood, to accommodate for each person's needs, when carrying out their functions and duties under the Electoral Act. This includes, where necessary, providing for particular language comprehension and reading need, neurodivergence, or particularly neurological and psychosocial needs. Front-line staff at Corrections and Health are best placed to make operational decisions about what those needs are and when they apply.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. In accordance with instructions, I will be brief and to the point. I would just say that we’re currently sitting on clauses 10 and 11 of the bill. Of course, in Part 1, there are 136 clauses and, given that it is an electoral bill, it is important that we examine them.
Very quickly, my first question is: in terms of restricting or disqualifying whether the Minister of Justice considered, as opposed to having that complete ban, just a reduction in the number of years of the term of sentencing—so two years or one year.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Which clause are you on?
VANUSHI WALTERS: Section 80(d)(i)(C), amended by clause 10(2)—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.
VANUSHI WALTERS: —is the one I’m looking at. It’s actually a question—I saw it and I wondered to myself, “Has the Minister considered, in terms of disqualification generally, rather than making it everybody, that someone who has under two years could still vote, or under one year—just bringing it down?”
The reason I ask is because the Attorney-General says that it kind of reiterates that court decision where it’s acknowledged that you can restrict the right to vote and it still be reasonable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA). Perhaps those would have been options for the Minister to potentially be compliant—just whether they were explored.
My other one is one of my favourite amendments. This was filed 10 December at 5.45 and 12 seconds. This proposes a repeal of this subpart on a finding of rights inconsistency with the BORA. Right now, if someone takes a declaration of inconsistency case to the courts, they can issue the declaration, it comes back to the House, and then the House’s time is spent re-examining things, etc. One other option is that the House could just direct that, if that happens, that is repealed automatically. The benefit of that is, essentially, saving some of the House’s time, but also trying to look at how we can develop rights and consistency law in New Zealand. Thank you.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In relation to the last point raised by Vanushi Walters, what has been proposed by an amendment to the electoral bill would amount to a fundamental constitutional change in this country, which is to say that, effectively, court decisions strike down legislation. It amazes me that a member would be suggesting that by way of an amendment to a bill; that is a fundamental constitutional change that we haven't made in this country. We hold the view that Parliament is ultimately fully accountable. The good thing about the election process is that every three years the people of New Zealand get a chance to have a say as to who is going to be accountable for that; we're not going to change those rules.
In relation to the comments from the member that we’re up to clause 10 of many parts, my understanding of the discussion in relation to a part is it's not a chronological matter that we work our way through clause by clause. It can be on any point, and we've been, obviously, having that discussion for quite some time now. The member raised another point, but I fail to recall what it was.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will trial the format you suggested. This is in relation to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 493. How many people is the Minister expecting will be captured as part of this amendment? Does he have a breakdown by age and ethnicity and or even region? If he does have an estimate, it would be good to hear it. If he does not have an estimate, it would be good to understand why he isn’t able to produce that. I’ve got more questions, but I’m going to trial the quick-fire exchange.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, I’ve remembered the other question that Vanushi Walters raised, which was: did the Government consider different options in terms of restricting voting rights to people in prison for two years or one year? Yes, we did consider that, and we came to the conclusion that all prisoners should be excluded after they’ve been sentenced. One of the conclusions of the long-term insights report into the prison population in New Zealand by the Department of Justice a couple of years ago was that most people who are sentenced in prison in New Zealand are there for serious crimes. It is an urban myth that the prisons are full of people who haven’t paid their parking fines or have done minor things. That is not the case. The vast majority of people in prison in New Zealand today are there for serious violent or sexual offending, and that is quite relevant.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m still seeking engagement on whether there’s an estimate of the number of people that are going to be captured by Amendment Paper 493.
Another quick-fire question ahead is: what level of engagement did the Minister of Justice have with the Minister for Mental Health in relationship to producing this amendment, and what feedback did he receive from the Minister in relationship to this amendment, if he did seek any feedback from the Minister? Clarity around that would be useful.
Just for clarity, the reason why I asked the previous question around the figures is because, looking at the explanatory note, that is not available. It would be good to understand, particularly from an ethnic and gender breakdown, if he does have any estimates on who’s getting captured by the amendment.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Just in relation to the question asked in terms of Amendment Paper 493 which relates to detained people, the numbers of detained people are very small: there are about 500 people found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible due to insanity, over the course of about 24 months. In terms of the ethnic breakdown and gender and so forth, I don’t have those figures to hand.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m still seeking engagement as to what level of feedback he sought or received from the Minister for Mental Health in developing this, based on the reality that this quite relates to powers that the Director of Mental Health has. I’m still seeking engagement on what feedback he received.
Finally, I also wanted to understand, in developing this amendment, whether he also—this is a new quick-fire question—engaged with any stakeholders on the ground who are mental health experts, and particularly around the components of the links between ill mental health and criminalisation. It would be useful to get a sense of what level of feedback he received from any stakeholders, if any, since we don’t have access to, for example, a departmental report or regulatory impact statement that has this amendment as part of it. We don’t have access to external feedback that would have been sought by the Minister in the development of these amendments. That’s why I’m asking that question.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In relation to feedback and consultation with the Minister of Health and indeed the Ministry of Health, of course that was very much part of the formulation of the policy and of course the Minister of Health was part of the Cabinet who agreed on these measures. In terms of the other matter that was raised—
Ricardo Menéndez March: Any external stakeholders?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: External stakeholders, yes. Well, in terms of the external stakeholders, the point I would make is that—
Ricardo Menéndez March: On the Amendment Paper.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On the Amendment Paper. The point is that the Amendment Paper restores the status quo. That is the current settings and has been for quite some time in relation to detained people. The bill has changed that, and on reflection, we came to the conclusion that it actually is better to stick with the status quo. It probably wasn’t a matter that particularly was worthy of comment if we’re sticking with the arrangements as they are.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to an amendment proposed to new section 86A, inserted by clause 12, and that’s in relation to the prison manager’s requirement to send notifications to the Electoral Commission with information about prisoner disqualification for registration. Currently, the proposal is to look at, basically, that administrative role and how to ensure that there is no additional administrative work in taking a prisoner off the roll and when restoring them to the roll when their sentence will end before polling day.
We did ask for information from officials on this in the Justice Committee when we were being briefed on the details. This section applies in respect of a prisoner who is over the age of 18; “a person who is described in section 80(1)(d) and who has been received into a prison to serve the whole or part of their sentence”; and “No later than 7 days after the prisoner is received into a prison, the prison manager [is required to] forward to the Electoral Commission a notice” that, basically, gives the name and date of birth of the prisoner and “the prisoner’s previous residential address or, if the prisoner has been transferred to the prison after previously being detained in a hospital or secure facility, the name and address of the hospital or secure facility in which that prisoner was detained;”.
The proposal is to really, I guess, facilitate a smoother flow of how we make sure that those records are kept up to date. The section would not apply if it is certain that the prisoner will not be detained in a prison on polling day—for example, if the polling date was set and the maximum period of time that the prisoner can be detained will expire before polling day. I would really like the Minister’s views on the proposal of that amendment, which would really ensure—in terms of the additional administrative burden already being placed upon a prison manager to notify the Electoral Commission—that there is no additional administrative work in taking a prisoner off the roll and then restoring them to the roll when their sentence will end before polling day.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re not there yet.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a set of amendments on clause 12, which I would like the Minister of Justice’s response to. They all involve just making sure someone senior is involved in the decision-making and accountability processes—that’s the amendment at 17.57 and 9 seconds on Wednesday, 10 December.
There’s a requirement about informing the prisoner—at 17.57 and 1 second—so just ensuring that that’s done in writing when updates are being made in terms of their enrolment status. Likewise, at 17.57.02—so that’s a compliance provision. And then 17.57.03 is also in relation to clause 12, where it inserts, after the word “may”, “after their release, apply to the Electoral Commission for registration as an elector of an electoral district”, and before the word “and” adds the words “but must do so when they turn 18”. That’s just to ensure that the young person has clarity about their obligations when they turn 18. That’s a clause that’s about a 17-year-old, but I think it’s actually a perfect opportunity for us to ensure that they know that that requirement is there.
There are other amendments also in relation to clause 12. All of these—Madam Chair and to the Minister—I do think are useful, practical amendments that would help clarify the law and still serve the purpose that the Minister is looking to achieve. There’s another one around ensuring that the prisoner knows the difference about being enrolled on the general roll versus the Māori roll; so they have the option to select, but there there’s no obligation to inform them about the difference. Again, just ensuring that these practical things are done, ensuring they know about enrolling and having their details on the unpublished roll and just thinking about the cohort of individuals who we could be thinking about. They may have issues where they do want their details to be kept confidential on departing prison but still be on the roll.
It’s that information obligation, and there are several more going to—let me give you the last one so that you can view them as a collective. The last one in terms of that cohort was filed on the 10 December, 17.57 and 10 seconds. Thank you.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to those amendments, they all deal with particular matters in relation to the administration of the Act. The Government does not intend to support those amendments. We have every confidence the procedures outlined in the legislation are clear and effective; and officials have consulted the affected agencies such as Health and Corrections; and the Electoral Commission advises that the changes are not prohibitively burdensome and could be incorporated into regular intake, induction, or discharge processes as drafted in this bill.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move on to a different area, and it's about the treating offences, and it's about trying to understand what the Minister meant by not accepting the Independent Electoral Review recommendation which suggested just repealing treating offences. I absolutely support the avoidance of bribery, but treating manaakitanga, welcoming people, without having any intent to encourage them to vote a particular way—and given we have secret ballots, you wouldn't know whether they'd just come for the sausage or were just going to vote whatever way they were going to anyway. Why did you not listen to the Independent Electoral Review?
I'd also like to go a little bit further and say, does “drink”, in this instance, include drinking water as well? I mean, here we are in the House; we're all very well hydrated thanks to the staff, but if we have a hot day for the election, would somebody not be allowed to provide water to those voters?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, Madam Chair, I can answer the member: we were staggered with the recommendation to do away with rules in relation to treating. I think people who read their history will look back into earlier periods of, certainly, British history, where beer and pies and money were available to people to encourage them to vote for a particular person. Yes, we have a secret ballot, but we don't think that's a useful way that we should go; and if people are being encouraged to come and vote with a piece of pizza in a particular area from a particular party, we think that would be a very unhelpful thing to be encouraging in this country and would be a very negative step, so we wanted to clarify the rules around treating.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m looking at the new section 89CB inserted by clause 25 “Electoral Commission may remove person’s name from dormant roll and register person as [an] elector”. New section 89CB(2)(d) says, “that the proposed action in paragraph (c) will be taken after the expiry of 28 days from the date on which the notification is sent (the notice period) unless before the end of the notice period the person provides in writing such evidence as may be necessary to satisfy the Electoral Commission that the proposed action should not be taken.”
I’m just wondering whether there ought to be an amendment to this that says that the change can be made earlier with the consent of the person concerned. It just feels to me like it’s almost worded as if it’s assumed that there won’t be communication between the individual and the Electoral Commission. Could there be an opportunity to allow for some affirmative wishes to be expressed, which shorten that time period and would just clarify things. I mean, I appreciate that the bill is anchored to this idea of timeliness, so it just seemed like it would be an appropriate thing to do.
The other part I was looking at was clause 26, amending section 87, in regard to the delivery “to the applicant (personally or by post) a written notice” and replacing that with “give written notice to the applicant”. I’m just actually wondering about what the practical implications will be for individuals. Is the idea that, from here on in, individuals will only be receiving electronic communication about the status of their registration and whether they’re on the dormant roll or not, or is the intention that, in each instance, there will be an individualised assessment of what the best means of communication would be for that particular individual, and thereby give some flexibility? I’d just be concerned that, for many people, having an email arrive as the method of communication is not going to be the best form for them to be able to engage and, potentially, correct some errors.
The reason I stopped on this clause is because it’s a particular matter that the Electoral Commission did speak to us about. They talked about an instance where an individual had gone from the normal roll on to the dormant roll because they’d been sent some correspondence and the time period had expired, they hadn’t replied, and so they’d been moved to the dormant roll. The person hadn’t moved whatsoever. They then got in touch with the Electoral Commission and kind of went hands up in the air “What’s going on? I should be on the regular roll here.”
I’m just anticipating that the Minister might say that this is an administrative matter, which it is, but sometimes the method of communication can be quite significant in terms of determining whether someone stays on the roll or not—remembering that, once you’re on the dormant roll, then, after a period of time, you lapse off that roll as well. There could be people who have not moved where it’s assumed that they have moved, go on to the dormant roll, have no idea that they need to register, have maybe received an email because that’s the new means of communication, and just completely missed it
I’m curious about what the assessment was. What does he understand the direction will be? Will there be an individual assessment? What protections are there to ensure that correspondence really does get to those people?
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am looking for new material and moving on through this. We’ve slogged this particular issue out for a while.
GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I knew you were going to say that.
GLEN BENNETT: I just want to clarify, because we have been very methodical on this side of the Chamber. We actually skipped from clause 12 right through to clause 25 just now, and I guess, in terms of looking at Speaker’s ruling 68/4 when a bill is in urgency, which I know you would understand, but I just want to share to my colleagues across the floor that there are 136 clauses in Part 1; we are at 25—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And your point of order is?
GLEN BENNETT: It is just that, please, we are doing our best on this side to ensure that we are being methodical—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, yes. I haven’t shut down the debate, Mr Bennett.
GLEN BENNETT: Are you looking for new material?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am looking for new material, yes.
GLEN BENNETT: Which I just think we gave you.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I’ve got some awesome material, Madam Chair. When we’re looking at all of the new sections, which are 89CA and 98CB, I want to ask a general question for the Minister because this has come up a number of times and it’s come up in other legislation as well. The problem that we are facing is how people are notified. If you’re upping the stakes, if you’re saying someone’s not going to be able to vote over a certain period, you’re really increasing the weight of how communication is delivered. We know, well and truly, that the postal system is pretty broken right now. We know a lot of people don’t check their mail regularly; some people can go for quite a long period of time. We also know that depending on what your email situation is, people can receive multiple emails and not respond.
In situations here where the Electoral Commission is updating electors’ addresses on the electoral roll without receipt of notice from the elector, if you’re waiting on how this is done, I want to know from the Minister—and it’s for this bill, but it’s also in general for people to understand that if we’re going to be upping the stakes, whether it’s penalties or not being able to register to vote or having things up to date, we need reliable forms of communication. Currently, the postal system isn’t that, and I’m not sure that email’s that much better, to be honest.
What I’d like to understand is if the Electoral Commission is going to remove someone’s name from the dormant roll or not—these are pretty big stakes if it’s going to mean that you can’t actually turn up and vote on the day. Is he satisfied that the current means of communication are actually robust enough for us to be upping these stakes? Even—indulge me if you will, Madam Chair: what is the future? What is the future for New Zealand of how we’re going to effectively communicate to voters about having their details up to date? Is it some kind of ID on your phone? What is it?
The way that we’re heading now with this is that you are disenfranchising a whole bunch of people from being able to vote who might not have an email, who might not have a post box, who might not have a telephone, who might not have these things because they can’t afford it under the current cost of living crisis. How are we ensuring that there is clear communication with people if you’re raising these stakes when some of the key means of communication, because of a number of reasons, are not as reliable as what they were in the past?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I agree with the member in terms of the very significant changes that have happened in terms of postal voting—people’s use of postage generally. That is why this bill makes significant changes to reduce the requirements around everything being done by post in circumstances and enabling communications to be had through text messages and also email. The good news is that people are more able to communicate now than ever, but they’re communicating in different ways and that is why this bill is more enabling of that to happen.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm looking at clause 28, “Section 89D amended (Inquiry to be made to update electoral rolls)”. When I read this, I thought it was interesting that the clause says: “The Electoral Commission must make an inquiry into the particulars on the roll for every person registered as an elector of a district at the following times: (a) if practicable, within the period of 12 months ending with the day on which a Parliament is due to expire; and … at any other time determined by the Electoral Commission.” What I found interesting is that it's only if it's practicable to do within a period of 12 months ending with the day on which Parliament's due to expire. It does, of course, also give the commission the power to make those inquiries at any point, but I would have thought that it would be useful for a statutory direction to be explicit.
I would also have thought that a period of within 12 months is quite broad, and that's sufficiently broad where you wouldn't need to include that qualifier because, actually, that's a substantial period of time and, indeed, the Electoral Commission should be making that review as well.
Just within the same clause, as well, in clause 28(4) there's a reference to insert “some or all of” in place of, essentially, “all of” which is the primary piece of legislation that it's replacing. I've actually proposed removing “some” because I think all of the information should be considered and sent through. I think, from memory of the primary legislation, this is about the individual concerned being given information about findings of an inquiry: the fact of an inquiry and then findings of an inquiry. The amendment to give them “some or all of” the information relating to it just seems to me to be potentially in breach of their rights to obtain that information. So just proposing that those matters are considered for the Minister and keen to hear his answers. Otherwise, I have some other matters in further clauses that I'd very much like to put to the Minister.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Fernando Hernandez.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair—thank you, Madam Chair. I will seek a quick call. I just wanted to get a clarification from the Minister on his reply to my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March. Can I just confirm that the Ministry of Health submitted in support of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 493. My second question is—and this wasn’t answered by the Minister—I asked earlier about what the threshold of registration was, and whether that was at the beginning or whether the registration had to be complete, for the purpose of registration.
I’ve got a couple of clauses I’ve got questions on—clause 18 and clause 20. Why were occupations and preferred honorifics deleted? And do preferred honorifics cover titles like “Mr” and “Mrs”, or is it just fancier titles like “Your Worship”, and that kind of thing?
I’ve got a question around new section 216(2)(c), which is inserted by clause 43, around where a person “gives … money to, or procures any benefit for, any person for that person to induce any voter to—”. The way that provision is worded kind of makes it seem like it might be possible for that to capture campaign staff, for example. I mean, they’re not bribing people to vote, but they’re certainly encouraging people to go out and vote. So what’s the threshold for inducement in that clause?
I’ll close by asking a question around clause—and this is leaping ahead—82, which replaces section 145. In new section 145(2)(c)—this is page 44—I’m interested in the threshold of “commonly known”, the name by which the candidate was commonly known throughout the period of 12 months. Obviously, some of us might have names that are only known amongst certain communities, for example. Some members of the Filipino community know me as “Kiko”, for example, but I think the only member of Parliament here who knows me by that name is my colleague Paulo Garcia, across the aisle from here. So what is the threshold for “commonly known”?
So those are my five questions that I’ve asked and I’m happy to repeat them, but I’ll sit down now. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, I must apologise to the member—it’s a flashback to my Abba days. I haven’t unprogrammed the name, so my apologies, Franciso Hernandez.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The question was why requirements to collect occupation information were being removed. Of course, the occupation doesn’t affect whether anybody is eligible to vote or not. It’s not necessary to collect that for enrolment purposes, it’s inefficient to do so, and we’re taking it down. [Government members seek the call]
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m only entertaining you standing up because I know it’s good for your health, but I’m not going to take a closure just yet. Celia Wade-Brown.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions and potential amendments about donations. I wondered what the reason for not reducing the amount of disclosure that needed to be disclosed was. I mean, $6,000 is a very large amount of money for most people in New Zealand, and we thought that $1,000 would be a highly appropriate limit, or $2,000, so that we were clear where influence was coming from.
The other amendment that I’ve suggested, and I’d like the Minister’s opinion on, is the idea that only individuals should be able to make direct donations to parties, in the interest of reducing influence of corporates. Please, Minister, advise me on your thoughts.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): I’m at clause 33; this is in replacement section 99, “Notice of alterations to roll”. This is a proposal for clarification and again, it relates to timeliness. The current clause 99 says, “If the name of a person is removed from the roll under any of the provisions in section 98(1) (d) to (i), the Electoral Commission must, in accordance with subsection (3) or (4), give written notice to the person that their name has been removed from the roll.” It repeats a similar ask in replacement section 99(2) of that same section. So, again, my view here is that, actually, this individual should know this in the speediest way possible, so I’ve just proposed adding “within a reasonable period of time” in terms of that direction.
Again, I think because it’s electoral law, it warrants this happening, but also because we have heard of—well, one, what the Electoral Commission told us, but I think all of us are also very cognisant, as we went through the local body elections, that a number of people were raising issues of what they called dropping off the roll. I suspect it was possibly also a mixture of people dropping off the dormant role, potentially—so people who felt they had been enrolled fell into the dormant role and then fell off that as well.
Again, these communications are extremely important and there’s an opportunity for us to give statutory direction here, which potentially might help rectify the situation. I did put in some Official Information Act requests to the Electoral Commission on how they were responding to those complaints—well, whether they’ve received any complaints about people dropping off the roll, and if so, what they were doing to try and rectify that. I must admit, the responses I got seem to indicate that there was an assumption that that’s what was happening: people had enrolled, fallen into the dormant role, and then fallen off that roll. All entirely lawful, so no flaws with the system whatsoever. It didn’t sound like there has been active investigation into whether it could have been a systems flaw.
I know for some MPs that I’ve spoken to, they talked about people who were very on to it, who were very sure that they were registered and it wasn’t a dormant roll issue. So again, this is a notice of alteration to the roll. It’s a very key provision. Again, I think we should give some direction. My suggestion of language, again, I thought was pretty reasonable: “within a reasonable period of time”. I had considered putting “urgently” or “with haste” or within a set number of days to make sure that it was a very clear direction that this should be done very, very quickly, but I think “within a reasonable period of time” is quite reasonable. So I’d hope that the Minister would be willing to consider that as well.
I do have a set of amendments on clause 37 that the Minister would have seen that I filed on Thursday, 11 December that I’d like to speak to. Again, these are all very practical amendments. They don’t challenge the direction that the Government has decided to go in. I understand that I have challenged the position that the Government has taken on the principle and the substance of this bill, especially in my second reading speech. However, you know, I’m a practical person, and at the end of the day, I want to make sure that if we are passing this legislation, we give it some precision and we ensure that where there are vague terms, especially if we have hit issues around timeliness in the past, that we rectify that with some very clear direction to the Electoral Commission as they navigate how they’re going to communicate in this new system with potential electors.
So very interested to hear if the Minister will consider what is an administrative solution but I think is also extremely important. Thank you.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m advised from my own memory that the Electoral Commission throughout the inquiry and then the consideration of the bill, have been pushing for things like automatic update of enrolments and improvements to administrative systems for a while. They were supportive of these kinds of changes and they are ready and willing to make the administrative changes needed to make that on the operational side. So as long as we agree to make the changes in the bill, we will be able to allow them to get on and do that.
Hon Members: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, I did make a commitment to go back to the former speaker if she had some more questions on that line of questioning.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do, so I did want to just speak to some of the amendments that I've put forward. These are amendments that start at 10 December, 4.32 p.m. on the dot—so no seconds, just 4.32. I'm looking at—let me see—the advanced polling section, which we haven't got to yet. This is Subpart 6, and it speaks to advanced polling spaces.
My first amendment is in relation to clause 37. Clause 37 sounds like a small clause, but, actually, it inserts, after section 171, new sections 171A to 171E and a crossheading. It's quite significant, so I'm sure there might be others who also have questions in this part, as it's quite significant and inserts multiple sections. Clause 37, new section 171C, subsection (1): I am proposing to replace “in any electoral district or districts” with “across all electorates”. The reason for this is—so this is the provision that allows the shortening of the advanced polling period, so, again, it's a really constitutionally significant thing. New Zealand's not unfamiliar with things that might happen that are unexpected, whether that be weather events or other emergencies. One can only imagine that, if such an event happened while we were in the middle of this advanced polling period, then it would absolutely have the potential to impact New Zealand. The suggestion here is that, perhaps, we could look at an event only that spans the whole of New Zealand due to a location-specific disruption in one district.
That's how I've worded it; that it doesn't preclude the fact that there might be something—a weather event that only effects Auckland, for example, as we've had, of course, in the in the recent past—and because of that event in Auckland, it would impact services across the country such that people would be pulled into Auckland to assist with various things in that space. It wouldn't be possible or even fair to conduct an election across the country and then potentially limit only a portion of voters to a shortened period of time—and so you may want to, for fairness’ sake, allow a shortening, but a shortening that applied to the whole country, and that could be something that the Minister could consider.
I also filed an amendment, also on the Thursday 11 December, at 5.45.14 p.m. This one is in relation to clause 37, new section 171C. You'll remember, of course, that this one inserts new sections 171A to 171E. This is in relation to 171C(2), where I've proposed replacing “electoral district or districts be” with “electoral district or districts affected by the disruption of, if the electoral officer considers the disruption is of such magnitude as to require it across all electoral districts”. This is just a point that I don't believe that it's appropriate to shorten the advanced polling period across the whole all of New Zealand due to a location-specific disruption in one district, unless there has been some thought to whether that's appropriate or not. It's just weaving in a little bit of discretion in terms of the nature of the event, whether it's a weather event or another event. The other possibility that it could be is some sort of security or security and intelligence event, where there is some uncertainty about whether particular booths in the country can open for the full period, or whether all of them, by means of caution, should be closed or the period should be shortened—and so allowing for that decision to be made using this discretion could be quite important.
I do have some other amendments in relation to clause 37, as well, which I'm happy to continue with unless the Minister would like to respond to those two.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Madam Chair. We don't support these amendments, because the current drafting, as it's formatted, allows for disruptions in one or more electorate, which include the whole country.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. The next one that I had in terms of clause 37 was filed at 4:32:02. This one is in relation to the title of new section 171D. I’m sure everyone’s following along. This is on page 27, lines 26 and 27. The proposal is to replace new section 171C with new sections 171C and 171E, and in clause 37, new section 171D—that’s page 27, lines 26 to 234—replace new section 171C with new sections 171C and 171E. Here, as I’ve put in the explanatory note, the considerations relevant to unforeseen or unavoidable disruption should be clear for both before and after the advanced voting period. Again, if there are changes that are going to be made, we need to be very clear about the criteria against which we’re saying that can happen. Also, it would make sense for those to be the same criteria in essence, because we’re trying to do the same thing. We’re trying to protect people’s safety, we’re trying to ensure the integrity of the vote, and we are trying to ensure that we’ve been fair to the democratic vote.
I see Madam Chair telling me to be brief, so I will just also reference Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment to clause 37 because I’m sure he would like me to do that. His proposal in clause 37 is actually to delete new section 171E, saying that it’s not appropriate to shorten the advanced voting period due to disruption. If anything, it should be extended. Disruption is likely to make it harder to vote, and shortening the period would mean even fewer electors, again, would get the chance to vote. I just didn’t want to acknowledge that because I think I was trying to draft to accommodate the Government’s intent, and Dr Duncan Webb has made the excellent point that, actually, maybe it’s not appropriate at all to shorten the advanced voting period due to a disruption. I would tend to favour his as a priority and then mine perhaps as a backup. Thank you.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Madam Chair. We don’t support this amendment, because the current drafting of those clauses actually reflects or mirrors the existing provisions for polling day, and so we want consistency for advance voting for polling day.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m moving to the amendment filed at 4.32.01, in relation to clause 37, replacing new section 171E with a new drafting, which I’ll read out in a moment. I do want to acknowledge that the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, just said he wasn’t going to accept those previous amendments; this one’s different. This amendment just proposes linking the decision making to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. So it says, “The advance polling period in section 171B may be curtailed under section 195B if an unforeseen or unavoidable disruption occurs and a state of national, or local, emergency relating to the disruption has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 after the commencement of the advance polling period.”
The reason I thought this was important is, you know, allowing curtailing on—while I agree with Dr Webb’s amendment, given the Minister’s not going to accept that, I’m going to have another go at some rationale in terms of some guidance for the decision making, here. You could have a list of criteria on when a decision maker can make a decision to curtail, or you could link it to an existing piece of legislation which already sets out the kinds of circumstances where we would consider an emergency to exist. My view is that there’s great value in consistency across the law. We do have the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act already, so, potentially, that could be something that we could link this decision making to.
I do have others, so I’ll continue on while I still have some time. The next one I filed in relation to clause 37 was at 4.32.03 seconds. This is in relation to clause 37 again, but it is replacing new section 171E—this is at page 28, lines 1 to 5—with a new 171E, “Polling period may be extended if unforeseen or unavoided disruption occurs after commencement of advance polling period”. I’m now moving to an approach on the extension of the polling period, as opposed to curtailing it, so quite different from the points that I was raising earlier, just for the room who are following. The amendment says “Notwithstanding section 171B, the Chief Electoral Officer may, if unforeseen or unavoidable disruption occurs after the commencement of the advance polling, direct that the advance polling period be extended by up to 7 days after polling day.”
I’m going to stop there for a minute to explain that. The reason I chose seven days is that, obviously, we can’t propose an indefinite extension. There are still other electoral rules in terms of the return of the writ, although that, in theory, could potentially be extended—I’m guessing by prerogative—in the case of a natural disaster, and there are rules about when Parliament must sit again, but I put the seven days in there. That is entirely open to debate, and I very much welcome engagement on whether that’s the appropriate number of days or not.
The remainder of the amendment says, “Before making a direction under subsection (1), the Chief Electoral Officer must—(a) consult—(i) the Prime Minister; and (ii) the Leader of the Opposition; and (iii) any person or organisation that in the Chief Electoral Officer’s opinion is able to give information about the scale and duration of the unforeseen or unavoidable disruption; and (b) be satisfied that the direction is necessary in all of the circumstances. (3) If the Chief Electoral Officer makes a direction under subsection (1), then the other provisions of this Act shall apply.”
I’ll just stop before reading the full thing out, but my point, really, here is that those consultation requirements should be the same for the curtailing of a voting period as well as the extension of the period.
Arena Williams: I think they should be different.
VANUSHI WALTERS: Right now they are different.
Arena Williams: But different the other way.
VANUSHI WALTERS: I hear my colleague Arena Williams may want to make the counter argument. I’m going to, for now, stand by my proposal, but I’m willing to be convinced.
Arena Williams: Let me convince you.
Helen White: Can I weigh in on that, too.
VANUSHI WALTERS: Actually I’d, I’d very much like to hear Arena, and Helen White also has a view on this. I think this is very important, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): There are a number of private areas out the back that the two Labour caucus colleagues could have their dispute and then come to a joined up resolution. But I’ll address the two main questions. The first one was around unforeseeable, unavoidable disruptions. That is already defined in the Electoral Act, and to connect it to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act could unnecessarily restrain the ability to curtail for a particular reason. There are many examples, that I’m sure the member could think of, as to why you wouldn’t want to connect it to the civil defence Act, there may be things outside that Act that would warrant curtailing.
The second question around extension. The policy intent, for both this section and the Electoral Act itself, has always been that the advance voting period should not—and essentially cannot, by definition—extend beyond polling day, because otherwise it’s not advance voting. The reason for that is to avoid, as the member asked and answered, extending the writ itself. So that’s the answer to those two questions.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Look, I’ve been watching this debate for three hours, and I’ve noticed that the quick questions have turned into speeches. My tolerance will not be long at 11.05 p.m. in the evening. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, do you have short, brief questions?
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Short, quick-fire on two very distinct parts.
BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. The first one for the Minister is on clause 43, under Subpart 7, “Offences”. The first question I have for the Minister is this. I understand in terms of the offences that have been mentioned in these subparts, but what is the monitoring mechanism that is going to be required to monitor the offences?
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): The same monitoring mechanisms that are currently used for other offences in the Electoral Act.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Cool. Awesome. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll keep going. This is really, really interesting because, for example, how are the current monitoring avenues able to monitor offences that are now incurred under Subpart 7 from languages or from communities that the Electoral Commission, for example, doesn’t have access to?
Let me give an example. During the cannabis referendum, I noticed that in Chinese social media on WeChat, people were advertising that if voters were voting against the referendum, they would get a discount at their store. That was never picked up by the Electoral Commission, and it wasn’t until it was reported to the Electoral Commission that that was deemed to be unacceptable—which is my question. Now that we’re seeing more of these offences, how is it going to be expanded to cover these sorts of media?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ginny Andersen, do you have a brief question?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I do. I have a question in relation to the proposed amendment to add new subsections (2) and (3), and this is pertaining to clause 37, inserting new sections 171A to 171E.
Subsection (3) of new section 171C applies where the Chief Electoral Officer takes any action under section 195B, if only able to do so under subsection (1), and where this subsection applies is the Chief Electoral Officer must, before taking any action referred to, consult all those people. This proposed new power under new section 171E is quite a significant one and therefore it deserves, we think, to be coupled with some quite clear protections. This amendment provides some of those protections so I'm really interested to hear the acting Minister's view on whether those protections would be adding to this bill. They are modelled on those under the new section 171C to provide consistency. So we think this is quite a reasonable suggestion to strengthen the current bill.
I also have one other question—excuse me, Madam Chair, but if you have been watching the debate, we've moved quite quickly and I've actually been trying to ask a question that I'd really like answered. I agree if you want to rule it out, but it actually related into Subpart 5 where we were discussing method of delivery. My question, to be answered if possible—I'd appreciate it—is under that Subpart 5, “Electronic delivery of registration processes”. We've received a number of briefings in the Justice Committee, over time, around how, with the increase of bad actors in the internet domain, democracy is, particularly, attacked and there are certain nation States that have a vested interest in undermining democracy. If we have a reliance on our electoral roll using electronic delivery of registration processes, I would be interested to know if the Minister has a view: whether he thinks that that doesn't unnecessarily expose our democracy by using emails for confirmation of delivery or whether that exposes us to any threats that are currently—we know that there's a whole lot of issues in this space, and whether or not moving to the email system potentially compromises the integrity of our electoral system.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Just to address Dr Xu-Nan’s question, essentially, the monitoring will be undertaken in the same way that it is currently undertaken and has been undertaken for a number of years, which is, essentially, electoral law is a complaints-based system. The Electoral Commission will receive complaints and investigate them, and when those complaints are from people who are making them or referring to advertisements or communications in other languages, those language translation services are available to the Electoral Commission to investigate them.
Just in terms of the member Ginny Andersen’s question around whether there are sufficient protections and safeguards in new sections 171A to 171E, yes, we think the protections are sufficient and don’t need to be strengthened any further.
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 (Barbara Kuriger): I request that members do not speak during voting. Some of the comments that went on—this is not a bill that is all stages under urgency. It has had a select committee, and I did ask for brief questions and that wasn’t what I was getting.
The question is that Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493, to delete the amendment to clause 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493, amending clause 11A, new section 86AA, 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493, amending clause 11A, new section 86AA(2)(b), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493, amending clause 11A, new section 86AA, to insert new subsection (3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a), to replace “advise the person” with “assist the person” 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a), to insert new subparagraph (ia) 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a)(ii), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I would just ask that members—and at this stage I’m not going to request in anyone’s name—vote promptly. There are 23 pages of voting to be done here, so in the interests of time, it would be nice if people could be as prompt as possible with their votes.
The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a), to insert new subparagraph (iia) 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a), to insert new subparagraph (iii) 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB, to insert new subsection (3A) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB, to insert new subsection (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAC, is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAC(1)(a), to replace “advise the person that” with “assist the person with” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A to replace new section 86AAF be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAF, to delete “can reasonably be expected to” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAF, to include reference to “the use of a personal representative” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAF, to include reference to “any disability to the person may have” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAF, to include reference to “what languages the person speaks” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAG, to include the word “senior” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAG(2), to replace “may carry out” with “must carry out” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAG(2), to insert “must” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAG, to insert subsections (5) and (6) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 493 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 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 474 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we are about to vote on an Amendment Paper that proposes to amend a reserved provision of the Electoral Act 1993. Reserved provisions may only be amended if they are agreed to by 75 percent of the members of the House, which would be 93 members.
The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 475 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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): Vanushi Walters’ amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 492 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
Members, again, we are about to vote on a tabled amendment that proposes to amend a reserved provision of the Electoral Act 1993. Reserved provisions may only be amended if they are agreed to by 75 percent of the members of the House, which would be 93 members.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, section 3(1), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to replace clause 4(1), set out on Amendment Paper 486, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we have a number of amendments from Vanushi Walters, Celia Wade-Brown, and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to clause 4(2), proposing to replace the number of days before polling day specified in the definition of “close of registration”. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I will put the question on a representative selection of those amendments to test the will of the committee.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 4(2) set out on Amendment Paper 449, moving the deadline for close of registration from the 13th day before polling day to the 12th day, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 4(2) set out on Amendment Paper 455, moving the deadline for close of registration from the 13th day before polling day to the 6th day, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 4(2) set out on Amendment Paper 448, moving the deadline for close of registration from the 13th day before polling day to the day before polling day, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to replace “13th day before polling day” with “day of the polling day” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 4(2) in so far as they replace the number of days before polling day specified in the definition of “close of registration”. The will of the committee having been tested, Vanushi Walters’ remaining amendments to clause 4(2), set out on Amendment Papers 450 to 454 and 456 to 460 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to clause 4(2) set out on Amendment Papers 476 and 477 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to replace “13th day before polling day” with “day before the polling day” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to delete section 3(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 4A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendments deleting clauses 5 and 7 set out on Amendment Paper 489 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment deleting clause 5(1) set out on Amendment Paper 487 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment deleting clause 5(3) set out on Amendment Paper 488 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A to insert section 72(3A) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing subsection (2) of section 74, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 6, inserting subsection (2A) into section 74, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, section 88(1), to replace “Electoral Commission may not” with “Electoral Commission may” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting words beginning “unless the individual has ceased to be disqualified” into new section 88(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting words beginning “unless the applicant has turned 18” into new section 88(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting words beginning “unless there are circumstances that would create manifest injustice” into new section 88(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Members, we have a number of amendments from Vanushi Walters to clause 7 proposing to replace “close of registration” in new section 88(1) with alternative dates. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I’ll put the question on a representative selection of these amendments to test the will of the committee.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 7 amending new section 88(1) and (2) to replace “after the close of registration” with “after the close of the 12th day before polling day” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 7 amending new section 88(1) and (2) to replace “after the close of registration” with “after the close of the 6th day before polling day” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 7 amending new section 88(1) and (2) to replace “after the close of registration” with “after the close of the day before polling day” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 7 in so far as it amends new section 88(1) to replace “after the close of registration” with an alternative date. The will of the committee having been tested, Vanushi Walters’ remaining nine tabled amendments to the clause are ruled out of order.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 7(3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Members, we have a number of amendments from Vanushi Walters to clause 7(5) proposing to replace “close of registration” with alternative dates. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I’ll put the question on a representative selection of those amendments to test the will of the committee.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7(5) replacing “the close of registration” with “the close of the 12th day before polling day” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7(5) replacing “the close of registration” with “the close of the 6th day before polling day” be agreed to.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7(5) replacing “the close of registration” with “the close of the day before polling day” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave of the House to suspend voting and resume voting at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?
Hon Members: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 7(5) in so far as they amend section 88(3) to propose an alternative date for the registration date. The will of the committee having been tested, Vanushi Walters’ remaining nine tabled amendments proposing such changes to clause 7(5) are ruled out of order.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to delete clause 7(5) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 53
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 7(5) is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting subsection (1AA) into section 89 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 8, section 89(1B), to replace “1 month” with “1 week” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 9 set out on Amendment Paper 478 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment deleting clause 9 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Tamatha Paul’s remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 478 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 9A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clauses 9 and 12 set out on Amendment Paper 479 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Tamatha Paul’s remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 479 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment deleting clause 10 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 10 replacing new section 80(1)(d) set out on Amendment Paper 490 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 10(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10(2), section 80(1)(d)(i), to delete subparagraph (C) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 10(3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 10 replacing “not later than the fifth day of the month following the date of the conviction” with words beginning “not later than 10 days” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 10 inserting new subsection (2A) into section 80 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Before I take the next vote, it could be sleep talk at this time of the morning but there’s a little bit of noise starting to creep in while there’s votes taking place. If we could just be a little bit quieter, please.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendments to clause 10 inserting new subsection (1B) into section 80 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 10A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to delete clause 11 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 11A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12, inserting the word “senior”, is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment deleting clause 12 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12, section 86A(2), to replace “No later than 7 days” with “No less than 3 years” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subsection (3) into new section 86A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 86AB(2)(a)(ii), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 deleting new section 86B is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting the words “in writing” into new section 86B(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting the words “in writing” into the new section 86B(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting the words “in writing” into new section 86C(1)(a) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12, section 86C(1)(a), to replace “advise the prisoner that” with “assist the prisoner with” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subparagraph (iii) into new section 86C(1)(a) with words beginning “but must do so when they turn 18” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subparagraph (iii) into new section 86C(1)(a) with words beginning “about the difference between enrolling” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subparagraph (iv) into new section 86C(1)(a) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 12 inserting subsection (3) into new section 86C be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 12 replacing new section 86D is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting new section 86D(5) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting words beginning “this includes having regard to disabilities” into new section 86F be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 Vanushi Walter’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting words beginning “this includes having regard to the mother tongue” into new section 86F be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 12 replacing new section 86F be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 amendments to clause 12, new section 86G, are out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12, section 86G(2), to replace “may carry out” with “must carry out” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 12, section 86G(2), to insert “must” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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): Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 12, new section 86H(2), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 86H(2)(a)(ii), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 amending new section 86H(2)(a)(iii) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 86I is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.
The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 86K is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subsection 3(a) into new section 86L is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new section 83A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new section 83B is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new section 83C is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new section 83D be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 14 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 17 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 19 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 20 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 21 is 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 22 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 22A inserting subsection (6AB) into section 82 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 22A inserting subsection (6AC) into section 82 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 23 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 24 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 25 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-King.
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 Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 89CB(2)(d), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 26 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 27 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 28 replacing paragraph (a) of new section 89(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(1)(a), to delete “if practicable” to be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(1)(a), to replace “12” with “8” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is the Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(1)(a), to replace “12” with “9” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(1)(a), to replace “12” with “10” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(2), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party od Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 28(3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to delete clause 28(5) is 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 30 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 31 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 31 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 33 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 33, new section 99(1), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 33, new section 99(2), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 35, definition of advance voter, set out on Amendment Paper 491 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to delete clause 36 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171B, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37 replacing “in any electoral district or districts” with “across all electoral districts” in new section 171C(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171C, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171C(2), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 37, new section 171D be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171D be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171D, to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the accessibility of polling venues be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): I must say, I have noticed I’ve just flipped the page. My voice is still going, and the whips are having an awesome workout. I think the Green Party’s having a bigger workout than everyone else because they have to jump up twice.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171D, to insert new paragraph (e) regarding ensuring all eligible are able to exercise their vote be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 37 deleting new section 171E be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, replacing new section 171E, regarding curtailment of the polling period where a declaration of national or local emergency has been declared be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, replacing new section 171E, regarding curtailment of the polling period by the Chief Electoral Officer be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, replacing new section 171E, regarding extending the polling period be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 38 inserting words beginning “and special votes” into new section 174C(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 43 inserting new section 216(2A) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 43 inserting new section 216(2B) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment replacing clause 44 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 44 inserting subclause (3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to clause 44(1) set out on Amendment Paper 480 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to clause 46 replacing new section 218A(2) set out on Amendment Paper 481 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 46 replacing “business” with “activity” in new section 218A(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 46 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 46 replacing “100 metres” with “50 metres” in new section 218A(4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 46 inserting new section 218A(5) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendments to clause 46 inserting new section 218B be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 48 replacing new section 205C is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.
The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 49 is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.
The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 50 is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.
The question is that Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 51 inserting subsection (11) into new section 266A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 52 replacing “3” with “5” in new section 4D(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 52 inserting paragraph (d) into new section 4D(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 52 inserting subsection (1A) into new section 4D be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 52 inserting subsection (1B) into new section 4D is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 52 inserting subsection (1C) into new section 4D is 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 56 inserting subsection (2A) into section 63 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 57 inserting paragraphs (c) and (d) into new section 64 is 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 58 inserting subsection (2) into new section 71BA be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 64 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment inserting new clause 67A set out on Amendment Paper 482 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 69 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 89 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment inserting new clause 118A set out on Amendment Paper 483 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment inserting new clause 118B set out on Amendment Paper 484 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to clause 119 set out on Amendment Paper 485 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,100” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,200” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,300” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,400” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,500” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 119 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 120 replacing “20” with “11” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 120 replacing “20” with “9” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 120 replacing “20” with “8” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 120 replacing “20” with “7” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; 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 (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, no doubt to the great disappointment of the committee, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
Sitting suspended from 1.40 a.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)
TUESDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2025
(continued on Friday, 12 December 2025)
Bills
Electoral Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Part 2 Amendments to other legislation
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, when we finished last night, we had completed considering Part 1. We now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 137 to 156, amendments to other legislation, and schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Mōrena. It is good to be back in the House, and I just have a few questions regarding Part 2. I'll start at clause 138, which is section 9 amendment. This is about the preparation of the jury list, so it amends the Juries Act. The current section 9(4) of the Juries Act has two parts which exclude the publication of names. One is in relation to circumstances similar to this, so that's going to be included. The other list is of names who are excluded, who are the people who, essentially, can't serve as jurors, so people like the Governor-General, parliamentarians, and lawyers. It just looked like, to me, on my read, that that section hadn't been included in this amendment, and so that this was an amendment to exclude that list of people in terms of non-publication. So a very brief first question this morning is whether that was the intention, or whether it's assumed because they can't serve that it's not necessary to also say that their names shouldn't be published; and what the Minister's intention is in terms of clause 138?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and good morning to you all. I also wanted to start with clause 138, and I’ve got two amendments that I will ask the Minister to consider.
I guess that one of them is quite a specific amendment, and this is an amendment that was delivered at 1:30:01. The reason for this particular amendment is that—like the previous speaker Vanushi Walters has mentioned—this clause has changed, acknowledging that there have been some changes to clauses 13 to 15, and clauses 17 to 21. However, I would like a clarification from the Minister of Justice, and the Minister can ignore the amendment, if the Minister actually does have a response to this. In the previous instance, and instances referred to in clause 15, for example, they don’t use the term “address”. They use the term “residences”, and that was originally in the Juries Act 1981, as well. So I wanted to check with the Minister what the distinction is between “address” and “residence”, and whether “residence” should be kept as the current wording—which is my amendment.
My second question to the Minister is this. The reason there’s a list of any persons who, according to the electoral roll, are holding office or engaging in any occupation, etc., is because that has now been removed. However, if we’re looking at—I know that this is in Part 1, Mr Chair, but it’s relevant to this particular section. If you look at new clause 12(1)(b) in the new Part 4 being inserted in Schedule 1AA of the principal Act by Schedule 1, it does say that the collection of the person’s occupation, for example, may occur up until “31 December 2027.” So if it is still being collected, and it could just be that it’s collected, but not being used in any way, shape, or form, which is also possible—but if it is collected, then wouldn’t their identity appear?
So my amendment delivered at 1:30:02 is to say that we’ll just reinstate that particular part, but with a particular repeal clause that is aligned with the date in Schedule 1. That is just to cover that off in terms of any sort of potential overlap, and just in terms of consistency. Those are my first two questions regarding the Juries Act for the Minister, and I have just seen that the Minister has received some advice on that.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I’d like to speak to the amendment in relation to regulation 12, which is around the list of late enrolments, and it relates to Part 2, clause 142. The purpose of this—and I’d like some feedback, if possible, from the Minister—is that “As soon as practicable after the close of registration, the Electoral Commission must send to the Returning Officer a list of those persons whose names have been entered (under section 88(3) of the Act) on the electoral roll for the district after writ day and before the close of registration.”
What this amendment proposes is to replace that term “as soon as practicable” with a specified time frame, and that’s in order to give a bit more certainty. The proposal to replace the term “as soon as practicable” would be with “within five days after the close of registration, the Electoral Commission must send to the Returning Officer a list of those persons whose names have been entered [under the Act] on the electoral roll for the district after writ day and before the close of registration.”
It’s a pretty simple amendment, but we think that there’s an opportunity here—we’re going into the Electoral Act and making a whole bunch of changes—to have some certainty. We know the Minister really likes tight time frames—he’s made those changes up the front of the bill in relation to the 13 days where registration to vote can no longer occur. If we’re giving sort of specified time frames, and if he’s interested in increasing timeliness—we know that increasing timeliness was one of the factors in the regulatory impact statement, and he gave instructions to the Ministry of Justice officials to say that timeliness was one of the priorities. If those things are in other parts of the bill, we think it’s only reasonable that we should look for other good opportunities to do a good tidy-up while we’re in here and doing this work to make our law better.
Having that change under regulation 12, in clause 142, would give a specified time frame, and that time frame would, in fact, be within five days. “As soon as practicable” is great, but it might be quite different from one person to another, so I’m interested to hear the Minister’s view on having that amendment.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair, thank you. In relation to the questions around clause 138, I believe that amendments are necessary because the Juries Act covers the details that were raised.
In relation to what Mr Xu-Nan referred to—it may be because we finished at 1.45 a.m. last night after three hours of voting—I struggled to follow what he was talking about. The only point I would make is that the Electoral Commission may collect occupation use to use up old forms, but they won’t be sharing that data. I think that covers what I think he was talking about. In terms of the last amendment around replacing section 12(1) of the Juries Act with “Within five days”, we think the current phrase “As soon as practicable” is sufficient. “Within five days” is unlikely to be workable in many circumstances.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, that actually does answer the question I have—and thanks to the fabulous officials, of course, as well, for providing the Minister with that advice.
Moving on to “Amendments to Electoral Regulations 1996”—so this is the substantial part of Part 2. I do note that some of these are genuinely needed: clause 141, for example, revoking regulation 4B—that’s something that’s non-existent since 2017, so the tidy-up, I acknowledge, is necessary.
I want to focus on clause 144, “Regulation 18 amended (Party lists)”. In this case, the intention of this is to increase what each political party is able to have as part of the party list, which is currently capped at 65—I did not know that; it's a very interesting piece of information. Upping it to 120—that makes sense. We have 120 members.
Tom Rutherford: Number 70.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Number 70: how did you manage to get on the list, if the cap is 65?
Tom Rutherford: It’s the mailable that’s capped at 65.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, thank you. You know, the whole point of the committee stage is for us to understand. I don't mind being proven wrong; I don't mind learning. If other members have an issue with learning, then that's a separate issue.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That is the purpose. Hold a sec—that is the purpose, but I do want that debate to come through the Chair. Folks can take a call.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry—sorry, Mr Chair, but I do thank Mr Rutherford for that piece of information, which I did not know.
But anyway, in terms of this, if we're going to be upping it from 65 to 120, I wondered—and this is something we saw when we were having our committee stage on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill with the Hon Chris Bishop, is that he tends to have a habit of like, “Well, let's just go a bit further.”, so we'll have to come back and redo things again.
In this case, wouldn't it be better to up the number from 120 to another number to account for things like overhang? Because, for example, currently we have 123 MPs in Parliament because of that overhang. I do want to check on clause 144 if the Minister would consider my amendment—not by a lot, just to account for overhang—to increase the number from 120 to 125.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, that's an interesting suggestion from the member. I think, in most circumstances, 120 should cover it. I don't think we've seen a circumstance in the history of MMP when any particular party has got 120 seats or anything close by, but we were concerned that limiting it to 65 wasn't sufficient to handle circumstances where there is a blow-out in support for one particular party or not.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my first opportunity to participate in this committee stage, so thank you for allowing me to take the opportunity. I wish it was on a bill that was making some positive changes for New Zealand, but unfortunately it’s a terrible bill, as you’ve heard from my colleagues in previous rounds, that will really limit the number of people that can participate in our democracy. They should be ashamed.
The clause that I wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister was in Part 2, in relation to hospital votes. I was just reading through this particular clause and just had a few questions around how this particular clause is going to function within this Act.
The question I had is—this is a relatively substantive part of the bill, but I imagine if one was to have the time to do a close analysis with the existing Electoral Act that there would be some similarities. I wanted to ask him, with the inclusion of regulation 23, what are the main substantive changes? I’ve had a bit of a look at the Electoral Commission’s website. I’ve had a chance to do that—it seems like quite a simple procedure for having a hospital vote. I also wanted to ask him here—23(1)(b), when we talk about a special vote here, it’s underlined. Is that on purpose or is that just an error? It’s not something you usually see that much, so it could even be a printing error. I also am aware that the Minister has put in a number of late amendments and so I wanted to know if a number of those late amendments are affected—if regulation 23 in relation to hospital votes is affected by that.
The other thing I wanted to ask was—it seems that a hospital is one of the areas where these votes can take place; the other thing is a maternity facility or institution, quite widely defined. I wondered if perhaps calling it a hospital vote meant that it was limiting, as the title, exactly the types of institutions that it could apply to. This is important, because we know that when people are incapacitated or in an institution or having a baby, they do deserve the right to participate in our democracy. This particular provision is extensive. It’s possibly affected by the Minister’s relatively recent amendments, and so I would like to know the affect of this and, essentially, whether the Minister was intending to substantively change the procedures in relation to the people who have every right to participate in our democracy when they are, for whatever reason, not able to access a polling booth because they are in a hospital, maternity facility, or other institution.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): My advice is that it’s a technical amendment, primarily making clear that it’s possible to cast an ordinary vote in hospital as well as a special vote.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. One part of the Minister’s answer did leave out the reference to maternity homes—so that is clause 145. My question is really whether the change in the definition expands the places where people will be able to cast a special vote or whether it's simply a modernisation of the term; and whether that's in reference to other legislation that uses the language “maternity facility” as opposed to “maternity home”?
My other question is in relation to clause 146. This is quite a substantial clause that sets out the requirements of having a facility to cast those special votes in a hospital. I would propose to the Minister that there could be a very useful accountability paragraph attached, where we state that they must notify the Electoral Commission as soon as practicable and within 24 hours if they have received information or acted in a way in breach of the regulation.
The regulation sets out things like when they're assisting a person to cast their vote that they must refrain from looking at or becoming acquainted with the elector’s vote; they can't attempt to influence them; they can't assist them in terms of their actual voting; or interfere with the vote. But there's no provision that says what happens if it is discovered that there is either a purposeful breach of those rules or an inadvertent breach of those rules. I think it would be useful to have some legislative direction. So just those two questions to the Minister.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The change from “maternity home” to “maternity facility” is purely and simply a modernisation of the language recommended by the drafters. In terms of the amendment to Part 2, clause 146, in relation to adding a paragraph (d) to subclause (4), we don't think that's necessary. That change purely carries over the existing provisions into the new piece of legislation.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, I think it’s wise for us to spend a little bit of time on clause 146, “Regulation 23 replaced (Hospital votes)”, because I think this is one of the more substantial parts of Part 2. I want to start by focusing on the hospital votes bit, and there are other things I want to check with the Minister of Justice later on, but I want to kind of keep them tight and focused.
The first question. There’s a lot of quality-of-life changes to this part compared to the existing regulation 23. But one of my first questions is, there are certain parts of that, in terms of the process itself for how electors in hospitals—in terms of hospital votes—should be casting their vote. As far as I can see over here, subclause (4) of replacement regulation 23, for example, does say that when they’re issued with the ballot paper, “any other person present”, but it doesn’t actually talk about how and what the elector potentially needs to do, which is in the current existing regulations. So I do have some amendments on this part, which is just going to retain some of the process-based elements. Potentially, the Minister could say that it’s no longer needed as well, but I do think that they do make a valid point in the existing regulation 23. These are my amendments 1.30.08 and 1.30.09.
I just want to follow up on what Vanushi Walters was mentioning in terms of accountability for the hospital vote, and there’s something that I’ve also noticed was quite interesting. This is relating to my amendment paper 1.30.10, and this is to do with clause 5(b) of replacement regulation 23: “deliver into the possession of the Returning Officer the hospital vote and all parcels refer to in paragraph (a).” The reason I want to pick up on this point, and this is the same as Vanushi Walters, is the accountability mechanism. If we’re seeing other parts of the regulation, such as regulation 24, or even going over the page to the new regulation 28A, inserted by clause 150, you will see that there’s a specific requirement for security when it comes to that potential ballot paper. In the other ones, you will see that the ballot papers need to be delivered into the possession of the returning officer in a sealed or locked ballot box and, if applicable, its key and all parcels mentioned in paragraph (a).
My amendment is just to say that if we’re going to be adding additional accountability measures, then we should also consider the security measures, which is to amend clause 5(b) of replacement regulation 23—I know my amendment is lifting directly out of new regulation 28A, but, hey, if we’re making improvements to the current regulation 23, we might as well go all the way—to say that this should be delivered “into the possession of the Returning Officer the hospital votes in a sealed or locked ballot box and, if applicable, its key and all parcels mentioned in paragraph(a).” So I just want to check if the Minister would consider that particular amendment, also consistent with what Vanushi Walters was asking for previously.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I can assure the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan that I have considered that amendment, I have considered it and I’ve decided not to accept it.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do think that that’s a real shame in terms of clause 146. There were those other two amendments that I’d put forward; one that kind of tidies up or is the tail end of what I previously spoke to, which is adding the words “or through their negligence permit”. It’s just because, at the moment, the way clause 146 reads is that the people who are assisting in those hospital facilities shouldn’t actively go in and try to interfere with the vote, but it’s possible that also, through one’s negligence, one could permit that information to be disclosed or an individual’s vote to be messed with, for want of a better term. I just think it’s a nice rounding-off of ensuring that there’s appropriate accountability.
I did also propose an amendment to Part 2, clause 146, to replace regulation 23, to add “insert ‘with urgency’ at new regulation 23(1)(5)(b) between the word ‘deliver’ and the word ‘into’.” Again, it’s just ensuring that there’s direction. Most of these smaller amendments are about timeliness and ensuring that, through the various pipelines of getting people’s votes from their voting booth to a place of counting, we’re ensuring speedy direction. This is extremely important, because these are all the pipelines that will help the special votes be counted more quickly. It may seem irrelevant or administrative, but, in truth, these details do have a significant impact on whether the vote is counted in a timely way.
I’ve just also made a note next to clause 150, which is the parcels of rolls and ordinary ballot papers issued to advance voters—so the parcelling up of, if you like, categories of votes by an Issuing Officer. This is just a question out of curiosity: are those parcels then audited or checked? It just seems to me a lot of discretion for an individual to be packaging up what are ballots that won’t be counted, ballots that will be counted, etc. I’m just wondering, firstly, whether they are reviewed by anyone else after the initial parcelling, and, if they’re not, whether it would have been useful for us to include something explicit about a check on the parcelling system within Part 2? Thank you.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to start by following up on a previous question. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister is not intending to accept my amendment at 1.30.10, but I do want to check with the Minister, then, as to what are the security and privacy settings when it comes to a hospital vote if they’re not being secured or if there is no mention of it being secured when it comes to delivery to the Returning Officer under section 23(5)(b), in clause 26. That’s fine, but if there is an existing mechanism I acknowledge that, but I do want to hear from the Minister on what that existing mechanism is for security and privacy.
I move to my next amendment, and this is something I noticed when I was looking at the Electoral Regulations 1996. It does specify hospital votes as its own thing, again acknowledging what Camilla Belich mentioned previously in terms of the ability for people to cast their votes in those sorts of settings and particularly in a hospital setting. But it made me wonder: what about other things that people are also going to be doing without, for example, having the need to have that special ability to be able to cast their votes? Yesterday we talked a little bit—as far as I see; I may be wrong but the Minister may be able to enlighten us—about whether there is anything in the regulations pertaining to things like aged-care facilities and retirement villages, but I want to focus on one particular amendment of mine, and this is the amendment at 1.30.07. This amendment is about allowing for, or having in the regulations, the fact that embassies should also be conducted in a similar format so that special voting is made available to New Zealanders overseas.
The reason I put forward this particular amendment is that that is actually one of the things we heard when we were discussing it with New Zealanders who have just recently come back, or over the last few years, from various parts of the world, for work or for business or for whatever reason, and one of the things they have consistently mentioned is how hard it was to cast their vote while being overseas. It is very ad hoc in terms of the availability of voting booths etc., in both embassies and consulates.
I acknowledge that some people may be able to enrol online, but the ability to cast a vote is something that is very ad hoc at this stage. So I do want to check whether the Minister would consider the amendment or a variation if the Minister wants to introduce his own amendment on this. I’m more than happy to consider that as well, around the availability of embassies and consulates and to make that concrete within the Electoral Regulations 1996 to allow for overseas New Zealanders to more easily cast their votes.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. A lot of these provisions carry on existing provisions that align with the rest of the regulations. In terms of the hospital votes, regulation 23 generally covers mobile voting in facilities such as hospitals and care homes—regulation 23.
In terms of overseas voters, they’re covered in different parts of the regulations, in relation to the question that was asked there.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm looking at clause 151, which is a very broadly drafted power in terms of the Electoral Commission’s powers to determine whether a person casting a special vote is qualified to vote. I'm just questioning whether the power is just drafted a little bit too broadly. Currently, it says—well, the amendment clause says, “In regulation 35, replace ‘The Electoral Commission’ with ‘At any time after receiving a special vote and declaration form in respect of the vote, the Electoral Commission’.”. So “At any time after receiving a special vote” and “declaration” is extremely broad. I've just proposed an amendment which is replacing “at any time after receiving a special vote and declaration form in respect of the vote” with “at any time after receiving a special vote in declaration form in respect of the vote, but prior to the return of the writ”.
Now, I’ve proposed that language—which is more in line with some of the amendments that I proposed in Part 1, which would have brought the special voting period closer to polling day—understanding that the Minister, if he was willing to look at this idea, might want to play with that a bit, because it wouldn't necessarily be prior to the writ; he might want to have it prior to X days before polling day—and it's currently 13 days, of course. But just being a little bit more specific about the Electoral Commission's powers in terms of being able to determine whether a person is casting a special vote, I think, would be quite useful. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Mr Chair. We don't support that amendment. We don't think it's necessary, because it's already clear in the legislation that special votes must be processed before the return of the writ, and that's the appropriate thing to do.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a question in relation to clause 154, “Regulation 65 amended (Scrutineers’ lists of persons who have voted)”. It says in there, in subclause (4), “In this regulation, polling place includes an advance polling place.” Now, when I looked into that, it says that it’s “being a person [who] under section 80(1)(d) (as substituted by the amendment Act) would otherwise apply.” I’m just not clear on what that’s providing. If you could say how that impacts on voting and whether that’s making it clearer, it would be good to have that understanding.
The other question I had was around parcels of rolls and ordinary ballot papers issued to advance voters—that was the new regulation 28A, inserted under clause 150. It says, on that, “At any time before 2 pm on polling day, an Issuing Officer for a district in which ordinary ballot papers have been issued to advance voters under [the provided section]” has to make those parcels up. I would just like to understand from the Minister what kind of framework or stipulations are there to ensure security of that information. You’ve got one person there—I understand it’s one person; it would be good to know—who is, basically, doing all of that process that’s stipulated under 28A and then being required to “deliver [it] into the possession of the Returning Officer”.
Any information there on how the certified copies of the main roll, the supplementary rolls, the counterfoils of ballot papers that have been issued to voters, and any of the spoilt ballot papers and voting papers—is that one person who does all of that work, and is there any provision to stipulate that, when they’re handed over to the Returning Officer, they’ve been managed appropriately?
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Just on the first part, the rationale for this change is to bring together those provisions that currently duplicate the same requirements for advance votes and those votes cast on election day. The changes aren’t directly related to the proposal to set the advance voting period, but, because we’re now formalising the advance voting period, they make the provisions for advance votes more accurate and streamlined, which is appropriate given the formalisation.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you. I’m interested, looking at this timing about 2 p.m., whether there was any consideration given to much greater alignment between local government rules and central government rules. For example, the voting closes at 7 p.m. for central government, in the general election, but for councils—I’m not sure it’s legislative, I presume it is, because they all close at noon. Then, you’ve got these alignments, also, potentially, for how special votes and ordinary votes are counted and managed and how the electoral offices are charged with managing those things. There are wider issues, about alignment, about being able to enrol the day before in local government but, obviously, not anymore in central government. Ignoring the increasing divergence between the two is just a matter of central government not really—I’m going to have to put it politely—giving sufficient attention to local government.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I think that the question my colleague Celia Wade-Brown is asking about clause 150, new regulation 28A, is an important one. I’ll be really interested to hear the advice of the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, on that. I also want to thank the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, regarding his response to my questions on overseas New Zealanders, but also in terms of other areas and groups that potentially need assistance when it comes to voting. But I’m still waiting to hear from the Minister regarding if there’s a variation between replacement regulation 23 clause 5(b), inserted by clause 146, regulation 24, and new regulation 28A, inserted by clause 150—what are the security and privacy measures when it comes to clause 5(b)?
But my question to the Minister is around new regulation 28A. I want to check—and this is the point that my colleague Celia Wade-Brown made—that in general elections the polling day finishes at 7 p.m., yet over here it says, “At any time before 2 pm … an Issuing Officer”. We’re already starting to put, I guess, advance—is this something that’s of a standard practice, and why has 2 p.m. been just carried over from existing regulations, and were there any other times considered as part of that? That’s five hours before the voting finishes, I’m assuming, as it says “At any time before 2 pm”, it would imply that 2 p.m. is the deadline, in which case: why is 2 p.m. the deadline and not 7 p.m.? I just want to check with the Minister on how I should be reading that particular clause.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just had a question in relation to clause 151, which amends regulation 35. The specific question I had was in relation to clause 151(2), which actually refers back to section 176(4) of the primary piece of legislation, the Electoral Act. I went back and I looked at section 176(4), and 176(4) is actually quite an important process in this bill. It, essentially, allows a vote to be disallowed through a prescriptive process, which is mentioned here in clause 151(2). In section 176(4), one of the provisions is that when a vote is disallowed, the voting paper must be opened in front of any—I think the wording is—scrutineers or any other persons present. Now, the question I wanted to ask the Minister is: because, in this bill, the powers of disallowance are arguably increased by this bill, therefore should the requirement in relation to those who witness a disallowance be strengthened as well under the primary clause, which in this instance is section 176(4)? It appears to me that there isn’t a requirement, if there isn’t someone present, to have that witness. That could be wrong, and I’d quite like the Minister to get some advice on that. Because of these greater powers and, likely, a larger number of disallowances that would be made, I ask whether this particular clause in Part 2, section 151(2), could be amended to allow for the requirement of at least one other person to witness the disallowance of a vote.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll address two points from Celia Wade-Brown and Lawrence Xu-Nan. I’m not sure local councils would agree that insufficient attention has been given to local government over recent weeks. I think they’ve got enough attention for the Christmas period, and they’ll be excited about what lies ahead for them, I’m sure.
Just to Mr Xu-Nan’s around why the time is set for 2 p.m., well, it’s all to do with the preliminary count. If the time was extended out to 7 p.m., as the latest point at which the issuing officer could undertake those steps, it would no longer really be a preliminary count. It would just be the count. It’s to do with the preliminary count for those advanced votes.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am looking at a couple of clauses now. Clause 153: this is kind of where parcels of spoilt ballots and voting papers and other papers need to be sent. The change is quite small, but I think it raises an interesting question about speed of the count of the vote, as well. It replaces the “Electoral Commission at Wellington” with “head office of the Electoral Commission”.
The small questions are whether that has shifted to Auckland or otherwise. The bigger questions are around whether the Minister has considered that ballots could be counted at the place where they are cast. It is something we discussed in select committee and, certainly, that has the potential to speed up the speed up the count of the vote, because, currently—for example, with overseas votes, they're sent back to New Zealand; in New Zealand, they're sent back to the electorate in which the person is voting. There's a very big question about our ability to count votes, both effective ballots as well as spoilt ballots, and speed up the count of the votes. So those are two questions for clause 153.
I'm then also looking at the revocation in clause 156. This is a revocation of the Electoral (Expenditure Limit) Order 2025. I've got it up on my phone and I'm just reading through it. This limits the expenditure in relation to election advertisements published during any regulated period. That order increased the amount from $16,300 to $16,700 and, for general elections, increased it from $33,900 to $34,800. For by-elections, the increase was from $67,800 to $69,500—so there were a lot of increases in the order itself. I'm just trying to trace back to what it's replaced by and whether it's replaced by anything in this bill, or whether a separate order has been made independently of what we've been considering this week and, therefore, this is now redundant or it will soon be? If the Minister is able to answer those two questions, I would be very grateful.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): I’ll take them in reverse because the advice is coming thick and fast. Clause 156 revokes the order because it is now incorporated into Part 1, subpart 8, of the bill. It’s in the bill itself.
Then to the question around the operationalising of head offices, head offices were requested by the Electoral Commission to reflect operational practices. That’s just the best way that they can undertake the process they need to undertake.
To Camilla Belich’s point around earlier validation and qualification, the timing is to enable that earlier validation and qualification where possible, but it still undertakes the normal processes that were followed under previous elections. The thought is that there is no need for additional scrutiny if it’s the same processes that are being followed. It’s just being more enabling of earlier qualification where possible.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was wanting to pick up on what the Minister mentioned previously in terms of the operational practices for the Electoral Commission—this is clause 153. What the Minister said was really interesting because, for me, “head office” has a very specific meaning. I mean, I understand “operational practices”, but the current head office is indeed in Wellington. Can I just check with the Minister on a point of clarification, if the Minister could answer: does that mean that the Electoral Commission is considering moving their head office to other parts of the country or is this just more of a precautionary measure? Because I would assume that the head office—like Andy Foster mentioned, there will be an outrage if the head office moved to anywhere else other than Wellington. So I don't really see why we want to change the wording for this particular section.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): I am unaware of any intentions for the Electoral Commission to move the head office, although I pitched to move it to the “Riveria of the South”, down in Timaru, which would be more than welcome.
I will just refer to another point that hasn’t been covered—I think it was from Vanushi Walters. It was a question around why aren’t votes counted at the place where they are cast. Well, that would cause significant operational difficulties because, of course, a lot of polling booths are in places where vote counting would be inappropriate, for example. There are some polling booths in public spaces. I cast my vote in The Warehouse in Timaru, and it would be somewhat difficult to count votes in a public place like that. So they are counted in one area because it is for operational efficacy and efficiencies, and for scrutiny reasons, and safety reasons.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that response. I do have to say that I love the Minister’s engagement on this section. I think my final question for the Minister is—sorry, I’m going slightly back to clause 151, “Regulation 35 amended”. I want to check with the Minister on my reading of clause 151(3), because I’m not entirely sure why that new subclause needs to be inserted and what it hopes to achieve. I don’t think the explanatory note, unfortunately, in this particular instance, gives a very full explanation of that new subclause, so I wondered if the Minister wouldn’t mind just elaborating on what that new subclause is intending to achieve.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): I’ll get a quick bit of advice to help me elaborate, but I can clarify that the Electoral Commission, unfortunately, has no plans to move its headquarters either to Auckland or to Timaru. It’s just for consistency of language.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Mr Chair, sorry, we just want to seek your guidance while the Minister’s getting some advice. While that happens, we’re happy to move on etc., but we just want to flag to the Chair that it’s OK for the Minister, upon getting advice, to come back to us in a later section.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s always possible that he could do it in the title and commencement if that is satisfactory to the committee.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): I’ve just remembered what the advice was that was in my head. Subclause (3), of course, enables earlier processing, but that can’t finish until it’s practicable to do so, so it just outlines that part of the process.
SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 138, section 9(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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 138, section 9, to insert subsections (4A) and (4B), 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 140 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 (Teanau Tuiono): Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 474 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Vanushi Walters’ amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 492 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 142, replacing regulation 12(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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 142, regulation 12, 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 143 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 144, regulation 18(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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 144, regulation 19, to insert subclause (6A), 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 146, regulation 23, to insert subclause (3A), 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 146, regulation 23, to insert subclause (4A), 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 146, inserting new regulation 23(4)(d), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 146, inserting new regulation 23(4)(c), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 146, inserting “with urgency” into new regulation 23(5)(b), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 146, regulation 23, to replace subclause (5)(b), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 150, new regulation 28A, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 151(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 152(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 152(3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 152(4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the schedules. The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 and the amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 493 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 85
New Zealand National 49; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 34
New Zealand Labour 34.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, new clause 7(b), to commence on “31 December 2025”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, new clause 7(b), to commence on “a date set by Order in Council”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, to delete new clause 9(1), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 474 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 478 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Tamatha Paul’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 479 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We are at Schedule 2. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Schedule 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Mr Chair. Clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. Clause 1, “Title. This Act is the Electoral Amendment Act”. It amends the Electoral Act.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Ha ha!
Hon JAMES MEAGER: Ha, ha! It is what it does, right? I can foreshadow that we won’t be entertaining any amendments to the title out of the sheer basis that titles should be clear as to what they do and explain to the public and not trifle with the process of the Parliament. It amends the Electoral Act. It’s pretty standard.
Clause 2 is the commencement clause. This tells the public which date the Act comes into force. Now, there are three paragraphs here in subclause (2)—(a), (b), and (c)—where there is a delayed commencement date. The Act comes into force the day after it receives royal assent. There are three provisions which delay that, slightly, to 1 January 2026. They are provisions relating to party registrations, political donations, and promoter statements. They will come into force on 1 January 2026. That is to give those people involved in party administration clarity as to when their obligations begin. I think all parties who hold party secretaries will be supportive of this to give their administrators and their party secretaries the certainty that on 1 January 2026, that will be when their obligations come into force around new provisions for party registrations, political donations, promoter statements. It will make sure that it is clear that from 1 January 2026, that is when the obligations apply. That is why we have made that date very clear. I would hope that all parties, to support their own party administrators, would support those provisions.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m afraid I don’t share the Minister’s view of the simplicity of, particularly, the commencement date of this bill. Given some of the complexities involved that have been traversed a little in the previous sections, they, nevertheless, have quite profound impacts on people’s voting rights, and also clarity, which is something he has brought up. I do know that my colleague Vanushi Walters will be speaking at some length about that.
But I want to turn to the title and commencement because the Minister has also spoken about the title being very clear. In fact, what we believe and, certainly, what I think is that this bill is very much about the restoration of the ban on prisoner voting. So if we’re going to be clear about the title, then we need to replace clause 1 with “This Act is the Electoral (Restoration of Ban on Prisoner Voting) Amendment Act 2025.”, which has been suggested as a written amendment. I don’t have the date stamp, but I can provide it to the Clerk afterwards.
I think it’s important for us to remember that prisoner voting rights have always been controversial in this country. Briefly, historically, there have been periods when prisoners have not been able to vote. Between 1975 and 1977, they could, but otherwise they have generally been excluded. I don’t think there has been the appreciation until recently of some of the jurisprudential factors that are really important to electoral rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) when it comes to prisoner voting. Given that so many of the impacts—
Hon Members: Title.
INGRID LEARY: —of what happen in politics are particularly around putting people into prison, limiting their rights, and then not giving them any say over how that situation occurred, I would just remind the Government members—who seem very animated and engaged in this debate, which is great to see—that this is about changing the title so that we do make the restoration of the ban on prisoner voting very explicit.
We did, of course, have the Taylor litigation, which declared in 2010 that the ban was inconsistent with the right to vote in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the Waitangi Tribunal has highlighted the disproportionate impact on Māori. We have not had an adequate response from any of the Ministers sitting in the chair in relation to the questions raised about that, and so I think this is a good opportunity for the Minister to give us his views on disproportionality, which has come up under the section 12 BORA analysis. In particular, we’ve not heard any answer about that, and so this is an opportunity, and that, again, is highlighted in the title that we are suggesting, so that he can speak to that.
In 2020, the law was changed to restore voting rights for people serving less than three years. That was our Government’s way of finding a middle way that we felt was acceptable to all New Zealanders so that imprisonment for crimes that were not deemed to be around violence and that were low-level would not disenfranchise people who ought to have a say over policies that directly impact on their families—remembering that we are in a post-colonial environment and remembering that we do have extremes of poverty in our country at the moment.
However, that, again, was reversed by this Government in this legislation, and yet the distraction, really, is that this seems to be about what one of the previous Ministers in the chair has rather sanctimoniously called sending the right message. But then hidden in it, and not even available in the title, is the restoration of the ban on prisoner voting. Why don’t we just make that explicit? If that is an ideological position this Government wants to take, so be it, but they need to be clear about it.
So I would like to ask the Minister why he is abandoning the longstanding and carefully balanced approach in the Electoral Act, where perhaps we could look at restoring or maintaining the voting rights of those who have sentences that are less than three years. I would like to ask the Minister how he considers that this legislation is consistent with the Taylor judgment. What does it say about his Government respect for constitutional history, given that it is reimposing a regime whose legal defects have already been exposed for more than a decade, and will he consider just being open and explicit about they are wanting to do, which is to restore the ban on prisoner rights?
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment at length about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance or proportionality, because this is a debate on title and commencement. We’ve traversed those grounds quite thoroughly in Part 1, but if the member is interested in the views of the Justice Committee, previous reports including those throughout the election inquiry and other amendments to justice legislation which touch on proportionality made some very insightful comments in the select committee commentary around the appropriateness of proportionality, so I’d direct her there, but that’s not for this debate.
In terms of the member’s suggestion to amend the title to focus on a specific policy aspect of the bill, well, of course, this bill amends a number of policies in the Electoral Act, and so it would be inappropriate, in our view, to focus on one specific policy area, because that wouldn’t give a clear indication to the public about what this bill does. This bill amends the Electoral Act under a number of policy areas, and to say one specific policy area would, I think, not be an accurate description of the title of the Act, so we won’t be supporting that.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the first speaker was indulged somewhat, as often the first speaker is. There’s always a fine line between contextualising a proposed change and making it the subject of, perhaps, something more of a general debate speech. The following speakers will be expected to be a little bit more explicit.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I also would like to draw the committee’s attention to Speakers’ ruling 127/3; it’s a longstanding Speakers’ ruling in our Parliament in terms of our ability to also summarise some of the debates in the title debate. I think that is a really important one here, considering this is a bill, and one of the few bills we’ve seen this term, that has a section 7 report from the Attorney-General, so it is extra important that we are able to summarise some of these conversations.
But I want to start with commencement date on this particular issue. For the members on the other side of the Chamber, they can also get their Speakers’ Rulings out from their cabinet and just have a look at that particular Speakers’ ruling as well, for those who are interested.
But going to the commencement date, I do think that after the discussions we’ve had during this committee of the whole House stage, it might be prudent to not consider implementing something as controversial and substantial as this, with overwhelming opposition from the public, until the election—after that. Indeed, we see something like that in the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill and also in the Referendums Framework Bill, that a lot of that won’t take place until election 2029. So my suggestion is that we actually delay it a little bit and look at it for the 2029 election, as opposed to the 2026 election—that’s one of my amendments.
Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, I do want to focus on the title. We have a number of amendments on the title of this bill that potentially speak more to the context of this bill, or different particular sections of this bill, as referred to in various subparts of Part 1. We do have Amendment Papers on this, but I think it is important to check with the Minister.
Now, one of the things that the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, mentioned during the committee stage, and this ties into the title of this bill, was about the fact that we will then continuously be making it easier and easier for people to vote, or include more and more people’s ability to vote, and a different Government will come here and they’ll want to—and it’s very hard to claw some of that back.
I want to remind the committee what it would be like if this conversation we’re having this very day—technically, we’re still on the same day in Parliament—were taking place in 1893, or indeed if we were in 1896. This is to say that we’re now going to bring back the ability for people to vote early because, you know, they should just simply be responsible for it. We’re going to ban prisoners from voting, despite the fact that it’s the international standard and that’s what is expected internationally, and that’s what is expected in the Attorney-General’s report. It is almost like saying, “Oh, well we gave women the right to vote in 1893. However, we decided that’s not going to be the case, we want to take that back.”
This is the same thing when it comes to the naturalisation of Chinese people here in Aotearoa, that Chinese people were denied naturalisation between 1908 and 1952, ergo many weren’t eligible to vote. It’s like saying that a certain population in Aotearoa New Zealand—for example, when we are talking about making the voting age 16, the Supreme Court ruling that says that we should be lowering the age of voting because it’s inconsistent with our interpretation of the Human Rights Act.
I do want to check if the Minister would consider the title the “Electoral (Further Limitation on New Zealander’s Ability to Vote) Amendment Bill”, because this is what we’re seeing here. We’re seeing that this is a Government—as my colleague Celia Wade-Brown has mentioned, and also the Asian Legal Network has mentioned, this is temporal gerrymandering. This is not something that has any ounce of evidence in it. We have heard from the Minister, during the committee stage, that “Oh, people talk about a lot of things.”, but no one is ever able to put evidence down on paper to say that this is something that the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney-General, the Human Rights Commission, or any other organisation said is a good thing.
I do want to check if the Minister would consider the title “Electoral (Temporal Gerrymandering) Amendment Bill”, or even “Electoral (Lack of Evidence) Amendment Bill”, “Electoral (Tampering with Elections) Amendment Bill”, or “Electoral (Head in the Sand) Amendment Bill”. I think all of that, in terms of the discussion that we’ve had during the entire Justice Committee stage, suggests that this bill should not be passed.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Mr Chair. I suspect I discerned a couple of questions right towards the end there. Just on and around the delaying of the implementation: we’re not in favour of delaying implementation of the bill. People need certainty about what their election laws are going to be leading into the election, and the Electoral Commission needs a sufficient amount of time to prepare for the substantive changes that are being made to the bill. We won’t be delaying implementation. The bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent but for those sections that are outlined for 1 January 2026.
Just in terms of further amendments to the title: as I mentioned before, we’re not in favour of highlighting specific policy changes in the title of the bill. We think it’s more appropriate to give a broad title that tells people what the bill does, which is that it amends the Electoral Act. As much as I would love to, for instance, maybe suggest an amendment around “Those Ranked Number 69 on the List Should Have Their Names in Bold, Bright Letters on the Voting Papers Amendment Act”, I don’t think that would be appropriate either. We won’t be entertaining changes to the title that highlight specific policy areas. We think it’s much more appropriate and sensible for it to be a broad description of what the bill does.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just start by thanking the Minister for rising and speaking to the title and commencement at the start of this part. That doesn’t always happen, but I do think that it is an extremely important flag to the public as to what the bill is about. Interestingly, when I was looking at part of the history of electoral reforms in this area—so the change in 2019-2020, to being able to vote on the same day—I really struggled to find the appropriate bill, because there is a lot of electoral amendment reform in our history. So this idea that we can name it quite simply and people will know what it's about, in this particular area, that's actually not true.
In the last Parliament, there were a number of different amendments that were proposed and some of them contained bracketed titles, and that's incredibly helpful. The one I eventually found was not; it was just titled the Electoral Amendment Act—I think number 162 was in there somewhere. So there is a benefit to this for the public. I know, for us as parliamentarians, I went to Hansard eventually, because I just couldn't find what I was looking for. They helped me find it. For members of the public, having that bracketed heading is extremely useful.
I've suggested a few, which are accurate on the basis of fact, so I've suggested replacing clause 1 with “This Act is the ‘Electoral Amendment (Unjustified Limit on Section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act) Act 2025’.”—accurate because the Government's Attorney-General has made that determination. I've suggested: “This Act is the ‘Electoral Amendment (No Compelling Justification to Limit the Right to Vote) Act 2025’.”—accurate because that's a statement that's supported by the Government's Attorney-General. There are some very sound proposals there which would be much better flags for the public.
I would also just like to make this a point of concern and then, perhaps, another suggestion about the title. Several times this week, Ministers have made a statement that property rights are central to a modern democracy. Now, that's actually not true if we're thinking about what the central principle of a modern democracy is—it's actually voting rights. Voting rights are central to a modern democracy. There are other considerations in terms of the rights at play; voting rights sit at their centre.
Now, this isn't a bill that does put voting rights at the centre of that bill, and so I think, in terms of the title change, which Government members are asking for, is “the inappropriate elevation of property rights” would be more accurate, and there is a few of them looking a bit confused. The reason is that if you are a fixed abode, you are much less likely to be impacted by the changes that this bill is bringing through the pipeline. If you own your home, people are much less likely to be discounted because they fall off the dormant roll and don't realise that they need to re-enrol before a particular time—so it's extremely accurate, and I would hope that the Minister is considering that.
Another question for the Minister is whether he considered the likely headlines that will result from this bill when it passes and, perhaps, try and incorporate some of the spirit of those likely headlines within a title? Things I've got as likely headlines are: “Anger across the country as mass number of specials are discounted” or “Lawyers engaged as angry voters seek to hold their franchise” or “Greatest number of excluded votes are from those who would have been first-time voters” or “Women offenders unfairly disenfranchised: eligible for home detention but no facilities available” or “The curse of the dormant roll drop-off: professionals confused and angry at how they lost the right to vote in 2026”, and this one that I'd suggest from Transparency International: “New Zealand rankings plummet in response to voting debacle”. Perhaps some of those likely headlines could draw some inspiration for a change to the vote.
My final suggestion is that there is some workability with those headlines. Please recommit this bill, as he will do others, no doubt, in this sitting block. I believe that the title needs to be reworked. This bill can be fixed, but there are substantial portions that need to be taken out.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not quite sure where we got to in the end with suggesting whether or not parties should vote for legislation based on headlines that will come out in the media. I’m not quite sure that that upholds the spirit of democracy.
The member asked and answered her own question when she was talking about the amendments to the title of the bill, when she said that some electoral amendment Acts are labelled as such because they amend the Electoral Act, and other bills have specific descriptors in the title because they do one specific policy thing, and one example would be bracketed Acts which change the Māori electoral option. So the member explained perfectly well why specific policy points would be inappropriate for a bill like this and, I think, offered no greater explanation as to why the title should be the Electoral Amendment Act than what she has just offered.
Of course, for anyone out there in “Public Land” who is watching this, who is interested in how to find which Act amended the electoral legislation prior to the 2026 election, they just need to find the Act which is named the Electoral Amendment Act with the date that falls between the 2026 election and the election before that. That will indicate which Act has amended the law prior to that election.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to speak to the amendment that’s been put forward on the Table, and that is a very good proposal that I think would add significant clarity to this bill. Quite often, we do hear from this Government that something is about something, and then when you drill into it a little bit further, you find out there’s actually quite a bit more to it. We think that because this bill affects such a fundamental right of New Zealanders, which is your right to vote, that needs to be put right up front in the title. While the Government might be circumventing democracy by preventing people registering in the early voting period, we think they should at least be upfront about the fact that they’re doing that. By inserting in the title “Electoral (Making it Harder for People to Have Their Say) Amendment Act 2025”—that would make it really clear to some of the people in my electorate who will be directly impacted by this legislative change that will be going through the committee stage today.
Why it is harder for people to have their say is because we know in places in the Hutt Valley where we’ve looked at the data—for example Wainuiomata has a really high proportion of people who do their registering to vote in that early voting period. We know that it is younger people who are first becoming aware of it, and my real concern is that this bill will make a detrimental change to people’s lifelong voting habits.
We know, on very good research, that if you want a New Zealander to vote for the length of their life, to keep voting in every election, one of the biggest determining factors for encouraging that positive democratic habit is to get them voting when they’re first eligible, when they’re 18 years old. If someone votes in that first election when they’re first eligible, the likelihood of them voting in every single continuous election significantly increases. If we miss that first election, it’s less likely that they will be engaged in our democratic process.
We here in Labour believe our society, our country, is better off when everybody votes. We want all voices around the table. We think that makes a closer, more tight-knit community because people are engaged and they care about their communities, they care about what’s happening, they engage in the political process. We want to make that upfront, so that people know that this Government is actually making it harder for people to have their say.
What is a real problem for me, in the position that this Government is taking, is that there’s such a sense of self-importance or entitlement—that there is a group of people who actually think that they have views and ideas that somehow are more important than others in our community. We think that everybody, even if they’ve moved house, even if they’re struggling with the cost of living and they’ve had to be having to deal with more immediate life issues like feeding their kids, getting shoes on their feet, getting them to school—those are the issues that are predominantly impacting a lot of working New Zealanders. They’re not going to be watching this debate and figuring out that Paul Goldsmith has just changed the law and made it even more difficult to enrol to vote; they’re too worried about putting food on the table and being able to pay their bills and making sure that they’re not being fired from their job after all the job losses that we’ve seen locally, particularly in the Wellington region, I’ve seen.
Those are the kinds of pressures that are on people in New Zealand right now, and so for the fact that they’re preoccupied with the cost of living and dealing with those things, they should not be doubly penalised by then preventing them from enrolling in the early voting period. We believe it is incumbent upon this Government, if they’re going to do this kind of shady stuff that tilts the playing field in their direction, then let’s at least be upfront. Let’s get the ad on the box right. Let’s say upfront that this bill changes the law by making it harder for people to have their say, and I think that if we put that upfront, then at least we might even increase the chances of early enrolment. If we make a big point of this now, let’s really try and increase that engagement. It could help the Government’s communication strategy, because it’s a bold one. They’re going to try and communicate to all voters that they’ve made this change that disproportionately favours their odds, so why don’t we just be honest with Kiwis and say this Government’s not that interested in democracy. We’ve just changed the law by making it harder for you to vote.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I'm just seeking the engagement from the Minister of Justice. The previous Minister who was in the chair made some comments in relationship to the title. It relates to four of my amendments which do not seek to trifle with title but simply to enable the layperson to understand what this bill is about.
The comments from the Minister in relationship to the title—and just keeping it broad—prevent, in my view, the layperson from understanding what the changes are genuinely about, unless the Government is doing a communications campaign around these changes. My changes to the proposed title in my amendments tabled at 10 a.m. range from, for example, “Electoral (Reducing Eligibility to Vote and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” to “Electoral (Further Bans to Persons Voting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, “Electoral (Tightening of Enrolment Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, and “Electoral (Shifting of Enrolment Date to Before Voting Starts and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. The reason why I'm proposing these is to enable more people who may be looking at a range of legislation to actually understand what these changes are about.
So if the Minister does not believe that this is a good, useful way of enabling members of the public to engage with legislation—because I don't think most people will just open up a bill that's called the Electoral Amendment Bill and then read through quite a substantive piece of legislation to find out what it's about. The title is what enables them to do that, and so I’m seeking an understanding that the Minister would be agreeable to this.
In relation to the commencement date, because this comes straight after Royal assent, has the Minister considered any allocation of resources and, if so, how much will go to any communications campaigns that will enable members of the public to understand the changes that are occurring as part of this bill? If so, how much resource, if any, is going to be allocated to help people understand the changes that have occurred as part of this bill, because they're quite substantive changes. I think a lot of members of the public will still believe that, based on the previous election’s sort of procedures, that they can change their enrolment date on the day, for example.
The Minister, in his comments, alluded to the fact that media headlines are not necessarily the best way to acquire information about a piece of legislation. So far, what I have seen is mostly this bill being debated in the media, and not through more accessible forms of communications campaigns that may actually reach some of the people who may be the most likely to not be able to enrol. These are probably people who may be working in multiple jobs and for whom English as a second language, or disabled people, and so I'm seeking the Minister's engagement—since the commencement date is quite quick—on what resources, if any, will be allocated to ensure that many members of the public are aware of the changes.
I ask whether these resources will include outreach within the prison population, as well—whether, for example, he'll be working with the Department of Corrections to ensure that people in prisons are able to understand the changes of eligibility. Otherwise, if we don't have any sort of resources and engagement around this matter, the perverse outcome will be that people will just try to enrol—where they're in prison, for example—and they may have thought that they would have been able to.
Effectively, this is just loading time and resources into a system that will just simply tell them, “Actually you're not eligible.”, or you'll have people showing up to try and enrol after voting starts, believing, based on the previous year’s election procedures, that they could have been able to. So I’m genuinely seeking good-faith engagement in relation to whether a better title would enable people to better engage, and I’m seeking engagement from the Minister as to what level of resources, if any, will be allocated after the commencement date to ensure that people actually understand what these changes are. If he will not allocate any resources, I recommend that he delay the commencement date so that those resources can be allocated and discussed.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In terms of the title comments in relation to clarifying the message in terms of encouraging people to be enrolled, as per the legislative requirements to be enrolled, it’s compulsory to be enrolled. I don’t agree with changes to the title of the bill. The “Electoral Amendment Act”, I think, is clear about what it refers to.
In terms of the matter raised about the commencement, we want to get the commencement of the bill as soon as possible because there are many changes that this bill makes, including arrangements such as automatic enrolment and making that easier; changing the rules around not necessarily having to use postage, which people no longer use to the same extent; changing the thresholds for inflation for donations—a whole bunch of things that need to happen sooner rather than later.
In terms of the question in relation to funding available for advertising campaigns, at the last election the Electoral Commission spent about $12 million on advertising campaigns ahead of that election. They have that budget and more for the current term, and it is the basic expectation of the Electoral Commission to be using advertising spending to have a clear campaign about encouraging people to get enrolled. The purpose—and we’ve discussed this at enormous length in the debate on Part 1—of the changes that were made around the enrolment cut-off is that we will now have a simple and plain message, which is “Get enrolled”, rather than having a mixed message that we’ve had for a number of times, which was “Get enrolled, but, by the way, you don’t need to; you can rock up on election day and enrol at that point.” I think it will be an easier matter for the Electoral Commission to send a clear message to all New Zealanders to get enrolled.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “late counting of special votes response” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “restoration of ban on prisoner voting” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “limitations on late enrolment” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Celia Wade-Brown’s seven tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.
Vanushi Walters’ four tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Disqualifications for Registration and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 71
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Elector Registration and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Adjustment of Expenditure Limits and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Offences and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Advance Polling and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Elector Registration Details and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.
The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Reducing Eligibility to Vote and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “(Further Ban to Prisoner Voting and Other Matters)” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menendez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Tightening of Enrolment Deadlines and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menendez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Shifting of Enrolment Date to Before Voting Starts and Other Matters” into the title, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2, to change the commencement date to 1 January 2027, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to 1 July 2027 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to 31 December 2025 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to 1 January 2027 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to one year after a date set by Order in Council is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
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 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Electoral Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Bills
Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I move, That the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to upgrade the biogenic methane component of New Zealand’s 2050 climate target, and makes several other changes to ensure our climate legislation remains fit for purpose. The bill supports the Government’s commitment to ensure that our targets are informed by science, contribute to our international commitments, and, of course, are achievable.
Farmers have been clear that they need a methane target that is realistic and provides certainty about what’s expected of them. The current target requires biogenic methane emissions to be reduced by 24 to 47 percent below 2017 levels by 2050. The agricultural sector has consistently told us that this target is unworkable and creates economic uncertainty across rural New Zealand. This bill delivers the clarity that our farmers have asked for.
This Government is focused on driving economic growth, and we recognise that growth begins on the land. Our primary sector is not only our biggest sector; it is central to our national identity. New Zealand’s food and fibre producers are world leaders, and they are playing a vital role in our economic recovery. We should celebrate their contribution, and we do celebrate their contribution. This bill reflects our belief that a thriving climate and a thriving economy go hand in hand. By setting methane targets that are grounded in science and practicality, we are ensuring that our climate policy supports the productivity and resilience of rural New Zealand.
In mid-2024, we commissioned a panel of international and local experts to carry out an independent scientific review of New Zealand’s biogenic methane targets. That panel provided clear, evidence-based guidance on what levels of biogenic methane emission reductions are consistent with no additional warming from a 2017 base year. We have considered the panel’s report alongside advice from the Climate Change Commission, and have also considered possible impacts on our economy, the contribution of the target to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and what we want to achieve as a Government.
Based on all of this, we have determined that the biogenic methane target should be reset to 14 to 24 percent below the 2017 emissions by 2050. The methane review found that a 14 to 24 percent reduction in biogenic methane emissions is consistent with stabilising the warming contribution of New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions at 2017 levels in 2050. This range maintains an appropriate contribution to our international climate change commitments.
Setting targets is ultimately about combining the best available science with judgments that reflect our national context. We don’t want to reduce emissions here at home only to have less efficient farmers from other countries to increase production. The new target reflects the latest science and research and provides a credible foundation for our policy direction, while ensuring the continued strength and viability of our agricultural sector. Agriculture—as you know very well, Madam Deputy Speaker—is the backbone of our economy. It contributes 81 percent of our export goods and feeds over 40 million people worldwide. We must protect that strength while reducing emissions.
It’s important to note that our international targets will not be changing as a result of resetting the domestic 2050 biogenic methane targets. New Zealand is committed to achieving emissions reductions in the country’s nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, and takes its obligations under international agreements extremely seriously. This bill provides clarity and, of course, confidence, while maintaining our credibility on the global stage.
This bill also provides for a formal review of the biogenic methane component of the 2050 target, and this will be completed and tabled in the House no later than 31 December 2040. The review will assess whether the targets remain relevant, with a view to recommending whether the target for the reduction in biogenic methane emissions should be a single percentage target. It will also consider the latest science on methane’s impact on warming, New Zealand’s progress in reducing emissions, and international efforts under the climate agreements that we are part of. This ensures our long-term targets remain evidence based, credible, and aligned with global best practice.
Cabinet has also agreed to defer setting the fourth emissions budget. This decision was originally due before the end of this year, but, of course, the Climate Change Commission’s advice was based on the current legislated methane target. As a result, once that target is updated through this bill, the Commission’s advice will no longer reflect the policy settings in place. Deferring this decision is a practical result of that and allows us time for the Commission to update its advice, which, in turn, will ensure our emissions budgets are set in a way that is credible, consistent, and achievable. The Commission’s advice on revisions to existing budgets will also be updated.
The Government has also agreed to require the Climate Change Commission and the Minister to consider any implications for domestic food production when advising on and setting emissions budgets. This will ensure that these issues are given greater prominence in advice and decision making. We are also producing changes in the bill to remove the requirement for the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) settings to accord with New Zealand’s nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Requiring alignment with the NDCs introduces uncertainty, particularly around the timing and availability of offshore mitigation, and risks undermining the scheme’s effectiveness. The ETS is a domestic policy instrument that cannot directly influence offshore mitigation. This change will appropriately focus the ETS on delivering domestic emissions budgets and targets. This change is included in this bill to ensure that there is no disruption to the 2026 ETS settings process.
Within the next decade, we expect effective, safe, and easy-to-use methane reduction tools to be widely adopted across the farming systems in our country and beyond. This will support us to meet the updated target, while continuing to grow the value of exports. Technology is key to unlocking the full potential of our agricultural sector while meeting our emission reduction goal. That is why this Government has invested over $400 million over four years to accelerate the development and uptake of tools and technologies that reduce on-farm emissions.
Our approach is clear: we want to support innovation, avoid blunt instruments, and work constructively with the sector to deliver practical, lasting solutions. New Zealand farmers are amongst the most carbon-efficient food producers in the world. With the right support, they will continue to lead globally in sustainable food production. This bill is about fairness, it is about credibility, and, importantly, it is about progress. It ensures our climate targets are grounded in science, achievable in practice, and, of course, aligned with the realities of our economy and our environment. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a very curious day to have this particular bill in the House going through all stages under urgency. I have in my hand a copy of the Paris Agreement. The agreement that the overwhelming, vast majority of countries in the world signed up to. An agreement that the world would make its best efforts to have only 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming and at the very least would achieve only 2 degrees Celsius of global warming. It was an astonishing agreement across the world, and it reflects the absolute existential crisis that we have with climate change.
That agreement was signed on 12 December 2015. Inside these walls, today is 9 December. Out there in the real world where climate change is occurring, it is 10 years to the day since John Key's National Government signed up to the Paris Agreement, and here we are today in this House, downgrading our methane target, valorising dubious science, and walking away from our commitments to reducing climate change, walking away from our responsibilities to future generations. Sure, this might be cheaper in the short term, but the costs will be worn by our children and our children's children. That side of the House is walking away from intergenerational responsibility.
The Labour Party does not support this bill. It does not support this bill because, despite the repeated claims of science, science, science, the analysis that this bill is based on is dubious science at best, and it is deeply politicised science. It is science that has been rejected worldwide and by credible climate scientists. So that's the first reason as to why we are rejecting this bill.
We also reject this bill because sneaking in there in clause 5, I think, is a reliance on the concept of carbon intensity. It’s a concept that seems right in the first place—it seems right initially, or it seems plausible—but it actually leads to increased emissions from New Zealand. So that is the second reason as to why we are rejecting this bill.
The third reason we are rejecting this bill is because it has been carried out with a lack of consultation. A lack of consultation with Opposition parties, a lack of consultation with New Zealanders—consultation that's sitting in the Minister's regulatory impact statement suggests could be done through the select committee process. But there is to be no select committee process on this bill.
If you go back to 2018 and 2019, Todd Muller, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect; James Shaw, for whom I also have an enormous amount of respect; and David Parker, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, worked hard together to achieve a bipartisan consensus on what New Zealand should be doing around climate change. It was a consensus that every single member of Parliament voted for, bar one, and even that person didn't get around to voting against it.
There was genuine agreement as to what we could do—all of us together—to ensure a fit world for our children, and that party has walked away from it. There was one meeting with the Opposition spokesperson and only because we pushed for it, and then we were informed at the last minute about what was about to happen.
So, for those reasons, the Labour Party rejects this bill. We will vote against it, and we will fight against it all the way through this urgent process.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill represents a deep betrayal of New Zealand. It represents a betrayal of the voters, a betrayal of the planet and our future, and a betrayal of the farming community that they purportedly represent.
The first betrayal is to the voters who put us all here. The National Party came into the election promising to meet New Zealand’s climate targets—not to water them down, but to meet them. It is a betrayal to the values of good faith and democratic norms, and the code of honour that everyday New Zealanders live by. When the zero carbon bill set targets—
Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m just raising a point of order about the House. I do appreciate the member’s passion, but I’d just really appreciate it, because it is a Friday morning and we were here until very late last night, if we could maybe just keep it to a normal conversational volume.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: That’s just how I speak, Madam Speaker. It’s my normal voice.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, OK—and I appreciate the point of order. I was sitting here thinking to myself that, though I love the passion, the member does have a microphone. So maybe—
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: They need to turn it down it down.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: —passion with a little bit less decibels in it would be really good. Thank you.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: May I continue, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carry on, yes.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: When the zero carbon bill set targets in Parliament, that was a compromise: a cross-party consensus that everyone in this House was, in parts, unhappy and happy about. Every single party represented in this House voted for it. The targets in that legislation were a product of years’ long and deep negotiations, because we understood that everyone in New Zealand needs stability in the climate change targets. Today, we can be under no illusion that it is the National Party that is shattering that consensus under urgency, without a select committee process, without any public input, and without a full picture of what it could cost us.
This is a betrayal of our planet and the livable future that we require. It weakens our methane targets and allows the equivalent of 500 years of operation from the Huntly power plant. It decouples our emissions trading scheme from New Zealand’s global pledges to the world, undermining confidence in the scheme and raising doubt about New Zealand’s fidelity as an international partner. It puts at risk billions of dollars of trade and tries constantly to hide the evidence by redacting how much it would actually cost in the regulatory impact statement. It asks once again that the public bear the additional household costs of up to nearly $300 a year to subsidise corporate polluters. Under this Government’s cost of greed crisis, it is everyday New Zealanders who have to pay for the cost of climate inaction.
Last, but definitely not least, it betrays farmers and the agricultural community that members opposite claim to represent. It represents the biggest betrayal of the agricultural sector that his country has seen. Farmers are at the front line of our climate crisis. Few other sectors in our economy are as exposed to the impacts of climate-exacerbated weather events than they are.
It betrays farmers by sedating them under a warm blanket of complacency and half-truths. Rather than enabling them to step up and be the world leaders that I know that they are and want to continue to be. It betrays farmers by exposing them to trade risks worth billions of dollars in trade agreements and wider reputational risk for the green premium of the “clean, green” New Zealand brand, and it betrays farmers by destroying the consensus that they and the wider society were shielded and protected under. Thanks to the irresponsible betrayal of the parties that claim to stand up for them, every three years, the agricultural community will now have to face the roller-coaster experience of the chopping and changing of targets.
Make no mistake, this weakening of the Climate Change Response Act, the betrayal of the planet, the betrayal of the farming community, and the betrayal of the voters that it represents will not stand under a future Government. This will be a priority for change, and, look, the members opposite can’t have it both ways. They will not be able to complain when we use the same process with which they introduced this bill—under the cover of night, under urgency, without any select committee input—to change the processes. I won’t hear any complaints from the members opposite next year when we swap sides and we change this deeply damaging, deeply irresponsible legislation, which we in this House are proud to stand against.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Perhaps I should go back to how the targets were set in the first place. These original targets that were set in the bill that we are changing, they came from a 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the 1.5 degree Celsius report. That report modelled 70 different pathways at which 1.5 degrees could be achieved. So it looked at how we can turn the dial on all the gases to achieve 1.5. Now, in some of those modelled pathways they actually had methane increasing. Now, where they settled: they did all that work, and they said, “Right. What’s the least cost for the globe? What’s the most efficient way we can achieve this for the globe to come up with some global recommendations around what the reductions should be?”
Now, they viewed that least cost for the globe was 24 to 47 percent in methane reductions. But that was for the globe; not for New Zealand. No work was ever done into was that least cost for New Zealand. Now, in that report, they also said, “Do not use these targets as national targets.” So it was for the globe, not individual countries, because every country is different. Don’t believe me? Go and have a look at various articles written by the lead author of that report, Myles Allen, professor at Oxford University, who says exactly that. He’s said many times New Zealand should not have adopted those targets in that report as national targets. In fact, the dodgy science that someone has mentioned is actually science done by Myles Allen, lead author at the IPCC.
So where do we get to there? I mean, least cost for methane: how do they come up with those numbers? So they looked at methane globally—where does it come from? The most common area was leaky oil and gas wells. Least cost for the globe: plug them up, stop them leaking.
Steve Abel: You’re going to drill more of them.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: We’ll make sure they don’t leak—not leaky ones.
Second: landfills—make sure that they’re not leaky. We do a good job of that, as I’m sure my compatriot Simon Court can attest to—making sure we’re using that gas. Third was agriculture. What were the things in agriculture that were least cost to reduce? Better management of rice paddies—we don’t have a lot of those in New Zealand—and, secondly, manure management. Manure management refers to the big barns where you pile up all the manure outside and dispose of it. Again, not something we do in New Zealand. We’re out in the pasture—it’s all been taken care of. So, really, those numbers did not apply to New Zealand. So that’s how we got these old numbers. We plucked out numbers from a report that wasn’t meant for New Zealand and wasn’t focused on New Zealand.
So what we’ve done, as the Minister spoke to earlier, is we got science-based. What does New Zealand need to do to not add any additional warming? That’s where we’ve landed at. That’s what the Paris accord is about: limiting additional warming. So that’s what we’ve achieved.
Now, someone before mentioned about food prices and all the rest of it and cost of living. It’s been mentioned a lot: “Why are we doing all these bills? Are they going to reduce the cost of living?” Well, you talk a big game over there, but ask yourselves, if you were to oppose this bill, we already have a supply constrain around the globe for milk and meat, right? So to achieve these targets—
Hon Damien O'Connor: That’s rubbish!
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Oh, so why have the prices gone up then? Because there’s a lack of supply. I won’t waste my time trying to explain supply and demand again. So if we reduce supply in New Zealand, which was what the previous Government was intending—it’s in the reports that the Minister commissioned and probably never read—we would have had less beef that would have pushed up prices. Well, if you’re voting against this, you are voting for higher food prices—that’s what you’re voting for, make no clear mistake about that. So in that, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): This is a long-awaited day for our agricultural sector and our farmers—the monkey is finally coming off our back. Farmers were bemused as to how we could possibly reduce biomethane emissions by 47 percent by 2050 and why they should have to pay a tax for simply farming their livestock. Biogenic methane is a short-lived gas; it's part of a biological cycle—it is almost a closed cycle. These are not emissions released from fossil fuels that sit in the atmosphere for centuries and warm the planet—
Steve Abel: But you’re going to emit those as well.
Hon MARK PATTERSON: It was economic suicide for us to punish the world's most carbon-efficient farmers and shift that production offshore, and, worse, it was actually against the provisions in the Paris Agreement that specifically protect food production.
Our rural communities have paid a heavy price for climate policy, especially our sheep and beef sector and communities that are reliant on those industries. Widespread afforestation has heavily impacted and hollowed out many of those communities. It's easy for rural communities to plant and walk away. Those communities are paying twice—well, they were going to be paying twice under the former regime: once with their community being shut down by widespread afforestation and then, for those that are left, attacks on methane emissions.
This Government committed to a methane review. It was a credible review, with an internationally acclaimed panel. The no-additional-warming lens showed a 14 percent to 24 percent reduction was required to keep within that no-additional-warming ban, depending on if it was 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. I'll make no apologies here: New Zealand First think it should be a flat 14 percent. We see absolutely no benefit in punishing the world's most efficient farmers
We are investing in mitigation technologies significantly. There are promising developments. We are aware, at a commercial level, that there is both commercial and trade-deal incentives to reduce our limits, reduce our emissions, and play our part. We are not shying away from that; we just need the targets to be credible and achievable.
What is not often admitted, on that side of the House anyway, is agriculture is already meeting its current emissions targets for 2030. We are on track to get very, very close. Unfortunately, that's been done by widespread culling, and the impact on our rural communities has been significant. We have paid a burden disproportionate to what our urban colleagues have had to do.
We will not punish our farmers. We will not shut out down our rural communities. We absolutely commend this bill to the House.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau):
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
I rise for the first reading of this climate change legislation with riri, mamae, and with absolute determination. What this coalition Government has done over the past two years is not merely neglect and it is not merely incompetence but it is an assault—a deliberate, calculated assault—on our taiao, on our mokopuna, on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and on the very future of Aotearoa.
Let us lay bare the truth. This Government repealed the Clean Car Discount, the single biggest driver of electric vehicle uptake. Overnight, registration slumped. They killed the main incentive and now high-emitting utes pour in while the rest of the world accelerates towards zero emissions. By gutting Labour's modern resource management system, they also pulled us back to 1991, removing climate obligations, removing cumulative effects assessments, and ripping out Te Tiriti hooks. The Ministry for the Environment warned us that this is a return to outdated law at the very moment we need future-focused planning.
Then the Fast-track Approvals Act, a law that allows Ministers to tick off mines, coal projects, iron sands extraction, even projects previously rejected behind closed doors—that is what this Government calls progress. I call it State-sponsored environmental vandalism. Others have called it a war on nature. Despite outcries from our whanaunga from across Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, the Pacific, who are literally sinking, they now look at us, a nation once priding ourselves as a leader in climate action, now one of the others who put profit before people and planet.
This Government has reversed the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration. In 2025, in the hottest year the planet has ever recorded, the coalition has chosen to drill, not decarbonise. It is running full speed toward more fossil fuels. Shame! They cut the $4.5 billion climate emergency response fund, the tahua dedicated to climate action—around $2.5 billion in climate programmes wiped out in one Budget. The Climate Change Commission—they lost a quarter of their funding and their independence is being stripped away.
Gone is the Carbon Neutral Government Programme, gone is Māori climate resilience, gone are native forests at scale, gone is Jobs for Nature, gone is freshwater protection funding, and gone are climate evidence systems and climate governance roles. This Government did not just turn off the tap; they ripped out the pipes and they sold them for scrap metal.
Now, let's get to Māori rights and Te Tiriti. Ngāti Pāoa has voiced deep concerns about this bill. They've told me direct that with sea level rise, coastal erosion, and warming waters already putting pressure on depleted taonga species, they have warned that fast-track processes could compound long-term harm, especially in the Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana, which is in a state of ecological crisis. They remind us that true kaitiakitanga means strengthening resilience and restoration, not weakening it. Mike Smith of the Iwi Chairs Forum sums it up pretty well—pretty well, actually. [Interruption] You don't care to listen and that's your problem; you don't listen.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Too loud—too loud.
ORIINI KAIPARA: “I have zero faith in this Government.”, Mike Smith says. “They are running with the oil industry and industrial ag sector. Everyone else can burn.”—that is Mike Smith. This Government is not in partnership with tangata whenua. It is not honouring Te Tiriti. It is actively placing Māori communities in the firing line of climate impacts—floods, droughts, cyclones, heat. Our people face the sharpest edge, yet are given the smallest voice. This legislation is not simply about emissions; it's about restoring integrity, restoring science, restoring Te Tiriti, and restoring the future of all our mokopuna, the one that they deserve. I stand here to give rise to all their voices. We can change things. We can stop this madness.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
That is the responsibility before all of us. Te Pāti Māori utterly and uncategorically opposes this bill.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): This is a long-awaited day for our New Zealand farmers—the backbone of our economy, our agriculture sector, where we are resetting the methane targets. We are the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. We can have a thriving economy and a thriving climate. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this first reading. I'm going to be speaking on a few more readings, as well. But just to start off with where the last speaker ended, it seems that many on that side of the House say our farmers are “the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world”. That member might have said “carbon efficient”, but I've also heard other members say, “most emissions-efficient farmers in the world”. So we will be asking the Minister about that and when that evidence that they might be relying on—if they're relying on evidence, which seems unlikely—comes from. But, also, to go to this problem definition: if those members say, “We’re the best in the world, so no reductions are needed”, then they need to demonstrate how we're the best in the world—
Dr David Wilson: They did not say that.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and they need to demonstrate—Oh! I’ve just heard that they did not say that. Patterson said: “Ours are the most climate efficient farmers”. The chair of the Environment Committee just said, and she used the word “carbon”, I think: “They're the most carbon-efficient farmers”. So that is the rationale for this legislation: we're already the best. I think I heard from Hoggard: “The idea of Paris is to move everyone to be better, but we're already the best, so everybody else needs to move to us.” Well, what if they have already moved to us? Or what happens if that side is right, and we are overtaken? So we might have been the best, but then we're the second best. Where is their logic then?
In fact, this bill not only changes the methane target, but it also changes the emissions trading scheme (ETS) settings, and we haven't heard very much about that, either. It is hilarious—I think it's good to find something amusing on a Friday in urgency—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s only Tuesday in here.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for reminding me of that. But on page 3, here, we have the explanatory note, and it says that the nationally determined contributions accordance requirements—which this bill will change—“risks undermining the proper functioning of the NZ ETS”. The ETS is already undermined by all the actions that this Government has done, and we just heard a recital of all the terrible things that this Government has done to stop addressing climate change. That's what we heard from the previous speaker. She set that out very well so I won't repeat it all in this speech, but the ETS is already broken and it is broken because of what this Government has done in undermining all those actions relating to carbon emissions. That's what they've done.
We now have methane being discussed here. New Zealand has this split gas approach and that is unusual around the world. Sometimes people will say, “Oh, we just need to consider the gases separately”. In fact, we do, in New Zealand, and have done since these targets were introduced. So the target for biogenic methane is quite different from the target for carbon and other gases; we've got other gases in there as well that we should not forget to talk about, including nitrous oxide, which is very important. But this bill is about reducing that methane target. So we have a large target already in the bill, from 24 to 47 percent. Twenty-four is an interesting number, because this amendment still uses that number, 24, but instead of going up to 47, it goes down to 14.
There's no need to change this legislation. Twenty-four is in both targets and I would hope that people were aiming for a whole lot more than 24, but it's there in both. Including the 14 percent clearly shows where this Government wants to go, and that is just to the 14 percent, and that is why we are here today. There is no willingness to want to reduce biogenic methane emissions. We have heard that from the previous speakers and I have more to say about this soon.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, the methane-induced hot air on the other side of the House is entirely predictable. All this bill does is bring science to the targets and bring certainty to the backbone of New Zealand’s economy and our hard-working farming families. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Here we are in urgency passing a really important piece of legislation around how New Zealand is going to meet its international obligations in terms of our nationally-determined contribution in climate, and some really important stuff about how we as a country are going to do our bit on the global change in how we fight climate change.
My colleague the Hon Deborah Russell talked about it being 10 years ago today that the National Party went to Paris and signed New Zealand up to the Paris agreement. I was there as part of the New Zealand delegation as an Opposition spokesperson, and at that point we did not think the Government was going far enough—the National Government—but they signed us up and we actually had some accord across this House. Fast-forward, and we had all of the parties in the House agreeing about how we were going to meet those targets through the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act.
What we have today is a Government that is breaking that consensus and a climate Minister that doesn’t seem to be allowed to be a Minister for climate, who cannot get anything through his Cabinet that is actually going to do New Zealand’s bit on climate change and what we need to do as a country. It is an embarrassment for this Government and it is an embarrassment for this Minister that he is having to bring this legislation to this House under urgency.
This bill does two things. It makes the changes to methane targets, which we will talk about at length and have many questions about the science that his colleagues are purporting are behind this. It’s complicated science and we really want to dig into the detail of that, and we will be doing that in the committee stage.
The second thing that this bill does that is incredibly important is that it delinks the carbon market from New Zealand’s Paris commitments. What we’ve seen is when the Minister announced this, he crashed the carbon market. Let’s bear in mind that this is a Minister that has put all the eggs for New Zealand meeting any of its obligations into the emissions trading scheme and said it is our sole strategy—not just a tool, but our sole strategy—for how we meet our carbon commitments, and this is a Minister that has crashed that market.
What kind of advice did the Minister get when he was doing this? He was told that it was likely to result in volatility and negative impacts on businesses and households. There are reports that the changes that we are reading in this House, under urgency, will push up New Zealanders’ power bills by $270 a year. We do not know what this is going to do to industry who rely on the wholesale market because when you take the onus off the 50 percent of our emissions in the agriculture sector, you put it into other sectors of the economy. This is going to drive up our energy costs, whether that be in electricity and whether that be in petrol.
This Minister has some explaining to do about the advice he got and how that is going to be mitigated. This is a Minister that received advice that the legislation that we are debating under urgency will result in a contraction of our GDP. This is a Government that at Budget time came with all fanfare that they were bringing in a piece of policy that was going to result in 1 percent growth in GDP over 20 years; well, this needs to be set against that because this legislation we are debating here will see our economy contract because of the changes that are being made here.
This Minister was also written to by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—a former National Party Minister, I would point out—and told there was no need to do this under urgency, that this could be split out, that this actually could be thoroughly examined by people who understand this. Clearly, the Government members don’t—they’ve drunken some Kool-Aid and haven’t read any of the detail. These are serious changes that are being made. It will raise cost for New Zealanders. We will be exploring this thoroughly in the committee stage and Labour will not be supporting this legislation.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is like precision surgery; it’s removing the cancerous “greenwashing” tumour with practical economic and environmental logic—the two can co-exist. This is a very practical bill, I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Second Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I move, That the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to update New Zealand’s biogenic methane targets and make other changes to ensure our climate legislation remains fit for purpose. The Government’s commitments are clear. We need targets that reflect our national economic context, continue New Zealand’s contribution to international commitments, and are achievable in practice. The changes before us today provide clarity and confidence to the agricultural sector and to our wider economy.
This bill did not go through the select committee process. That said, the decisions reflected here have not been made without due consideration. They draw on months of expert technical advice, sector engagement, and independent review. I particularly recognise the rigorous input from the independent Methane Review Panel, the Climate Change Commission, and the dedicated teams across the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries who have ensured that this legislation is robust and evidence based.
This bill does a number of things. Firstly, it updates the biogenic methane target to a range of 14 to 24 percent below 2017 levels by 2050. This responds to concerns that the previous target was unrealistic and economically disruptive. It legislates a review of the methane target in 2040 so that the target will continue to reflect the latest science and international developments. It defers setting the fourth emissions budget until 31 December 2027. This will allow time for updated advice from the Climate Change Commission that aligns with the updated biogenic methane target. It requires consideration of domestic food production when advising on and setting emissions budgets, recognising, importantly, the primary sector’s importance to our economy and our communities. Finally, it removes the requirement for the emissions trading scheme (ETS) settings to accord with New Zealand’s nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. This is appropriate, as the New Zealand ETS is a domestic instrument and should be focused on achieving our domestic targets and budgets.
Agriculture is the backbone of our economy, it contributes over 80 percent of our exports and supports our rural communities across this country. We cannot afford blunt instruments that undermine our agricultural productivity. The bill ensures that our climate targets are achievable, and our approach to emissions reduction are fair and evidence based. Farmers have been clear: they need targets that are realistic and provide certainty about what is expected from them. The previous methane target created economic uncertainty across rural New Zealand. By grounding our targets in science and practicality, we ensure that climate policy supports a productive and resilient economy. New Zealand’s food and fibre producers are world leaders in carbon-efficient production, and this bill reflects our belief that a thriving climate and a thriving economy go hand in hand.
Our international commitments remain unchanged. New Zealand continues to take its obligations under the Paris Agreement seriously, and this bill reinforces our continued contribution to the global effort on climate change.
Technology will play a vital role in meeting these targets. Within the next decade, we expect methane reduction tools to be widely available. The Government’s investing significant money to accelerate innovation and adoption of technologies to reduce on-farm emissions. Over the next decade, we anticipate the wider roll-out of efficient and scientifically proven methane reduction technologies across New Zealand farming systems. These tools will enable us to achieve the updated target, while strengthening the competitiveness and value of our export and agricultural sector. New Zealand farmers are amongst the most carbon-efficient producers globally, and with the right support and the right Government, they will continue to lead in international markets.
This bill is about balance between environmental responsibility and economic resilience. We want to support our farmers. We want to avoid punitive measures. We want to work together to deliver practical and sustainable solutions. And listening to the Opposition’s contributions today, it is clear that they do not agree with any of those points, and it is very clear now, for the rural sector of New Zealand, this side of the House supports our rural sector.
As the House moves into the committee stage, I welcome productive discussions—I don’t think too much is going to be necessary, because we’ve been very descriptive in the lead up to this process. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Where was the select committee stage? Well, under the rules of urgency, we are not having a select committee stage. It’s a real shame. Nicole McKee, a Minister in that Government, said yesterday, “More voices make better law.” There are no more voices in this debate.
I turn to the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Minister’s own officials. In that regulatory impact statement, it discusses the need for consultation, and it reflects on the zero carbon bill. It says that there was extensive consultation on setting the gas targets in the zero carbon bill. There was a large number of submissions to the process. There was a full select committee process. In terms of updating the 2050 target, the regulatory impact statement notes that there’s been targeted consultation and there has been some extra research. Then it says that normal legislative processes provide opportunity for public submissions and engagement as part of the select committee process. What select committee process?
The Minister has said that we don't need to have an extended committee stage. That is so much not the case because it has to substitute now for the select committee process and we do need to go into some of those questions. At the core of this reset target for methane is the concept of no additional warming, and it’s a disputed concept. In other countries it’s sometimes called carbon neutrality. It’s a known concept, and, interestingly enough, it is a concept that is pushed by countries with large agricultural sectors. The Minister talks of the science that was done to set this methane range, and, in fact, the Minister set up his own independent methane review panel, despite having a whole body of experts sitting in the Climate Change Commission. It’s always a bit of a red flag when someone sets up their own independent panel.
The question that was asked was a very specific question that said if we want no additional warming, what kind of methane target should we have? It assumed that no additional warming was an appropriate goal in the first place. So, yes, those were highly qualified scientists working on that methane review, but they were asked to answer a very particular question, and it was a particular question that assumed that no additional warming was an appropriate metric. So is it an appropriate metric? Straightforwardly no. No, it is not, and here’s why.
It takes a little bit to understand this because it just seems so plausible in the first place, but in reality, it is not. So what that no additional warming metric puts into place is it grandfathers existing levels of emissions and says that they are OK. So any decrease from that existing level is good; any increase to that existing level is bad. But it says that the warming that occurs to date, the level of warming from the emissions at this level, is appropriate and acceptable.
So let’s go for an example here to help people to understand why this is a bad approach. What I want you to imagine is a factory, and let’s say it's pouring maybe 1,000 litres of toxic waste into a local stream every year. Now, we’d all think that was a bad thing, and we’d think that if they reduced that level of toxic waste a bit, say going from 1,000 litres to 900 litres, that would be a good thing because it was a reduction. So it's a big factory, it's been going a long time, it's well established, it's got its levels of waste already worked in there, and because it gets that reduction, it's seen as doing something good, and that’s acceptable—but you’ve baked in the 900 level.
Let’s now imagine another factory starts up. There’s a start-up. There’s someone who needs to get going and they pour 100 litres of toxic waste into the stream as a byproduct of what they're doing, and that is categorically seen as a bad thing. So even though they are producing much less pollution than the first factory, they are bad because that's an increase on the first factory, the one that has 900 litres of waste going in every year—that is seen as a good thing because it's come down and they're permitted to carry on.
Now, let’s translate that to what that means in terms of agriculture. We are—[Interruption] Stop with the juvenile undergraduate comments, David. It’s not just a hypothetical example. Let’s think about our major exports. Let’s think about the way we export milk powder to the world. We are a large producer of milk powder. We have one of the biggest dairy companies—Fonterra—in the world. It’s one of our largest exports. It would fall into the notion of a multinational under our tax laws and so on. Fonterra produces milk powder, and we do it at a significant cost in methane. What we are saying is that if we do not increase that methane and in fact decrease it a little, that’s a good thing as we export to the world.
But, then, imagine a much less rich country than New Zealand. Imagine a country that is trying to build up its own dairy industry. Imagine a poor country, say somewhere in Africa or somewhere in the Pacific that is trying to develop its own dairy industry. Because it was developing its own onshore dairy industry, it will start producing methane emissions, and that would be seen as a bad thing because it would have no grandparented-in emissions. So this no additional warming is grossly unfair because it bakes in the existing level of warming produced by methane and says that’s OK. It says it’s OK.
It means that over time, the inequity across the world is going to be cemented in. Instead of helping developing nations, we are going to penalise them and we’re going to accept for ourselves just keeping on with that we’re doing already. So that is what no additional warming does, and that is why this side of the House rejects it. We actually need to do better. And we need to ensure that if a global problem is facing the world, as a rich nation, we do our bit. No additional warming means we do not do our bit. No additional warming means we rely on the pollution we have already caused. No additional warming cements in the existing warming we cause. It is a false metric to use.
It is the metric that has been rejected in open letters by scientists, the general body of scientific opinion, across the world. It’s only a small group of people who answer a very specific question who think it is acceptable to go down that route. So I want the members on the other side of the House to take this seriously. That Government is making a very political choice to bake in no additional warming. It is actually baked into the words of this bill. It is a false metric and it is a metric that enables us to do nothing. That is unacceptable and that is why the Labour Party is rejecting this bill.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will strive to deliver a calmer, more meandering speech for my second reading, as befits the tone of second reading speeches. I’ll start by doing the obligatory Opposition deploring of urgency and then I’ll move on to incorporating the viewpoints of stakeholders, because we haven’t had a chance to have select committee, so I’ll be reading some of the stakeholder submissions that were reactions to when the Government announced the outcome of the methane target review. Then I’ll get into a little bit of myth-busting with whatever time I have left.
But I wanted to, first, compliment the previous speaker, Dr Deborah Russell, for her excellent explanation on why the principle of no additional warming was not the correct thing. I think her calm and good explanation is a really good example of why it's not a good thing.
I do want to spend a little bit of time, as I've, I guess, put a little bit of a road mark on, on questioning the need for urgency on this bill, because it does change the target, and it changes the target for the 2050 target, so we've got a little bit of a way to go to get there, so why change the target under urgency? Look, it does make some changes to some urgent stuff. It changes the fourth emissions reduction plan deadline from 2025 to 2027. I can understand why that may have needed to be done under urgency, but I argue to you that the actual cost of changing the methane target under urgency without giving a chance for any stakeholder input, and what that does to the idea of cross-party consensus that we used to have in this country, and the level of disruption that will cause to communities as Governments chop and change emissions targets, really disproportionately outweighs any conceivable benefit that they might have gained from it.
It's especially baffling when you consider the background context of this, because, you know, I had a chance to, as I alluded to in my first-reading speech, look through the climate plans of the various coalition parties and the coalition agreements as well, and not a single coalition agreement actually mentioned—look, I'll concede that the, I think, ACT-National coalition agreement did say that there was going to be a review of the methane target, but a review was all that was committed to. Likewise, with the National Party's climate commitments coming into the 2023 election, all that was committed to was a review, so, actually, National didn't come into the election promising to change the target. If anything, they committed to New Zealand's target, so it's really baffling why they chose to do this under urgency, when the change of the target wasn't mentioned in the coalition agreement or mentioned in the pre-election commitment of the primary governing party.
I want to move on now to incorporating the views of the stakeholders because I think this is really important because, normally, there would be a chance for stakeholders to have input and actually provide feedback on the contents of this legislation. I am going to read because I don't want to get the viewpoints of the people that I'm quoting from wrong. I'm quoting from something that Professor James Renwick, who was the inaugural Climate Change Commissioner from 2019 to 2024, said: “The Government’s announcement on methane emissions reductions represents a major step backwards in ambition and in climate action. The methane reductions mandated under the Zero Carbon act called for 24-47% reductions by 2050, in line with the science of the IPCC report on 1.5°C of warming. The revised emissions reductions are 14-24% by 2050, so the top of the new range is below the bottom of the old range.
“The idea of ‘no additional warming’ ”—and that is one of the key principles behind this—“seems to have won today, in terms of scientific advice to the Government. This approach goes easy on the agriculture sector and in no way does it represent our ‘highest possible ambition’ as laid out in Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, to which New Zealand is a signatory. Our trading partners are unlikely to smile on this reduction in ambition.
“The climate is currently changing rapidly and we need to be doing all we can to slow the warming and avoid catastrophic impacts from extremes and from tipping points crossed. Yes, carbon dioxide emission … are the number one target, and we must get to zero as soon as possible. But methane emissions are the next most important, and emissions reductions there would quickly translate into reductions in atmospheric concentrations (because of the short lifetime of methane in the atmosphere), providing a cooling effect in the short-medium term. To pull our weight internationally under the Paris Agreement, New Zealand should still be aiming for the reductions set as law in the Zero Carbon Act, not these watered-down targets.
“This week, a major international conference on climate change adaptation is taking place in Christchurch. We can currently adapt to climate change pressures, in most places, most of the time. Every tenth of a degree of warming makes that adaptation harder, and at some point we will no longer be able to adapt. There is real urgency around reducing emissions of all greenhouse gases, in every sector and every country. This can be achieved by working as hard as we can across the board. The new methane targets increase the risk of unmanageable consequences from climate change.”
I think that's something that's really important to reflect on, and I want to reflect on one of the things that he said in his letter, in that our international partners are unlikely to smile at our change in targets. I think this is, actually, something the Government realises, because in the regulatory impact statement for this bill—I'll just pull it up—they actually redacted the sections to do with the trade implications of the changes and the possible costs that might be incurred to New Zealand and the possible risks that out various industries—not only the agricultural industry but across the board that rely on that green premium. They redacted paragraphs 126 to 128 that talk about the risks of the change, but they forgot to redact a paragraph that referred to these risks: paragraph 145.
That means that there are risks in this that they're kind of acknowledging by forgetting to redact paragraph 145. I know for a fact from an Official Information Act (OIA) request that I've gotten back from either New Zealand Trade and Enterprise or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that our trade partners have actually warned us against the change in the methane pledge. This was something that was raised in an email, something that was raised in a meeting, and something that was discussed in a phone call to officials in New Zealand from our trade partners—that the Nationally Determined Contribution is actually mentioned under the New Zealand - UK Free Trade Agreement and the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement.
It's a shame because the OIA request that I got back was so heavily redacted that it didn't end up saying anything. It just said that it was raised in the call, but they declined to release the notes that they took of the phone call, the notes they took of the meeting. They even declined to release the actual email; they just provided a summary of the email, in which the trade risk was raised.
It's really interesting because there's been a rhetoric that this Government is going to achieve economic prosperity for New Zealanders. I mean, if you look at the GDP figures, it's anything but that. There's this rhetoric that the Governments of the centre-right are the adults on the economy, the ones who are going to create economic prosperity. But what this bill shows is that not only are they wilfully disregarding evidence but they’re actually hiding the evidence so that we can't actually discuss the full implications of this change—the cost and possible benefits.
In conclusion, we really do not support this bill, and we look forward to changing it as soon as we can.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister in charge, Hon Simon Watts, for this bill, because he has already described what this bill intends to do. I also want to acknowledge my ACT Party colleague Hon Andrew Hoggard, who spoke in the first reading of this bill and provided a really good background to this bill and why this bill is necessary. He was speaking from his own experience as well as a farmer.
I will say this: that farming is not just a sector on the list of other sectors; it is, actually, the foundation of our economy. We are a very, very proud food-producing nation. The food that we produce is really high quality. On this side, we back our farmers and we know we have to back our farmers based on evidence. From my circles talking to farmers, I know that our farmers do everything possible to support the environment and they do it in a very, very responsible manner. They produce really efficiently. We also know that they adopt technology as soon as it becomes available. We cannot expect them to apply something that is not available. So we have to be realistic as well.
We all know that we want more and more money going into the health sector, more and more money going into education, more and more money going into our welfare sector, but that money needs to come from somewhere. And our sector supports that—brings that revenue that we can invest in so many sectors. Also, if your economy’s doing well, we can put more resources towards climate change as well. So climate change cannot happen in isolation. We need to support our economy so that we can put more measures in place to tackle climate change.
On this side, we understand how the economy works; but, on the other side, listening to those speeches, we can clearly see that they don’t understand how the economy works. For them, I know that it’s just about setting up a printing machine in the background. They will start printing money. They think you can just put a printing machine in the background and start printing money. Can I ask those members to reflect on this: that just setting up a printing machine and starting to print something also involves a carbon footprint. So I ask those members to reflect on that as well.
So to finish, I would say, on this side, we back farmers. We want to see that our targets are realistic, they are balanced, and they are grounded in economic reality. So I support the bill. Thank you.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): New Zealand First continues to support the bill. Following up from Parmjeet Parmar, not only did the Opposition not understand the economy, but they actually don't understand the science here either. With respect, you're boxing at the wrong target. I absolutely respect that you're trying to do the best for the planet. But we're talking about biogenic methane, which is in a closed biological cycle. We're not talking about the emissions from fossil fuels.
Wasn't it instructive to hear Deborah Russell’s kind of convoluted anecdote about how this all works and actually admitting that she wanted New Zealand emissions to come down so African emissions could go up. New Zealand first will stand absolutely behind New Zealand farmers. We're not taking a second thought to trying to stimulate other agricultural systems. Although, we are going to be part of the solution at a global problem, not at a global level, by money we're putting into innovation; $400 million we're investing and that technology is coming along pretty quickly now.
There is, you know, boluses, vaccines in development. I think there's about 10 or a dozen now that AgriZero have invested in. We know, for example, that we've managed to isolate genetics that just naturally animals that emit less methane, which appear to be more efficient, because they're utilising more of that energy for growth into meat and milk or wool. That could be easily incorporated through our systems and particularly in a dairy industry where very few bulls come through LIC or Ambreed, it's a very focused system in terms of the genetics they use.
So there are all sorts of solutions coming along and those solutions can be disseminated out to the world. Actually, it's a big economic opportunity for New Zealand, this research and development that we're doing to actually help those African farmers. But in the meantime, we are not going to shut New Zealand farms down. Sorry, we are just not going to do it.
Also, just the efficiency of our farmers. I just want to reflect my own anecdote of meeting an international professor at Lincoln University, telling me that he could not find anywhere in the world to send his agricultural students from pastoral farming management. He said there is nowhere in the world that can compete, that he could send them where they would actually learn at a farming systems level how to do it any better than what they do here. He said, his direct quote was, “New Zealand pastoral farming systems are akin to magic.” Most of the comparative countries have got these vast industrial scale grain-fed systems, which, you know, they're not in those closed biological systems like we are here in our grass-fed systems.
We are confident in the science that we put up. It was a reputable panel. New Zealand First, as I said, we would have gone further, we would have just gone for the 14 percent. We see absolutely no reason to put our farmers out of business whilst, you know, Russia and China and the United States continue to spew out vast quantities of carbon emissions.
So that's New Zealand First’s position. It has not changed at all since the first reading, and we continue to support the bill.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. It’s deeply disturbing that we’re into the second reading of this bill without any chance to have a robust debate about it, and I agree—where is the select committee stage? Public consultation—gone. The Climate Change Commission consulting with Māori—gone. Community input into emissions budgets—gone.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
This Government has decided that climate decisions are too technical for the public, too complex for iwi, and too distracting for democracy. Apparently, only the Minister knows best—a Minister who thinks weakening the methane target counts as climate leadership; a Minister whose idea of climate strategy is “We’ll sort something out by 2050.” This isn’t efficiency: it is authoritarian convenience. This bill should be strengthening our climate framework. Instead, it guts it, hollows it, and hands the pen to polluters. It removes the requirement that emissions trading scheme (ETS) unit settings must accord with our Paris Agreement targets. Put simply, we are no longer required to follow the international commitments that we promised the world. Shame!
This is a coalition rewriting the rules because the science is inconvenient, and because Matua Shane “Fossil Fuels” Jones wants to turn Aotearoa into the Dubai of the South Pacific minus the money, minus the plan, and minus the future. Then, they’re moving ETS settings from annual to biennial reviews, meaning fewer checkpoints, fewer corrections, and fewer chances to stop mistakes before they blow the budget and blow our planet. This is “set and forget” climate policy, except it’s not forgetting, it’s wilful negligence. This bill strips the Climate Change Commission of its role to advise on emissions reduction plans. Why? Because the Minister doesn’t like being told he’s wrong, and the Commission keeps making the cardinal sin of using science. This Government’s attitude is very clear: if the experts disagree with you, silence them. If the evidence embarrasses you, bury it. If the science warns you, ignore it.
Every timeline in the Climate Change Response Act has been pushed out like a can being kicked down the road. The Government says it’s streamlining, but, let’s be honest, they’re stalling—stalling for agriculture, stalling for oil and gas, and stalling for mates who don’t want to cut emissions because it might affect their profit margin this quarter. Government agencies were supposed to be carbon neutral by 2025. “Too hard”, they say—too soon, too ambitious—so what does this Government do? It pushes it to 2050, the same deadline as everyone else. The truth is it wasn’t too hard; it was too inconvenient because it required leadership. Leadership is something this Government has outsourced to the fossil fuel industry.
I want to close with some truth about Matua Shane, who, I would say, is the unofficial “Minister of Emissions”. Matua Shane Jones has become that—he wants mines, he wants drilling, he wants economic growth, but only the kind that melts ice caps and floods our marae. He talks about “resource sovereignty”, but what he really means is extracting everything until Tangaroa starts invoicing us directly. If this bill had a mascot, it would be Matua Shane Jones riding a diesel bulldozer through a wetland yelling, “Progress!” It sounds funny, but not when his own kuia are weeping, not when the cousins can’t collect kaimoana, not when our mokopuna are deprived of their pātaka kai, or a place to swim, because it’s filthy, and his own hapū continue to scream,
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Te Pāti Māori will not stand by any Government that gambles the lives of our people, diminishes Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and distinguishes tino rangatiratanga, all while they mock science, they mock our whanaunga across Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, and they mock the future of our mokopuna—tino kāore nei. It goes without saying that Te Pāti Māori strongly opposes this bill, and we do not commend it to the House. Ka whawha tonu mātou, ake, ake, ake!
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill has been rushed upon us like a slash-laden flash flood on the Esk Valley. Fred Dagg—
Grant McCallum: How long did it take you to come up with that one?
STEVE ABEL: It was the first thing that came to my mind. John Clarke, the creator of the great Fred Dagg, said that recognising a problem and doing nothing about it has the same effect as not noticing the problem in the first place. That is a charitable take on this Government’s climate strategy, because worse than saying that they believe in climate change and doing nothing about it is saying that they believe in climate change and then doing all the things that make it worse. Saying that the bald, hard science of climate change—balder than I am—is climate catastrophising betrays a deep disdain for the fact of the existential threat.
No nation is an island unto itself. We are all a part of the whole planet, and we are all a part of that community of humanity who faces the existential challenge of climate change. We should have a sense of responsibility and duty to do our bit, however little that bit may be. Just because we’re small doesn’t mean we shouldn’t play our part. Whenever has that been the ethos of our nation? Except when the dairy industry has to play their part.
Imagine if we were at a climate discussion, and a big oil-producing nation said, “Oh, we can’t do anything about our oil-producing emissions, because it’s such a big part of our economy.” That is the logic—that is the exact logic—of this Government: “Just because it’s a big part of the economy, we’re not going to change anything.” How does Saudi Arabia have any different argument? They have the exact same argument, but all of us have to do our bit. All of us have to address our biggest emissions challenges.
The Minister of Climate Change said in his first speech that our farmers are the most efficient food producers in the world. That’s an argument we hear from this Government all the time. In his second speech, he said we are among the most carbon efficient globally. You’ll see this chart later in the debate [Holds up chart], but can I just say that it’s very clear in terms of carbon efficiency that we are not in the top three; we’re not even in the top five. In the entire OECD, in terms of the carbon efficiency of farming, we fall behind Australia, the United States, and every one of the 27 European Union countries. We fall at No. 48 in terms of carbon—
Grant McCallum: Bollocks!
STEVE ABEL: It’s the science, Grant McCallum. You might not like it, but it’s the science, and I’ll tell you why we fall behind. It’s for a very simple reason: because most of our production is ruminant animals. That is the simple fact of the science.
Hon Nicola Grigg: On pasture.
STEVE ABEL: OK, then the next question: you accept that we’re not the most carbon-efficient food producers because most of what we’re producing is ruminant animals—
Dan Bidois: Can explain the graph for us?
STEVE ABEL: It’s a list of the countries and their carbon efficiency. I’ll explain it later.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Order! We don’t need the conversation across the House, please.
STEVE ABEL: I can table that graph for you—yeah, that’s right.
Then the next question becomes—which Nicola Grigg alludes to—are we the most carbon-efficient animal producers? It turns out that we’re not even that, and the most important point is that the difference in efficiency is not most evident between countries; it’s between production styles.
There is a farmer right now on the Waikato who is farming dairy cows at 25 percent lower methane emissions than his neighbour, and so the point is that we can achieve substantial reductions in emissions across all our farming systems if we have the ambition. But this Government has the climate ambition of a flat sheet—absolutely no climate ambition.
We are abrogating our responsibility as a global citizen to be part of this existential challenge. Do you know what the biggest threat to food production globally over the next century is? It is climate change, it is global heating, and it is extreme weather, and you’re locking us into more of that.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just for the member’s benefit, I am not doing that.
STEVE ABEL: Pardon me, Madam Speaker.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, on this side of the House, we respect our farmers. We respect our agricultural sector, which contributes 81 percent to our exports. We have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world, and we do not want to send our food production offshore to less carbon-efficient countries. This is a realistic, balanced approach to methane targets. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, we’ve heard the chairperson of the Environment Committee talk about carbon-efficient farming, and here, of course, we are talking about methane target changing, not the carbon target changing. But it does remind me of when Dr Rod Carr was the chairperson of the Climate Change Commission. He would—
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I hear some disparaging remarks from across the aisle there. I don’t know why that would be, because he was an economist—we’ve heard the other side challenging the economics of the arguments that we’re making—and he was a very proper and diligent person doing a very difficult job. But there were some scoffs from the other side of the House, which makes me wonder about the change in chair of that commission. Hmm, interesting.
Francisco Hernandez: It makes you think.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well—
Hon Member: There’s a minute!
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, “there’s a minute”—I get a “there’s a minute” from the other side. I can assure those members that I’ve got plenty of things to say; do not worry about that.
But I was reminiscing on what the chair used to say, and he was like “Well, if you want to reduce your methane targets, fine, but you have to change your carbon targets then.”—that is what he would say. There is a budget, and if you’re going to change one input, there’s a corresponding effect on the other. So if you want to reduce the methane and you say, “Well, the farmers have said it’s impossible”—and we’ll take that at the word of the previous speaker—fine. But then you have to be more ambitious about carbon, about nitrous oxide and about fluoride, and are we seeing any of that ambition? No, we are not. We’re not seeing any conversation, even, of that entire budget.
I would like the Minister to comment on this when he gets to the committee stage. The committee stage that is about to be upon us because, of course, we are in all-stages urgency, and it is very disrespectful of the people across this the aisle to say, “Well just sit down and get there.” No. We are the Opposition that has very limited time to hold this terrible Government to account about legislation that, one, seems to make no sense, and, two, will result in more of the head-in-the-sand thinking of this Government that says, “Oh well, we just don’t need to do anything on climate change because we’re better than everyone else.”
What a ridiculous approach. Why bother signing up to international agreements? Why bother signing up to bilateral trade agreements that say that we will do our part when clearly this Government has no intention of doing our part?
We heard from Ministers before. Minister Mark Patterson said, “Oh well, all these other countries are”—I can’t remember what his word was, it was an interesting word—“putting out all their carbon emissions. They’re doing it, and so should we.” He didn’t say, “so should we”, but I’m inferring that that was the point of his argument, if there was some logic there, and that goes against the Paris Agreement.
That goes against all of New Zealand’s international ambitions in the world, where we, from all sides of the House, go around the world and say, “New Zealand is a small country with no near neighbours and we have to rely on international laws and rules being followed.” That is what we say to the world because we know that we are vulnerable here. We know that we rely on these international rules being followed and so we diligently go and sign up to some of them to match our rhetoric. But what we are seeing here is the undoing of that promise and that rhetoric, because the arguments put forward by Mark Patterson that some other countries are emitting a whole lot of carbon and so therefore it’s OK for us to reduce our ambition—all that does is undermine what we go around saying on the importance of international agreements. It is a shameful day.
Now, if farmers are so efficient, why do we need to change this target that already includes the 24 in it? Presumably, it is because that 24 isn’t going to be met and they want it to be at this lower range of 14 percent. We will go through this in the committee stage as well, but where are we going to get to within those numbers if we don’t have any pricing?
I know that this bill is not about pricing, but it’s important to note that this is going in totally the opposite direction of where the National Party was. Those members said, “We don’t like the sort of pricing arrangements that you were working on with farm leaders for so long, Labour Party, but we do still think there should be a pricing mechanism.”—crickets, because, of course, the whole point of changing these targets is because they don’t want any pricing mechanism, which is a very big change in direction.
You could say that, well, that’s a change in direction because they’re in a coalition with the ACT Party, which is determined to do nothing on climate change and has a record on that, and now we have the New Zealand First Party that, despite being around when all this legislation was passed—before I was in this House—has changed its tune, as well. But it is the National Party who has the Minister of Climate Change. It is the National Party who stands up time and time again and says, “We’re in it for the farmers, and you are not, and we just want to say ‘Yes, yes, yes, grow, grow, grow’.”
At some point, there is a time in any regulatory environment where you have to say no, but these people seem to think that if they just say, “Yes, yes, yes” enough, then it’ll be for someone else to finally say no, and who will those somebody elses be? Well, they could be our trading partners that say, “Hang on a moment New Zealand, you said that you were doing your part under Paris, but now you are not, so we are not going to trade with you anymore.” That’s a pretty big no.
It could be the ever-warming climate, with other countries looking at New Zealand and saying, “Well, you’re not doing your part, little old New Zealand at the bottom of the world. You’re going to have more storms, and it’s going to be the farmers who hurt because of that.” That seems to be like a very big no, as well.
Talking wider in the range of issues that have been discussed during this urgency: if your rivers are so polluted or if all the water is taken, well, no farmer is going to be able to grow anything, are they? That’s a pretty big no, as well. So let’s be realistic. You cannot say, “Yes, yes, yes” for ever. There is always points of saying no and that is what grown-ups know.
Now, moving on to food, we heard some interjections there about food. Food is very important. I’m very happy to be the food safety spokesperson for the Labour Party and I am the former food safety Minister, so I know very much how important food is to New Zealanders.
What is happening in this bill is there is a new requirement that food production has to be a consideration. It’s about domestic food production, but the explanatory note says that it also refers to export, and there are questions around what the Climate Change Commission will be required to do when looking at this food. Is it really real questions like “If our climate changes by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius”—as it has—“where will we be able to grow things?” Where do the carbohydrates come from for New Zealand, given that most of us consume them—but we import a whole lot of those. What is the role of protein?
Are these the issues that the Climate Change Commission will be looking at? Will it be looking at how much food we need domestically, or is it that total export focus? But, more importantly, will they be funded appropriately, because all we have seen from this Government is cynical cuts.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I stand here in the House today, wearing my proud tie with the cows on it, because I am a Fonterra supplier. I think it is important to remember to ask the question: why are companies like Danone and Nestlé coming to us and wanting to do business with us? In response to what the previous speaker said: it’s because we are good at what we do. They know we’re good environmentally; they know we’re good in terms of our low-methane emissions and improving on it. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): We’re hearing an awful lot of rhetoric from the Government benches about what a great day for farmers this is and how they’re the party that backs farmers. We heard from the chair of the Environment Committee that this was about respect for the people that provide 81 percent of our exports. I suggest to those backbenchers that are getting up and reading their lines that have been supplied to them by the Minister’s office, that they actually start asking some questions. What I suggest they do is they have a look at some of the Cabinet and official documents that have been released under the Official Information Act (OIA) on the advice that their Minister received on this. What that advice did was redact the implications of our obligations under trade agreements. Now, I call on that Minister to release that redacted information to this House for the purposes of this debate, because what that information has said is that agreements with the EU and with the UK contain certain requirements around sustainability, including not weakening our environmental protections for trade advantage.
Now, I want to acknowledge the Hon Damien O'Connor, who went and put in place those trade agreements that, actually, are the things that are the most beneficial to our farmers—the ability to sell our products overseas. The changes that are being made here, potentially, put those trade agreements at risk. If this is not the case, then the Minister can clear this up; he can come down to the House during committee stage, and he can release to the Opposition, to his own backbench, and to the New Zealand public exactly what that advice said. Why it was redacted is a mystery. Why should New Zealanders not know what the implication is on our ability for 81 percent of our exports to reach their markets in high-value markets like Europe and like the UK? Why would the Minister keep that information not only from this House but from New Zealanders? I call on that Minister to come down and tell us this.
Instead of his backbench talking about farming being the foundation of our economy and all the other trite rhetoric that they’re trotting out, let’s have that evidence-based debate, let’s put the information on the table, and let’s see who really is undermining our rural sector and our food producers. It is changes like this that put it all at risk, and the Minister won’t even front up to this House or to New Zealand with the advice he’s received. Now, one of the things about receiving advice is not hiding behind the black vivid marker to shield all of that under the OIA. I call on that Minister to release that. It’s not that difficult. You can table it in the committee stages, Minister; it is not hard.
Now, this is a bill that not only changes that methane target but also, as we talked about, decouples the emissions trading scheme settings from our international targets. Now, this has huge economic implications, and we will be calling on the Minister to tell us what advice he received when it comes to the committee stage. It’s very simple: if you don’t reduce emissions in one sector of the economy, another part of the economy has to pick up that slack. That will be New Zealand motorists when they go and fill up their cars, that will be New Zealand households when they pay their power bills, and that will be New Zealand industry who cannot keep employing people. These are the pieces of advice that this Minister received. This is the advice that this Minister knows that he is passing legislation to implement. This a piece of legislation that puts New Zealand’s economic security at risk. It risks our market security, and it will raise the cost of living.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m pleased to take a call on this bill. It’s very clear: the farmers have been clear that they need a realistic methane target that provides certainty about what’s expected of them. I think they deserve that. The farmers of East Coast, Tairāwhiti, and the Eastern Bay of Plenty want that. This bill delivers it for our hard-working food producers. I commend it to the House.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
In Committee
Part 1 2050 target for biogenic methane emissions reduction
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 and 5, the 2050 target for biogenic methane emissions reductions. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm hoping to enter into the same format as last night of rapid-fire questions and answers. So let me begin by asking the Minister of Climate Change: does he stand by his comments at the Belém conference that we must press forward and we must keep 1.5 degrees alive?
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): There’s obviously a whole lot of work that we need to do in this committee stage, given that we didn’t have a select committee. I propose that we do it clause by clause rather carefully. I do want to work, in this first session, around clause 4 of the bill. What clause 4 does is it does two things really.
Hon Erica Stanford: We know what it does. Ask a question.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, the Minister hasn’t told us. The first bit it does is it puts in the revised methane target, and it inserts it into the bill. That’s in clause 4(1). It amends the Climate Change Response Act to do that. The second part of clause 4 inserts a new section into the Act, requiring the Government to review the methane target in 2040. There’s a couple of aspects of that that we want to talk about. One is the particular date considering trading partners and considering no additional warming.
First of all, I want to focus very, very tightly on the revised methane target. That’s clause 4(1) and (2). It is quite a short bit there. Having said all that, one of the ways that the Government got to this new lower range was by appointing its own independent methane panel. There’s a huge set of issues there which could have been explored in select committee. It appointed the panel, despite the fact that we have a Climate Commission that does expert science and works with expert science on climate and that had already done a heap of work on methane that was credible and accepted by the broader scientific community. I want to understand why the Government thought it was necessary to set up their own independent methane panel. Could the Minister answer that please?
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Since we're not doing the standing up, sitting down thing, I'll dump all my questions in one go, then, and just wanting to thank the previous speaker, my colleague, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for going clause by clause. We intend to do that as well.
I will start with clause 4(1). My questions are: which stakeholders were consulted as part of the shift from the 24 to 47 percent to the 14 to 24 percent target range? What was the criteria for deciding which stakeholders to consult as part of this process? Which ones were invited to take part in this process but did not decide to take part in this process and what were the reasons that they gave for not wanting to be part of the process?
My second question revolves around the decrease in the target from the 24 to 47 percent range to the new 14 to 24 percent target. What is the increase in emissions associated, assuming that the bottom range of the target, 14 percent, is the range that was met and assuming that the bottom range of the previous target was the one that was met, so calculating 24 to 14 percent in terms of the emissions increase from that?
My third question revolves around the question of distributional impacts. Was there anything done regarding which sectors of the economy were most likely to benefit from the change from 24 to 47 percent to 14 to 24 percent?
I also wanted to canvass some amendments that I've drafted around what this potential target could be. One of the amendments that I've drafted—I'm not sure if it's there yet or if it's still with the House Office—is letting the target be set by the independent Climate Change Commission. I think that would restore confidence in the independence of our commission and also make sure that what the Minister's target is is actually considering the best possible range of scientific evidence.
I want to return to the question that the Minister hasn't answered. Does he stand by the statement that he made at Belém that we must keep 1.5 alive, and is this revised target at either 14 or 24 percent compatible with a 1.5 degree pathway that he said that we needed to keep alive in Belém? Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, Minister. Before I take the next call, I’ll just reiterate how I’d like to see the committee running, which is the question and answer, and I haven’t done that, so the Minister wasn’t aware that that’s how I’d like it to run. So if you have a line of questions and your time runs out or you get to the end of your questions, I will continue to call you so that you can continue your line of questioning.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for the clarification. In regard to the first question by the member, do I stand by those statements? Yes. The Government is committed to its international commitments and the targets in which we are committed to.
In regard to the questions around clause 4(1), in effect that is the clause that is setting the target for 2050 amending section 5Q(1)(b)(ii) around the 14 to 24 percent.
In regard to the question around stakeholders engaged: a wide range of stakeholders were engaged as part of this process, including independent scientific review. We also got advice from the independent Climate Change Commission; a number of environmental groups, which that member will be well aware of; and the agriculture sector groups; and also, agricultural sector retailers and producers as well.
The question in regard to distributional impacts: absolutely, this Government did consider the economic consideration in regard to the impacts of target setting. That was used in order to inform the decision that we’re making.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just going to remind the Minister that he hasn’t answered my first question, which is about why he appointed a Methane Review Panel in the first place. It does underpin a lot of what has gone on in this research. I’m going to add to that question because it really does matter. He actually got competing sets of advice. We know, in fact, that the Climate Commission recommended setting the methane range at 35 to 47 percent below 2017 levels. The Minister has made a very deliberate choice between the range recommended by the Climate Commission and the range recommended by the Methane Review Panel. I would actually like to understand why he chose to set aside the independent Climate Commission’s research and instead go for the research that came from this Methane Review Panel. I’d just like to remind the Minister that, of course, that Methane Review Panel had a very, very restricted focus. As I said in my second reading speech, it was directed to answer a very specific question which assumed the concept of no additional warming was correct. Given that there was a huge assumption underpinning that panel’s work, why did he prefer that panel’s work instead of the work of the independent Climate Commission?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Well, it’s not correct to make the assumption that we preferred any advice over others. We took a wide range of advice in regards to making this decision. We set up an independent Methane Review Panel made up of independent scientists with expertise in this area, which provided advice into that process. They provided advice in regards to two separate scenarios, which is being considered alongside the advice from the Climate Commission. That is the rationale and the methodology which we followed.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, it’s time for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee is suspended until 2 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 12:58 p.m. to 2 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is resumed on the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. When we were debating the bill before the lunch break, we were on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 and 5, “2050 target for biogenic methane emissions reduction”. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Look, it’s the first opportunity I've had to intervene, or to contribute. It is on clause 4(1), which relates to the change of the targets.
The questions I have for the Minister—because I went to the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and I've heard his discussions about why this was changed and he did mention costings. So I'm just asking the Minister: what cost estimates were done, and what information was he provided around the change in targets, because my reference to the RIS here says that the benefits exceeded the costs, although these have largely not been quantified. Maybe the Minister can provide, firstly, for a start, what were the costs and what were the benefits of that changing target.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question for the Minister also relates to clause 4(1), in terms of the changed target. This, of course, came through the advice that the Minister received through the independent review of methane, and in setting the terms of reference for that independent review, the idea of having no additional warming was introduced into this.
Now, this is a very contested area of science. There were some very good scientists who were included in that independent panel, but it is a contested area of science. I’d like to know what advice the Minister got, in terms of the political decision-making, of the relative merits of the scientific advice that he had to weigh up between the Climate Change Commission, who disagree with the idea of having no additional warming, and the advice he got from the independent review on methane targets. Given he was making political decision-making, what was the balance that he put in and what was the most pertinent contested science that he saw coming through on that?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I’ll keep in the cadence of what we were doing before the lunchbreak. I did answer the question with regard to clause 4(1), but to give a little bit more context around the benefits and the questions in regard to that, the regulatory impact statement does include the detail in regards to this. This was followed by a comprehensive economic analysis, and the outcome of that did indicate around net benefits of this change in terms of the economy. I guess in any consideration around the impacts of climate change policy and economic impact, that is something the Government took seriously.
The question around waiting between the different aspect of advice—well, at the end of the day, the Government got a wide range of advice, including from the sources noted from the member. In terms of precedent on science, the independent review panel provided two scenarios, which I talked about in my contribution to the answer before the lunchbreak, and, again, that in conjunction with other advice informed our decision.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm also on clause 4. There's a broad question at stake here with the reason we care about methane emissions, and so if the Minister would be happy to take a few questions in a row, it might be useful to kind of elucidate where he stands on that.
I wonder if the Minister can explain the difference between a molecule of methane sourced from fossil gas or a molecule of methane from biogenic source, and I ask whether he recognises that there is no difference in the impact of methane, whatever its source, on the atmosphere, and whether he recognises the accepted science around methane being a superheating gas, having a global warming potential over a hundred years of 28 to 36 times more potency than carbon dioxide and, over 80 years, 20 times more potency. In that regard, the reason that methane is such a vital gas for us to cut the emissions of is exactly because of that superheating power it has to drive the atmosphere into chaos. I wonder if he can respond to those questions.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Well, yes, I can. The Government is committed to ensuring that it meets its targets, in regard to the reduction of emissions, both in regard to carbon dioxide but also in regard to methane. The purpose of this bill is not around the composition of the molecules which we’re talking about. The purpose of this bill is to outline a target this Government is pursuing, and so therefore that question is out of scope. But we will be looking to reset, and we took a wide range of scientific advice, as I’ve outlined now on four occasions—I’m now duplicating and repeating myself—in order to make our decision.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to remind the Minister of Climate Change that before the lunch break I asked him why he preferred the advice from the Methane Review Panel to the advice from the Climate Commission. He said, “Well, we took a wide range of advice.”, but it’s clear from the bill itself that the advice he preferred, the advice he took, was the advice from the Methane Review Panel, because the range they recommended is the range that has ended up in the bill. So why, given the range of advice that the Minister says he got, did he focus in and choose to follow the advice from the Methane Review Panel? Because the evidence is clearly there—that is exactly what he did.
My colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor talked about the costs and benefits of the change that the Minister’s done, what modelling has been done. I want to draw the committee’s attention to the regulatory impact statement and, in particular, I think, pages 57 and 58, where there is a table that sets out the options that the Government examined, options one through six. Option one is the status quo. Option three is the option that was chosen, reducing biogenic methane to 14 to 24 percent below 2017 levels. Option four was setting the biogenic methane target at 24 percent—the low point of the range set in the Climate Change Response Act before this bill, but the high point of the range recommended by the Methane Review Group.
Now, the interesting thing in terms of those options and the analysis accompanying them, the costs and benefits, the advantages and disadvantages of them, is the preferred option, option three, the one that the Minister and the Government has chosen, has a rating of negative two compared to the status quo—the status quo sits at zero, so a rating of negative two. Option four, which would have set biogenic methane at 24 percent, has a rating of plus one. So even in the regulatory impact statement, the officials’ analysis is that our methane target should have been set at 24 percent—that was better than the status quo, for various reasons, and it was certainly a lot better than the option that has been chosen by the Minister and by the Government. I’d like to hear the Minister’s justification for choosing that.
Now, we could have dug into this in select committee to find out exactly why the Government preferred this target. We haven’t had that possibility, haven’t had the chance to have a select committee, so I would very much like to hear the Minister’s justification around why they chose this frankly substandard option.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Well, the Government will consider a wide range of advice. We will take into account a number of factors, in terms of determining that decision making. The economic impact is one example of that. The ability to hit the target is another consideration. The science, in regards to the underlying points around that. I guess what the point is here is that we take in a wide range of input and advice from a range of sources in order to make an informed decision that meets the expectations of Government priority.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take my first call on this. I am very aware that because we are bypassing select committee, we need to have some time to dig into things. My question, really, is on Part 1, clause 4(1)—again. We understand that the Minister and the Government does recognise the need to reduce methane, so my question is really about the evaluation that has been done on the pathways to get there. We’ve heard from Mark Patterson earlier that there’s a little bit of hope that we might get there. I ask because the Minister seems to have some confidence that we can just keep on doing what we’re doing and maintain our trading relationships and maintain the functionality of our farming systems and of agriculture in the climate crisis that we are currently in.
My question is: what are the actual, now-ready technologies that are able to be employed to reduce biogenetic methane emissions? What evaluation has been done on low-impact farming methods—regenerative or organic farming, for example—and their ability to reduce biogenetic methane? I can say, as a member of the Rural Greens, that there are a whole lot of Rural Greens who are already showing the way, but I’m interested in what the Government’s doing to have a widespread application and where the Government is getting.
I’m also interested in understanding—because the Government does have some intention to reduce emissions, I understand—what are you planning? Are you planning a central, impartial extension system through some primary legislation that is yet to come to us, very much like the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries extension service that Roger Douglas destroyed? Is there something like that that we could anticipate? I’m also interested in whether you are planning to support farmers to move to those lower-impact systems through reducing herd size and focusing more on value rather than simple volume. Those are a number of questions that are really related to the Government’s intention, if I read this correctly, that—
Grant McCallum: You’re not.
SCOTT WILLIS: —we are going to see things move in a positive way for farming, or maybe—no, Mr McCallum over here says you’re not going to move in a positive way for farming. Possibly the Minister is, because we do want to support our farmers, and I want to understand what is actually going to be done—not the hopeful stuff, not the magical thinking. What is going to be done to get there? Thank you.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Yeah, very happy to answer those questions from the member. I do welcome the, I guess, pragmatic perspective there around the fact that we do need to look at solutions in order to reduce methane in agriculture.
This Government is very much supportive of the work under way, particularly around AgriZeroNZ. There's about 11 pathways in total that are going to be available by 2030. One of those, in particular, is around EcoPond. That technology has been rolled out, actually, by the farming industry—by Fonterra and Synlait—at the moment: 250 dairy farms will be rolled out in the coming years, which represents just over 3 percent of the total farm model. There’s a 90 percent reduction in methane as a result of that technology for the effluent portion of the farm, which is about 7 to 9 percent of the total methane output.
Really good example, but that's something that the Government is supporting more broadly. Again, there's no one single silver bolus that's going to solve this problem, but we are—
Miles Anderson: Oh, how good. He’s on fire!
Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you, I appreciate that. There is a range, and I think genetics, in particular, is an area which is a particular focus.
You asked about productivity: absolutely. I mean, all of this—there's two sides to the same coin. A lot of these interventions, including the genetics, deals with temperature resilience for animals; it deals with increased productivity and, also, reduction methane from those animals. That is a positive consideration, as well.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I still have questions around clause 4(1). I know there are a number of questions around this, but this really is the substantive legislative change that is happening here.
The Minister of Climate Change said in answer to an earlier question that he and his Government were committed to meeting targets. What I’m interest to know is which target the Minister was referring to in terms of the increase in temperature, whether that’s the 1.5 degree increase that is in the primary legislation.
If that is the case, how he marries that with the advice that he received from his officials in May that the 14 percent reduction goal, which is the only legally binding part of the target, is consistent with stabilising the warming contributions of New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions and 2017 levels under the global mid-range: 2 to 2.7 degrees. So how he marries his commitment around the 1.5 with the advice that he received that this scenario, that is included in clause 4(1), how that puts together.
The other thing I’d like to know from the Minister is, of course, that the Government is making choices where they are going to have the costs of our climate emissions full. They’re choosing to reduce that cost on 50 percent of our emission through changing this level. Did he consult with other parts of the economy that are going to have to pay the higher prices? Did he consult with manufacturers? Did he consult with electricity users who are going to end up paying more for their electricity because of these changes?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): In regards to the question around 1.5, the expectation under the Paris Agreement is that countries including New Zealand make their best effort to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, and we do that through our nationally determined contributions or NDCs. Our two NDCs which we do have represent our contribution to that, and this bill that we're talking about here makes no change in regards to that commitment.
The new domestic biogenic methane target that we're referring to here—and, of course, retaining our net zero commitments at 2050—mean that the domestic measures that we are doing and undertaking do contribute towards those global efforts under the Paris Agreement, which is aligned and linked to limit warming to 1.5. So it is our view that we are consistent with that range and we are committed to achieving our emissions budgets.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr, Chair, thank you. I really appreciate the chance to take another call. I want to go back to the economics of this. My colleague Megan Woods raised the issue of what other sectors of the economy the Minister consulted with, but, and this is possibly in reference to the fact the Minister himself, in replying to me earlier, talked about how they’d work through all the options, including the economic implications. However, unfortunately, sitting in the economic implications are some strongly—in the regulatory impact statement—redacted amounts. We cannot tell what the advice was here. We don’t know what economic implications were considered. Is the Minister prepared to table that advice so that we actually understand the strength of that economic analysis?
It would have to be pretty damn good because, in actual fact, the option that the Minister has chosen is the second-lowest ranked option and it’s worse than the status quo and worse than the officials’ preferred option. Now, given that the officials’ preferred option was to go for a 24 percent methane target, setting that at 24 percent, I wonder if the Minister would care to consider that, and, in fact, to support the Amendment Paper that I’ve got on the Table. It’s an Amendment Paper in which I suggest a variety of changes to the particular target that’s going to be set, but one of them says, “Well, hang on a second, why don’t we set this methane target at 23 to 25 percent?” There’s a really good reason for that. It targets that 24 percent. It sits right exactly there. That would actually be consistent with the advice that was offered by officials to aim for 24 percent now. The Minister has said, a number of times, he has taken a range of advice, there’s various economic implications, and so on. That’s kind of a non-answer because he’s not telling us why he preferred this, frankly, rather undercooked option; in fact, an option that is simply not as good as the other options that were on the table.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a follow-up to my question around 1.5 degrees, the Minister, of course, referred to the Paris Agreement having the 1.5 degree target, but of course, we have that target within our own domestic legislation. That is what is in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, which does aim to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.
So I'm asking the Minister whether he's committing to the target that is contained in that domestic legislation of 1.5, and if that is the case, how he marries that with advice that he received from his own officials that the changes he's making put New Zealand on a track to 2 to 2.7 degrees, and whether or not he intends to change the target within the primary legislation.
The second question that I would like to ask goes back to that question around the other sectors of the economy, and whether or not the Minister will provide the House with a list with everyone who was consulted outside of the agricultural sector around the extra burden that they were going to have to carry and what those costs were. Given that we do have so much of the economic impact redacted in the advice that's been provided alongside this legislation that we're not having the chance to examine in the select committee and to fully understand the implications of the changes that are being made in clause 4(1) in terms of what the costs on different sectors of the economy are and whether that was broken down even further, what might the consequences be in terms of manufacturing, and was any modelling done on job losses because of the changes the Minister is making?
The other question I have for the Minister is just a very simple one: did he receive advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) in relation to these changes?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): In regards to question two that the member has just asked, I did answer that before the lunch break and provided a comprehensive list of stakeholders engaged. In regards to the last question around advice from MFAT, we get a wide range of advice, including advice in the context of trade considerations of which that agency has responsibility.
In regards to the new question asked around official information, as the members will be aware from their background in Government, the Official Information Act has been adhered to and when releasing the documents that have been provided, legally privileged advice is redacted and the information in regards to points that were raised by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell—components of that advice is included within the regulatory impact statement.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): So will the Minister release to the House the advice that was given to him by MFAT?
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’ve got a “no” on that. I think my colleagues will still have some more questions to ask on clause 4, but I do just want to start moving on to clause 5, which is, ostensibly, about setting up a review for the target for biogenic methane emissions, saying that the Minister of Climate Change and the Minister of Agriculture must set up a review, and they set the date for that review as 2040. It looks quite innocuous, in some ways, but there are a couple of, if you like, hidden traps in it. In particular, I want to focus on new section 5QA(3)(a).
It says, “In making its assessment and recommendation, the review must consider—the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions”—sounds good to me, but this is the bit I’m not so fussed about—“and what is required to achieve no additional global warming from New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions;”. That is interesting, because that introduces the concept of no additional warming, carbon neutrality, into the Climate Change Response Act. Now, that is a new metric, as I said in my speeches in, I think, the second reading of this bill. That is actually a new metric, and here it is being introduced into the Climate Change Response Act. Now, let’s remember there was no consultation with the public on this bill, there has been no select committee stage, and here we are introducing an entirely new concept into the Act.
Now, in terms of no additional warming—it’s got an extra word in there: no additional “global” warming; it means exactly the same—it’s setting up that metric. Why does the Minister think that is an appropriate metric to use? Now, let’s remember that that independent methane review was not told whether or not to examine the concept of no additional warning; they were just told to assume no additional warning and then set out their proposed response to methane.
So the assumption was that no additional warming is a good metric. But what evidence does the Minister have that that is actually a good metric to use? I say this particularly in the light of the fact of the response around the world to New Zealand, and also Ireland is playing with this concept too. Eminent scientists around the world have said that this is an inappropriate metric to use with respect to climate change. Now, the Minister in his opening speech said “Science, science, science”, so we know he trusts science. Well, here is the science from a whole set of pretty eminent climate scientists: Drew Shindell, who’s the professor of climate science at Duke University; Martin Manning, who’s the founding director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute here at Victoria University of Wellington; Joeri Rogelj, I think, is the professor of climate science and policy at the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College, London; Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University; Simon Redfern, professor in earth sciences at the University of Cambridge—and on and on it goes. There is a long, long list of really eminent, prominent scientists who say that no additional warming is not an appropriate metric.
Now, I get the point that scientists on the Methane Review Ministerial Advisory Panel are also good scientists. I’ve spoken with some of them myself. The point is they were told to assume no additional warming. Of course, being good scientists, they answered that question. But why the assumption that no additional warming is a good metric, and how does the Minister respond to the scientists around the world who say that is not a good metric? So I’d like to hear the Minister’s response, because it has actually driven the whole of this change, and yet that is a measure that has no support from climate scientists. Yes, we can do climate science, assuming that metric, but justify that assumption, Minister.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks very much. Well, first and foremost, I don’t agree with the member’s statement in regards to “has no support”. That is simply not factually the case. In regards to making the assessment around why we have done what we’ve done, the requirement for the review is, in effect, the mid-point between now and when the target is required to be met in 2050. That obviously allows time for changes to be made. Importantly, though, if you look at the specific elements of what that review will consider, it will consider the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions and what is required to achieve no additional warming for New Zealand’s biogenic methane and New Zealand’s progress in regards to meeting those and what it has in terms of impacts in regards to the international science.
The member, sort of, in a way, put down the fact that Ireland was also looking at what New Zealand’s doing. Well, again, not to teach the member to suck eggs, but New Zealand and Ireland are both pastural-based farming nations. The scientists we referred to deal with cows in pens in sheds—a very different way in which we undertake agricultural production. New Zealand has unique circumstances, and the science panel that we put together understands our unique circumstances and made recommendations which Government considered.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a series of questions for the Minister regarding clause 4 in Part 1, and I’m just checking with you, Mr Chair, as I would like to kind of do a quick-fire round with the Minister, provided that the Minister has the response for that. If not, I’ll keep going.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Probably the main point there is as long as it’s not repetition, I’ll let the member do that.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister before mentioned a response from the Ministry of Foreign Affair and Trade (MFAT). I’m not seeing it in terms of the explicit response within the regulatory impact statement. My initial question is what response did the Minister receive from MFAT regarding the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the impact this bill will have on CBAM?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): That question is not in the scope of the bill.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): The thing is it is very much in the scope of this if we're going to be adjusting the emissions target, but also in terms of when we're looking at clause 5 in terms of methane. The reason I’m asking this question is that, as we heard from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade last week in scrutiny, agriculture and forestry, agriculture in particular, is the one that is the most concerning because currently we do have a New Zealand - European Union free-trade agreement. We’re exporting 30 percent of agricultural products into the EU, and there is nothing in the free-trade agreement that excludes CBAM or their regulations from that, as a part of that.
So I want to check with the Minister again—if we’re going to be doing that, currently with a projection we're liable if agriculture is brought into CBAM and we're liable to pay for that because it's not exempted from the New Zealand – EU free-trade agreement. We're liable for carbon tax worth $450 million per annum. Is that something that the Minister has considered in terms of the impact over here of increasing the target from 24 to 47 percent, and also from 14 to 24 percent? I have one follow-up question after this.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I don’t mean to be flippant, but it sort of comes in the title: carbon order adjustment. We’re talking about methane.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call—and I will go to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—I just make the point that questions have relevance and not scope. Relevance is different from scope, so that’s just for the committee to bear in mind.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Mr Chair, I am seeking the Minister's clarification. That’s fine, but my understanding is that under section 5Q, it talks about emissions in general and not necessarily specifically when we're looking at methane. If I’m inaccurate, I acknowledge that. But the idea of things like agricultural emissions being brought into this, it's not simply a possibility but at this stage we're looking at it most likely being implemented in 2028 to 2030 by the EU. So if the Minister doesn’t have a response to that, that’s fine; I acknowledge that. But I do want to check that.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to prosecute a bit more deeply a question around our lowered ambition, because clearly this is a lower ambition. We’re moving our target from 14 to 24 percent. What advice has the Minister received on the potential impact of that lowered ambition on the global ambition? I refer to the regulatory impact statement, page 42, clause 150, in evaluating the feasibility of the different options, “option three is similar to option two … While both 14 per cent and 24 per cent are feasible with the current pipeline of mitigation technologies,”—and it’d be good to get to that later on, because that so-called “pipeline of mitigation technologies” that we’ve been waiting for for the best part of 10 years, we’re relying a lot on that. That will be a question later on. It’s “feasible with the current pipeline of mitigation technologies, a 14 per cent reduction in biogenic methane is more feasible than the status quo as meeting the target would require less change in the agriculture sector”.
Now, this seems to be the nub of the purpose of the legislation is to reduce the necessity for change in the agricultural sector. So my question is: given the Minister wants to lower the ambition and to reduce the necessity of change in the agricultural system, what advice did he receive, if any, on the likelihood that other like nations such as Ireland might similarly reduce their ambitions and that we would get an effect of worse global heating impacts because we had lead the pack on lowering ambition? What advice did he receive on the impact it would have on farmers—
Joseph Mooney: The Greens don’t like food production—cheaper food for people?
STEVE ABEL: “The Greens don’t like food production”? I think you should have a look at what the biggest threat to global food production is over the next century—you can google it. It’s climate change.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Take a call.
STEVE ABEL: Take a call.
What affect did the Minister get advice on regarding how a lowered ambition would change the ability of the agricultural sector to produce food?
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I do have a question for the Minister on clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(a). This is a really important part of the changes we’re making there, and it reads: “ (3) In making its assessment and recommendation, the review must consider—(a) the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions and what is required to achieve no additional global warming”. Now, we’re doing this under urgency in the committee of the whole House stage, and, I fear, from the answers the Minister has given us already, that he simply doesn’t understand the implications of that clause—because, certainly, what he has said in this committee indicates that he lacks an understanding of what that means.
There are two very contested sets of science that sit within that choice—within clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(a)—in terms of setting that terms of reference: “what is required to achieve no additional global warming”. That is the crux of the change to the target that is in here. The fact that the Government went out and had made a decision about a contested area of science—a political decision about a contested area of science—about whether or not we should be looking at no additional warming, which, effectively, in very simple terms, bakes in all the global warming that has happened before 2017. It is not looking to reduce; it waters down the target. What I want to know from the Minister, and what he has failed to adequately explain to the committee—and what this committee, in scrutinising this legislation, has to understand—is when did the Government make the political decision between two areas of contested science?
Now, science is always contested; knowledge is contested—that is fine, but when politicians make choices and come down on a side, what was the analysis and the advice that he received in choosing what went into clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(a) in terms of setting “no additional global warming” and when was that decision made? Who did he receive advice from? Did he receive advice from the Ministry for the Environment? What was their advice? We know that the independent Climate Change Commission certainly gave advice to the Minister not to go with the “no additional global warming”—i.e., to water down the target that is in the legislation. The Minister, in simply reading out that paragraph, indicated that he didn’t understand the complexity of what was in there, so we want to know when that decision was made, why that decision was made, how that decision was made, and who he received the advice from.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I asked a question earlier on Part 1 regarding clause 4(1), and I did receive a response—for that I’m grateful and appreciative. In that response, one of the questions I asked—because it is important when we reduce the target, that the Government still has an intention to reduce methane. I asked the question about what actual technologies were available. I’m aware that the Minister of Climate Change has said, earlier this year, that Ruminant BioTech’s bolus would be available by the end of the year, the end of this year, 2025. Now, if I’ve heard correctly, the Minister is saying that the Ruminant BioTech bolus will be available next year.
When we have decades—decades—of promises of a bolus or vaccine being right around the corner, how can we believe the Minister that it is actually going to happen? How can we how can we take the Minister at his word? Is there evidence? Can the Minister give us some date that we will see a technology that will reduce methane? That’s really where I’d like to go—and if the Minister could give a response. Thank you.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Yeah, very happy to do so. What the member failed to acknowledge is that when I provided the answer previously, I noted EcoPond is a great example of an initiative that is currently happening now. So that technology is already producing methane on farm. The fact that industry is taking the lead to expand that across more dairy farms is a positive thing. So there’s your example—you couldn’t say it much clearer than that.
The questions I noted before in regard to timeline and process in regard to the decision making by Government in regard to this conversation were initiated through the coalition agreement from the outpost. That set the precedent and the context of this action, the work in which we have undertaken, which we’ve now talked about on multiple occasions, was undertaken, and the Government made a decision in regard to that, which we are now talking through as part of that.
The first question raised by members of the Greens also in regard to comments around ambition and our global ambition member Abel asked around that. As I noted before, the Government is committed and remains committed in regard to both our domestic and out international targets. The ambition in the context of the range at which it was set has to be achievable.
One of the big challenges with the status quo target sets is that it was a very clear conversation when we worked with the agricultural sector that that was not going to be a mechanism that was going to be achievable. There is a predetermined consideration around the tools available, which is the technology that we were just discussing. But we are now at position in which we have a target that is realistic, it’s practical, and it is based on evidence-based science that has been undertaken. We’ve also put in place a review to reset and relook at that to make sure we take onboard the new learnings and the new science to make sure that we continue to be on track. That’s what we’re doing as a Government.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to first respond to what the Minister said in terms of him not viewing the previous domestic target as achievable. One of the things that came forward in the letter that was sent to you, Minister—not you, the Chair; you the Minister—was the idea of instead of lowering the domestic targets, adjusting the international target, the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) instead; was that something that he considered, as per the suggestion by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?
I want to turn to clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(c), in terms of our New Zealand trading partners progress in reducing their biogenic methane emissions, and link that to an earlier clause 4(1) around weakening our targets. Has the Minister seen analysis around our other trading partners? Has there been any other trading partner that we have that has similarly weakened their climate ambition, their climate targets, other than, of course, the United States of America? I think we all know about them. I think that we don’t need to elaborate—
Joseph Mooney: Did anyone else in the Green Party rely on three quarters of the emissions coming from offshore?
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Take a call, mate, take a call.
Joseph Mooney: I’m trying to. Three quarters of emissions coming from offshore in the Green Party last term.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Take a call. Take one. Take a call, mate. Take a call. Take a call, mate. Take a call.
Joseph Mooney: I’m trying to! Let us!
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, take another one after this.
And my other question is around a response that was provided by the Minister when I asked who he had consulted. I want to ask around what the preferred targets of the stakeholders that he’d identified that he’d consulted with, both in his response, and, also, in the regulatory impact statement document that was identified here. What was the preferred methane target of DairyNZ? What was the preferred target of Fonterra? What was the preferred target of Beef + Lamb New Zealand? What was the preferred target of Groundswell NZ? What was the preferred target of Federated Farmers?
Now I’ll turn to the people that the Minister called “my mates”—well, look, they are my mates—so, if you did consult with LCANZI, what was their preferred target? That’s Lawyers for Climate Action New Zealand. What was the preferred target for Greenpeace New Zealand? What was the preferred target for 350 Aotearoa and any other—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: The independent Climate Change Commission.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, we know what the independent Climate Change Commission’s preferred target was. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call. Looking forward to the answers, Minister.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): There was enthusiasm on that side of the Chamber to take calls, but we’ll go to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I really do want to dig into this question of no additional global warming. In fact, in particular I have an amendment on the Table. I think, if the Minister considers this amendment or, in fact, takes the opportunity to explain as to why this amendment isn’t needed. So the amendment is focusing on new section 5QA(3)(a). In particular, what it does is it says “delete ‘and what is required to achieve no additional global warming from New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions’ ”. Now, the first part of that paragraph (a) says to consider “the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions”. Great. That’s actually a really good thing to consider. Of course we back that part of the paragraph.
However, the bit that I don’t understand the reason for is why then we need to have this extra bit that says, “and what is required to achieve no additional global warming from New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions”. I would like the Minister to explain what that particular part of the paragraph adds to the review, because we’ve asked the Minister to explain what the implication of “no additional global warming” is. We’ve asked him to explain that particular metric. It’s a metric that he has now embedded into the legislation and it seems appropriate that he be able to explain it. If he can’t explain it, then perhaps he would accept my amendment, because, if it can’t be explained—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got a timestamp on that?
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yes. Not this particular version of it sitting on the—this is the copy I kept myself, I’m sorry, Mr Chair. There will be a—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s on the Table.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s on the Table—it’s been tabled.
Hon James Meager: Original, signed copy.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Tabled and signed—all the correct things have been done.
So this is actually really important, Minister, because if we cannot understand why no additional global warming is appropriate, then we don’t need that in the Act. Well, all we need in the Act is the commitment to do a review that considers the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions. So please, Minister, what are those words “no additional global warming” doing? What extra do they bring? What is behind it? What is the reason for that metric? Why have you included it in the Act?
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of quick questions that I want to ask the Minister of Climate Change around new section 5QA, inserted by clause 5. The first is on 5QA(1), around the choice of Ministers that have been included in the initiation of the review. Now, you’ve got “The Minister”—presumably the Minister of Climate Change—“and the Minister of Agriculture”. Has the Minister considered involving the Minister for the Environment or the Minister with delegation for the waste and resource recovery sector? Biogenic methane emissions, as we know, mostly come from, in New Zealand’s profile, the agriculture sector, but a portion of it, around 10 percent, comes from the decay of waste at our landfills. So it seems to me that if we’re wanting to review our methane target in a holistic way, it would seem like a good idea to also involve one of the stakeholders in biogenic methane reduction, and that’s the Minister for the Environment, or the Minister who has delegation for the waste and resource recovery sector. I think there used to be a Minister for waste under the previous Labour Government, so that would be the equivalent, but I understand that this Government doesn’t currently have a Minister for waste.
My other target—sorry; my other target! My other question is around 5QA(4) around the report of the view must be provided to the Minister no later than 31 December 2040. Now, I’m just curious why, specifically, that year was picked. It seems to me it would make sense to move that to 2030, which is when the first initial set of methane target has been set, a 10 percent reduction, by 2030, on 2017 levels. So wouldn’t moving it to 2030 better align with the 2030 target and enable us to actually see what the what the real world—how we’ve actually managed to reduce emissions out to 2030, and then do a review then based on thus far? Again, those two questions—I’m looking forward to engagement from the Minister.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, members, for those questions. In regards to the points raised on no additional warming—and it linked to the conversation in regards to the 2040 review. I've already answered the question in regards to why 2040 was set as the date. In regards to that portion of why no additional warming, this is a consideration and will be a consideration of that review. It is useful to understand, obviously, as part of that review process what level of methane adds further to warming. That review will consider and occur alongside the Climate Change Commission’s review and so those aspects of advice will then be used to inform future Governments in regards to policy settings.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Further to the questions around the date for the review, which I think were good questions, and that’s all covered off in clause 5, new section 5QA, one of the things I’d like to know from the Minister is who does he envision will do the review? The bill is silent on who the reviewer will be, and I think that is pertinent in the case of this review, given that there were two bodies—the independent Climate Change Commission, which is set up under statute, but then there was this ad hoc group set up to do the methane target review. Who is it and why is it not specified in the legislation? Did he receive advice about whether or not he should specify who would carry out this review set out in new section 5QA?
I also note that the committee hasn’t received answers to questions posed by one of my colleagues around the targets by various bodies such as DairyNZ, Fonterra, and what their preferred targets would be. I think that is important for the committee to consider—when we are considering the change of target that is set out in clause 4(1) of this legislation—what other parts of the economy were recommended, given that we don’t get the chance to ask these questions at select committee and we don’t get the departmental report that would put together all these submissions. The Minister says he’s talked to people, so I think the committee needs to know, what were the preferred targets of the various bodies he talked to?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): The question infers and makes an assumption that those in all of those groupings did actually have a specific target in mind, and that’s not necessarily the case.
I think what is consistent across the broad range of stakeholders—from those that are on both sides of this conversation—is that they supported the concept of taking on board a range of advice, including those from independent and scientific sources. That’s what we did in order to inform the discussion. The discussion was very much of the view that the agricultural sector—particularly those who represented that sector—does and will and is already contributing positively in the context of this conversation and that they will do and continue to do so. But they want a pragmatic and practical pathway in order to achieve that outcome—not simply by introducing pricing without the tools to do so, not simply by culling the herd in order to hit a target, which simply is not realistic economically nor for the best outcomes of this country.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I think one of the situations we have in this committee of the whole House, in the absence of a select committee process, is the Parliament is trying to drill down into some of the advice from stakeholders that the Minister of Climate Change received. He’s talking very broadly about a range of stakeholders. He’s been asked specifically about some stakeholders and what their targets were. So my question to the Minister is: did any stakeholders indicate specific targets that they would be comfortable with; if so, who were those stakeholders, and what were the targets?
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I really want the Minister to elaborate on the statement he made—and I don’t have the Hansard in front of me and I don’t want to get it wrong, so please correct me if I’m wrong, Minister—that people on both sides supported the independent methane review panel. I’m very surprised to hear that analysis. I’m just going to identify some stakeholders from the so-called our side. Can the Minister confirm whether they did confirm to the Minister that they supported the independent methane review panel.
Did Greenpeace, if they were consulted, support the independent methane review panel? Did 350, if they were consulted, support the independent review panel?
James Meager: Repetition.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Did Lawyers for Climate Action New Zealand indicate support for the independent review panel?
It’s not really repetition, because it’s quite a serious allegation to make. I think Greenpeace would be very offended by the notion that they supported the independent review panel, actually. So I’m just trying to clarify and giving the Minister an opportunity to identify exactly which stakeholders supported the independent review panel.
Now I’ll turn to the question around why it is that it seems like we’re doing an “apples to oranges” for comparison, Minister. As most people have correctly identified, New Zealand’s emissions profile is rather unique, with our high profile of biogenic methane emissions. By the choice of limiting the review to New Zealand’s trading partners’ progress in reducing their biogenic methane emissions, does that risk automatically pegging a lower level of ambition? Because the challenge for our partners in reducing their methane emissions is, of course, their emissions from fossil mining—from the fugitive methane emissions there. I feel like by pegging it to the trading partners for biogenic methane emissions, we’re almost deliberately setting it up so that the review is deliberately less ambitious than it could have been.
Another aspect that I would like the Minister to consider is: was the prospect of intersectoral equity considered at all in being included in the assessment criteria, in new section 5QA(3), in the review? Now, when I say inter- and intra-sectoral equity, I mean in the context of the agricultural emissions sector having a lower level of expected emissions reductions—that’s literally here being reduced to 14 percent—compared to carbon dioxide emissions in sectors. And, of course, that plays within the dynamics of the agricultural sector itself, because, you know, we’ve got horticulture, we’ve got the pig industry, and we’ve got the chicken industry, and they won’t be affected that much—well, they won’t be affected—by the target. So has the idea of inter- and intra-sectoral equity been considered as assessment criteria under new section 5QA(3)?
And I’m just wanting an answer to the previous question that I asked.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, Mr Chair. In regards to the question by the member in regards to does the Government have any view on who will undertake the review in 2040: the short answer is that the Government has not considered what will occur in 15 years’ time in significant detail, other than to say I’m sure that those at that point in time—maybe some in this committee—will put due thought to that.
In regards to the question around the economic analysis—and I think what the member was referring to in terms of the way in which that analysis impacts all parts of our broader economy and the different considerations between different industry sectorial groups within that point—absolutely. As I noted before in my answers to questions, the Government considered comprehensive economic analysis which did consider more broadly the implications in regards to the decisions that we were referring to.
In regards to the questions around clause 5, newsection 5Q and clause 4(1): again, I’ve answered those on multiple occasions and I have nothing further to add.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. One of the things that I’m interested in, in terms of the groups that the Minister may or may not have consulted with—and I think we’re still waiting to hear that—is I am interested to know, in addition to some of the agricultural group, whether the Minister consulted with, for example, the Major Electricity Users’ Group, given that it will be energy and transport users that will bear the cost of weakening this and watering down this target. Did he liaise with any of the peak bodies in the transport sector, given that it will also be transport that will bear increased costs of watering down these targets? If he didn’t consult with them, why didn’t he consult with them?
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you. I'm really finding it hard that the Minister of Climate Change hasn't answered the questions around no additional warming, so I'm going to help the Minister out here a bit. There's a really interesting paper from researchers in Ireland looking at the concept there. They call it temperature neutrality. It's the same concept as no additional warming.
So this is from research that was published in Environmental Research Letters earlier this year. It was a study that was conducted in collaboration with the University of Melbourne and University College Cork and it looked at the concept of temperature neutrality or no additional warming. So let me just read this bit—because the Minister so far has not explained and doesn't seem to be able to explain why it is appropriate to put the metric of no additional warming into the Act.
So let me read this: “Unlike the scientifically established goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, ‘temperature neutrality’ aims only to stabilise a country's contribution to global warming, rather than reduce it to zero.” This approach requires only modest methane reductions from countries already emitting large amounts, enabling them to continue contributing significantly to global warming while claiming compliance with climate goals. So if everyone does this, we are in deep trouble. That's the conclusion of it.
In terms of the Amendment Paper that I put in, the Minister could achieve his review of biogenic methane and the effect it is having without having to put in there the concept of no additional warming. So I want the Minister to explain why it is important that this concept of no additional warming, or in other cases it's known as temperature neutrality—why is that being included in our Climate Change Response Act? It's actually a really significant change to our Act and the Minister does not seem to be able to explain it or why it is worth taking that approach.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is actually a supplement to the question that was just asked by the Hon Deborah Russell, because in new section 5QA(3) inserted by clause 5 “In making its assessment and recommendation, the review must consider—(a) the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions and what is required to achieve no additional … warming”. Now, the irony of sentence is that by including “no additional … warming” it ignores the contemporary scientific evidence that that is a pseudoscientific concept itself. But my question is: in that evaluation of the latest science, will the Minister be taking an account of the growing—well, the already strong—body of evidence that no additional warming is pseudoscience, it is not a credible basis for a target?
The second question: paragraph (c) in that same section, “New Zealand’s trading partners’ progress”—the preceding sentence is “In making its assessment and recommendation, the review must consider”—“in reducing their biogenic methane emissions; and (d) the progress made and actions taken internationally to reduce biogenic methane emissions”. What is the scope of that evaluation? How will the Minister interpret what is found by that review?
To be more specific about it, there seems to be an assumption that if other countries are running more slowly than us on biogenic methane impacts that we will consider it all right to, you know, continue with a low ambition. But if it is found that other countries are ahead of us, will we sheet ourselves to those more ambitious countries who are reducing methane emissions at a greater rate?
My third question is, in terms of the focus on methane emissions the Minister previously in the seat than the Minister currently there, made a comment that culling the dairy herd or culling cows to meet emissions reductions would be senseless. Of course, the fact is that we’ve had substantial land-use change in the last 30 years, which saw a vast reduction, for example, in the size of our sheep flock. But not with a corresponding reduction in the overall value of the agriculture sector. It was simply a change in the type of production.
Grant McCallum: Value went up.
STEVE ABEL: That’s what I’m saying—value went up. We culled the herd massively and value went up.
Grant McCallum: No, we culled the sheep and put on cows.
STEVE ABEL: Thank you, you’re repeating my words exactly. I appreciate it, Grant. You’re paying attention. That’s my point exactly, is that.
The questions, surely, Minister, that you’re trying to establish is: what is the most efficient way for us to reduce methane emissions? Will you account for that simply as it regards to livestock production, or will you also recognise that land-use change to farms more efficient forms of food production or fibre production that is also valuable—
Grant McCallum: Really?
STEVE ABEL: Well, it’s actually the most certain means, Mr McCallum—
Grant McCallum: To what?
STEVE ABEL: —to achieving greenhouse gas reductions.
Grant McCallum: What are you going to change it to? Broccoli growing?
STEVE ABEL: Well, whatever you like. You can change it to whatever you like. But just, perhaps—
Grant McCallum: It’s easy to say—easy to say.
STEVE ABEL: I’m going to stop responding, Mr McCallum.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr McCallum, we do encourage interaction in the committee stage, but usually through the Minister or the chair or a call by the member—
STEVE ABEL: Yeah, you can take a call, Grant. You guys are very chatty over there.
My question for the Minister, to reiterate in simple terms: would he recognise, Minister, that the most certain way to affect the necessary reduction, methane reductions, is land-use change; and that that may mean that we’re producing different things such as we might be producing more horticultural products, which I’m sure you, as Minister, would be happy to see.
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a stand for the first time as an Associate Agriculture Minister, recognising I’m subbing in for the Climate Change Minister. There’s a multitude of questions that have been floating around that I’ll try to address sequentially, but do forgive me if I get them around the wrong way.
Questions from Dr Deborah Russell about the “no additional warming” metric being included in the Act, and she feels that that’s quite a shift away from the existing Climate Change Response Act; just to clarify, it is only one consideration of the eventual pending review. We do believe, and I’m sure science would agree, that it is useful to understand the contribution of methane to warming. There’s sort of been some quite derisory comments made regarding the concept of “no additional warming”. In fact, I heard one member call it pseudoscience, but this is the basis from which most climate policy has been formed in recent years. The advice from the methane review on this “no additional warming” concept was one of the Government’s considerations when deciding on this target alongside—it has to be reconfirmed and reconfirmed again—the advice from the Climate Change Commission that has been taken on board. We have, as a Government, taken on multiple forms of advice from multiple different avenues and different parties, but the “no additional warming” target is there to identify a level of warming that should not be exceeded further. Happily, New Zealand is on track to meet its reduction targets.
To address some of the questions raised by Steve Abel. I’ve had a bit of déjà vu from Estimates just the other day. I feel like we’ve had this conversation quite recently, but he’s talking a lot about what the pipeline of mitigations look like and where science and technology are going to lead us driving that land use change. I think, in the Estimates discussion, we agreed that land use change will occur, but it must be market driven. It must not be driven by us, here, sitting in this debating chamber and telling people what to do and where they should be investing their money and building their businesses.
As a nation, we have built our economy on the production of food and fibre. Dairy happens to be an extremely successful component of that. Dairy is just one sector of the agricultural economy that is doing very, very well: successfully driving down its emissions through technology. And yes, we could have the debate for hours on end about productivity per hectare or per kilo of milk solids and so on and so forth, but the fact remains, dairy, as an example, is just one sector that is boosting its productivity whilst lowering its environmental footprint and that should be celebrated.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Now, I have been watching this before I came in here. We’ll be looking for some new and fairly specific material from now on.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just picking up from an answer that the Minister in the chair just gave. It is a very important question for this committee to understand. This legislation introduces a very new measure in terms of our emissions in terms of achieving “no additional global warming”. Now, the Minister in the chair, in answer to a question, just said that most climate policies in recent years used this measure. Now, this is a new measure that is being instituted through this legislation. So the committee needs to know from the Minister which policies in recent years have used this as the measure. This is, indeed, an amendment to the primary legislation that puts in place this measure. So the committee needs to understand which policies have been informed by this measure.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, also related to the Minister’s contribution and then that contribution and question from the Hon Dr Megan Woods—two things. So we've heard from Megan Woods, where is this evidence? What policy does the no additional global warming come from? My questions are in relation to what the Minister just said, that the way that we are doing dairy farming in New Zealand is having better results on the environment, or it was words to that effect.
So she was saying that in response to other members and I really would like to know where she is getting that information from, what she is relying on to make that claim. Where is the advice that says that dairy is improving environmentally? That's one question from me.
Then the second one—oh, I'm hearing sighs from the other side. It's a basic question. If her policy position is that everything is fine, then she should demonstrate that. But my second point on this no additional global warming and the science relationship is why does this phrase not just simply say—so this is at new section 5QA(3)(a), inserted by clause 5—“the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions”—full stop, or it might be a semicolon there. We don’t need “and what is required to achieve no additional global warming from New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions;”.
Like, surely what we need to know is what that latest science is, and that is exactly what the Minister was talking about as well. She just said, “Well, this is all based on international science about what happens from the emissions.”, and that is quite right, but not this idea of this made-up no additional global warming. That is quite different. So the whole argument can be abated by simply saying, “the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions”. Those are the emissions that we have in New Zealand, the biogenic methane. Obviously, the huge amount of our methane emissions are biogenic. But would she consider that change? Because that gets around a huge problem here.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’m just going to endorse that latest comment from my colleague Rachel Brooking and point out that I do have an amendment there that would actually take out that phrase that refers to “no additional global warming” and just leave it at a review of biogenic methane, which would do the trick very nicely.
What I do want to consider, though, is I’ve put in a series of amendments looking to adjust the date of the review for this. Now, we set the biogenic methane target in the Climate Change Response Act—no, sorry, the zero carbon Act was 2019, wasn’t it? So here we are, just a few years later, having a methane review, even though we’ve already set a target just a few years ago. So that was a gap of about five years. But in terms of doing the next methane review from this one, the gap is now pushed out to 15 years. That seems like a very long gap.
So I’ve put in a series of amendments. I mean, the obvious one is just to take it to 2030—just a few years from now. If that’s too soon, 2031 would do the trick—I’ve got a paper to that effect. I avoided 2032 because likely we will have an election that year, I think, if my maths is correct. So there are a variety of dates in which we could do a methane review, and there are different ways that it could be done [Interruption]. Take a call.
The point is that pushing it out by 15 years seems like a very long time, when the science does move on in this area. That’s the point. They’ve been trying to say there’s science that justifies this change. Now, we think that’s dubious because of the assumptions that were underpinning that science. But, nevertheless, if they’re asserting that there was new science within just five years, why would that not happen again? Let’s have a biogenic methane review in five years—maybe six or whatever. So I just wonder if the Minister would consider bringing that review forward. Fifteen years seems like a very long time away in the context of a very fast-moving area of science.
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I just wanted to address a couple of the questions around the no additional warming principle. It’s a matter of fact that the Government commissioned the methane review as a useful starting point of our analysis, and it should not be lost on members the vast amount of public feedback that has occurred historically in recent years that has inputted into this. Again, there have been multitudes of public consultations carried out during the second emissions reduction plan, the second nationally determined contribution, and the zero carbon bill.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: This isn’t even answering a question.
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: To Dr Woods, I am addressing the multitude of questions around the inclusion of the no additional warming principle.
I should also remind members of the working group carried out under the previous Government called He Waka Eke Noa. I know that that will send shudders down a lot of farmers’ spines, just to remember it. But targets were set by the previous Government that are being revised by this Government, including the principle of no additional warming.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I appreciate that the Minister has just come into the chair. It does leave the Parliament in a bit of a quandary. We had the responsible Minister, in urgency, in the chair for just over an hour when there’s some very specific questions in terms of examining this legislation. I did ask the Minister who is in the chair—she made the claim that this change of “no additional warming” had underwritten and been part of a series of Government policies for a period of time. I wrote down the words the Minister said, and it will be in the Hansard, so the committee now needs to know, which policies? What is the list of policies that this new target that is being introduced with this legislation—what are the other policies before this that have been influenced by this new measure? That is a very big claim that the Minister made, and, in scrutinising this piece of legislation, the committee needs a list of those policies.
I appreciate that the Minister tried to address the broad principles of “no additional global warming”, but there’s some very specific questions that are sitting on the table. We understand the implications—it is a watering down. But what we have been asking, and what the responsible Minister failed to give an answer to, is, in making a political decision and in weighing up contested scientific advice—two very different things—what was the advice that the Minister relied on in order to make a political decision? Not the science, but who did he receive advice from? It is a difficult thing when a Minister has to weigh up contested scientific information in order to make a political call. The committee needs to understand that process—that would have come through the select committee process and there would have had an ability to question officials around that. We also want to know who made the decision? This is a political decision. There’s contested scientific advice and there are very talented scientists on both side of this. What we want to know is who made the political decision? We also want to know when that decision was made. These are very important questions in terms of our ability to scrutinise this legislation.
The other thing that the House is yet to receive an answer on is whether or not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) provided advice on the trade implications to the Minister on this. We know that there has been previous advice, and that this legislation actually puts in jeopardy market access, potentially, under the EU and UK free trade agreements. If we’re going to talk about standing up for our farmers, I think we should be talking about not putting in place two of the most important trade deals, which were negotiated under a Labour Government, that give our farmers market access into the UK and the EU. We have not had a straight answer from the Minister in the chair about whether or not MFAT provided advice on the trade implications and what that advice was.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have four questions, but I won’t do any of the preamble—I’ll just get straight to them. My question is around new section 5QA(3)(e) around the single percentage target. I’m just checking that that means it’s not a range. That doesn’t mean reducing the target to a single percentage target?
My second question is around paragraph (f), which is “any other matters specified by the Ministers when initiating the review.” What other matters can the Minister envision being considered in this section of the legislation, because it is quite broad. It is quite, almost, sweeping in its drafting that it can consider almost anything. Is that deliberate—the ability for the Minister to, basically, incorporate any point that they might wish to incorporate when doing this review?
My third question is on new section 5QA(5) around “The Ministers must jointly consider the report on the review.” Now, what happens if the Ministers who are doing this review together cannot come to an agreement? Is there is a dispute resolution mechanism? Is one of them going to trump the other in terms of does it depend on who’s more senior in Cabinet? So in terms of “jointly consider”, what does that actually mean in practical terms? I want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister, because they are, I believe, the Minister of State for Trade and Investment.
The question that I asked the previous Minister while they were in the chair but I didn’t get an answer for, and that is: which other trading partners does the Minister know of or has received advice around which have also lowered their emissions reduction target other than, of course, the United States of America? That’s a rather famous example.
While we’re on the issue of trade, I’ve drafted a series of amendments, timestamp 20.10 onwards, that would, potentially, link the target reduction to our international partners. So if the Government wanted to prove that they are actually reducing emissions faster or along the same rate of our international trading partners, there’s an opportunity to do so by adopting some of my amendments. Thank you.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’m going to offer the Minister an out here. Look, it’s quite clear that so far—neither the Minister in the chair or the Minister who was previously in their chair—they cannot explain no additional warming. They don’t understand it. They can’t explain it. They can’t say why it’s an appropriate metric. They certainly can’t say what the scientific backing is for it. And that’s because—just admit it, Minister—the simple out here is to just admit that this is purely political.
All right. They’ve made a political choice. Now, if that’s the choice the Government has made, and they’ve made a political choice, just own it. Instead of trying to pretend it’s scientific, just own it. Own the fact that the methane review was set up and set up to answer a particular question which was: given no additional warming, what is the appropriate level of methane flow for methane reductions? And that was a very political choice, so just own the politics. If that’s what has gone on here, just be honest about it. Own it. Admit that was what happened. Admit that was what was going on, and we’ll stop talking about it.
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I wanted to address some of the questions from the Green Party member around the target. To to be clear, the review can consider the single point target, but it doesn't have to recommend it. The member then extrapolated out to how that impacts our trade arrangements, and particularly citing the likes of the EU free trade agreement (FTA) and the UK FTA. Indeed, I would also add to that the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. They actually allow us to set domestic environmental laws that are appropriate for our own domestic situation within the bounds of our international obligations. As the Minister prior to me has made very, very clear, we remain absolutely committed and on track to meet our international obligations.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Now, members, asking this member in the chair the same questions as were asked previously doesn’t constitute new questions material, I might say. Now, I’m well aware that some of the members are not getting the answers they want and that may be a matter that they can comment on how they like. However, we still will need to look at some new material at this stage.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. When a Minister does give an answer and we are in the committee of the whole House, that answer sometimes does require that questions are asked of it. And it’s not just that we’re not getting the answers we want, Mr Chair; we’re not getting answers. That’s more the frustration, given that this is a piece of legislation that is being passed under urgency and this is the sole opportunity that the House has to interrogate this.
The Minister in the chair just said that New Zealand was committed to reaching its targets. Is the Minister confirming that New Zealand still has a target, as embodied in the legislation, of keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees?
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to clarify a misinterpretation that the Minister might have made on my previous contribution. I wasn’t relating it to the free trade agreement we had, I was just asking my previous question, which has still not been answered, around which of our trading partners, if any—other than the United States of America—have watered down their emissions reductions targets in the same way that we have? Does she know what the advice that she’s received around that would be? I think there was also another misunderstanding of the single percentage target: I was asking whether that referred to a single digit percentage target or whether that was just a sole number in a range of targets.
There were also two questions that I raised that haven’t been addressed—not answered but addressed at all—by the Minister. Those questions were around other matters specified around what the ambit of that could be, the “jointly considered” part of clause 5, new section 5QA(5), and what happens if the Ministers potentially can’t come to an agreement around what to consider?
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I do just want to look at one further aspect of this. I’m referring the Minister, for her benefit, to new section 5QA(3)(d)—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Getting into the detail.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: –we are—which we haven’t really discussed much. But it says, in terms of the methane review which is going to be done, the Minister must consider a number of issues, and one of them, in new section 5QA(3)(d), is the progress made and actions taken internationally to reduce biogenic methane emissions in order to meet emissions reduction targets such as the Paris Agreement. Now, of course, the Paris Agreement is expressed in terms of carbon—isn’t it?—and not in terms of methane. So that’s an interesting little difference there.
But I just want to understand the implications of this having it reviewed considering what’s being done internationally to reduce biogenic methane. Does that imply that instead of considering all gases—all right?—we are considering biogenic methane worldwide rather than all gases worldwide? Is this implying that in fact we actually think that the entire world ought to be adopting a split gas target?
Now, it’s actually quite controversial that New Zealand has adopted a split gases target. Most of the world does not have it; they have a net zero target. We are I think one of the few—it might be us and Uruguay—who have a split gas target. If we’re going to try to then consider what other countries are doing in that, I just want to understand from the Minister whether the implication of this is that we think that other countries should adopt a split gas target too.
Now, given the way that methane operates differently from the way that other greenhouse gases operate, I think it’s actually plausible and reasonable—
Grant McCallum: Short-lived gas.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Which is much, much more potent.
And I think, Mr McCallum, you might need to take notice of this because at the Conference of the Parties recently, when I was there, there was a lot of talk about the methane brake. The world is careering towards overheating, and the fastest way to deal with it is to pull the brake on methane. It’s going to have huge implications for your sector. I think by asking the whole world to consider it, it is raising the possibility of that methane brake. We need to consider this very seriously. If that methane brake is pulled, there will be trouble for our New Zealand farmers. We actually need to be moving on methane now. There are incredible risks being created. Minister, is that what is underlying this consideration of the actions taken internationally to reduce biogenic methane emissions?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I don’t know why the member feels to use such dramatic hyperbole—the words like “methane break”. The fact of the matter is New Zealand farmers are already on target to hit their 2030 target of methane reduction. We are going to hit our 2050 global commitments as well as our domestic commitments. I don’t know why the Opposition seems so intent in moving away from this bill and trying to politicise this, but there have been a number of questions around what other countries might be doing. It is not for us to comment on other country’s domestic targets. We’re here focusing on what New Zealand is doing. The international community, like New Zealanders, rightly expects that our agricultural sector will do its part in contributing to our climate change targets.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Mr Chair.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
I have an amendment on new subsection 5Q(3) and you’ll see that in a bit. But I guess, in general, what I want to ask is: does this review in any way appreciate, understand its constitutional obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi? And is it reflected? Because from what I can see, though it’s a very thin piece of work, it doesn’t show it; it doesn’t express it. Therefore, the question would be to hapū, to iwi, to post-settlement governance entities—to all of those bodies in which Māori do their business—can we have any confidence in the way in which it’s discussed here, in this change, Minister?
Because from what I can see, there’s not a single word or concept in here that understands the agreements from 1835 and 1840. I would expect that if it was smart in that regard, then it would reflect it. And it does not in general, let alone in the in this particular clause. I’d be interested, but I’m not going to hold my breath to what might be offered. Thank you.
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 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendments to clause 4 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Francisco Hernandez’ three tabled amendments to clause 4(1) setting the percentage target by the New Zealand Parliament, a cross-party committee in Parliament, and the New Zealand people following a referendum are ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) setting the percentage target by the Climate Change Commission be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ three tabled amendments to clause 4(1) setting the percentage target by the Minister of Agriculture and for the Environment be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) setting the percentage target by the Minister of Climate Change be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) setting the percentage target by the Climate Change Commission, ratified by a citizens’ assembly be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) setting the percentage target as the European Union’s nationally determined contribution methane target or equivalent be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) setting the percentage target as Singapore’s nationally determined contribution methane target or equivalent be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) setting the percentage target as the United Kingdom’s nationally determined contribution methane target or equivalent be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There are 10 other tabled amendments to clause 4(1) lodged by Francisco Hernandez that are the same in substance, referencing the methane reduction targets of different places. Having tested the will of the committee, these nine amendments are ruled out of order.
Francisco Hernandez’ three tabled amendments regarding setting targets by members of the Green Party are out of order as not being serious amendments.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) replacing the range with a percentage target by the Prime Minister be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr McCallum, you have quite a loud voice, so when you do comment on these amendments it carries. You might like to at least have a stage whisper.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) replacing the range with a percentage target by the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture following the review be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we have a number of amendments from Francisco Hernandez and the Hon Dr Deborah Russell to clause 4(1) that propose to replace the range with a different percentage range or a single percentage. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I will put the question on a representative selection of these amendments to test the will of the committee.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “15% to 45%” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “35% to 47%” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to delete “replace 24% to 47% with 14% to 24%” and replace it with “retain 24% to 47%” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “39% to 44%” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “24%” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “45%” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 4(1) in so far as they replace the percentage range. The will of the committee having been tested, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s remaining tabled amendment altering the percentage to clause 4(1), and Francisco Hernandez’s remaining 29 tabled amendments are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4(2) and clause 5 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(1), (2), (3)(a), and (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1) replacing new section 5QA be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1) replacing new section 5QA(3) and (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(1) to replace the Minister of Agriculture with the Minister for the Environment be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1) replacing new section 5QA(1) to include the Minister delegated responsibility for New Zealand’s Waste and Resource Sector be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1) replacing new section 5QA(1) to include the Minister for the Environment be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(a) to delete all the words after “warming impact of biogenic methane emissions” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor):
Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 5(1), new section 5QA(3)(a) deleting “biogenic” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendments to clause 5(1), new section 5QA(3)(b)(c) and (c), to delete “biogenic” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 5(1) replacing new section 5QA(3)(c) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(d), to replace “biogenic methane” with “greenhouse gas” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendments to clause 5(1) replacing new section 5QA(3)(f) and inserting new paragraph (g) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(3), to insert new paragraph (g) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(4), to replace “2040” with “2030” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(4), to replace “2040” with “2031” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(4), to replace “2040” with “2033” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(4), to replace “2040” with “2035” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Other amendments
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 6 to 10, “Other amendments”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): A couple of sets of questions that I want to focus on for the Minister. A little bit of clarification, please, around clause 6, which amends section 5X. It’s setting emissions budgets and ensuring they’re met. There was supposed to be an emissions budget set this year for 2036-2040. That’s the fourth emissions period. It was supposed to be set by the end of 2025; it’s now going to be set by the end of 2027. So there will be a reason for that delay. It’s a shame that it’s occurred. But if the Minister could just explain why that delay has occurred and explain what prevented you from setting that emissions budget this year, as was required under the existing legislation.
Having said all that, I guess that explains why a lot of this is under urgency. It’s to make sure that the Minister doesn’t have to do that. So a quick explanation on that one, Minister, before I head on to the next question.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, member, for the question. Absolutely right, in the context of the changes that we’re putting through in terms of updating the target, the Climate Change Commission’s advice is based on the status quo target, not the changes we’re going to effect through the passing of this legislation. Hence, we need to extend the timeline to allow the Climate Change Commission time to be able to prepare advice, and, as such, the deadline in the timeline seems practical in the context of the time required for them to do that piece of work.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Look, thank you. A pretty straightforward question—I guess it’s a shame that it slipped. We do mind that, but I don’t want to pursue that further at this stage.
I want to move on to clause 7, which amends section 5ZC of the primary Act. Those, as I said, are matters that the Climate Change Commission must consider and the Minister must consider when preparing emissions budgets. There’s a whole set of things in there and they’re irrelevant to the current discussion, though obviously not irrelevant. But the one that is being added is new section 5ZC(2)(b)(xii). And it is “the implications, or potential implications, for domestic food production.”
Now, I read this initially in the bill and I thought, “Is that an ambiguity?” Because I couldn’t understand what is meant by “domestic food production”. I’m actually serious about this and I do want a clarification of it. Is it food produced domestically which could go anywhere in the world or is it food for New Zealand—so domestic food production? There’s actually a genuine ambiguity there, if the Minister could clarify. Is it food produced in New Zealand or is it food produced for New Zealand? They do actually differ. It actually matters. Someone will contest this at some stage, so let’s get it on the record, at least in the Hansard. I just wonder if the Minister might consider clarifying it just a little. I haven’t put in an amendment, but it could be one that you might want to put an amendment in just to clarify exactly what is meant in the law.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): To clarify, the point refers to food production that’s undertaken in New Zealand. But, obviously, where those products end up can and will include international sources because we’re an export nation.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I do think there’s a genuine ambiguity there. It’s now clarified at least in the Hansard, so if a case is taken, it could aid in that. But would the Minister consider an amendment? I think the most straightforward one to do would be to say, maybe, “for food production in New Zealand” rather than trying to say “for domestic food production”. It sounds trivial, but it actually does clarify it a little bit, and it might be something you want to do. Would the Minister consider that? The Minister won’t consider it. He likes to have a little ambiguity in there. OK, then. That’s fine, Minister. We all like to be a bit mysterious from time to time.
Hon Member: Tell us more! Full five minutes on it!
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: That’s as far as I’m going to go!
I want to understand, then, why we ought to be considered for domestic food production. So in terms of setting the methane target, what does the Minister see as the implications or the potential implication being? Because we know that one way of reducing emissions is to reduce production. Now, I’m not saying that’s the preferred way in this party, but it is a way that it could be done. But what sorts of implications does the Minister see for food production in terms of the methane target?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks to the member for the question in regard to clause 7. The Government, by making this change, is indicating clearly that food production is an important component and should be given greater prominence than the status quo. A range of matters must be considered already as part of that process, and we are simply stipulating that this point, which is noted in clause 7, should be a consideration and should have greater prominence than what it is at the moment under the status quo.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): OK, I want to pursue this a little bit further, Minister, because we might say that, obviously, we should be considering economic matters when it comes to setting methane targets or emissions budgets. But here we are considering food production.
Now, I’m not quite sure why we need to concern ourselves with food production, all right? What’s the problem we’re trying to solve here that we think that the methane target might affect? Now, we might talk about economic issues, but why food production? What is that related to? Why is that a concern when it comes to methane production? You know, if we are going to try to get methane emissions down, as even this reduced target commits us to, what is the issue with food production?
One way we can get those methane targets down is by reducing the amount of food we produce; what is the problem with reducing the amount of food we produce? We know that there are ways of reducing production from dairy farms that don’t result in reduced profit for our dairy farmers. We know that if we move to regenerative farming or move to using fewer imported products, using things like less palm oil, we know there are farmers who manage to do this and retain their profits. So this is not about—this is not about—undermining the profitability of farming, because we can actually reduce the number of kilos of milk solids, we can reduce the number of kilos of meat that are produced and not reduce farmers’ profits. So what is the problem, then, if the Minister could explain, please?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, Mr Chair. Well, I’m not going to give a broader 101 lecture on economic growth for the New Zealand economy based on the reliance on a primary sector export market and the correlation of reduction and our production from that sector and why that would be a bad thing for our country, because I think it is pretty obvious. I think what the member may be referring to is, you know, how can we derive greater productivity in the context of our broader farming systems, which also includes emissions reduction, and that’s absolutely something we are looking at, and the investment through AgriZeroNZ does that.
The member asked a question around what the considerations are. I mean, one of the considerations is—already, in addition to the prominence of food production—economic circumstances, and the likely impact of the Minister’s decision on taxation, public spending, and public—there is a wide range, sort of 12 or 15 types, of considerations. Now, food production is already included within the Paris Agreement under a number of clauses, including climate adaptation, to be specific. But the view of the Government and view of feedback is that, because of the unique circumstances of the New Zealand economy and being an export- and primary sector - led economy, the prominence of that decision making is not only appropriate but is also recognition that that is very much our unique success factor as an economy and should have prominence in decision making.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to explore this a bit further because I am not sure why we need to consider food production in the number of issues that we go around in terms of the methane target. If we’ve already got economic matters being considered in there, that’s fine because that would play into that. Of course I get how our export markets work and the economic issues sitting around that. Then why include this? It seems like an extraneous thing to include; it seems like it’s unnecessary. If we’re already considering economic matters, I would have thought that food production would have been included in those economic matters. Why pull it out and specify it as a different matter that needs to be considered separately?
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to say that I think this question that has been deeply prosecuted by Deborah Russell is actually a really important one, because the detail of what the Minister’s intention is, or the Government’s intention is, with this very particular clause is important to understand. The wording of new section 5ZC(2)(b)(xii) says, “the implications, or potential implications, for domestic food production.” Now, he has elucidated that he means both—well, at least earlier on in the explanatory notes it elucidates the “potential implications, for food production in decision-making about emissions budgets”, right. “This would sit alongside existing considerations under the Act, such as the implications, or potential implications, of land-use change for communities. In that context, food production encompasses domestic food production for both consumption and export.” That is a useful elucidation in the explanatory note—I appreciate that.
But in terms of the implications for food production, because let’s take, for simplicity’s sake, are we concerned in terms of the scope of providing nutrition to ourselves—obviously we would be concerned if there was a climate action that impacted our ability to provide nutrition for ourselves—or are we concerned with being able to produce a surplus for export? In that regard, I think it’s a very valid point that we should not be in a position where we’re not able to provide nutrition for ourselves but, let’s be clear, 95 percent of the dairy production in this country is a surplus for export. If a dairy farmer wanted to turn their farm into a solar farm and put sheep under it, they might produce less food, but they might also be more profitable. So it is an important question as to what is the scope of that investigation into the implications for domestic food production.
And then my second question is: what are we concerned with here? Primarily providing nutrition to ourselves and potentially the world, because food production is important to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because we need to provide food and nutrition for people. But in that context, our food production, from the point of view of getting nutrition into human bodies, is among the least efficient in the world. So if you are considering that question, are we concerned with the most efficient way of producing nutritious food for people anywhere, therefore, will that be one of the considerations? That’s the question.
My third question is: in the evaluation on the implications of the targets, the emissions budgets, and their impact on food production, are you also assessing the impact of climate change on the ability of us to produce food? Because that’s the obvious payoff here for us having a lower target ambition is that we might get worse climate consequences down the track which actually reduce our ability to produce food. Thank you.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, Mr Chair. I think these are good points to engage in. I think, first and foremost, when we are considering the implications of this, it would be fair to say that our farming sector is at the forefront of dealing with the impacts of climate change, and their ability to produce, in the future, is heavily predicated on mitigation in regards to the broader challenges such as temperature rise and other considerations. So, you know, the recognition around how does this interplay is both in terms of our ability to produce food, which we do for domestic consumption and export, yes, but also taking into account the reality of how climate change will impact farmers.
I think it would be fair to say that New Zealand farmers, being, you know, some of the most innovative in the world, absolutely understand their land better than anyone and the reality of the challenges in the way in which the climate is impacting that and how they need to adapt and change to that.
In regards to the point around where it sits around that conversation around food production, we very much think in the context of food security, and food security in the context of an export-led nation is not only the domestic needs, obviously, first and foremost, but we do have obligations and responsibility in terms of the production of food that we produce for food security for other nations, particularly in our broader region as well. So both of those two components are also considered. Also, in terms of the efficiency of us to produce food versus other countries, we have significant advantages, and hence the leakage conversation not only for emissions but leakage in terms of efficiency of production of food for what is some 40 million other individuals as well. So, hopefully, that gives you some context of that point.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. While I’m sure there are still some questions around clause 7, I do want to also open up clauses 8 and 9 for some questioning. This is the other part of the bill. This is about disconnecting the unit price and volumes in the emissions trading scheme (ETS) from our nationally determined contribution. This is quite a significant move—and so significant that when the Minister of Climate Change announced it a few weeks ago, it crashed the ETS price. I want to ask the Minister some questions around that and whether this was a surprise to the Government—is the first question.
The regulatory impact statement on the change notes that no consultation was undertaken. Why was that the case? Why was there not consultation undertaken on that? The analysis was limited due to timing and lack of public input. Why was there a limitation in timing? What were the timing constraints?
Where did this fit in the Minister’s work programme? Given that it did crash the ETS price, which I’ll come on to in terms of the kinds of implication that had, because in terms of the advice the Minister was getting saying they couldn’t specify any potential costs of this policy and no direct costs, but in reality, when you collapse the carbon price—as the Minister’s announcement did make with what was going to be in this legislation—we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars a year as recently as 2022 in terms of the ETS revenue that the Government receives, it is a significant cost in terms of forgone revenue. Why was it that there wasn’t better advice? First of all. Is the Minister satisfied with the kinds of advice he’s getting from his officials? And why was there no consultation around this? I do have some more questions on that, but I’ll just let the Minister answer these questions.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In regard to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) market and the price of the New Zealand emissions units (NZUs) that trades on that market—and we’re talking about the secondary market, in this instance, vs the broader options which are undertaken by the Government—as Minister, I don’t comment on specific changes in regards to the price of those units for the reason that it is an independent market. But I will talk more generally around the points that the member has raised, because I think they are important.
I think, first and foremost, the Government has been consistent and clear around its desire for a credible ETS in order to do the heavy lifting of emissions reduction. The important component around that is the way in which market sentiment takes into account the policy changes and advice such as this announcement and how it interprets that in the context of the way in which the market prices the NZUs. It would be fair to say that there is, I think, opportunities for us to continue to look at ways in which we can ensure that that market sentiment has confidence in the way in which the information that’s being published is understood fully, and there is a wide range of market participants in that regard.
We do engage with the market. The question specifically around consultation, as the member will know, is that because this is a publicly traded market there are strict requirements around information exchange with that market and very strict requirements around what can be discussed with the market participants before those announcements are made. So you are working through a complex and technical area with sensitivities, but we are open as a Government—and with industry—to work with industry, where possible, as much as possible, to ensure that they have confidence in terms of the sentiment moving forward.
We do want the ETS to continue and to be in a position where it does the heavy lifting of emissions reduction, and it is an important area of Government policy; hence why it’s one of the five pillars in our climate strategy.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. Has the Minister of Climate Change discussed with the Minister of Finance the impact of the secondary market price change and what that will do with the Crown accounts? Of course, the way the way in which Treasury do treat the secondary market unit price—a very technical question, I know—but the way in which Treasury treat that secondary market unit price: has he discussed that with the Minister of Finance in terms of the policy decisions that the Government has made that has crashed that unit price? I’m also interested to know from the Minister whether or not this will be reflected in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) when it is released next week—so the half-yearly financial update; whether or not there will be an implication in terms of the Crown accounts that we’ll be seeing there.
The other question I have for the Minister is around the communications he received from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton—of course, a formal National Party Minister—who wrote to the Minister urging him not to go ahead with this disconnection piece that is in clauses 8 and 9 of the legislation. He said that “Trying to decouple New Zealand’s domestic actions from its international commitments is, on the face of the matter, curious. The main reason New Zealand is doing anything about its emissions is to contribute to addressing a global problem”.
I guess, continuing the theme of mysterious actions in the course of this debate, it wasn’t just Dr Deborah Russell that was alleging there was a sense of mystery about this—of course, Simon Upton did, as well. He said, “The motivation for the proposed changes is opaque, a mystery deepened by the need for parliamentary urgency. The only reason I can think of is one grounded in potential litigation risk. Faced with the projected shortfall in meeting the NDC, and the requirement that you must be satisfied that ETS settings are ‘in accordance with’ the NDC”.
Was this a consideration, and did the Minister receive advice? That is the question I have there around the need to make these changes in clauses 8 and 9, for those reasons that the Parliamentary Commissioner outlined, because he said “decoupling the NDC from these provisions may seem an attractive and straightforward solution to avoiding potential legal challenge.” Was that a motivating factor, and did the Minister receive advice on other ways in which that could be avoided?
Then, Simon Upton also went on to say, “As hard as changing the NDC might be, it is preferable to changing an Act that has, at least until now, had broad parliamentary support.” He suggested that you could revise down the Paris target as an alternative to what you’re doing in clauses 8 and 9. What I’d like to know from the Minister is: did he receive advice on this as an alternative? Is this something that he considered? And did he receive advice from his officials on any other alternative ways that the same outcomes could have been achieved in terms of what we’re seeing in clauses 8 and 9? The other thing I’d like to know is: has he met with or responded to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks to the member for that question. The motivation for the change in, in effect, decoupling this process from the nationally determined contributions (NDC) was included within the materials that was provided to the market. There was significant amount of information provided to the market, but the underlying motivation and rationale for why this change was undertaken was included within that information.
To reinforce those points, in effect—and as I noted in my speeches to the House in both first and second reading—the purpose of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is around domestic emissions reduction. The point and purpose of decoupling, and, in effect, removing, the linkage from the NDC—in effect, our international commitments—removes what is deemed and was assessed as an inconsistency in terms of the role of the ETS. The objective there is actually to focus the ETS on domestic emissions reduction, nothing more than that.
The way in which the market has interpreted that has had a wide range of differing views, but the rationale and motivation of why the policy change was undertaken was included in the information provided to the market.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): The Minister of Climate Change, in multiple statements, and I think in the House today, has basically said that the Government is putting all of its eggs in the emissions trading scheme (ETS) basket in terms of the strategy for reducing our domestic emissions—that they see the ETS as a strategy, not a tool, and that it is their primary mechanism. Given that, the changes being made through clause 8 and 9 in the legislation, the mere announcement of them crashed the ETS market, now that we do have that lowered price of carbon, has the Minister received advice on what the implications will be for decarbonisation and whether or not businesses will invest in industrial decarbonisation and how that has changed business cases around that. We know that some industrials will tout $150 to $200 a tonne as being the tipping point for where they will make the decision to invest in decarbonisation projects. We saw the Minister’s announcement tank the price of carbon into the $40 range. So has he received advice from his officials on what the implications will be for our carbon reductions from the changes in clauses 8 and 9?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks very much, Mr Chair. I want to go back to the question in regard to Crown accounts and just want to clearly stipulate that there is not a role for officials in my department, nor as Ministers, to input into that. That is a process that is undertaken by Treasury and is done independently of me.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m still on clause 7. I do seriously appreciate the Minister of Climate Change’s responses on my previous questions regarding the implications of the food production clause, and I have some follow ups on that.
In that evaluation, will the Minister also consider emissions intensity of agriculture output and land? The reason I ask that is the point that the Minister has made in opening statements about our efficiency. Obviously, I’ve already elucidated that we have one of the lowest efficiencies in terms of emissions intensity for agricultural output in the OECD. We sit at about 48. And the primary reason for that, of course, is that we primarily produce ruminant animals. So my question is: will emissions intensity be one of those considerations? And will emissions intensity in terms of agricultural land per hectare be a consideration? Because similarly—and by the way, for your clarity, I’m quoting from the OECD report from 2022 on this; I’m happy to provide it to you if you’d like, Minister, or anyone else in the House—in terms of the efficiency of agriculture intensity per hectare of land, we also sit very low in the OECD, at about 45th.
Now, that is because emissions intensity - wise, what we produce has a very high intensity for per 100 grams of protein output. And the things also elucidated in this report are that beef cattle are the most emissions intensive per 100 kilograms of output, lamb and mutton are next, fourth is dairy beef, fifth is cheese, seventh is milk, and so on and so forth. But for efficiency of production, ground nuts, pulses, peas, nuts, etc., are significantly more efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per 100 kilograms of protein produced. Will that be the sort of thing that is considered in the implications of food production, because clearly, if we are concerned as we should be about both the efficiency and the value of the food production we’re producing, then those would surely be considerations the Minister would want to take into account. Thank you.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to follow on just a little bit from what my colleague Steve Abel has been saying and from what I’ve been talking about previously, and that is in terms of the implications of our methane target for domestic food production, meaning food produced in New Zealand.
Minister, I was at COP-30 recently. Sort of fascinating experience, but I had a long talk to Ian Proudfoot, who is the global head of food or agriculture—well, can’t remember what the title is—for KPMG and, in the classic way, go all the way to Brazil to meet someone who’s based in New Zealand, but that’s what I ended up doing. But he had some really interesting things to say about food production, and it does play into this. That is the food, as we see the way that food production will develop in terms of vat-based food and synthetic, if you like, foods that are produced; the type of food that we produce in New Zealand will end up—and it actually already is—the type of food that is typically sold to richer nations, to richer consumers, to consumers that make choices about their food. What we’re seeing increasingly is that those consumers demand a range of attributes about their food: that they are sustainable, that they don’t produce increased emissions.
Now, I know New Zealand food is not as carbon-heavy as some: our farmers do produce reasonably carbon-efficient food, though, as Steve Abel laid out just earlier on, we are not—however much we like to say it—the most efficient in the world. We’re not too shabby either. Nevertheless, if we reduce our methane targets, as is happening, the implication there in terms of our production of food is the extent to which the markets that we are trying to sell to will not choose our food because it does not have the attributes around sustainability that they want.
Is that the sort of thing that you anticipate will be taken into account in considering our emissions budget? I think it’s actually a really important one. Our farmers need markets. They need people to purchase our food, and the type of consumers who purchase our food are the ones who make choices about it. We are the people who can make choices, and those choices increasingly consider sustainability. To what extent is that included in this consideration of domestic food production?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m also interested in this clause 7, particularly in relation to the Minister of Climate Change’s answer to Steve Abel’s earlier contribution, where Steve Abel was talking about nutrition. The Minister has given us a couple of answers around why it’s important to include domestic food production in here. So he has said that, of course, it includes exports because our economy relies so much on exports. We don’t want to get into the economics again and I don’t want to relitigate that and I acknowledge that the Minister said that, but including domestic food production in here because of exports is a very different argument from the other issue that he mentioned, which is the Paris Agreement that talks about the importance of food production. Those are two separate issues and I’d like to know if the Minister agrees with me on that that those are separate issues.
The Paris Agreement goes to those nutritional points that Steve Abel was talking about. So his answer seemed to mix those two issues up. Then the Minister, in another question, talked about food security and said that food security is first and foremost. That is a separate issue again—food security. I mean, it’s obviously related to nutrition and he said for the countries around us. So, given that commentary, I would like to know if he is expecting the Climate Change Commission to do work into food security when looking at potential implications. That would be a very interesting piece of work. So that’s the one issue related to nutrition which is in the Paris Agreement. Does he expect the Climate Change Commission, in their reporting, to also talk about protein versus carbohydrates, then, as well and look at the different foods that come into New Zealand? So I think those are two very different points.
Then another question related to this is the Climate Change Commission and the funding of the Climate Change Commission. So this is an additional piece of work that the Climate Change Commission will be having to do. We already know that the Climate Change Commission has had a lot of its funding cut. So what is going to happen for the funding of that?
Then, if there is some mix-up in this relationship between nutrition and the importance of food that is in the Paris Agreement, but then also our exports, is it not then arbitrary, if it is actually export-led and not about getting nutrition to New Zealanders, is it arbitrary that it’s just about food? Couldn’t it be about other things as well, particularly if that food is lacking in nutrition? So we know that for a lot of our exports there is a lot of production that’s related to those exports. So where does that fit in the scheme of things as well? And would it better, in fact, to expand on this new subparagraph to talk about the different issues that are happening? Because the Minister is saying, “Oh, well, it’s because exports are important.”, and then he says, “Oh, it’s because Paris says food is important.” Those are two very different issues. Then he says, “Oh, well, food security is important.” So what are the different parts and what is it? He also said in response, I think, again, to one of Steve Abel’s questions that we should be looking at what happens with the implications of climate change on our food production. So that’s a fourth area as well. Does he agree that this new subparagraph is supposed to cover all four of those areas or not?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, Madam Chair. Look, I acknowledge that the member has come to this clause 7 a little bit late, because we have had quite an extensive conversation on this clause—acknowledging that, actually, all of the clauses are about half a page in totality. But let’s go through that one more time.
Questions around the Climate Change Commission: good point raised there. Climate Change Commission will provide advice. I don’t want to, obviously, pre-empt that advice in terms of what they do, but these considerations that we’re talking about will be part, no doubt, of that, which is helpful in terms of the Government’s decision making. The exporters and the companies that are involved in the export of primary product will, obviously, continue to do what their markets dictate them to do, obviously. So, you know, take that for what it is.
Hon Rachel Brooking: How is that relevant to this?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, it’s relevant in the context that we are acknowledging here that food production is, and should be, given prominence in the way in which we make decision making around the way in which we set climate targets. I think that’s pretty sensible, because, actually, food production is really, really critical to our food security and, therefore, linked to our national security and also the role in which we play to provide food security and national security to the region in which we play. If we want to talk about the food triangle and, you know, low-carb diets and protein and all that, I don’t think that’s in the bill; I didn’t see it in the half page I’ve got. Again, that’s out of scope in the context of this bill, but what we do know is that New Zealand exporter and food production involves a wide range of food. I think that’s probably enough to answer.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ve only just got here. The Hon Rachel Brooking—and, as I have said in previous committees of the whole House, we’ll try to keep the question-and-answer sessions going, rather than the target of five minutes for every speech.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I appreciate that, as I was yelling at the Minister. No, I’m not going for a target of five minutes.
But, in response to the Minister’s response, the question that he’s not answering is: why has he chosen to insert this clause here? Is it because of our economic reasons with exports, or is it because of the nutritional importance of food to New Zealanders and our food security?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Well, again, we’ve discussed and answered that exact question previously. We talked about the fact that it is not only domestic consumption but also the importance of our ability to export that food to other parts of the world, and that is included in the explanatory note to this bill.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think there is a bit more to be canvassed in this part, but I can see from the notes from the previous Chair that clause 7 has had quite a lot of interrogation. So maybe it’s time that we did move on.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Well, I put it again to the Minister that he has not answered my question. Or he could be answering it. I’m not sure by his confrontational tone what he means. Is this both exports, there for economic reasons, and nutrition, there for health reasons and food security and national reasons? But he seems to also be saying it’s for the nutrition of the world. If he can confirm whether or not it’s about the nutrition of the world, or not, that would be useful.
The point goes to what I was saying earlier about how arbitrary it is. If it is just about exports, because somehow these exports might be related to the Paris Agreement and food, then that is a very different reason for the insertion of this clause than the nutrition of New Zealanders or just a simple economic argument that we should be making lots of money from exports. That’s a fine argument to have. Yes, we need to make lots of money from exports. But if we’re also tying that to something in the Paris Agreement about food, then we need to get down into how arbitrary it is that it’s just food and not related to the nutrition of that food.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I’ll give a simple example of: imagine a sheep in a paddock down the road from here. That sheep may have one leg of lamb when it gets processed that is consumed in New Zealand by someone in this House this evening for dinner. The other leg may get wrapped and exported to someone in another country in which it will get consumed. That is the reality of food production. We are looking at domestic food production, and that will include both domestic consumption but also international exports. That’s the two parts. The nutritional components of those two legs of lamb I guess would probably be quite similar, because they’re from the same sheep. I don’t think we’re getting into that; we’re simply acknowledging that domestic food production is about what we produce here, acknowledging that it will end up in different parts of the world, including here at home.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Just very shortly. It is different to my question, the answer about the sheep and the two legs of the sheep—probably a female sheep. The question about nutrition is: has the Minister of Climate Change put food in this bill because Paris talks about food? That’s one question. If so, then that creates a problem, because if you’re relying on the link to food with Paris, then we need to be talking about nutrition. If it is simply what I put to him earlier—that it’s about exports and the economics of exports—that’s a legitimate thing to be thinking about. And if it’s about the food security of New Zealanders, that’s fine too. But has he put food in here because of that Paris Agreement? This is why this is very muddled—the reasoning and the logic for this new addition.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): As I noted before in a response, the food production is already included in parts of the Paris Accord. In particular, statements in the context that in the way in which greenhouse gas emissions development needs to be “in a manner that does not threaten food production;” for example, under Article 2 1.(b). The simple answer to the member’s question: it is both. That is what we’re referring to.
Again, I’m not sure how much more we can describe what is pretty clear on the implications, or potential implications, for domestic food production. The New Zealand Government have deemed that food production and export of our food to the world is a key element to our economy and should have greater prominence in the decision-making consideration in the way in which we set targets. I don’t think that is controversial—actually, I think most New Zealanders would have thought, “I would have expected you would have done that already.” The reality is we’re now putting that very clearly in the criteria.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It might feel like we’re really over-litigating this point, but I actually think it’s quite an important one. Can I put it another way, Minister? We’re talking about biogenic methane, which comes from ruminant animals. That is one part of our food production. It is not by any means the whole part of our food production. In terms of the emissions challenge we have, when we take the pie graph of New Zealand’s emissions, we find that half of that graph is agricultural emissions, predominantly methane and nitrous oxide—and we’re dealing here with biogenic methane, which is the methane part of that pie graph that comes from ruminant animals in New Zealand. We have a lot of it because we have a lot of ruminant animals. But a quarter of that total emissions profile in New Zealand is only one part of that food production system—it is the dairy part of it. The other quarter of that pie chart is every sheep in this country—22 million of them, I think—every beef cow—
Miles Anderson: No. It’s 17.5 million.
STEVE ABEL: Down to 17—Jesus. Every beef cow—there’s about 4 million beef cows—every chicken; every pig, hopefully not in farrowing crates; every vegetable produced; every fruit produced; all the wine; every other part of food production in our country makes as much emissions as just the dairy industry makes.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just check, we’re talking to clause 7?
STEVE ABEL: I’m talking exactly to clause 7, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question is, Minister, with the emphasis you are putting on biogenic methane, the wording of clause 7, new section 5ZC(2)(b)(xii), “the implications, or potential implications, for domestic food production.” eludes to the idea that if there is an impact in reducing the number of ruminant animals or let’s say dairy cows, even if you’ve still got the same number of beef and sheep, would be a problem for food production, when, in fact, that other part of that pie chart that’s the more efficient part of our agricultural system—i.e., not the dairy part—
Grant McCallum: Based on what?
STEVE ABEL: Based on science, Grant. My goodness! Why don’t you take a call, mate.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Why don’t you come back to your debate.
STEVE ABEL: The other part of that pie graph that is not based on dairy cows could expand agriculturally across the landscape, God forbid, and we would be reducing the number of dairy cows, but we could be producing more food. I’m just concerned to clarify, Minister, does this clause have the effect of protecting the status quo, highest methane emissions sector in this country or does it allow us to have land use that means more low - methane emitting food production?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): The clause we have discussed at length—in regards to clause 7—in no way constrains any future State position that is predicated on the status quo. That may infer that there is greater dairy production in the future; it may infer that there is a different mix of production from other sectors. What the member is referring to is using a status quo model of where the dairy sector in five or 10 years from now does not have tools, that are currently under development, that would, in effect, allow it to create more production and output than the status quo per livestock unit with less emissions as a result of that livestock unit, and greater resilience to other considerations around the impact of climate change such as increased temperature.
If you consider where we could and will be in the future—and we can’t foresee that exactly—we definitely are of the view that we will have more tools and innovation available in the future than what we have currently. Therefore that, in the context of an export-led nation and as a food producer for the world, will give us quite a significant opportunity—an economic opportunity—to be able to, in effect, consider ability to create greater output and production to feed the broader world linked back to the food security’s considerations that we have because of climate change in other parts of the world that are more heavily impacting them than us.
There is no constraint around that; it could work in differing ways. Again, it’s not for us to dictate what the view of how that sector will be structured in the future, but it is our role to remove constraints and barriers that would enable innovation to drive greater productivity. That is what we see as an opportunity within the primary sector in order to continue to drive our economy.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you to the Minister of Climate Change for those answers on food. It sounds like it’s very wide-ranging.
Now, I would like to move to clause 9, and this is—I know it’s been touched on already, the deletion of that and the nationally determined contribution—but what I want the Minister to answer is why it is necessary to delete that. I realise some of the policy issues that were raised in those contributions, but at subsection (3) of section 30GC in the principal Act, it says “However, they need not strictly accord with the budgets or contributions as long as the Minister is satisfied that the discrepancy is justified, after considering the other matters under this section.”
My question is: given that there’s already an out to consider about those contributions—the nationally determined contributions—why is it necessary to make this change in clause 9?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I have already answered the similar question exactly on why we are doing the point under clause 9 in regards to clause 9(1), and the linkages around clause 9(2) and (3) are, in effect, remedial in the context of that point under clause 9(1).
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I think the Minister of Climate Change must not have heard me, because my point was not whether or not “nationally determined contribution” should or should not be in there; just that there is no need for his amendment because there is already an out.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m tempted to take the closure motion, but I will give members another opportunity to move into the other couple of clauses that are available.
Francisco Hernandez: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Have you got something new there?
Francisco Hernandez: Yes
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Francisco Hernandez.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before I move on to the Schedule, I do want to ask an inconsistency that I potentially identified in clause 9(1), which is that the Minister of Climate Change has made reference to how the idea of the changes to this is to decouple the emissions trading scheme from the nationally determined contribution, because the Government’s stance is that this is purely a domestic tool.
However, I just wanted to point out to the Minister that under section 30GB(2)(a)(iii)(C) of the Climate Change Response Act, it makes reference to “approved overseas units used;” and there’s reference to “overseas units” scattered all across the parts of the legislation that this Government is seeking to amend. If the Government was consistent in its objective of seeking to truly decouple the domestic targets from the nationally determined contribution, would the Minister consider deleting those other parts or is there another programme of work under way to amend the rest of the legislation to make it consistent with the policy objectives of this Government?
I want to move on now to the final Schedule of the New Part 6 that’s being created. I’m just curious why the Government chose to—I mean, it was like the Government knew coming into this year that the emissions budgets were due at the end of the year. Why insert this section and why delay the provision of this advice? One possible answer might be the methane review, but that doesn’t change the targets that could have been incorporated in the potential for the new targets under New Part 6. So why change it altogether?
Again, for my earlier question around the overseas units that are scattered throughout that section of legislation. Thank you.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I thank the member for the question. Actually, in regards to the question that the member has noted around the Schedule on why, I have actually previously answered that, but I’m happy just to reinforce the answer there. The practical reality is that under the status quo, the advice that we have received from the Climate Change Commission is based on the current target. We’re changing the targets. As a result, we need to allow adequate time for the Climate Change Commission to prepare new advice so that we can consider that before considering any changes. There is simply no time available because we’re here and now and we would have a matter of weeks if we didn’t allow an extension of that time. So, hence, that is the purpose of that point.
Just to clarify in regards to when I used the word “decoupling”, we were referring here to the accordance components within the requirements of the Act. In effect, the stipulation under clause 9(1), which is the clause reference that we were talking about here, is changing the legal minimum. That is the accordance test which, just to clarify the word “decouple”, that’s the context in which I am using there.
In regards to the questions around clauses 9(2) and (3) and whether I have any intention to change that, the answer is no. So, hopefully, that answers all of the points, including the Schedule. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Grant—sorry, Miles Anderson. I was looking at you.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): 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 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 5X(3)(d) to replace 2027 with 2026 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 7, new section 5ZC(2)(b)(xii) to insert the words “with particular regard to maximising calorific efficiency” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 7, new section 5ZC(2)(b)(xii) to insert the words “with particular regard to the climatic conditions upon which that production relies” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 7, new section 5ZC(2)(b)(xii) to insert the words “with particular regard to the incentives for progressing lower carbon food production methods” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 7, new section 5ZC(2)(b)(xii) to insert the words “with particular regard to long-term food sustainability challenges” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 5ZC(2)(b)(xii) to insert subparagraph (xiii) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 8 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 9 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 9 to replace “accordance with” with “alignment with” in section 30GC(2) of the principal Act be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 9 to replace “are in accordance with” with “have regard to” in section 30GC(2) of the principal Act be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 replacing clause 9 to replace paragraph (a) in section 30GC(2) of the principal Act with “the emissions budget is the primary priority and the nationally determined contribution for New Zealand under the Paris Agreement that applies to” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing clause 9 to replace paragraph (a) in section 30GC(2) of the principal Act with “the emissions budget and, optionally, the nationally determined contribution for New Zealand under the Paris Agreement it applies to” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 two remaining tabled amendments replacing clause 9 to replace section 30GC(2) and paragraph (a) of that subsection are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendments to clause 10 are ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’ll move to the Schedule. The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to the Schedule, new clause 50(2)(b) to replace “31 March 2027” with “31 March 2026” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to the Schedule, new clause 50 to insert new subclause (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 3
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I intend to take only one call in this final part of the debate, and I’m taking the call just to speak to two amendments that I’ve put in suggesting alternative titles for this particular bill. One of them is, well, let’s see—let’s go with the easy one: I propose, instead of being called the “(2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, it should be the “(Reducing Methane Target and Other Matters)”. Look, this bill doesn’t actually concern itself with the entire 2050 target—the 2050 target is currently 24 to 47 percent to reduce methane below 2017 levels and net zero carbon on all other greenhouse gases. That is part of the 2050 target. In actual fact, this bill concerns itself only with the methane target. It would be rather more accurate to describe this bill as the “Reducing the Methane Target” bill rather than the “2050 Target”. It’s just a little bit too broadly set to be an accurate title. That is the first amendment I’ve got sitting there, just to get a somewhat more accurate title for this bill.
The other title I’ve proposed for is perhaps, well, it is more tendentious, but I think it accurately summarises what this bill does. I propose, that instead of being called the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, it should be called the “Climate Change Response (Backtracking on Climate) Amendment Bill”. I’m quite serious about this. What we have seen under this Government is a whole series of actions that have walked our commitment on climate back and back and back and back and back and back and back some more.
Hon Member: Repetitive.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s just gone on and gone back—literary effect. That is exactly why I want to call it the “Backtracking on Climate” bill. It’s an important point. For a long time there has been a bipartisan consensus on what to do about climate in this House. There was a hard fought bipartisan consensus in the 2019 zero carbon Act. But this Government, frankly, has walked away from that bipartisan consensus. For a long time, we hoped we could hold it, but this bill is the nail in the coffin on that. And so I think that this bill should be called the “Backtracking on Climate” bill.
I’ll have a little more to say about that in a third reading speech, but my first proposed amendment is a more accurate title; my second proposed amendment captures the spirit of this bill. This Government is backtracking on climate.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, only intend to take one call in this part of the debate. It's really on clause 2, on the commencement of this legislation; I have some questions for the Minister.
During scrutiny week, the Ministry for the Environment officials told MPs that that advised the Minister on ways that the legislation could be passed and give the public time to have their say. I'd just like to know from the Minister why he elected to ignore that advice from his officials and use urgency as the way to do this.
Of course, that goes directly to the commencement date. It is not clear, either, why these major policy changes have to be passed by the end of the year. There are some minor technical changes that you could argue need to be done by the 31 December, but it would have been entirely possible to separate out the methane target change and the carbon market delinking—that have no inherent timelines or deadlines within there—and separate that out and have separate pieces of legislation and, therefore, separate commencement dates for those pieces of legislation. I'd just like to ask the Minister why he didn't separate out and why he didn't allow for proper scrutiny of such fundamental changes to law in New Zealand, if there's things he had to do before Christmas.
I mean, it can't have been a drafting issue. It's about a four-page bill that we've got before us. So why is it that it was it announced some weeks ago that this is coming? Why, now, is it being rushed in the second-to-last week of Parliament through urgency? Why didn't he follow his officials’ advice and allow some time for some public scrutiny?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks for the questions. I'll start with the one in regards to the commencement date and what the rationale is: well, as the member may be aware, we're a very busy Government on this side of the House. We've got a lot of legislation that is working its way through and one of the changes has a requirement that needs to be in place by 31 December 2025. The reality is we have a certain number of sitting days between now and then, hence why we're here doing what we're doing. I make no apology for that.
In regards to the title suggestions made by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, the Government won't be considering those amendments.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): So the answer to why we're in urgency is because we're a very busy Government—and he's nodding. Who cares about consultation or anything like that? Who cares about democracy? And yet, we had a Minister in that chair ask why the Opposition were making this political. That was remarkable, and goes to some of my suggested title changes that would be more accurate than this “(2050 Target and other Matters)”, because this change—this target change—is totally political. That could be it: the “(2050 Totally Political Target Change)”—and that would be more honest, Minister, don't you agree, about why we are here in urgency; because you're a very busy Government?
But we haven't had that. We've had all these weird excuses: something about science, something about being pragmatic, realistic—“realistic” is the word used, but being “realistic”, here, is a “(Head in the Sand)” approach. So that's another suggestion. It's also a sign that this Government is giving up on international agreements. We've had no comfort given by the Minister that, in response to reducing the focus on methane, there will be an increased focus on carbon and reducing that carbon down. Nothing there. So, again, it's (“Giving Up on International Agreements)”.
My final suggestion is, I think, the most upsetting, and that goes to bipartisanship. When I came into this House with that Minister in 2020, we learnt about the GLOBE New Zealand group of MPs who'd worked across the House to get this legislation through. Now, what we've had is this Minister announce the changes, not try and engage in any bipartisanship about the changes—any formal bipartisanship—and so we just get this changed. I hear all those members, those backbench members, muttering, and they were not here last term, just as I was not here in the term before where members got this across the line. It is just so disappointing that this Government just wants to take an arrogant, shortsighted approach once again. So my final suggestion is that it is the “Climate Change Response (End of Bipartisanship) Amendment Bill”.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by just asking the Minister a couple of questions on an often ignored clause in any legislation, and that’s the principal Act. So I want to Start with section 3, “Principal Act”, which, understandably says, “This Act amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002.” However, as the Minister and many members of this House would know when it comes to statutory interpretation, we often, for any principal legislation or primary legislation, look at the purpose clause.
So if we are to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002, I want to check with the Minister on a couple of questions first, which is: does the Minister think that this amendment bill fulfils the requirement of the purpose of the principal Act, which is the Climate Change Response Act? Particularly if we’re looking at purpose, which is section 3 of that particular Act, it talks about, in section 3(1)(aa)(i), “limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels”. We have seen in the Minister’s own regulatory impact statement that that is not going to happen with this piece of legislation, therefore, we are already going against one clause of the purpose of the principal Act.
It also talks about, in section 3(1)(b)(ii), “assisting New Zealand to meet its 2050 target and emissions budgets”. I don’t think that this is going to achieve that because, again, the Minister has changed that 2050 target. Finally, I think what’s more important for the Minister, and just checking that the Minister in this case would be concerned about any judiciary challenge on this piece of legislation, which is in section 3(2) of the principal Act, which is “A person who exercises a power or discretion, or carries out a duty, under this Act must exercise that power or discretion, or carry out that duty, in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of this Act.” Does the Minister himself think that he has achieved that or has fulfilled the requirement that is his duty under the principal Act with the introduction of this amendment bill?
With that I move on to the other clauses. So clause 2, as we have heard previously from Hon Dr Megan Woods and Hon Dr Deborah Russell, there is no reason for us to have to introduce this after Royal assent. I think that if the Minister is truly wanting to bring something to the House under urgency, not going through a select committee stage, jeopardising our international reputation as well as international obligation, I think the most prudent thing it could have done is to actually delay the implementation of this even by a little bit, just to show that we are going to give it serious consideration and there are other things we want to tease out before this needs to come into force. So I do have an amendment on this particular clause I want the Minister to consider, which is to make this come into force either by Order in Council or giving a specific deadline. I think the date that I put down was 1 January 2030.
Finally, on to the title of the clause, I actually don’t want to dwell too much on the title of the clause, because I think the previous speakers have made excellent contributions on alternative titles. But I do want to check with the Minister on the other factors that, potentially, will be considered. I wondered why the Minister decided to choose “2050 Target and Other Matters”, not “Biogenic Methane Emissions Reduction and Other Matters”, which is one of the proposals I’ve made. But also, I think, in terms of other titles, it is important for the title to reflect the amendment bill itself. But what risk are we putting into, actually, our natural environment, but also to our farmers—the other side of the House likes to talk about that. What’s going to happen when we see an increased risk of natural disasters as a result of global warming? So maybe a title will be “(Increased Natural Disasters and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. Maybe the title could be “(Insurance will Price Themselves Out so No One can Ever Insure Anything Again Against Natural Disasters) Amendment Bill”, because that’s going to be a huge liability. Or even as simply as “(Insurance Liability and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Reducing Methane Target and Other Matters” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Reduction of 2050 Biogenic Methane Target and Other Matters” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Emissions Budgets, NDC Decoupling and 2050 Methane Target” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “2050 Biogenic Methane Target and Other Matters” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “2050 Methane Target and Other Matters” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “2050 Methane Target Revision and ETS Decoupling” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Emissions Budgets, Methane Targets and Commission Changes” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Climate Goals and Climate Commission Functions” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Biogenic Methane Emissions and Other Matters” be agreed to.
party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 Deborah Russell’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Francisco Hernandez’s eight remaining 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 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14: Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “1 April 2026” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 2 to change the commencement to “1 January 2027” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 2 to change the commencement to “1 April 2027” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; 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 to clause 2 to change the commencement to “the day after a pricing mechanism for biogenic methane emissions in agriculture comes into effect” is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminant event and not providing sufficient certainty.
Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “after the 2050 target review for biogenic methane emissions reductions” is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminant event and not providing sufficient certainty.
Francisco Hernandez’s remaining three tabled amendments and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s two tabled amendments to clause 2 to change the commencement to “a date after 2027” are ruled out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
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 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Clause 2 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 51
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Third Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I move, That the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
This bill marks an important step in ensuring New Zealand’s climate framework is fit for purpose. It delivers clarity for our farmers, it delivers clarity for our rural communities, and it does so by setting a methane target that is both scientific and practically achievable. The previous target created uncertainty and risk for our primary sector. This legislation addresses that by updating the biogenic methane component of the 2050 target to a range of 14 to 24 percent below 2017 levels. This new target is informed by science and continues to contribute to our international commitment and is feasible to achieve.
The bill delivers five key changes: it resets the biogenic methane target to 14 to 24 percent below 2017 levels by 2050; it defers the fourth emissions budget; it removes the requirement for the emissions trading scheme settings to accord with their Nationally Determined Contributions; it legislates a review of the methane target in 2040; and lastly, it requires and, importantly, requires consideration of food production when setting emissions budgets. These changes are not just technical, they are practical, and they will give our farmers confidence about what is expected of them, support investment decisions, and ensure that New Zealand, importantly, continues to contribute to the global efforts to reduce emissions, but also, importantly, to increase productivity and food production to the world.
Our commitments under the Paris Agreement remain unchanged, and this bill reinforces our reputation as a country that takes climate obligations seriously while also enabling economic growth. This legislation is about balance. It supports our climate goals without undermining jobs or our rural communities’ prosperity. It positions New Zealand to lead, and continue to lead, around the world in sustainable food production and ensures that innovation, as it has always been a major contributing factor to our primary sector, continues to drive progress for our economy.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge my officials, who have been significant in their contribution to this work, to the independent Climate Change Commission, and also, importantly, to the independent methane scientific group, who have all contributed to this process. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Let me traverse this Government’s record on climate change since shortly after they were elected.
On 3 December 2023, they cancelled the Lake Onslow project. On 11 December 2023, they discontinued the GIDI Fund—the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund. On 14 December 2023, they repealed the Clean Car Discount. On 14 December as well, they also announced they would repeal the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which had a big impact on our nitrous. On 1 January 2024, that was the date that the Clean Car Discount formally ended. On 14 January 2024, they cancelled Auckland light rail. On 16 January 2024, they announced they’d remove the exemption for owners of light electorate vehicles and plug-in hybrids from planned road-user charges.
On 4 March 2024, they announced a draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, which deprioritised decarbonisation. On 6 March 2024, they cancelled the Auckland regional fuel tax, which was used in part to fund public and active transport in Auckland. On 21 March 2024, they announced plans for higher road speeds, which increase fuel consumption and carbon emissions. On 21 March, that same day, they announced they would actually increase road speed limits. On 28 March 2024, they passed that legislation requiring light vehicles and plug-in hybrids to pay road-user charges. On 6 April 2024, they announced that they would appoint an independent panel to review the methane target. On 16 April 2024, they announced they would reduce barriers to consenting for coal mining.
On 30 May 2024, the Budget came out and it showed that it would increase the country’s emissions by about 2.8 megatonnes of carbon. Included in that was cuts to the Climate Emergency Response Fund—the $900 million there was returned to the general fund. They cancelled the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund. And they started to use the waste levy for purposes beyond reducing waste.
On 31 May 2024, they stopped funding for free public transport for children and half-price fairs for young people. On 9 June 2024, they announced they would amend the Crown Minerals Act to reverse the ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration permits. On 11 June 2024, they announced that they would put in legislation so that agricultural emissions would not go into the emissions trading scheme (ETS). On 27 June 2024, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport was published, and it shifted away from direct transport decarbonisation initiatives. On 9 July 2024, the Government announced it would reduce the clean car importer standard. On 17 July, they reduced their draft emissions plan, which showed that the buffer to meet the first and second emissions budgets would be decreased markedly.
Carrying on, on 15 July 2024, we first learned that the Minister of Climate Change had stated, in reference to our Nationally Determined Contribution 1, that while the Government was committed to them, you can’t infer that means that we’re going to be writing a cheque for the gap. You can’t and should not infer that. In other words: we’re not going to pay. On 26 August 2024, the Minister for energy and resources announced that the Government had committed to acting with urgency to reverse the ban on offshore oil and gas. On 12 September 2024, there was an article in Carbon News in which the Minister of Climate Change stated that it was unrealistic for New Zealand to purchase overseas carbon credits to meet the Nationally Determined Contribution 1.
On 25 September 2024, legislation reinstating offshore petroleum exploration was introduced to Parliament. On 23 October 2024, the first amendment bill to the Resource Management Act was amended, and it included making consenting for coal mines easier. On 6 November 2024, the Government announced it was going to remove regulations for low-emissions building and replace them with a voluntary approach. On 12 December 2024, the Government produced its second emissions reduction plan, and then it showed only a 3.2 megatonne reduction over five years to 2030. In January 2025, this Government announced its second Nationally Determined Contribution. It was supposed to be the contribution which we could manage with the most possible ambition. And what was it? A mere 1 percent increase in our targets.
On 8 April 2025, the Government announced it would discontinue and wind down New Zealand Green Investment Finance. On 21 April 2025, the Government decided not to put a price on international maritime climate pollution. On 22 May, in the Budget that year, the Government announced a fossil fuel subsidy and a $200 million co-investment in oil and gas—in climate gas!—and it halved New Zealand’s overseas climate financing from $250 million to $100 million.
On 25 June 2025, the Government withdrew from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. On 31 July 2025, the Parliament passed a Crown Minerals Amendment Act to repeal the 2018 ban on offshore oil and gas exploration. On 1 October 2025, the Government announced decisions it had made for the energy sector, which included doubling down on fossil fuel energy, including building a natural gas import facility and subsidising gentailers for new coal and gas - fired generation, and reannouncing a fuel subsidy.
On 12 October 2025, the Government announced that it was going to reduce—in fact, halve—New Zealand’s legislated 2050 climate target. On 17 October 2025, New Zealand abstained from voting on putting a price on shipping emissions. On 22 October 2025, the Government announced widespread amendments to the climate related disclosures regime. On 4 November 2025, the Government announced that it was delaying the 2025 deadline for a carbon neutral public service from 2025 to 2050. On 17 November 2025, the Government announced changes to the Clean Car Standard, including reducing the Clean Car Standard charges by nearly 80 percent. On 4 December 2025, the Government announced that it would not follow any of the Climate Commission’s recommendations on target amendments under the Climate Change Response Act.
On 12 December 2025—the tenth anniversary of the Paris Agreement to the day; and, although it’s 9 December in this place, out there it's 12 December—this Government has walked back on methane. This is a record of climate failure by that Government. That is why we do not support this bill.
The second reason why we do not support this bill is that that Government has abandoned bipartisanship on climate. This House worked hard to build a consensus. This House worked extraordinarily hard to make sure we could agree on climate goals, to set some targets to give some certainty out there. In fact, when we were talking with Federated Farmers, with Beef + Lamb, and with Dairy New Zealand earlier this year, the message we got from them loud and clear was that they needed certainty. That Government has totally abandoned the prospect of certainty because it would not be bipartisan about climate. I say to the chair and the CEO of Federated Farmers, to the chair and the CEO of Beef + Lamb, and to the chair and the CEO of Dairy New Zealand, you’re good people but you lined up behind the Minister when he announced these changes and you lined up by a Minister who had abandoned bipartisanship. You cannot be certain anymore, because that Government has abandoned certainty around climate because it has abandoned bipartisanship. That is another reason. We cannot support this bill. We were not given any say in it. That Government walked away from the strong history of bipartisanship on climate, just like that.
And then they have introduced this particular change, which was done without any consultation with the public. In the Minister’s own Regulatory Impact Statement from his own officials, they talked about doing consultation through a standard select committee process. But what have we had? We have had this bill go through the Parliament in a matter of hours with no select committee process. This has been an outrageous approach to climate legislation. Doing it in a rush, doing it without consultation, doing it without a proper select committee process—not even a fast select committee process. There was no select committee process whatsoever. It is an appalling process. We do not and cannot support this bill.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are many critiques of this bill, but one of the myths that is frequently repeated by this Government and in fact by the agricultural sector and the dairy sector over time is that New Zealand feeds the world. We do not feed the world; we produce a surplus of predominantly meat and dairy products that we export to make money. If New Zealand’s primary concern was with providing calorific value and nutrition to human bodies, we would not have the lowlands covered in dairy cows; we would be growing grains and nuts and legumes, because in terms of our climate intensity, our water efficiency, and nutritional value, it would be a far, far more efficient way of producing food for human bodies. What is more, 95 percent of the dairy production we do is for export, and a vast volume of it is simply milk powder that goes as micro-ingredients in a multitude of non-nutritious foods—confectionaries and the like. So let me say here and put it clearly on the record: New Zealand is not concerned with actually feeding the world. I wish that we were more concerned with feeding the world, as well as feeding ourselves in a more effective manner.
If we were concerned with food security, we would not have the Canterbury Plains covered in dairy cows, because we could be producing more of even the food that we consume domestically. I actually think the addition to this piece of legislation, one of the good things about it, is the consideration of food production—so long as the scope is sufficiently large enough that it takes into account what is the most efficient way to produce food for human bodies with minimal impact on the climate and on our waterways, for example.
The other thing that this bill does is it obsesses with biogenic methane. Why does it do that? It does that because of the heavy influence of that most influential sector—on the National Government, certainly; and probably on the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party—the dairy industry. They are fixated on methane because it’s their biggest emission problem. This bill denies the fundamental fact that the easiest way to deal with reducing our methane emissions is land-use change. They don’t want land-use change, because they don’t want a reduction. You would think that the only food type in the National Party is dairy.
Miles Anderson: What are you talking about?
STEVE ABEL: I’m talking about—
Mark Patterson: Cheese, cheese!
STEVE ABEL: That’s right. He’s got it—cheese, cheese.
This bill, as my colleague has said, breaks the consensus on climate change. Now, I was a consensus sceptic, to be fair. I was a consensus sceptic because I predicted that this is exactly what would happen when you had a change of Government—that you would have this reactionary right wing crew who’d come in and lean in to the climate denialism of the likes of the Trump administration, which we have in spades, to be fair, at either end of that right side of the House. The ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party love saying “Drill, baby, drill.” and casting scepticism on climate. And they have here backed out of that consensus.
But as my colleague Francisco Hernandez points out, that rightly means that we are in a new space. When there’s a change of Government, we’re not going to seek consensus; we’re going to do what needs to be done to make this planet liveable. Because the existential challenge of climate change—the existential challenge of climate change—is coming at us like a freight train.
Simon Court: It’s not, Steve. It’s not.
STEVE ABEL: There’s the denialism right there—I love it. Thank you for affirming the perception.
The other thing that this does, apart from obviously lowering our ambition, is that it separates, it decouples, the emissions trading scheme from our Nationally Determined Contribution. In layperson’s terms, that means that the target that we have as a nation, that we commit to and let the rest of the world know about—out Nationally Determined Contribution—is now separated from what is supposedly the primary mechanism by which we achieve that contribution, the emissions trading scheme. Why would we separate those things? It is non-sensical—noting, of course, that our biggest emissions-contributing sector, the agricultural sector, mainly the dairy industry, is not even in the emission trading scheme. So there is no actual bringing of that polluting sector into that scheme to create the market incentives for that sector to become more efficient. This Government purports to be concerned with the market and they say their primary mechanism for achieving our ambitions and our goals is the emissions trading scheme, yet they don’t bring our most polluting sector into that emissions trading scheme. And here in this legislation they separate the ETS from the Nationally Determined Contribution. Nonsensical. Another way to undermine the actual structure set out by which we achieve the challenge of doing our bit in addressing this global challenge of climate change.
And to that point, the story we hear all the time that justifies us not doing our bit is that we are small. Because we contribute relatively little to global pollution, therefore we should do the bare minimum. Maybe we should do nothing at all. But, in fact, if you look at the emissions intensity of New Zealand on a per capita basis, we are in the top five biggest polluting nations in the world in terms of climate change emissions.
I appreciate the silence from the other side of the House, because that is something we should be embarrassed about and ashamed of. We should be thinking about what we are doing to deal with how we are producing so many emissions per capita and actually being the worst example in the world of how to deal with this challenge. Where is the Anzac spirt? Where is the Anzac spirit which says though we are small, we will do our bit?
I can imagine Minister Watts at the time of the rise of fascism in Europe: when it came to the call for the world to come and take action, Minister Watts might have said, “Well, we’re only a little country. We can’t really do much. It’s kind of out of our hands, and so we’re not going to bother to participate.” That is the attitude of the right wing to climate change, which, for context, is a far, far bigger challenge to planetary survival and thriving than a war.
And another point is that, in terms of the question of food production, the front line of the worst impacts of climate change are food producers, are farmers, are rural people. Simon Court can make light of those massive horrendous slash-laden floods that his the Esk Valley and the extreme weather events that hit West Auckland and the increasing frequency of droughts, the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, the risk of sea level rise, and tidal inundation. He can make light of that, but the fact is that is the biggest single threat to the ability of us as a humanity to produce food.
As the decades go by, it will become harder and harder to do that because of climate change, and if we lower our ambition and we send a message to the world that everyone can lower their ambition, then we lock ourselves into higher and higher levels of global heating that mean a much worse impact on our children and our grandchildren at the end of this century. To deny that methane, that super-heating gas, is the quick means for us to rapidly cut global heating impacts, is to deny the obvious science of climate change, because this legislation locks in the debunked science of no additional warming. It actually puts it in law—this thing cooked up by the beef and the dairy industry to justify them doing nothing. It is a shameful day for New Zealand today, and we disdain this legislation.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. Before we move on, I need to put the question, and the question is that the motion be agreed to. Members, it is now time for us to leave for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: [Interruption] The House is resumed. It’s a shame that members did not recognise the man in the gallery. Before the dinner break, we were on the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and we’re up to call number four, which is an ACT Party call.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party will support this bill. We believe it’s a practical, science-based, commonsense reform, setting the 2050 target for methane in a much more sensible direction My colleague Andrew Hoggard already made the case at first reading for the policy, but I do just want to point out that during the course of the debate we’ve heard some absolutely farcical arguments from the Opposition that I must address.
Firstly, I’d just ask the Opposition, when it comes to climate change, to cool it, and, actually, to find a copy of Bjorn Lomborg’s book, Cool It!: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, and take a chill pill, all you climate apocalyptics. Actually, we have the right policy—the right policy settings—we have a great climate Minister. I mean, some might describe him as the Rudolph Nureyev of climate—the way that he pivots and turns and makes sure that New Zealand’s always facing in the right direction. But, essentially, ACT supports this bill. It’s going in the right direction. This Government is doing exactly what it was elected to do—fixing what matters. Thank you very much.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Tonight, the coalition Government keeps its promise to farmers. We are unshackling our agricultural sector from non-scientific methane targets—unscientific and punitive.
In this country, we do many great things in our economy; we have a large travel industry and a great tourism portfolio; we marvel at the likes of Zespri and Rocket Lab and the things that they are doing, but the undisputable truth about this country is that the one internationally competitive industry we have, or the one competitive advantage we have, at scale, is turning grass into protein. I’ve heard some arguments over here that we should turn the whole place into macadamia nuts or whatever. The truth is, other countries can do those things better than us. No one in the world can turn grass into protein, dairy products, meat, and the best strong wool in the world as well as we can.
We have been doing it since 1882, when the Dunedin sailed out of Port Chalmers in Dunedin with that first frozen shipment of meat. In underpins every New Zealander’s standard of living—$40 billion from that pastural sector. Every school, every hospital is funded in part by the returns that come from that sector. Our ability as a country to have a First World standard of living essentially relies on these industries. We will not punish those industries; we will not condemn them when they are the most carbon-efficient in the world.
With this bill, we’ve made the decision to go to “no additional warming”, and we have had the science to do it. We’ve had incredible international experts; we know that 14 to 24 degrees is what we have to achieve. Our farmers will do it; they are the best in the world—you only have to look at the way they’re looking to the collar technology at the moment. We will have that figured out and have got it figured before the rest of the farmers in the world get out of bed. This is a sensible measure, it's a promise kept, and we absolutely support this bill. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the third reading of this bill. Look, I just wanted to begin by apologising to any Green members who might be tuning in; this speech will not be my best work. The truth is, I've worn myself up and expended my energy drafting the 150 Amendment Papers that we ended up drafting for this bill. I wanted to thank, particularly, my assistant Georgie for her assistance in drafting that, and also my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for making sure that we're helping hold this Government to account as they try and kill the climate consensus that was long, hard work for around this country—without any select committee process, without any public input, and without any ability for the public to meaningfully submit or influence the policy direction.
And look, I also wanted to apologise to my colleague Steve Abel. We were actually on the opposite sides of the debate in 2019, and he was on the sceptic side of the debate. He correctly identified a fact that I didn't, and he correctly predicted that, actually, the climate consensus in this country was never going to last; that the parties of the right would never resist the short-term temptation to smash the targets that were agreed by a cross-party consensus; that they would bend to short-term expediency and actually not live up to what a conservative party is supposed to do, which is to resist the direction of travel in either extreme. But, unfortunately, we don't really have a conservative party in this country, and that is a shame.
I wanted to appeal to the people who did vote for the National Party in good faith. I wanted to appeal to the people who were taken in by the promises of the National Party not to change legislation, by the promises of the National Party to stick by the climate change targets that they themselves voted and pledged for. Unfortunately, the party of John Key that signed the original Paris Agreement, that signed up to our first nationally determined contribution, and that was originally linked to the emissions trading scheme and the party of Todd Muller, is no more. This is a party that's willing to compromise everything for power. This is a party that's not willing to actually be a conservative party, and this is a party that will do whatever it takes.
Now, I just wanted to close, with the last two minutes, by giving some home truths. I think members really need to reflect the reality of what the international situation is—that, like, nobody internationally really cares about New Zealand's excuses. Nobody overseas really cares about why we have a split gas target. All they're going to see is that this is a Government that is walking back on their international climate change commitments, by walking them down. And look, I really respect how hard the members opposite fight for their interpretation of what’s right for their core constituency, the farming constituency, but, unfortunately for them, and unfortunately for the farmers in New Zealand, the farmers overseas will also have strong advocates and strong champions in their Parliaments, as well. They're going to notice that, in the meantime, while New Zealand is walking down their climate change commitments and watering down their targets for methane emission reductions, their Parliaments are actually increasing their ambition.
This is the real reason why none of the Ministers really wanted to fully engage with a trade argument. It's not that they're not cognisant of the risks; it's just that they're hoping that, if they can close their eyes and shut their ears, they can pretend that nothing bad is going to happen. That's the reason why they refuse to release the documents that that they've redacted quite deeply under the Official Information Act. That's why they've refused to actually meaningfully engage with their reality; because they know that what they're doing actually risks New Zealand's economy—that what they're doing is risking our reputation. They've torched our safe climate future, and they'll torch our economy with it, as well.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, this is a great day for New Zealand agriculture, where we respect our hard-working farmers and where we're going to say: “We're working alongside you, we're working with you, and we're reducing our methane targets so we can all get ahead our economy.” I commend this bill to that.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Ten years ago today, in real time, the National Government of the day signed New Zealand up to the Paris Agreement. It signed New Zealand up with a series of targets. The work that happened then actually meant that New Zealand could stand proud and say that we had reached political consensus around what we were doing about climate action. Today, with this legislation, is the day that that bipartisanship dies. This is a day when the Government—the National-led Government—is pulling that apart, taking away the certainty that we know the country has been wanting. From civil society to the business sector to the farming sector, people wanted certainty—to know that, whoever was in Government, when we were tackling something as big as climate change, there was going to be consistency. Tonight, the National Government is pulling the threads of that fabric apart and ripping that up, and that is to New Zealand’s detriment.
To members of this House who have stood up, like the speaker who just sat down, and said “Today is a great day for New Zealand agriculture”, no, it isn’t. Today is the day that the Government puts at risk our market access to some of our most lucrative markets for our agricultural products. It puts at risk our access to the EU. It puts at risk our access to the UK. When the Minister was asked whether he would release the advice he got in terms of trade advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade: crickets. The Minister wasn’t willing to inform the House or the New Zealand public about the advice he received on the possible implications for our trade as an agricultural nation. What the Minister has had to release is that, actually, he had advice from his officials that the option that is chosen in this legislation is going to contract our economy. This is going to make it more expensive for people to heat their homes. This is going to make it more expensive for industry to run. This is going to make transport more expensive in New Zealand. The Minister has not fronted up to this House and has not had an adequate debate about that—about what that economic advice was and what this means more broadly in terms of our economy.
This legislation does two things: it not only resets our methane target and waters it down—and the Minister either wouldn’t or couldn’t explain the science behind why the shift is happening. When questioned, the Minister seemed not to understand; I hope he was deliberately obfuscating, because it scares me a lot if we have a Minister of Climate Change who simply doesn’t understand the science of what he is doing and the implications of that science, and could not explain to this House what the interface between political decision-making and those scientific targets was. That is a truly frightening day for New Zealand if that is the level of understanding that our Minister of Climate Change has when it comes to those things. Not only does it shift and weaken the methane target, what it also does is it decouples the emissions trading scheme (ETS) from our Nationally Determined Contribution. It says that we’re not going to link together the price that is set on carbon with what we need to achieve in terms of our international commitments.
Now, this is a Government that has said that they’re putting all their eggs in the ETS basket. It is their political belief that they don’t believe in other measures. They cancelled those other measures in their first mini-Budget—the things that were funded through the Climate Emergency Response Fund—and said, no, we’re going to lean heavily on the emissions trading scheme. The mere release and press statement that the Minister put out that this legislation was going to be tabled in the House crashed the price of carbon. The day he made the announcement that this was the intention, we saw the price of carbon absolutely tumble to a point where it is not going to shift anything. The Government seems to make the ETS, which is a tool, a strategy—but it’s not even a tool with what the Government has done to it and the way they’ve stripped it apart, and it certainly isn’t a strategy. What we’re left with is either a Government that is going to pay other countries—
Grant McCallum: No, we’re not.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —to decarbonise—“No, we’re not”; we’ve heard this from them. The other option is they’re going to walk away from our Paris commitments.
What they won’t release is the MFAT advice around what that will do to our trading arrangements and what that will do to our market access into some of our most lucrative markets—the kinds of markets that the Hon Damien O’Connor went and negotiated free-trade agreements with and made sure that we could have access for our agricultural products. The naive posturing and rhetoric that we have heard from Government members who get up and say this is a great day for agriculture shows that they need to actually do some reading beyond the speech notes they get from the leader’s office. There are some serious implications for what is going to happen to the New Zealand economy; not only will it contract, but we are putting at risk the very thing that they are touting as the backbone of our economy. We don’t disagree—agricultural products having market access is incredibly important for New Zealand—but what we are seeing with this piece of legislation is that it puts that at risk.
The Minister, as well as not being willing to go through a full select committee process with this—despite the fact that his officials came to Scrutiny Week only the week before and said they’d given him advice about how he could bring these elements, take them for public consultation, and have them pass. The Minister chose not to do that. Instead, the Minister chose to bring this to the House in urgency when there was no reason. There are some very technical amendments that you could argue need to be passed by 31 December, but, certainly, changing our methane targets and decoupling the ETS from our Nationally Determined Contributions are not changes that have to be made by 31 December. There is no earthly reason why they couldn’t have gone through and had a select committee process. The Minister said it’s because they’re a hard-working Government; I think it’s because they’re a disorganised Government that can’t handle their legislative programme, so they’re having to throw all this legislation into the last week before Christmas, and, because of their disorganisation, we’re putting some big things at risk.
Not only is the public shut out of having their say on really important legislation, but there isn’t time for adequate examination. The advice that the Minister got from his officials around what he was doing with decoupling the ETS was that there wouldn’t be a cost. Instead, what happened was, when he made the announcement, the price crashed. The reality of the price crashing means hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue for the Government. The fact that he wasn’t getting advice from has officials around that probably suggests that having some wider public input into that would have been a sensible thing. This is economically reckless. It certainly is reckless in terms of what we need to do on climate action. Rather than the things it purports to do, it puts far too much at risk. It puts jobs at risk, it puts our climate goals at risk, and it puts our future at risk if Government is going to walk away from our international commitments—which Nicola Willis confirmed when she came to select committee last week—which puts our market access at risk.
This Government needs to come clean. They have no strategy, they have no plan, they are taking us backwards, and they are creating economic risk, which New Zealanders simply cannot afford.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, this has been a great week for the farming community of this country as we dial back the war on farmers from the last Government. As part of those promises, we’re delivering methane targets that are realistic and I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A pleasure to be able to take a call on what is a reprehensible bill that is taking New Zealand backwards, as other colleagues have talked about.
If you go into any school and talk to them about what is the major issue that they are concerned about, I guarantee you the vast majority of them will say something about climate change. That's not because it's they—
Hon Member: Education standards.
CAMILLA BELICH: No, that's not the reason. The reason is because they are aware that the future that they will inherit will be affected—as is the present we are in at the moment—by climate change. [Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: There’s far too much noise to my right.
CAMILLA BELICH: In my role as the Labour spokesperson for emergency management, I have, regretfully, had to go around to a number of places in the country that have been affected by severe weather events. The evidence that we've seen at select committee, when we've scrutinised the National Emergency Management Agency, is that these events are getting more common. We can't ignore the fact that climate change is here. It's affecting our communities; it's affecting the communities that we're a part of; it's affecting other New Zealanders; and it's only going to get worse.
That should be enough to take action and not roll back standards. But, in addition to that, we have also committed in a bipartisan way to international agreements that uphold our commitment towards reducing our climate emissions. The Government has said, in some of the questions—I've been here for a lot of the committee stage, as well, for this bill; noting that we haven't had a select committee process on this. If you look at the regulatory impact statement, you'll see: does this bill give effect to New Zealand's action in relation to an international treaty? And it says no. That is a shame, because when you look at the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement, when you look at the New Zealand - United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, when you look at the Paris Agreement, you'll see that New Zealand has commitments to these international agreements that require us to take action around climate change. The fact that this bill is rolling some of those commitments back is extremely concerning.
Now, we've heard a lot of rhetoric trying to paint this side of the House as against farmers. I know, Madam Speaker, that you will know that that's absolutely incorrect because there are many people in New Zealand, no matter what their politics, who are involved with farming, have histories of farming, and know very much from the engagement that we have with farmers that there are so many farmers who are very concerned about the effects of climate change, want to do their bit, want to live up to the reputation that we should have of being the most efficient farmers in the world and being cutting-edge in relation to reducing carbon emissions as well. So I wholeheartedly reject any type of culture war that the other side of the House has tried to initiate.
We know that we have amazing farmers in New Zealand, but this bill is not supporting them to do their job. It is actually taking us backwards. When you look at the regulatory impact statement, you’ll see one of the few things that it says here is that the Minister of Climate Change proposes to progress an amendment to remove the requirement for New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme settings to accord with nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. So this is affecting the Paris Agreement. Anything to the contrary is just not reading what is directly in front of us.
Another thing I think is really important to focus on—I don’t have as long as the other speakers to make a contribution today, but there's the consultation. Again and again, when you look through the documents that we are meant to refer to in order to make decisions and scrutinise the worth of this bill, you will see that there is no consultation. Look at the “Limitations and Constraints on Analysis”: “The main limitation on the analysis in this paper is there's been no public consultation on this proposal.” Now, not only has there been no public consultation, there has been no select committee process. After this third reading, it is very likely that this bill will become a law without one of the major parts of our country and our democracy being able to participate in this.
Here again, if I can just quickly point you to, under Section 2, there's also concern that the potential scale of the impacts have not been able to be considered under the regulatory impact statement because of the time-scale given. This is a rushed bill. It takes New Zealand backwards. There hasn't been consultation, and it is not going to achieve what we know that we need to achieve in New Zealand, which is to take our climate commitment seriously, to take our international agreements that we've signed up to seriously and actually look to be leading in emissions. We don't need to be playing culture wars and saying that one side is for farmers and one side isn't. We all are for farmers and we're all for bringing down emissions—or we should be. That's certainly what we stand for on this side of the House: bipartisan work together towards reducing emissions for the future of New Zealand and the future of our planet. I do not commend this bill to the House.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I rise to just take a short call on this bill and to remind everybody why we are having this conversation. It is about our farmers; it is about clarity and making sure that they can understand where we’re heading, and I commend the bill the House.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): That was an interesting start to that very short speech—that she was reminding us why we're here. I'd like to do the same, but I might have a slightly different view. I might go for a little bit longer, as well. So why are we here? Let's look at that. We know that in a Parliament that you were part of, Madam Speaker—I was not—there was a lot of work to agree on what it is that we can do to reduce our climate pollution. That was because everybody agreed climate change is a real thing; we’re not having arguments about that.
We just heard from Labour's emergency spokesperson, Camilla Belich. We know very much the problems of climate change. Everybody in the Parliament, apart from the ACT Party, wanted to do something about it and they worked really hard to do that. I've listened to a number of valedictories in this House, which I note most of the people on the other side of the House won't have listened to, and they came from members from around Parliament who were so proud of the work that they did together because they want a better world, a safer world, for their children and grandchildren. That is why we have what we call the zero carbon Act.
We know, after the signing of the Paris Agreement—earlier than that—we know in New Zealand that New Zealand has taken this unusual approach, and one other country does as well, that has a split gas approach. This is because New Zealand is unusual in terms of our emissions profile. Whilst we haven't had the heavy industry that other countries have had, we have had a lot of agriculture. It's not that that has been the issue to get us to our position where we’re at, it's because we deforested: we cut down all our trees and then we replaced them with pasture. We've heard a lot about this pasture tonight and how it gets turned into protein, and that is very true. But there was an agreement that we'd have this split gas approach. That is carbon in all other gases except for biogenic methane—not all methane, just biogenic methane.
That is because on the graph of where New Zealand's emissions come from, a huge proportion comes from biogenic methane, and that is an unusual mix compared with other countries. So we have the zero carbon target for the other gases but not for biogenic methane, because biogenic methane—made from ruminants ruminating—is a difficult thing to decrease, because that is how ruminants work. There's lots of science going into how you can do bits and pieces that decrease a percent here and there, and it is great that that work is happening. If you change the pasture and the feed, if you change the ecoponds, there's lots of different things that can happen. But, fundamentally, biogenic methane is always going to be a difficult thing if you want to get your protein through ruminants.
So we had this agreement and the target was set for the reduction of biogenic methane from the 2017 levels, and we know that 24 percent is in that number. That's at the lower end of it. Now, what this Government wants to do, in all stages under urgency, without any bipartisan support, is they want to make it so that the 24 percent goes from being at the bottom of the scale to the top of the scale for that reduction. They are telling us that that is because of the science, but that is not why we are here tonight. We are here tonight for the other reason that members across the House have said multiple times: we're here because farmers asked them to change it. They've made a political calculation that those farmers are important, more important than the general voters, who did not know that this was coming and have not had an opportunity to be consulted on it and who did not know that they will change it. That is the reason we are here. We are here for very basic politics. It has nothing to do with science.
Todd Stephenson: We campaigned on it.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Now, we—oh, someone is saying, “campaign for it.” ACT may well have campaigned for this; National did not. Now, if you were taking a science-based approach, and you said, “Well, it's not feasible”—or whatever word they're using; something that means not feasible—“for farmers to reduce the biogenic methane. It's not practical. We're going to change it.”—if you still say, “We want to meet those zero-carbon commitments.”, you can still do it, but you have to look at the whole budget. That means that if you're not going to put so much effort into reducing biogenic methane, you have to put a whole lot more effort into reducing carbon and nitrous oxide and fluorides and other gases. This has come up in a number of speeches, but I want to make the point again that this Government is doing no such thing.
Simon Court: Plants need carbon to grow.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: There are no reductions in carbon—oh, now I hear there Simon Court saying plants need carbon to grow. I take from that that ACT’s position is against any reductions in carbon. That is a consistent position with everything that this National-led Government and this National climate change Minister has done, which is that they have removed all the policies to reduce carbon emissions—all the policies. We heard from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell—it sounded like it could be A Christmas Carol. She went through the dates of all the announcements that this Government has made to change the policies that are there to reduce carbon, and what this means is that we will just have more climate pollution.
That is what this Government wants to do for our grandchildren, for our children, for ourselves, for those people in New Zealand who live in areas that are already affected by climate change. I very much hope that voters are watching this and listening to it. Rather than engaging in debate, there's just all these little slogans about farmers and how anybody who disagrees with them is just anti-farmers and it's a war on farmers. Well, what we have is a war on sensible conversations and grownup policy making. That is what is happening. That is where the war is.
The Minister was asked, time and time again, what is this going to do for our economy, what is this going to do for our trade agreements? We know that there's been advice on those trade agreements, but have we seen that advice? No, no, we have not seen that advice. So we are left to presume that this change is a change that is going to mean that we are not going to meet our climate emission pollution targets, that we are going to be in breach of our international commitments. How embarrassing is that for a little country totally reliant on international agreements and the international rules being followed? We're just going, “Oh, well, we're just a little player, and those big boys, some of them might not be playing by the rules either. So we're not going to.” Well, that line of argument does not work for New Zealand, because we are here at the bottom of the world and we are not a major world power.
Ryan Hamilton: That’s right. That’s why we’re making a more sensible bill.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I'm pleased that there is some agreement on the other side, that at least we can agree that New Zealand is not a major world power. That means that we are reliant on working with other countries in good faith and that when we just go about breaching those agreements—
Miles Anderson: No, we haven’t.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —then they will notice. Oh, and someone says, “No, we haven't.” The result of these changes, combined with everything else that this Government has done to allow more climate pollution, means that we will not meet those agreements. That is what this Government is doing. They want more climate pollution. It's going to cost everybody in this country, and the world, and shame on them.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel inspired to quote Willie Jackson tonight and say, “What a terrible speech that was! That was depressing.” This is about a pragmatic bill that’s positive, the economy is growing, the future is bright, we’re fixing the basics and building the future.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hear a lot about farmers, and some of the most successful farms in this country are run by Māori. Māori also have a very unique view on the taiao and the environment that we live in—the environment that we do business in. They want to make sure that, yes, we can still be successful farmers while looking after our environment; while looking after the things that are precious to our businesses, our economy, but, more importantly, to our future generations.
In setting targets, we make sure that we can work hard to achieve those targets. I know the National Party, in particular, go all-out in speaking about how they set targets; that they’re “target focused”, “target oriented”—and yet, here we are, clearly laughing in the face of an agreement that was set in stone by this House, something that we all agreed on would be good for our future. That was the bipartisan nature of the work that was done. What I want to say to Government members is that when they talk about being climate responsible and making sure that we can look after the future—I agree with my colleague: when you go and talk to our young people, they care about the climate. They care about the climate. They respect that we have an economy that’s predominantly driven by primary products; they accept that, too, but they care about our environment.
When I talk about Māori farmers—in fact, we spoke to a couple today, who are pretty unaware about what’s going on here, but they share concerns about why it’s important that this House and, in particular, the Government members need to have a look at how Māori do farming. Have a look at their long-term strategic plans of 50, 80, and 100 years, and you will see at the heart of it is actually the environment, because looking after the environment means you have good farming—means you have good farming. What this Government has done is remove a long-term view from this country and, indeed, like they have done on so many other policy issues, we are now the laughing stock of the world—we are. They look at New Zealand and they say, “Look at what they’re doing: they’re winding back all of these good things that the world took on as a challenge. They’re winding back indigenous rights.” Just recently, we heard it from the United Nations: “Winding back all of these things”—and now this Government’s continuing to do it when we look towards the climate and the environment.
It is a sad day that this is happening. It is sad when strong, robust policy discussions are simply taken off the table. I agree with my colleagues: some of the sloganeering that we heard throughout this entire debate were the ones that we saw during some of the campaign. In fact, we’ve seen it for some time from parties on that side of the House, and, ultimately, there’s no substance. Ultimately, when they come in here—they’ll say one thing out there, then come in here and do something different.
That’s the problem with this bill. That’s why we can’t support this bill. My colleagues did a fantastic job of prosecuting through the committee of the whole House this bill with the Minister, who continued to just brush it off. In fact, I take umbrage to a number of his comments during that session, where he said, “Well, I think it’s out of scope.” Well, that’s not his job; it’s the Chair’s job to determine that, and the Minister continued to not answer simple questions.
We’ve got some big challenges now ahead of us. We want to say to all of our public, our whānau, everyone around the country: this side of the House takes the environment seriously. This side of the House takes our international obligations seriously. This side of the House will make sure that we can continue to protect our environment, for our people, for our tamariki, and for our future. And we can still have a strong economy—we can still have a strong economy.
So it is a sad day, and, once again, here we are in urgency on what is a very important bill just being rammed through. The reason we spoke with those Māori farmers today was just to highlight to them what’s going on. They said this Government hasn’t spoken to them. They’re saying, “Oh, that doesn’t sound like the right thing to do. We can still have good strong farmers, a good strong economy, but we can also look after our environment.”
We don’t support this bill, and we will continue to stand up for the rights of our future generations to make sure that they have the world they deserve.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
Bills
Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 33—“Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005”—and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Madam Chair, I apologise for being up here in my seat. I know your neck will have to turn a lot—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can see you better there than if you’re over there.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yeah, that’s true. Look, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I guess the saying is that leave the worst to last—which is, effectively, what’s going on here. This piece of legislation being passed through in urgency might seem rather harmless to people out there who think that overseas investment is good for our country—and indeed we believe it is. However, this bill—and Part 1 that we’re starting on here—is shifting the onus of proof, if you like, from the person doing the purchase, from the overseas investor, back on to actually almost the Minister of Finance or the regulator to prove why this investment shouldn’t happen.
Part 1 covers a wide range of areas. But if we start on clause 3, the purpose, and if you read the purpose, I have to say it sounds pretty good: “The purpose of this Act is to acknowledge that it is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets”. Indeed, the Opposition would support that. That was, I guess, a bit of a veil put up, in my view, by the Government to say that “We confirm that position”. But through submissions that came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and, unfortunately, I was only kind of a member that popped on and off the select committee so some of this stuff I did miss—from a couple of people, a couple of parties who, not surprising really, were saying that, actually, we shouldn’t necessarily consider that it’s a privilege to invest in New Zealand; there’s some economic advantage, therefore we should just automatically approve it.
The Opposition maintains that it is a privilege to be able to invest in our country. We have sovereign rights, we have treaty obligations, we have ancestors who fought and worked hard to create what we have here. So the ability to invest and, through the purpose here—the clause—with conditions is something that we support. But if I can work through this: “providing for notification or consent for any overseas investments in those assets”—this is what has to happen; “imposing appropriate conditions on those overseas investments;”; “managing the risks to New Zealand’s national interest”. I’ll go on to talk about that because the national interest test is one that has been, effectively, a consolidation of three different areas of oversight, I guess, that were in the previous regimes.
We’re going to come up with one oversight, but there was in here as, subclause (2) of clause 3, “This Act also has the purpose of recognising the role of overseas investment in increasing economic opportunity by enabling the timely consent of less sensitive investments through an initial national interest risk assessment.” Look, we support that. But what we’ve had is a fast-track or a streamlining process that shifts the onus of responsibility from the Minister on to a regulator—and there are details in here that I’ll go through. That, in some cases, is OK. But I have a list of amendments here that, if the Government agrees to, I think will tweak the onus and the responsibility back into the place where it belongs, which is with the Minister, placing an obligation that we look at things like character test, which, through the Government’s proposals, through the select committee process, have almost, effectively, been eliminated.
The coalition Government’s intent in saying that anyone lines up with some money—and they have a late amendment to the bill that says anyone lines up with $5 million can get automatic residency—but, aside from that, anyone who’s investing should be able to invest and buy into New Zealand.
We go back to the principle that it is a privilege. The question I ask of the Associate Minister of Agriculture: does ownership matter? Was that a consideration by the Minister and his party when they were looking at this, or does he simply consider that the sale of anything is OK because we are reducing the oversights, pulling back from the oversight system that we had through this piece of legislation? I’ll leave that question with the Minister as we work with my colleagues through the clauses in Part 1.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s prepared to answer and it’s good if we can get backwards and forwards.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you. Thanks to the member for his questions. In terms of the purpose there, you talk about the ownership; is that an issue? I mean, the key thing here is we want to increase investment. We want to have more investment in this country: it helps create jobs, it creates economic activity.
In terms of the character test, I mean, there is still the opportunity for someone, through this system we have, that if we feel that they pose a risk to our national security interests, those tests still remain. It’s not as sort of definitive as it were before. But sometimes being very definitive on a test may not actually be a very good thing. You look at how it used to be. There was a very brightline test: has this person had criminal convictions before? Nelson Mandela had a criminal conviction. If he had have come here, we wouldn’t have said no to him investing, would we?
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: That is so fatuous.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: It’s an example. I mean, that is a clear and simple example: someone who had a previous criminal conviction—completely wrong, completely ridiculous—but as an example of someone who is in good standing. There are people out there in real good standings who have been given criminal convictions in countries under systems that we don’t agree with. Of course we wouldn’t want to eliminate them from being able to purchase property or investments here; create investments and jobs here in New Zealand.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Look, thank you, Madam Chair. As I work through interpretation here, we’ve got the breakdown of forestry activities. In spite of all the rhetoric we’ve heard from the coalition Government about coming in and buying land and planting trees, this piece of legislation will still allow that. So I think that the Minister has to front up to the farmers on that one. But can I ask a question around the ministerial directive letter, which is referred to here in clause 5.
There’s a lot of weight put on the ministerial directive letter. So the question I have of the Minister is: did he or his party or the coalition Government give consideration to any checks and balances in that process? And maybe he can explain how the ministerial directive letter will be developed, because, clearly, in this piece of legislation, it, effectively, tells regulators what they should do. We believe that’s quite a stretch and quite an oversight. So we’d be interested to know from the Minister how the directive letter will be developed and what safeguards there will be within Cabinet or within the parties to make sure that we don’t end up with what will always be, I guess, litigation and a battle in the courts because some Minister has got it wrong.
The other point I’d like to make in his consideration and answer is that if there is so much weight given to a ministerial letter, he should remember that what goes around comes around. So, at the moment, it might be Minister Seymour in the seat, but in the end it could be a Green Minister or Te Pāti Māori or—
Simon Court: No.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Well, yes, it could be. So you just have to work out that I want to know how the directive letter will be accountable to Parliament, given the strength of legal weight that this piece of legislation is going to give to that directive letter.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): One of the key things with this bill is strengthening the oversight around what may be New Zealand’s security interests, what are our national interests, making sure we protect those. One of the challenges, of course, is that that changes over time. Investment in a certain industry at one point in time may not be that relevant to our national interests, but, in time, technology changes and it could well be. Having a fixed point in time, of “this is important right now”, is not a smart way. That’s what the ministerial directive letter is about; it’s being able to clearly articulate that, if something starts becoming more important, something starts becoming more of a concern, that is the directive that is applied.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Following through on that, does the Minister consider that a letter from an ACT Minister that might be encouraging the sell-off of assets and the investment into New Zealand would be going too far and that a letter from a Green Minister putting the brakes on it won’t be going far enough, and how, then, does he think that Parliament should manage that process?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a series of questions and, obviously, will be going clause by clause. I also have six tabled amendments that we lodged earlier, which, I hope in particular the New Zealand First members will consider voting for, because I know some of them align with interests and wins that they have gotten in the past from different Governments.
Since we’re just talking about the purpose right now, what it seems to me is that, firstly, the overwhelming majority of submissions at select committee were against the bill and raised a lot of concerns about the bill. I know that it’s the Government’s view that overseas investment is necessary and sufficient to create jobs, but aside from putting in the purpose of just recognising that overseas investment increases economic opportunity, to what extent do applicants have to demonstrate that they actually will be creating jobs? Can the Minister let us know, is now, with this new purpose, simply the presumption that jobs are created, whether they will be or not? Or is there any way for Governments to look at the reality of whether or not it will create jobs or whether it is simply, for example, in the case of a water-bottling plant, an opportunity for a foreign company to come in here and take an asset like our fresh water without paying any royalties on it, and then make a profit off it by selling it overseas, which we know was very unpopular at the time that it happened. It was extremely unpopular.
This bill, later—and we will speak about this at a later part—is actually taking away the ability of the Government to specifically consider water-bottling plants and decline applications for purchase of land that would allow bottling of fresh water. So the question is: is the presumption now that all foreign purchases of sensitive land will create jobs or do the applicants actually have to establish that with some evidence? Is there an ability of the Government to acquire the evidence and to assess the evidence, or is it just a presumption that that is the case?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I think it’s pretty self-evident. If someone’s going to invest more than a hundred million dollars in something, it’s something pretty serious and there are going to be some jobs. It’s pretty self-evident—water-bottling plants don’t run themselves.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you. Look, following on from that, I guess the assumption is that the Minister’s saying that all the investment comes in for greenfields projects. That’s not the reality, in fact; some of it is for purchase of existing assets. There is reference here in the legislation to “control”. I ask the Minister: what does he consider control should be?
The thresholds in here are quite interesting. The control test is that at least one overseas person alone has at least 10 percent or more ownership; that control composition is 25 percent of the amount of a general partner or more—25 percent of the company; or, indeed, more than 25 percent of the voting power to meet that of a general partner.
The question of what percentage ownership of a company does the Minister consider as appropriate—does ownership matter, to go back to my first question of the Minister, and does he think that the thresholds in this bill here are about right, if it comes to, say, buying his farm or buying his family farm or buying, perhaps, Fonterra?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Well, even though it’s not on the table in this bill, if I were to get some investment in my farm, I’d probably be a bit more relaxed in regard to interest than my bank might be. So that might be quite a good thing. It might get some new technology and stuff on the farm. The reality is that every farmer in the country and most businesses all have loans and there are not that many New Zealand banks, if any.
Just further for the member, in terms of the ministerial directive letter, a key point is it “must have regard to the purpose of the Act.” It is presented to Cabinet, and it is secondary legislation, so it’s tabled and it’s gazetted, and so there is good transparency around it.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sure my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter will also have follow-up questions to the Minister regarding the job component, but I want to also start on clause 4, “Section 3 replaced (Purpose)”.
The first question I have for the Minister is under section 3(1)(a); I am actually quite concerned with the wording of “providing for notification or consent”, not necessarily “and consent”, which then suggests that, as part of the purpose of the Overseas Investment Act, what we’re saying now is that overseas investment doesn’t really need to be consented in some regards or in some instances, and only a notification needs to be provided.
I want to check with the Minister if that was drafted as intended, because that is of concern. Even though we do see subsection (2), about expediency, which comes up in the national interest risk assessment, that is still a consent process, as far as I believe—the Minister may be able to correct me—and that’s not, simply, a notification process. If it is a drafting error, I do have an amendment on this, which is just to replace “or” with “and”, just for some reassurance and, potentially, some clarification.
I want to seek guidance from the Chair; I do have number of questions for you. Do you want me to do a back and forth, or just have some of the questions—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think just keep going and if the Minister indicates he’s ready to answer—
Hon Andrew Hoggard: I can answer that first question.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, great.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He’s going to answer this one first.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): So the notification is required where it’s under the national security. So for the core regime, it is still consent.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): OK, thank you for that. Oh, sorry, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, that’s OK.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you for responding to that. My second question is around clause 4, replacement section 3(1)(c), which is about managing risks. Now, this is something that we don’t see in the original bill and it’s something that we are seeing popping up more and more and is quite peculiar—this idea of national security and public order risks. When we saw it first popping up was a few weeks ago in the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill and we’re seeing it here. Can I then just check—first question for the Minister, because I do want to kind of maybe have a little bit of back and forth with the Minister on the explicit reference to national security and public order risks—who is responsible for monitoring or for making a determination on what are national security and public order risks?
I might just keep going—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, keep going.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —while the Minister is getting some advice. The reason I ask this is, for example, if the national security and public order risk is on the basis of the Government Communications Security Bureau, on the basis of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, etc., we know, based on their latest reporting, that they do have a target on, for example, China. In which case, are we, actually, now going to be saying that as part of a national interest, which is a risk for us because of national security and public order risks, we are actually going to scrutinise and start having a tiered system based on the origin of some of those investments and saying that if you are from countries that are not a member of the Five Eyes alliance, we are going to treat you differently than anyone else because you might pose a national security risk to us. So I do want to check with that on who is monitoring, because that is an important question.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In terms of national security risks, it’s already part of the existing regime. In terms of when you talk about certain countries, it’s not about saying no to any particular country; it is about where the investment is going into. If it’s something like our critical communications, then we’re going to be interested as to whether or not that company has links to any other Government out there. As you can probably well imagine, those are real concerns at the moment in the very geopolitical, conflicted sort of world that we live in. So those are the sorts of decisions we’ll be making.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the Minister’s sort of very earnest answer to that, but I think that does then raise the question of: where are we getting this information from and what is the source of how we determine? I do admit that from the Minister’s perspective telecommunications, for example, is a key area. We’ve seen this sort of thing popping up in one of the latest bills, for which we also went through urgency a little while ago, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill, where we had to put in certain frameworks around it. But even then, one of the questions we asked was is this something that we are getting from our Five Eyes partners? Will our Five Eyes partners start interfering in the way that we look at even something like overseas investment? If the Minister could acknowledge that Five Eyes will have a role to play in terms of determining some of these elements of national security, that is important for this House and for the public to know.
I’m going to move on to my final question for clause 4, on the purpose, and that is on what is the intention behind including new section 3(2), because, again, section 3(2) is a new clause. I also understand the need of recognising the role of overseas investment, increasing economic opportunities, all of those. That is already embedded in the rest of the bill. Does it need to be a part of the purpose? What does the Minister think it is going to achieve, to include that particular subsection as part of the purpose?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Just on the point around who makes the decisions: the New Zealand Government makes the decisions.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. As I slowly work through Part 1—and we’re not going to dwell on this unnecessarily—there are some legitimate questions here. Effectively, the bill is allowing the Minister to delegate to regulators the decision-making power about who comes in and who is allowed to invest. Clause 7(3), new subsection (4) states, “Subject to subsection (2) and if the national interest test is met under section 19 and if the transaction is not contrary to the national interest,”—there is an issue and I have a question about national interest for the Minister, but this is for the regulator—“the regulator must grant consent.”
We are not opposed to efficiency and some streamlining, putting this in place—that he or she must grant consent—is something that I think this legislation goes too far on. I have an amendment here that would take out “must” and put in “may”, because I think that right up to the final point of decision making, regulators and Ministers should have that discretion, based on either last-minute information or some other consideration that has occurred during a process. This would say that the regulator must grant consent.
Can I ask the Minister whether he would consider supporting my amendment that would insert “may grant consent”. We are not trying to tip the whole process on its ear, and if the Minister appropriately delegates to the regulator and we go through the national interest test and it’s met, then just saying that the regulator has to grant consent, I think, removes the ability for us as a sovereign State to actually make that last-minute decision.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In terms of the “must”, the reality is, over the last couple of decades, only 2 percent of investments have been declined. The vast majority just go straight through. What we’re trying to do is streamline the process—more efficiency. Previously, we were in a situation where two Ministers had to spend their time and effort approving these things; when, we’ve got the test, these things can be delegated down. Is there a national security interest? Is there something in the national interest that needs to be checked? If not, let’s get on with it.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): I appreciate the points the Minister’s making, but he didn’t answer my question. It shouldn’t then impose an obligation on the regulator to do this—that is one step too far. If ultimate accountability is with the Minister, then delegating the process to officials might be OK, but not a final decision. The fact that later in this piece of legislation the Minister has the ability to approve, even if the national interest test has not been met—now, that’s for a later discussion, but there are a lot of concerns in this. So, I guess, what I’m asking for—and I’ll table this later, of course, and we’ll vote on it, and I’ll move on to something else—is if the Minister can consider that to insert “may”, then I think we would support that. As I say, the Opposition is not opposed to foreign investment and we’re not opposed to bringing money into our country for development and for jobs and for wealth creation, but a lot of that money doesn’t necessarily—in the latest amendment that the Government has tabled saying to someone, “If you’ve got $5 million, you’re in.” In my view, that should be $50 million, but I know my colleagues will ask those questions. So, really, to the Minister, I would really appreciate if he could consider that “must” to “may”.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair. I did want to ask one more question just about national security, because now national interest seems to be very linked to what we think is national security. The Minister gave the example of communications technology. Does the Minister believe that our freshwater resources are not strategically important to national security? Same with, I guess—I was also going to ask whether ports infrastructure would fall into that category, as far as he is aware. Or is that something that is—yeah. It’s not specifically defined, so I’m just wondering if the Minister could give us a little more guidance on how narrow the definition of national security is.
Moving on from that, in clause 5 subclause (3) we have “strategically important business” which is “prescribed to be a strategically important business by regulations made”. What sort of, like, process—I mean, how much democratic oversight are we going to have over what is determined or deemed to be a strategically important business?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, I moved location. Sorry, I do have one final question—a couple of quick-fire questions under the “Purpose” section. I do take note of the fact that the Minister responded by saying the New Zealand Government makes the decision, but did not deny the fact that there is influence from Five Eyes partners which we also see in the regulatory impact statement. For example, both page 6 and also page 19 make specific mention of “other countries” which all happen to be part of our Five Eyes partners. I want to check with the Minister, then: has the Minister or the department done any potential chilling effect this will have for other overseas investments who now may consider that New Zealand will, in fact, take a very biased view when it comes to overseas investment based on your geographical location? That’s my first question.
My second question, just to follow on from what the Hon Julie Anne Genter asked earlier, in her first contribution, in terms of jobs: the Minister mentioned it’s a no-brainer that if an overseas investor comes here, they are going to be bringing jobs domestically. But can I check: has there been any studies or any assessment done by the officials or by the department that look at what happens if you have a particular industry where the overseas personnel or investors will come here and bring their own team and their own people here, as opposed to hiring local people? Have there been any sort of studies done on whether that is a scenario, because we know that it happens, but what is the prevalence of that, if the Minister wouldn’t mind elaborating?
Now I’m going to move on to a new clause, which is clause 5A, and this is a clause that is being, understandably, inserted after the select committee stage. I wasn’t part of the select committee for the consideration of this particular bill, but I do want to check with the Minister on what is the rationale behind the inclusion of “limited partnership”, because we are already seeing a number of different aspects, including trusts, including body corps, including individuals, that are considered overseas persons—understanding that we’re talking about legal personhood and not necessarily a person as in a human being. So, yes, I just want to check in terms of the rationale behind including a limited partnership. Obviously, we have many questions after this, but we’re just going to start moving clause by clause.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Just on that last point, I mean, this clause, effectively, corrects a potential ambiguity currently in the Act which has when “listed limited partnerships” are considered to be an overseas person”. So the newly inserted subsections set it out for when a “limited partnership” can be treated as an overseas person.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just looking at the Minister’s Amendment Paper, on page 10 amended clause 15, new section 19E, I’m just struck by a sentence at subsection (1)(a), which is “either the relevant land is or includes a residential dwelling”. Why I’m interested in this is because I know that “relevant land” is defined in section 12 of the primary Act, and it’s amended a wee bit, but not particularly, here. I know also that there is the Schedule to the Act that goes through in some detail about different land classes. So that’s not my question. My question is about this relationship to the land and a dwelling and the language there that “either the relevant land is”, and it could be then “a residential dwelling”, because it’s “or includes a residential dwelling”. So if there’s a reason for that drafting at paragraph (a), I would be interested in that.
Then I see further down in paragraph (b), it is more specific at subparagraph (i) and (ii), about the $5 million and whether the $5 million is just for the land or if the $5 million includes both the land and an existing building or the land and the potential construction of a new building. So if I read this and I see land is a dwelling—that doesn’t make sense. Land is land and a dwelling is something that sits on top of the land. They are quite different components when you come to the price of, I guess, what we might all call a property, which may or may not include that house. I was wondering if the Minister could give some commentary around that wording. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m just interested to pick up on that new section 19E provision in Amendment Paper 470, which is around when the qualifying investor visa may be relied upon under the national interest test. In particular, it’s the agreed purchase price I’m interested in, which is $5 million or more. When you go to the commentary of the bill, the purpose of this bill is to “reduce the regulatory burden on overseas investors”. The idea I get from reading this is that there’s going to be some investment in New Zealand—like, maybe some infrastructure or some jobs or something that would benefit more than just the individual—but, from reading that provision, it looks like someone can just buy a big house somewhere for $5 million, and that’s about it.
I’m really interested to understand from the Minister how this Amendment Paper would actually fulfil some of the purposes of what the bill sets out to do. Has he considered requiring an investor to maybe employ a certain number of New Zealanders or maybe train one—what about that? Imagine if one investor had to train an apprentice in a particular trade that might benefit New Zealand or invest in our training or our people. Has there been any consideration that, if someone’s coming into New Zealand from another country with some money, we might ask them not only to just buy a nice house for $5 million but to actually contribute to the building of our country in a way that benefits more than just themselves? I’d be really interested to hear from the Minister if he’s considered any of those additional factors.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. In keeping with my agreed process of working through, I’m not going to dwell. I’ll go now to cause 19, national interest test—and go to new section 19A(3), as inserted by clause 15 of the bill. It’s the process of going through to establish what is national interest. It says “See section 34,”—right—“which provides that a Ministerial directive letter may direct the regulator about the risks or factors that suggest that a national interest assessment is required … and that the regulator must comply with the direction.”
Well, it does imply that the ministerial letter could say there’s no risk. There is a scenario that—let me put it to you, and I’m pleased that someone from New Zealand First might be contributing to the debate because I’d hate to think that New Zealand First puts New Zealand last. I’d hope that they will vote for some of our amendments that offer more security to the sovereign rights and protection of our country. So I welcome his interest in this. But there was a time when his leader, who’s now the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and I’m not saying there was anything wrong with this, but he was enthusiastic about building relationships with Russia. So if he was the Minister, then I guess he would have, or could have through a ministerial directive letter, implied that there was little or no risk in allowing Russian investment.
Now, I’m sure he, like the rest of us, now understands the risks and we wouldn’t like that. But this process, this piece of legislation, would allow a Minister to direct the regulator about risk or absence of. So that does concern me a little bit. I guess the “Stage 2”, if I can go on to new section 19B—So I asked the Minister whether he’s considered the downside risks of a Minister who might just for a period of time maybe make a wrong judgment on risk, and where that would leave our country. That certainly would have been the case with Russia. But if I can go on to new section 19B, “Stage 2: national interest assessment by regulator”. So this is what the regulator has to do: “(a) must comply with any relevant directions”—including the ministry or director there—“(b) must have regard to the mandatory factors in Section 19C(1); and (c) may have regard to 1 or more of the non-mandatory factors”.
Now, if you go back and look at the statutory obligations that you’ve got to look at and then the non-statutory ones, then they’re not frivolous; they’re not insignificant. I’ll just go back and say, why would you make it voluntary to look at the non-statutory ones when in fact most New Zealanders—if I can see them here—would consider them to be quite significant. They do relate to character. That’s one of the factors there that if the regulator doesn’t have to consider those factors, then it’s very easy for someone in today’s world to get through the door and to purchase assets in this country. There’s some, as I say, fairly liberal kind of benchmarks here and coming into our country in a way that, even with the best of intentions, has been allowed to happen through this. So my question to the Minister is, once again: will he support my amendment that in 19B(1)(c), changes from “may” to “must”, which says the regulator must have regard to one or more of the non-statutory factors?
The Minister will be aware of those non-statutory factors. If he’s not, I’m sure officials will provide that. But I also requested New Zealand First to consider whether they should support us in having that go through. It’s a perfectly reasonable adjustment to just offer a little more security to a system that we have supported, can be made more efficient, but we’re not prepared to go as far as this piece of legislation takes us because we believe we do, as I said before, have sovereign rights. We’ve got assets that we want to protect in a direction of travel that we as Kiwis want to determine, not have that placed into the hands of these investors, many of whom will be positive, but not all. The vast majority, as the Minister is referring to, just the odd one or two cases—most of the law we make in this place here is for a very small number of people who want not to abide by the law, who want to rip us off, not pay taxes, kill someone, or whatever. We make law all the time for the minority, and this, once again, is a piece of legislation that if we just think, oh, there’s only a couple of exceptions, then it is quite relevant to this, the amendment that I’ve tabled, and I ask the Minister to consider that, and I’ll leave this to my colleagues to ask some other ready questions.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): We’ll be sticking with the word “must”. In relation to Ginny Andersen’s question, first of all, to get the visa, you’ve got to have invested $5 million to start with, and then, if you want to buy a house here, you have to pay $5 million for the house. With regards to Rachel Brooking’s question on that house, it is the property, if you want.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Apologies, yes. Look, thank you very much. I would like to continue with the inquiry here, as I say—sorry got lost here. The non-mandatory factors that I referred to in my question for the Minister are, you know, investor risk factors, whether the national interest risk may be adequately managed, or whether the risk that, in contrary to the national interest, may be offset by the benefit of the transaction. These are reasonable questions, but they don’t have to be considered. I ask the Minister that we do.
Can I go on to another area, which is just below that Stage 3. It’s, again, new section 19D inserted by clause 16, for the Minister, “decisions under national interest test by Minister”. Acknowledging we have a national test process, but this quotes, “The Minister may decline consent to a transaction of national interest if the Minister considers that the transaction is contrary to New Zealand’s national interest.” I’d like to say, “must decline”.
What this does is leave the door open for a Minister to approve a transaction or a consent even though it doesn’t meet the national interest test. Now, I’m not sure whether that is what is intended here. I don’t think that New Zealand First would support such an amendment or such a proposition in there. My amendment says that the Minister must decline if it hasn’t met the national interest test. It’s a perfectly reasonable amendment.
Again, I ask the Minister to consider that. I ask members in New Zealand First to put New Zealand first and make sure that they support that amendment. I’d be interested in the Minister’s feedback.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going back, I note that the Minister hasn’t replied to most of my questions from my previous contribution, so I’ll just go ahead—I mean, it’s fine; it just hasn’t been replied to, so I’m not sure if I should ask it again or not. But I can think, off the top of my head, of four different types of cases where a foreign company purchasing assets in New Zealand has not benefited New Zealand. Of course, our current regime didn’t stop those purchases, so, if anything, I think the regime should be tightened, not loosened. New Zealand is a small country that struggles to get good levels of competition, which means we’re susceptible to oligopolies and monopolies, which everybody knows. And making it easier for foreign corporations to come in and purchase companies actually makes that worse, because it’s not a competitive environment, and so they’re able to extract profit without investing and making the service better.
For example, retirement villages. I had a number of constituents who live in a retirement village in Berhampore in Rongotai extremely concerned that it was sold to an American hedge fund and that that company was looking to maximise profit from the operation, which means cutting services. That’s not in the interest of our elderly here in New Zealand, and particularly those living in those villages.
Another example is our bus companies. We’ve had multiple bus companies that were family owned businesses, built up here in New Zealand, providing public transport services, who’ve been purchased by, again, American or Australian hedge funds who are simply looking to maximise their returns, to the point where they didn’t have a single staffer in Wellington to talk to the bus drivers who were supposedly employed by the company.
Water-bottling plants—I think it’s very clear that the New Zealand public is not in favour of Governments being required to sell land that’s going to be used for the purposes of a water-bottling plant to foreign-owned corporations. Much of that work can be automated, but water is a taonga—it is a taonga—it’s a precious resource that absolutely is something that is fundamental to us being able to live here in Aotearoa. If foreign companies are able to come in and buy up all our land and bottle the water and take it and sell it overseas, well, they’re benefiting; how is Aotearoa New Zealand benefiting from that? It’s not.
I could keep going with these examples. I know that it may be the ideology of the Government of the day that allowing foreign control of our strategic assets is magically going to make us richer, but if we want to own our future, selling it off to overseas corporations who are not invested in the future of Aotearoa is not the way to do that. I can’t believe that New Zealand First is contemplating supporting these changes.
So I have a number of tabled amendments that I want to speak to. One is amending clause 12. This one is specific to the issue of extraction of water for bottling and would keep consideration of whether the investment will result in negative impacts on water quality or sustainability, because water is fundamental to life. There will be water wars in the future. New Zealand would be wise to keep control and protect our water, because there’s no life without water. People realise that, right? So we’re going to sell it off in bottles to people in other countries, without even getting a royalty on it. We can’t put a royalty on it. So all we can do is try to make sure that it’s New Zealand - based people and organisations that are able to use the land and use the water. Now, I think there should be a lot more control on that.
All right. So my next tabled amendment amends clause 15. That’s just bringing in consistency with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Treaty settlements and the public benefits of an investment. If this legislation—and what we heard significantly at the select committee was that this legislation is weakening oversight on things that matter to the long-term interest of New Zealand. There were multiple expert submitters who came who were experts in law, experts in public good, who were sayings “These changes are not simply about efficiency and they’re not about maximising benefits to New Zealand. They make it harder for Governments to act on the public interest, because they’re not allowed to consider a broad range of factors that will be about the long-term interests of New Zealand.” But maybe the Minister could just respond to my question about whether he thinks water is a matter of national security or not.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Just regarding your first point there around competition, and, I guess, the comment I’ll give you flows through into the water bottling element, with regards to the environmental measures. We’ve already got rules and regulations in New Zealand that manage these things. We don’t need to do it twice through the overseas investment formula.
Hon Damien O’Connor: You can’t rely on the RMA.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, true, you can’t rely on the Resource Management Act, and that’s why we’re getting rid of it. In terms of competition—[Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK—OK! This is not a political rally.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —you’ve got the Commerce Commission dealing with that. In terms of water bottling, if there is a challenge around, say, water availability in a region, regional councils are already managing that—while they still exist. Whatever follows them will manage it as well—around how that water’s allocated. We’ve already got mechanisms in place to manage all this. We don’t need to do it twice and complicate the hell out of things through the overseas investment regime.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions. My first question relates to the provision—it’s actually in the explanatory note of Amendment Paper 470, which talks about existing forestry land. The bill as introduced allowed land that could previously have been acquired under a special forestry benefit test to instead be acquired under the new national interest test pathway, unless residential land is involved. This Amendment Paper allows land that is used exclusively or nearly exclusively for forestry activities, but that also includes residential land to be acquired under the new national interest test. I’d really like to understand from the Minister what is the purpose and what is the intent of that change in particular, which is marked right out front.
My second question is in relation to the provision around—I’m going to go back to this question around the national interest and purchasing property. My recollection quite clearly is when I worked as an official in the New Zealand Police, one of the biggest problems we saw for organised crime was in a time when you didn’t have to be a New Zealander to buy a house. So people from overseas with money could buy houses in New Zealand until the law was changed—I think, by Labour; I’m pretty sure.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just check which clause you’re speaking to, please.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I’m speaking to the provision—section 19E, in clause 15, and this is set out on Amendment Paper 470—that enables anybody to purchase, if they spend $5 million, a property in New Zealand, access into New Zealand if they have a qualifying visitor visa.
The Minister has already addressed some of these issues, but I’m picking up on the fact that we had a situation not too long ago in New Zealand’s history where organised criminal networks would purchase properties in New Zealand. They would turn up with someone bona fides and they’d have all the right documents, and they would purchase a property, and, in the police, it was known because these properties would be in lucrative areas. There would be no lights on at night so the neighbours would report them, and they would be put on the market and they would be sold.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask the member to get to her question.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: How can the Minister reassure New Zealanders that this provision will not enable what has happened in New Zealand’s history, which is that organised criminal networks come in and purchase properties in New Zealand and use it as a way of money-laundering? If anti – money-laundering legislation is important to this Government, how can he reassure us that opening the gate to $5 million property purchases from people who are coming into New Zealand will not once again expose us to the same risks we saw in the past under the previous John Key Government?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In terms of your questions around the forestry, the example is a worker’s cottage or accommodation—that’s what that’s all about.
In terms of the qualifying visa, the whole intent here is that we want these high-net-worth individuals that can really add something to this country to want to come here, to want to invest, and if they’re going to that, they want to live somewhere. They don’t want to spend all their time in a hotel; they want to be able to have a house of their own here. This is about encouraging that and making sure that we get more of those excellent investors into this country. That’s the whole purpose.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for that assurance. It leads on to my next amendment, that the Minister will, hopefully, consider carefully. It’s to do with the ministerial oversight. If I can go back to the non-mandatory factors that must be assessed in a national interest assessment, all of the following—these are the non-mandatory. It says: “investor risk factors”, but the Government took out “including character and capability”. The second one is: whether the national interest risk may be adequately managed by conditions imposed on the investment. And the third one: “whether a risk that is contrary to the national interest [can] be offset by the benefits of the transaction.”
Now, hopefully, there’s an obligation that—no obligation. The regulator “may”, under the current bill—hopefully, with my amendment: “must”—consider those factors, as adjusted, with “character and capability” taken out, which is horrific. Then, when it comes to the ministerial decision-making, what I suggest is that what is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander so, again, the Minister “must have regard to … relevant directions”, “must have regard to the mandatory factors”, and “may have regard to 1 or more of the non-mandatory factors”.
Minister, I have an amendment that says “must” there. It’s a simple adjustment. Again, I hope that New Zealand First can consider this. It’s bad enough to take out “character and capability” from the non-mandatory test, but at least the Minister should have to consider those other factors that remain. So my question is to the Minister: will he consider that? I’ll leave that with him before I take another call.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just check, is this the same “must” that you referred to in a previous contribution?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: My amendment, Madam Chair, is to new section 19D(2)(c) inserted by clause 15. Have a look there, it says “may”, which is the third requirement of ministerial decision-making. And what I’m suggesting in my tabled amendment is that that would shift to “must”. So I’ll leave that with the most to consider.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Noting that we are on the crux of the bill, which is clause 15, I want to start by focusing on Amendment Paper 470. Now, noting that this Amendment Paper was only released after the select committee stage, so we haven’t had a chance to discuss it during the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and I know that the Hon Ginny Andersen has asked a few questions on this, but I’m just, I guess, seeking the committee’s understanding. We do have a few questions, and some of them might be quite broad because we’re trying to get a sense of what this amendment is trying to do.
Going straight into my first question, what is considered in this—I’m sorry, this is clause 15 inserting new section 19E. Subsection (1)(a), we’re going to start with that. I’m also just seeking your guidance, Madam Chair: I’m happy to do a back and forth with the Minister, as we did before, or I’m happy to just go off on a number of questions, whatever is the easiest for the Minister. The first question is: what is considered to be a residential dwelling or relevant land? I’m guessing “relevant land” has to be residential land, in this case—if the Minister wouldn’t mind nodding or acknowledging.
Hon Andrew Hoggard: I think it’s land you put a house on.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Second—and that’s my first question—oh, sorry?
Hon Andrew Hoggard: Pretty sure it’ll be land you put a house on.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK, thank you.
My second question is what is the rationale behind, I guess, in terms of including a residential dwelling or constructing a new residential dwelling? I’m noting that subsection (1)(b)(ii) says it’s, basically, looking at the cumulative cost of both the land and the dwelling, which is $5 million. Can I check with the Minister, was there any consideration of the proportion around that? What happens, then, if someone spends no money on the land but spends like $4 million on the house? You know, I’m assuming that’s fine. Or someone spends $4.8 million on land and $200,000 on the house? Is there any proportionality needed? I’m just going to check with the Minister—no? I can keep asking questions, all good.
The next question I have is subsection (1)(c)(i), and this is something that I found quite peculiar. I do have an amendment on this, but I also seek, I guess, a clarification from the Minister. For (c)(i), it says an individual who holds a residential class visa, or another qualifying individual—and I want to check with the Minister why another qualifying individual is required in this definition of an individual. I wondered if it’s a drafting error. Again, we have no understanding of this particular amendment. That’s my amendment 7.23.06, just to remove that, because I do find it quite peculiar that you need to have two definitions there.
So I’ll start with those questions, if the Minister wouldn’t mind responding. I do have further questions.
Hon Members: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh! Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You want to continue with your line of questioning?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah—and the last time, just mentioning, Madam Chair, that the Minister does need to seek some—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister does need to seek some guidance, but when the Minister is ready to respond to any of the questions, feel free to stand up and then I’m happy to sit down, and then we can keep going from there.
My next question is—I guess we’re looking at new section 19E(1)(d), and this is another really interesting clause that I’m trying to get my head around, which is “A will not have any beneficial interest” or beneficial—on “more than 1 property as a result of any person relying on A’s qualifying investor visa.” Now, previously, under (c)(ii) or (iii), it sets a certain framework, i.e. a body corporate or a trust which “A” already has, I guess, a stake in—you know, in both of those two, if you’re looking at a requirement under (i) and (iii). But for (d), it’s talking about someone who is acquiring property, but on the basis of A’s qualifying investment visa.
How would that work in practice? Are we saying that it’s someone who has no qualifying visa but yet on the basis of somebody else—it doesn’t specify any familial relations or any business relations in this sense. It just says someone needs to rely on A’s qualifying investor visa. So can it be anyone who says, “My friend A has a qualifying investor visa, therefore I’m able to have a property because they have a visa?” I don’t quite understand the drafting of this, so I’m seeking the Minister’s guidance. Indeed, if that link is tenuous, I do have an amendment—and this is the one that’s lodged at 7.23.09—that simply changes (d) to say that no person actually shall rely on A’s qualifying investor visa to have any beneficial interest in or beneficial entitlement to any property.
So I want to start with those, and those are my questions for new section 19E(1).
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): OK, so just back to your original one. So, in terms of the property, how do we define it? It must be residential or lifestyle on the district valuation role. In terms of proportion, there is none—it’s just $5 million. Qualifying individual is a New Zealand person, their wife of spouse, immediate family member—it could be in a trust or account name. OK. [Interruption] And we’ll be all right without all your amendments.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It would be polite, if nothing else, to wait for the Minister to finish speaking—resumed his seat. Not quite there yet.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order. I’m so sorry, Madam Chair. Because there was so much noise on that, I didn’t actually hear the Minister’s final comment.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not surprised. I’ll ask him to repeat it. Thank you.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I said we’ll be all right without your amendments.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to speak to my proposed amendment; this one is a tabled amendment to clause 15 new section 19 to 19D and cross-headings inserted. In clause 15, delete 19C(2)(a). In clause 15, after section 19C(1)(c), insert “(d) investor risk factors”.
Now, the point of this is to make investor risk factors to move them from a non-mandatory factor to a mandatory factor for the national interest assessment. I would like to understand the Minister’s rationale if the Government would consider that investor risk should be something that is always considered as part of the national interest test or not.
I’ll give a recent example, because I know the Minister’s very enthusiastic about the idea of foreign investment in New Zealand benefiting New Zealand. But while I can think of many examples that are different, one in particular is SolarZero, which was a New Zealand - grown company that was enabling people to access solar panels on their homes. They had a significant investment and high-quality job creation in developing their own software and hardware here in Aotearoa New Zealand.
What was really interesting, I mean we all know that solar electricity is a major opportunity for our country—that’s an opportunity for lower power prices. But in order for people to access that we need them to not have to deal with the upfront cost of the solar panels. So what SolarZero did, and it was Solarcity prior to that, is they would own the solar panels, and they would, essentially, provide the solar panels on somebody’s home or business. They were kind of operating a kind of distributed power plant with batteries and technology, so they could manage—
Hon Member: Question?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, I have my question. But my point is that that was a company grown in New Zealand that was of significant benefit to New Zealand, employing a lot of people and providing affordable power to a lot of people. They had some investment by BlackRock, which promptly then put them into liquidation. OK. I say this as an American—
Hon Member: They also had to invest in the New Zealand Government, which lost them money.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, I—all right. Just for the members opposite: there was never a Labour-Green Government. There was a Labour majority Government. So the Greens were not in Government.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can we come back to the bill.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We worked with them just like we worked with—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the bill, please.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: OK. I just, like, it gets repeated in here a lot, I think it was worth putting on the record that there was never a Labour-Green Government. There was a Labour - New Zealand First Government and a Labour majority Government. The Greens have never been—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the bill.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —in a formal coalition Government. So stop blaming us for the mistakes of previous Governments.
The point is that, to me, that is a massive investor risk factor. I don’t know what the motivations of BlackRock were to liquidate the company, but a whole lot of New Zealanders lost their jobs, were not paid upfront, a whole lot of New Zealanders lost the solar panels that were providing affordable power. So yet another example in recent times of foreign companies basically being vultures who are not at all interested in the long-term benefit of New Zealand and providing major risk factors.
I’m worried that I’m not going to get another call, Madam Chair, so I’m just going to speak to the rest of my Amendment Papers. So my next Amendment Paper, and there’s two, is about the ministerial directive letter. I would like to take a separate call on that one actually. There’s one on time frames, which I think would be of interest to New Zealand First, simply amending clause 23 to replace “15” with “30 days”, because 15 days is a very short period of time for our public servants to be able to consider sensitive land sales and it does undermine due process to shorten it so much. I think 30 days is perfectly reasonable.
Then there’s some issues with clause 27, that’s still Part 1, and with clause 22 about the ministerial directive letter that I would like to—but it would be great if the Minister would consider whether investor risk factors are something that should be considered in the national interest test.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): That will still be a point of consideration, whether these people are good—that’s still going to be considered. In terms of the 15 days, that’s simply the time frame in which they consider if there is a national interest: yes or no. If it’s a no, then it gets approved. If they feel there’s a national interest, then we look a little bit deeper. We’re not going to waste time looking over everything to the nth degree when we don’t need to. If there’s nothing that concerns us, then we move ahead.
TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re not quite there yet. There’s still a bit that hasn’t been covered, so I’m prepared to take those questions.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, because I do have these amendments. I’m getting close—I think there’s another two or three to talk to. This one relates to clause 18, “Section 25A amended (Conditions of consent)”. Then it goes down to new section (4)(a) and (b). It relates to “The regulator or Minister may apply conditions to manage a risk to New Zealand’s national interest only if”. Can I just say that while there’s a streamlining of the process at the front, I think it’s important to have some safeguards at the back. This is why I’m asking to actually remove new paragraph (b), because it says, “only if—(b) the conditions are no broader than necessary to manage the identified risk.”
The reality is that there’ll be other factors, rather than just a specific risk that might be identified. This would constrain and hogtie the Minister of Finance and prevent him or her—whoever it is at the time—from providing or imposing reasonable conditions that might allow the consent to go through, but otherwise might not. I just want some flexibility there, which would be the removal of section (4)(b). It doesn’t make a material difference, other than the constraint on the Minister would be removed, which would then allow he or she to just apply the conditions that might identify the risks. I ask the Associate Minister of Agriculture if he could perhaps respond on that one. The officials might have some advice.
I think there’s just another couple of amendments that I’d like to speak to, if that’s possible, Madam Chair? Thank you. I’ve still got some time here. The next one is in clause 21—so I’m just going to make sure I get it right, because I do fear that in one of my other amendments, one of the letters might be out of place, which would be horrific. Anyway, yeah, horrific, but it might mean that it might get ruled out anyway—we’ll wait and see. This is on clause 21, replacement section 32(18,19B), and it relates to the delegation in subsection (1), which has the affect that the regulator—this is, sorry, people might be interested; you never know, there might be someone there—delegation of powers and functions. So it is in the delegation area that I’m talking about. Delegations in subsection (1) have the effect that the regulator may exercise all of the relevant powers and functions—[Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Can I please have some quiet over here. I can’t even hear. Thank you. We’ll make up the time.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sorry if I got too close to the mike—I don’t mean to—I’m just getting down to read it. It’s getting a bit hard to read at this time of night.
Can I just go back, in subsection (2), “The delegation in subsection (1) has the effect that the regulator may exercise all of the relevant powers and functions as if the relevant Minister or Ministers had delegated those powers and functions”, right—“as if”. So my amendment says to take out “as”, which would mean that it read “may exercise all of the relevant powers and functions if the relevant Minister or Ministers had delegated those powers”. It’s quite important here. I think delegated powers have to be specified. This would possibly allow non-specific delegations or assumptions around delegations as if they had been delegated, rather than having actually been delegated. So it is technical. I call on the wisdom of my colleagues in law to know how an astute lawyer might pull this apart, in my view, and challenge those delegation powers. I’m asking that the amendment that I put on the Table be supported to take out “as”, and just say if the delegations have, in fact, been made.
I’m getting down—and I think I’ve only got another one. I guess there’s a few questions there. The next one I go to is clause 23. I’m just trying to get my head around this one here—remove amended section 37B(5). So we’ve got an obligation to process these within 15 working days—that’s not a lot of time. We’ve streamlined it a bit, but I’d suggest that Ministers, particularly with the constraints put on them by the current coalition Government, don’t have excess resource, don’t have the ability to do these things in a very limited time line. I’m just asking that that be extended to 30 working days. That’s still, in the international scheme of things to be able to invest in a sovereign country like New Zealand with rock solid systems, a good deal for any investor. So I’m asking that this amendment be supported by New Zealand First as well that extends the time out from 15 to 30 days to process these applications.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Look, in terms of removing paragraph (b) from new section 25A(4), inserted by clause 18(2), this just creates a requirement to ensure that the condition is proportionate. In terms of the delegation, the regulator currently exercises a sort of default delegation, but the bill empowers the Minister to regain those powers if he/she so desires.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Can I follow on from that, because it’s “if he or she thinks”. The process will be down the track, and the investor will, rightfully, assume that they’ve got the deal done. I’m looking out for the investors as well. What we need is some certainty. If this is a robust process that goes before the Minister and then the final decision is made, then that’s OK, but if we have regulators making a lot of these decisions with some variable oversight because they haven’t had to consider some of the non-mandatory features here, then this is opening it up to litigation. This is the area of concern that Labour in Opposition has—that, actually, supporting efficiency, we don’t want to remove the effectiveness of the regime, which is to protect New Zealand’s interests. It is to develop investment, but it is always to protect the interests of New Zealanders and New Zealand first and foremost. I appreciate the Minister’s response, but I just ask that he consider this carefully.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think there’s a little bit left that I’d encourage members to address if they so wish.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to talk about my proposed amendment to clause 27. This is about the Minister being able to grant individual exemptions. I think there is significant risk to any Government is a Minister is able to grant retrospective exemptions for any “person, interest, right, or assets” from consent requirements from the definition of “overseas person or associate or associated land”. I have asked the Government and the Minister to consider whether having a clause or a provision like this in the law actually opens us up to significant risk in the perception of our transparency. It’s just not good lawmaking to enable retrospective exemptions like this, and, arguably, to enable ministerial exemptions at all, let alone retrospective ones.
While I’m up here, I’ll also just refer to my amendment to clause 22, which would delete new section 34(3)(ab). This is about providing a ministerial directive letter that states “the Government’s preferred approach to undertaking a national interest assessment:”. Our feeling is very strongly that national interest assessments should be enduring and not variable based on the views of a particular Minister or Government of the day. Ministers are already decision makers on overseas investment consents; it’s really overreach into our Public Service and their neutrality to then say what the Government’s preferred approach is to a national interest test when they’re already the decision maker on the consents. That’s clause 22 and clause 27.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In terms of clause 27, the provision of the retrospective exemptions is intended to fill a gap in the regulatory tool kit and provide flexibility, giving the regulator more options to address accidental breaches of the law. Companies could well be unaware of an investment regulatory rule and could have inadvertently breached them—so just minor stuff. These will allow the regulator to take a more proportionate approach to compliance.
Look, in terms of—and I’ve already covered this once before—the national interest assessment, as I said at the start, things change over time. Suddenly something’s of much more importance to your national interest than it was a few decades ago and sometimes they no longer become. That’s important that the Government of the day is able to make that judgment.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think there’s room for one more question.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): I thank you very much—you must come from a wonderful place, Madam Chair. This is my last call and, in fact, it follows on from Julie Anne Genter, and it is my last amendment, because I too share the concerns that she has. The Minister pointed to some of the risks here: that it’s proportionate, the response—that’s dangerous—and if mistakes have been made, then officials can follow it up in the right way. The reality is that this disincentivises investors and potential investors to do the right thing. This must be removed. My amendment asks that new subsections (1A) and (1B) of section 61D be removed, because otherwise we have perverse incentives for people to do the right thing.
The question I have is: would a ministerial directive letter go so far as to influence the proportionate response of these areas? It’s no reflection on the Minister in the chair or anyone else; we have to ensure that we have robust legislation that is not subject to outside influence or people’s personal views that might allow proportionate response to illegal activity. The reality is that this is a response to illegal behaviour—outside the law. If we remove this, then we just simply ensure that both officials and the investors and everyone do the right thing. If the law is broken—if I’m only one or two kilometres over the speed limit, I still get prosecuted, right? Absolutely. This is allowing flexibility that doesn’t occur in many other parts of the law, so, to the Minister, I hope that you can support my amendment that removes these two very dangerous provisions in the legislation.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): 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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
hat Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that t
that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 3(1)(a), to replace “or” with “and” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is
that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 3(1)(c), to insert “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is
hat Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 3(1)(c), to insert “environmental protection” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is t
hat Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 3(1)(c), to insert “climate change mitigation” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is t
hat Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 3(1)(c), to insert “climate change adaptation” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is t
that Dr Lawrence Xu Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting new section 3(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is
hat Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is t
hat Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 6 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is t
hat Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendments to clause 8(1) set out on Amendment Paper 470, to delete new paragraph (ea) of section 16, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is t
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendments to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 470, to delete subclause (3), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendments to clause 15, new section 19E(1), set out on Amendment Paper 470, to replace paragraph (a), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendments to clause 15, new section 19E(1)(b)(i), set out on Amendment Paper 470 is out of order as not being a serious amendment.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E(1)(b) set out on Amendment Paper 470, to delete subparagraph (ii), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E(1)(c)(i), set out on Amendment Paper 470, to delete the words “another qualifying individual;”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E(1)(c), set out on Amendment Paper 470, to delete subparagraph (ii) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E(1)(c), set out on Amendment Paper 470, to delete subparagraph (iii), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E(1), set out on Amendment Paper 470, to replace paragraph (d), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E(1), set out on Amendment Paper 470, to replace paragraph (b) of the definition of exempt individual, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E(3), set out on Amendment Paper 470, to insert the words “and improved outcomes for environmental protection”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E(3), set out on Amendment Paper 470, to insert the words “and improved outcomes for climate mitigation”, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 15, new section 19E, set out on Amendment Paper 470, to delete new subsection (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 470 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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 7(4) replacing “must” with “may” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 11 inserting new clause 11A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subclause (1)(a) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment deleting clause 12(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment replacing clause 15 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C, to insert “after consulting with relevant iwi and hapū” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C, to insert “after consulting with the Parliamentary Commissioner of Environment” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C, to insert “after consulting with the Environmental Protection Authority” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19A(3), to insert “unless the direction is contrary to national interests” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C(1)(b), to insert “New Zealand’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C(1)(b), to insert “New Zealand’s obligation under UNDRIP” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C(1)(b), to insert “New Zealand’s obligation under the High Seas Treaty” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C(1)(b), to insert “New Zealand’s obligation under the Paris Agreement” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C(1)(b), to insert “New Zealand’s obligation under the Convention on Biological Diversity” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C(1)(b), to insert “New Zealand’s obligation under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C(1)(b), to insert “environmental protection” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19C(1)(b), to insert “New Zealand’s commitment under sustainable development goals” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 15 replacing “may” with “must” in new section 19B(1)(c) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 15 inserting paragraphs (d) and (e) into new section 19C(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendments to clause 15 deleting paragraph (a) from new section 19C(2) and inserting paragraph (d) into new section 19C(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 15 replacing “may” with “must” in new section 19D(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 15 replacing “may” with “must” in new section 19D(2)(c) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 19D, to insert new subsection (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 18 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 21 deleting “as” from new section 32(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 22 deleting new section 34(3)(ab) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 23 replacing “15” with “30” in new section 37B(5) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 23 replacing “15” with “30” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to delete clause 27 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 27 deleting subsections (1A) and (1B) of new section 61D, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Consequential amendments
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 34 to 37, “Consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with clause 35 and work my way back to clause 34.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What? That’s backwards.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The reason is that I need to actually find the precise section—
Cameron Brewer: Go backwards.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —in the legislation. OK, OK, we’re not going backwards—we’re not going backwards. We will start with clause 34—I’m so sorry!
Hon Tama Potaka: ChatGPT.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The first question is—anyone who knows me knows I don’t use that. I’m technologically challenged and I simply do not know how to get my head around using ChatGPT. I do not use ChatGPT, as a proud academic. Anyway, to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: the first question I have is—it’s a very interesting placement in terms of “Consequential amendments”, because, in the previous part, in Part 1, we’ve seen a number of consequential amendments to the principal bill. The first question is more stylistic: why are clause 34 and 35 in Part 2 and not Part 1?
My second question is: for clause 34, replacing section 24(2), exactly what is the change to the current legislation? If you’re looking at the current section 24, you will find that, under “Who decides application” the current status is, “However, [that] a Minister or Ministers may delegate the power to decide (see section 32).” But the rewording is “However, see section 32 (which relates to delegation of powers and functions)”. What is the change there, and if it’s an inconsequential change, why is it there in the first place?
Then I’m going to move on to clause 35. My only question here in clause 35 is around—we have heard previously the Hon Damien O’Connor talking about the specificity that is needed around “may” and “must”. I want to check that, in this case, if you’re looking at a notice of retention, why is it “may specify which powers and functions are retained by the Minister” rather than “must specify” in terms of which powers and functions are retained? I will leave it there, and, if there is time, I might talk about the Fisheries Act a little bit later, but I think the Hon Damien O’Connor has some questions.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the time that you gave and the opportunity that you gave us to debate most of the issues in Part 1, so I won’t take too long. I have to say that my disappointment that none of my amendments were supported by the coalition partners—that disappointment was offset, to some extent, to a large extent, by the excitement I had by a very good friend of mine, Robert Higgins, winning a group 1 race at Alexandra Park tonight. So that just about offsets it. I suggest that probably there’ll be an overseas investor interested in buying the fine mare that she is. Francent, named after my auntie—my mother’s sister. I’m very proud to get up in the Chamber and say that that offsets the disappointment that I had that this bill is going to progress.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Just responding to the member: does he have any other betting tips for us?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I did say I have one final, short question relating to the amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996. Can I just check—again, this is not something that we sought specifically under the regulatory impact statement and I’m still waiting for the response from the Associate Minister of Agriculture regarding my previous two questions. But, again, we’ve seen this in some of the other locations. What is the rationale when it comes to a fishing quota when it’s a transaction of national interest, the national interest test is automatically met? This is obviously something new, so why specifically is the fishing quota related? And when it comes to the management of a fishing quota, are we looking at simply investment in a fishing quota or a transfer of the fishing quota as well? Would that be considered as a part of that?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): There is no real change in terms of fishing quota in 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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 34 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 470 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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 35(2), new paragraph (da) of section 33(1)(d), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 37 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Schedule 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”.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, I will start. In terms of the title and commencement, I want to start by talking about the commencement date. I want to check the first question I have for the Minister, and I’ll come back to the title a little bit later on. I want to, first, start by asking the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Hoggard: what is the rationale behind keeping this on a single day set by Order in Council, as opposed to having a specific date? I mean, noting that clause 2(2) does say that “If the Act has not come into force …”—so let’s say late March—“it comes into effect on the first day of the next calendar month.”, which I’m assuming is 1 April. But I’m interested know: what needs to be set up for it to be brought in earlier in terms of Order in Council? Because that’s what I’m assuming the flexibility is allowing, so I want to check with the Minister first, before asking other questions.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I wanted to take the opportunity during this part of the debate to talk about three things. The first is the commencement date, as my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan also already alluded to, so I do hope the Associate Minister of Agriculture will answer his question. But I do think that the Government is demonstrating their naivety—or is it naivety?—or their just overall bad intent, because what is contained in this bill are changes that make it significantly easier for environmental integrity, the integrity of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the future of our country to be overridden in the interests of foreign ownership.
I think it is incredibly naïve—or ill intent—to believe that New Zealand and the future of New Zealand will be better of with more foreign ownership and less New Zealand ownership. When people can control our strategic assets, our water, our land—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask the member to come back to title and commencement, please.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. Well, I was going to propose some better titles in clause 1. The Act could be called—and I think it’d be much more appropriate—“Overseas Investment (Selling Off Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Act 2025”. It could be called the “Overseas Investment (This Coalition Represents the Atlas Network) Amendment Act 2025” or the “Overseas Investment (This Government Actually Believes Foreign Ownership Is More Important Than the Future of Our Climate and Our Water) Amendment Act 2025”.
Look, the people who stand to gain from this are the people who sell off the assets and then the owners who can extract super profits over time. We’ve seen that over and over again over the last few decades. It is very rare—it’s not impossible—that we actually benefit from foreign ownership. I’ve already listed in this debate multiple times when there have been examples of foreign ownership resulting in worse outcomes for our people, for our environment—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Please connect it to title and commencement.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and for the future of the country. So another possible title: “Overseas Investment (Nations is Selling Out Our Country) Amendment Act 2025”.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to also check with you, Madam Chair, because despite the fact that, yes, technically we can use the title as an opportunity to also sum up on the debate and what has happened in the committee stage, at the same time we do expect a certain level of engagement from the Minister as well. We haven’t heard from the Associate Minister of Agriculture regarding neither my question, a general question, on the commencement date, nor my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s question or any variety of amendments to the titles.
But moving on to the title, I do think that there is a missed opportunity when it comes to the title. I’m just summing up on some of the things that we discussed in here. National interests and other matters—I think from the Minister’s and from the Government’s perspective it’s very factual. However, at the same time, what we’ve seen earlier, in terms of the Electoral Amendment Bill, is that the Minister, in those instances, is like, this bill, the name itself, is perfectly clear, despite the fact that we made other suggestions that includes what we see here in the title. So we suggested things like, you know, “Disqualification of Voting, etc., and Other Potential Matters”. But, like you said, the Minister, at that stage, said that it is perfectly clear. So my amendment to this title—and it’s one of the tabled amendments—is simply just keep it as “Overseas Investment Amendment Act”. Why include all of these other things in there? It seems to be very contradictory to some of the Government bills that have been introduced earlier today.
Other ones that I can think of is, you know, if we’re going to be doing something like this, I really understand, you know, it’s very factual when you’re looking at national interest test; it is an element in this particular bill. And other matters, it is something that is very factual, but the example that I mentioned earlier in terms of one of the other bills that we saw—the immigration fiscal sustainability—fiscal sustainability technically wasn’t a subset; it was an outcome of what that bill is hoping to achieve. Old jokes aside, I do think that there is a missed opportunity if the Government does care about economic growth and economic opportunities or providing jobs, that this isn’t going to be something that might as well include that and just throw that in there and just be like economic growth and other matters.
But it’s not. So it is something that is very factual. However, just to kind of bring everything all together and sum things up, we do have genuine concerns around this bill in terms of how we engage. I think that needs to be reflected within the title of this bill. I think most importantly for us is the fact that the Minister’s unwillingness to acknowledge the influence that Five Eyes will potentially have and what we see in the regulatory impact statement when it comes to determining overseas investment, because we have seen throughout this bill this new inclusion. Now, whether it is done as something that’s always been done—but regardless of that, now it is in legislation and explicitly mentioned as national security, as what is considered national interest. This is very new in some of the newest legislation we’re seeing.
I do think that the Minister should consider simply just “Overseas Investment (This Government is in the Pocket of Five Eyes and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, because that’s what we’re going to be seeing here. I do think that there is a potentially chilling effect it will have for people who want to invest in Aotearoa New Zealand, who may actually invest with the best intentions, doing things that is both good for the climate and also good for the environment, but maybe from countries that our Five Eyes partners simply do not like. In which case, we are going to consider that as a national risk or a national security issue. I think that is something that the Minister hasn’t really fleshed out.
The other thing that I think the Hon Damien O’Connor has been raising consistently as part of this debate, and I think it should be captured within the title of this bill, is the delegation of power from Ministers to regulators, but also, more importantly, the ability for the Ministers to even override or have directive letters, like my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter has said. I think another appropriate title for this is: “This Act is the Overseas Investment (This Government Doesn’t Care About Democracy But Simply Just Want Their Ministers to do Whatever They Want and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”.
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): In terms of the title, there is no intention of changing the title. It’s pretty clear and straightforward. It says what it does. In terms of the commencement date, that date is there based on the fact that we hope to have this in place sooner, but if systems take longer to set up, then that’s the maximum that’ll give us the time to get it set.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): 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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “National Interest Test” with “National Interest Assessment” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to delete “National Interest Test and Other Matters” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to refer to asset ownership screening changes and other matters be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert the word “Pathway” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “Consent Criteria Modification” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to refer to screening streamlining be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to refer to sensitive asset protection be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to refer to sensitive land safeguards be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to refer to refer to expedited national review be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Francisco Hernandez’s three remaining tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 470 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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Finance: I move, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
For too long, New Zealanders have paid the price of having one of the most restrictive overseas investment laws in the developed world. It has meant less growth, fewer jobs, lower productivity, and stagnant wages. This bill will ensure Kiwi businesses can attract more investment from overseas. We’re a growing nation, and our businesses need international investment to maintain our position as a First World island paradise in the South Pacific. That’s why we’re overhauling our regulation of overseas investment. New Zealand’s productivity growth has slowed down because workers haven’t had enough capital behind them. Between 2013 and 2023, our capital-to-labour ratio grew by just 0.7 percent a year, compared with 2.2 percent in the previous decade. As a result, productivity growth fell from an average of 1.4 percent annually between 1993 and 2013 to just 0.2 percent from 2013 to 2023.
Foreign investment provides Kiwis with access to international capital, expertise, and technology. This grows New Zealand businesses, enhances productivity, and supports high-paying jobs. As Milton Friedman once observed—great man—the beauty of the free market lies in the fact that transactions only occur when both parties see mutual benefit. We agree. Investments into our country are, by definition, a win-win. We’re creating a far more efficient, growth-focused approach to attracting overseas investment, with changes that will make it easier, quicker, and more transparent for foreign investors to invest in New Zealand businesses. The Associate Minister of Finance has seen firsthand the difference this makes to Kiwi businesses and Kiwi workers. When he visited two businesses in the same industry on the same afternoon, both had skilled and passionate people with good ideas. One had overseas investment, and this benefitted them in two ways: they had more money for machinery, and they had more know-how for manufacturing and marketing their product by receiving knowledge from their partners offshore.
You see, New Zealand needs foreign investment, but foreign investment does not need New Zealand. New Zealand suffers from a tyranny of distance, from low domestic savings, and from persistent low levels of investment. Why, then, when we are in a global competition for capital and investment, has our regime been so difficult for investors to navigate, imposing both significant costs and burdens? This bill will address these problems by consolidating the regime’s complex and overly burdensome tests into a new National Interest Test through which most transactions will now be screened and consented, allowing consideration of the net benefit of an investment and requiring the regulator to complete their initial risk assessment in Stage 1 of the new National Interest Test within 15 working days.
When the Minister was put in charge of policy in this area 15 months ago, it was obvious these changes were needed. We found that two elected Ministers had to sign every consent, no matter how minor. Is that a really good use of time for two elected officials to sign off someone buying a paddock so they can plant some grapes because their passport doesn’t say New Zealand? I think we all know the answer, and that’s why we’ve delegated the majority of this decision making to the regulator. The new regime will operate with a presumption in favour of foreign investment, acknowledging the significant benefits it can bring to our economy. Most critically, the changes will reverse the presumption in the Act that it is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets for asset classes other than residential land, farming, or fishing quota.
This law change builds on previous improvements. Last year, we directed the Overseas Investment Office to speed up consenting processing time frames under the Overseas Investment Act. The letter set the Minister’s expectation that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) will process 80 percent of consent applications in half the statutory time frames for decisions. LINZ has since taken a risk-based approach to verifying information and streamlining consent processes. This recognises that the majority of consent applications are low-risk and should be processed more efficiently. In the 12 months to 30 November, LINZ has processed almost 82.6 percent of consent applications in half the statutory time frame. Processing times are 60 percent faster than in financial year 2024. The average time frame has reduced from 71 working days to 28 working days. This is good news, and it is a sign to the rest of the world that we welcome your investment.
Today’s milestone is another big step in the right direction. We all know that capital is highly mobile, and investors are looking for safe and stable countries to do business. I am excited by the opportunities presented through the major reforms the Government is making. We’re creating the conditions that make it even easier for businesses, like many out there, to invest, innovate, and grow in New Zealand. We do that because we know it’s a win-win. Investment leads to productivity, which leads to higher wages and happier lives. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a sad night: 10.30 on Friday night, the only thing to give me a smile is my mate’s win at Alexandra Park—Francent, race six, group 1. Yes, Madam Speaker—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Mr Speaker. We’ve heard a lot of ideological rhetoric from the Associate Minister of Agriculture in explaining the passage of this legislation.
My ancestors, many, came to this country from other parts of the world where it was really difficult—class societies where if you didn’t have money, it was hard to get ahead. We formed a partnership with the indigenous people of this land, the Māori people, and we’ve built a nation. Our ancestors have gone to war; they have fought for the sovereign right to control our destiny. In building that country, we did depend upon foreign capital. We went cap in hand to London, to New York, different places around the world, to get capital to build the industries and build the infrastructure.
But we’ve grown up—we’ve grown up. We’re a modern country. We have a partnership with iwi, we have a multicultural nation, and we’ve got money that we can invest in ourselves. In fact, we’ve got total managed funds owned by New Zealanders of $363 billion. Don’t tell me we haven’t got the capital. In KiwiSaver alone, there’s $111 billion of capital—much of which is invested offshore—capital that could be available to assist us develop our own country.
Now, we have trade arrangements. We sell; we buy; we shift people, capital. Of course we’re going to open the door to foreign capital, but we’re not dependent upon it for our future. In fact, the country that we have built—for the most part free of major corruption; good, reliable infrastructure; solid laws; good, hard-working people—investing in New Zealand should be a privilege. Indeed, that has been the presumption all the way through. In fact, even the purpose statement of the bill here that the Government put in still says they would like to acknowledge that it’s a privilege for “overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets”—and the sensitive ones. The Minister, in the first speech in the third reading, said this shifts the balance in favour of the foreign investors. Well, that’s just outrageous. This is not putting New Zealand first; this is putting New Zealand last. I’m here—and most of my colleagues are here—for New Zealanders first and foremost.
Of course we rely on partnerships, but this piece of legislation, if I can be kind and say with some good intent to improve some efficiencies—and we’re not opposed to that; we’re not opposed to foreign investment. But as I tried, through my amendments, to do into this bill tonight was to make an alteration to ensure that the protections that we’ve always had through the regime remained in place. They are no longer there. A Minister of a Government can write a directive letter to the delegated officials and they can decide who gets to invest in our country—pretty much open. Even when there’s a national interest test where the proposed investor fails, the Minister can step in under this legislation and approve that investment. That is outrageous.
The only thing that will protect us over time is the democracy that will put this side of the House in the sitting seat and in Government. That’s the only thing that will protect us because, as we’ve heard from many of the ACT members—not so much from New Zealand First because they are a bit a bit uneasy about this, but lots of ACT and National members here saying—that we should make it easier for foreign investors to come in and buy New Zealand.
Some of the money will come in for greenfield investment; to develop our economy and to add value. And we welcome that. But some of it will just come in for speculation, to buy into monopolistic structures that we have across our economy—and there are many of them; the banks are already foreign-owned for the most part. Even in the primary sectors, we’re seeing increasing levels of foreign investment—some good, some not so good—but this bill will make it easier and remove the safeguards that most New Zealanders think should be in place.
The devil is always in the detail, and changing “may” to “must” or “must” to “may”—as I was trying to do through my amendments—might seem like a minor technical change. But there are enough lawyers in this House here to know that’s a major change in terms of protection for New Zealand and New Zealanders. As Minister Hoggard said, presumption in favour of foreign investors—that’s what he said. I think Kiwis, if they’re still awake at 10.30 on a Friday night or not out having a great time, most of them hearing that will be horrified. It is important to get on the record that the Labour Party in Opposition, while potentially supporting some moves to make more efficient the process, does not support handing and delegating just to officials the right to allow pretty much anyone to come into the country. Because they’ve taken away the one test that we always had, which was around character and capability.
The person normally would have been able to come and invest if they had some skills, if they were of good character, and if they said they would do what they were going to do. Those protections have been removed. The way the world is at the moment, with people looking for safe havens, obtaining money through all sorts of illegal means across the globe, those people will be looking to New Zealand now. And the Minister and the ACT Party have just said that the presumption now is in favour of those foreign investors, with no check on character and no check on capability. So come and buy us, come and settle in our land and bring whatever money you can and buy whatever you can, with the dangers that that brings to our small nation.
I think that a Government with true vision would be cautious in this area. Just at a time we’ve built our capacity, the investment funds through KiwiSaver, through ACC, through the Superannuation Fund, we’ve committed to that—we should have done it in the 70s, but the National Government and Mr Muldoon got rid of that. And once again, the National-led Government is undermining our sovereign rights to determine the future direction of our country. The people who fought and died around the world would be horrified to see this piece of legislation pass through the House.
The members over there should be ashamed, really, when they look at it. We gave them an opportunity tonight; we gave them an opportunity to make some final adjustments, to put in place a few protections. But alas, even in the House tonight, they refused to make the adjustments that would have offered some comfort for the vast majority of New Zealanders, who think it should be a privilege to invest in our country, not a right and not a presumptive right in favour of those people just because they have money.
This is a sad night and I’m sure that into the future—because there will be incidents where there’s hot money or bad money coming to our country, bad people coming to our country—there’ll be a need to change this legislation to protect New Zealanders and New Zealand from the huge amounts of capital around the world. It could have been a good bill just to make improvement, but it’s gone too far.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā kotou e te Whare. Let’s call it like it is. This bill is not about investment or things that will benefit workers or productivity. It is about foreign ownership—ownership. Now, there are many, many, many, many submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee which opposed the bill. Many extremely educated people who put in thorough submissions, thoughtful submissions, that, of course, the Government absolutely ignored.
Basically, Mr Speaker, and those watching at home, it is 10.35 on Friday evening, two weeks out from Christmas, and what is the National-led coalition doing? They’re rushing through under urgency a series of bills that are all about undermining democracy. They’re about making it easier for a smaller group of people to control the future of the country. They want to exclude the people who care about the environment, who care about fairness and justice.
Why do they want to do that? So that this smaller group can get richer and richer. Meanwhile, our planet, our ecosystems, everything that enables life, is at threat because of this system; capitalism. Unfortunately, the members opposite, whether they mean well or not, they cannot think long term. They do not think long term. They have no idea what is heading for us. Their religion is that of what the Associate Minister of Agriculture referred to as “the free market”. There’s no such thing as a free market—there is no such thing. I wish there was, but this does not exist. We have a market that is absolutely set up to privilege those who already have more.
Now, we’ve called it, over the last 30 years, the system that they have perpetuated—and other Governments as well that the Greens have not ever been part of. They call it neoliberalism, but actually, neoliberalism is really neo-feudalism. You can tell with their priorities. They’re all about enabling those who own more to keep making more money and owning more.
Look, there are many erudite submissions I would love to quote during this speech. I would recommend that people watching at home go to the submissions, look at the submissions from Jane Kelsey, from Geoff Bertram. I mean, Geoff Bertram has a doctorate in economics from the University of Oxford. He taught economics and finance at Victoria University for more than three decades. He has, on many occasions, including the changes to the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Act in 2020, identified that there’s a real problem with the so-called benefit to New Zealand test. It was inadequate before this and it’s being made even more inadequate because of the changes rushed through under urgency.
I just want to make it absolutely clear to people watching at home that it’s no accident that the Government is rushing these bills through under urgency two weeks out from Christmas, because they know that what they’re doing is actually quite unpopular—it’s politically unpopular with New Zealanders. But they think they can get away with it under the cover of night by flooding the zone with outrageous changes that fundamentally undermine democracy in this country, because this Government—the coalition Government—does not believe in democracy. They want to limit democracy.
The rise of oligarchy around the world is unmistakable—it’s unmistakable. This coalition Government has so much in common with the Trump administration in the United States and with many other far-right extremist Governments, we’re watching the decline of democracy. But here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we still have a system where if enough people participate, we can make sure that this is a one term Government.
Now, just for the benefit of members opposite, I’m not sure if any of them are fans of Rick and Morty, but the very best, most succinct dialogue that I think explains the problem with capitalism is from Rick and Morty, and I want to get this on the Hansard. This is a fantastic—imagine Morty being like, “Oh, if people work hard, they get rewarded under capitalism.” “Oh my God, Morty! Capitalism doesn’t work when everyone wins. It needs poverty to function. Someone has to take the low-paying jobs so the profits keep flowing upward … Capitalism doesn’t reward work, it rewards ownership. You don’t climb the ladder by working hard, you climb it by owning the ladder.”
That explains the ideology of the people opposite. They are all about making sure that those who already own the most continue to make the most money. That’s why they want to punish those who are out of work for whatever reason. They want to force those people to go work for inadequate wages. They want to undermine the union movement. Every step they take is about ensuring that there is a hierarchy that is steeper and steeper and there are heaps of people at the bottom of the heap—what did our Prime Minister call them? Bottom feeders? Yeah, the bottom feeders that can be, effectively, the slave labour to the owners of capital. That’s what this Government stands for. New Zealand First in particular should be absolutely ashamed to be voting for this bill—
Simon Court: Point of order. I just ask the Speaker to reflect on whether the member’s actually speaking to any aspect of the bill—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I will determine that. Sit down. I will determine that.
Simon Court: Well, of course you will, Mr Speaker. But it’s getting quite wide and it’s the third reading.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Now, I would ask the House that if they’re going to interject, for it to be rare and infrequent, and at 10.40 at night, for it to at least be witty. Make an attempt to do that. Otherwise, calm yourselves down, please.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First has absolutely sold out its roots in voting for this bill. Not only is this bill taking away the test that meant that we could prevent a large foreign corporation from coming in and profiting off the sale of fresh water in a bottled water plant, which was something that New Zealand First previously had tried to rectify—they tried to get royalties to be possible. But because we had previous neoliberal or neo-feudal Governments that signed us up to free trade agreements that prioritise the profits or the returns to investors over the rights of people to access clean fresh water and to have access to something that is fundamental to life, they were not able to charge royalties on fresh water.
What happened was a previous Government amended the Overseas Investment Act in order to have that be something that can be considered under the national interest test. We already had an incredibly weak national interest test. I’m not saying that there couldn’t be a more systematic way to approach this, but the reality is we don’t have that, and this bill is taking us backwards.
It’s New Zealand First that is voting for this to make it easier for foreign corporations to come in and make profits at the expense of New Zealanders. That’s what this is about. It’s about foreign ownership. We have no doubt that the Minister responsible for the bill, the Associate Minister of Finance, is absolute—that is his agenda. It’s very clear. But what is so dishonest is the claim that somehow this is necessary or sufficient to benefit New Zealanders.
What is needed for New Zealanders to be able to address the productivity gap that we have? It’s not selling off our assets. It’s not cutting the minimum wage or refusing to raise it. It’s not cutting benefits. It’s not cutting education and all these other things. No. We need to invest in science. This Government is barely investing in science at all.
If we actually wanted to follow in the pathway of other small nations that have gone from being very reliant on selling primary products like Denmark or like Sweden, what they did is they addressed the oligarchy in their own society. They created a fair tax system, and they used that money to invest in public good. Particularly the countries that have higher wages is usually, they have much, much higher unionisation, because what happens when you make it harder for workers to get the benefits of the investment in productivity is that the profits flow to the owners of capital. This case is going to mean more foreign ownership.
I don’t understand—I mean, I do understand. I know there’s been many decades of rubbish, you know, taught in introductory economics or commerce classes. I know that many of the people who join the National Party just fundamentally aren’t that curious about the world and the way things work. And maybe they’re not so empathetic, because they seem more interested in punishing the poor and punishing those who are marginalised and punching down on those people who have not been served well by colonisation, rather than looking around and saying, how can we be honest with each other about our painful past? How can we make reparations and amends? How can we work together to ensure that everybody can benefit? Not just those who are already rich, who already own 100 investment properties, but those people who are born to parents who have been disadvantaged. They deserve a chance. This Government is evil.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): What a load of hyperventilating hysteria. The National Party is very, very happy to support and lead this Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, here on the third reading. Can I leave you just with one point—that this will maintain current screening requirements for investments in farmland, the fishing quota, and residential land, recognising the unique sensitivity of these assets. New Zealand is open for business. I commend the bill.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I rise to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. It does make, despite the hyperbole, measured amendments to the national interest test. It streamlines processes for which overseas investors can qualify to invest in New Zealand. If we can attract more capital and the expertise that comes with it, and potentially the market access that comes with it, it can create opportunities for New Zealanders.
But be in no doubt: New Zealand First has paid very close attention to this bill. We are not in the camp that thinks unfettered foreign investment is a total win for New Zealand. The loss of our banking sector is probably our best example: $7 billion a year of profits is getting sucked offshore. Our current account deficit reflects that we do have to be careful in this space. It has been a negotiation, this bill—we’re New Zealand First, so this is a very, very sensitive topic for us.
But the third rails in this—and Cameron Brewer mentioned them in his last speech—residential housing, farmland, and fishing quota—there was no way we were going to compromise on those, and we have not. We will not allow New Zealanders to be tenants on their own land. Hopefully, with these measures, we’ll bring in some capital that will increase our productivity, growth, jobs, and things we desperately need at the moment in this economy. So New Zealand First, on balance, will support this bill.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there are a number of things that we do need to address with this bill, and I want to echo what my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter has said, that this bill does nothing other than just simply selling New Zealand off overseas piece by piece. We have already seen this Government pass investment in New Zealand under urgency, and, basically, is a real estate agency to sell off New Zealand. Now we're seeing this bill being introduced that is allowing people to have that kind of carve-out.
That's not simply the most scary thing in this bill. Let's start unpacking. I think one of the things that we mentioned a number of times during the committee stage is what are some of the protection measures that are going to be placed on this from the perspective of environmental protection, from the very basics of the resources that belong to everyone in Aotearoa. Fresh water is a really, really good example, and we have seen some of the issues that have been created as part of the requirements of the Overseas Investment Act previously. I think that is something that we shouldn't try to repeat, because, although the Minister in the committee stage talked about “Oh, well, local government can do X, Y, and Z, mana whenua can do X, Y, and Z”, for them to do that, they have to challenge people in the manner of the court, and that also takes a lot of money. Basically, what the Government is saying is like, “Oh, yeah, the option's there, but you have to be rich in order for those kinds of options to be opened up to you.”
That's only one of the many issues we're seeing here. We're seeing unprecedented power being placed on the Minister for their ability to do various things like directive letters. We're seeing the unchecked nature of, potentially, even how the regulators could work in this particular bill. We're seeing yet another substantial amendment being dropped by a Minister, during the committee stage, that didn't go through a select committee stage. We pretty much have seen a substantial amendment being dropped in every single bill under this urgency. It is astonishing, it is appalling, that this Government takes our democratic system for a joke. They run our country like they think they run a business, and it's not even running a good business. This is something that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand will not stand when it comes to this bill, when it comes to fast track, when it comes to the Electoral Amendment Bill and any other bill that was passed under urgency.
Also, the other really concerning thing in here—and we are starting to see these ugly terminologies rearing their ugly heads over and over again in recent bills. This is this idea of what is considered the national interest, and explicitly stating national security and public disorder—a very Trumpian and very American way of framing things. It is ironic that we have passed a bill on foreign interference, yet this Government very much has allowed Five Eyes and the US to interfere in our own democratic system. We have seen that interfering in education, we have seen that interfering in our defence, we have seen that interfering in our foreign affairs, and, just recently, we have seen that the UK has, effectively, partially pulled out of the Five Eyes because of the concerns in terms of some of the information-sharing. But here we are, making decisions on overseas investment based on what our Five Eye partners will say. That was explicitly mentioned over and over and over again in a regulatory impact statement. That should be a concern, and that is going to actually have a chilling effect on the kind of overseas investment that we see here in Aotearoa.
Just to finish, this bill is not something that the Green Party will support, because this bill, fundamentally, doesn't address—we have not heard once from the Government side on exactly what is the economic benefit to Aotearoa. Give us a number: how many jobs are we creating? They can't answer that, because it's all thoughts and prayers and no tangible action. We will not support it.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): The hypocrisy is dripping from the ceiling as we get lectured on foreign investment from two foreigners from the Green Party. I think I might have been sick in my mouth a little bit. This is about foreign investment in this country. This is about unlocking productivity and helping New Zealand grow, and I’m proud to support it.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Point of order, Mr Speaker. As a foreign-born New Zealander, I take offence at this statement.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. As a foreign-born New Zealander, I take no offence.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Speaking to the point of order, I do ask that member to withdraw and apologise.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I think it would be appropriate for Ryan Hamilton to withdraw and apologise for that comment.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I withdraw and apologise.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Let’s move on.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Mr Speaker, it kind of shows the attitude of this Government of the National Party as we hear debates like that, which are or should be offensive to all New Zealanders. All people are welcome in this country, and all people—[Interruption] Hear me out, please. All people are welcome in this country, and when they become citizens of this country, they are members of this country, so to throw barbs across this House in such an offensive way is despicable and actually makes me sick to my stomach. That is outrageous, and it is another sad day in this House with the glee and the jibes and the nastiness that comes out.
As we talk about this piece of legislation—[Interruption] We’ll just sort of settle down a bit and just move forward. We need to take a moment—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Everybody just calm down for a bit. There will be opportunities for this side to respond. It is a debate, so there will be an opportunity for that side to respond.
GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I look forward, as we take our time, and as we move through to tomorrow morning, to continue the discussion around this and the next piece of legislation. We’ve watched as the week has gone on and we’ve seen other pieces of legislation come through, and what’s going on here is about prioritising the speed of doing things, the speed of changing these rules and allowing it to be far easier—but with that speed, when you run fast and loose, you can create potential risks. This bill is supposedly about streamlining these approvals, but it could also compromise the process that it goes through, running loose and fast.
Again, as we’ve gone on through urgency, we’ve had fast track—we’ve had all sorts of things that are about speeding things up and making them, supposedly, more efficient, but you have to look in terms of the long-term impacts these things have. My colleague Hon Damien O’Connor, in the committee of the whole House, spoke about the weakening of the safeguards that this legislation brings. It’s a challenge. When we look at what is going on—consolidating the tests into a single national interest test risks reducing security and scrutiny on sensitive farmlands. We’ve talked about things like farmland, residential land, and strategic infrastructure. Again, we have to reflect on why this legislation needs to be sitting here in urgency—why it is so important to this Government to get this passed as quickly as they can.
What we need to think about and be clear on is what are the benefits that this brings in terms of when I look at who it’s for? Is it for their mates? Is it for ordinary, working New Zealanders? We have to really consider that, because this bill focuses on investors rather than looking at tangible benefits and how we can actually build better communities. We need to think about our economic sovereignty in New Zealand and what that looks like. We need to be thoughtful in terms of allowing things to be sold offshore, what that can mean, and the challenges that will bring over the decades and over generations when things have been sold and when things have slipped out of our hands, and once they’re gone—once land is gone—they never get to come back. For me, I think this bill is a step backwards. I think it is something we really need to pause and consider as we come to the vote this evening.
I think about that single national interest test, and as they bring that in and replace some of the checks and balances, we really need to pause and ponder and make sure that what we’re doing tonight within a piece of legislation like this benefits future generations. This bill claims to simplify and to speed up overseas investment, but, in reality, I think it strips away protections for our land, for our communities, and for our sovereignty. New Zealand deserves transparency and a system that they can trust, and I’m not confident that this legislation does that. We urge the House to pause and to reject this legislation and uphold the sovereignty that we have within Aotearoa New Zealand—to make sure that our investments are not only for the betterment of us today but for the betterment of everyone tomorrow.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker, meitaki maata. I rise to take a call on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and lend my voice to the voice of opposition to this piece of legislation. It’s shortly going to tick past 11 o’clock at night on a Friday, and we are dealing with this through the remaining stages of urgency.
I guess the good thing is that this is a bill that did actually go to select committee—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—unlike some of the other pieces of legislation that we’re dealing with through urgency this evening. An overwhelming majority of those that did submit did oppose this bill, and it’s really interesting when you look at the reasons that those individuals and submitters did give. Usually, that’s something that’s covered at second reading, so I won’t dwell too much on that, but what I will say is that there were a significant number of submitters that were really concerned about the implications that this bill would have for the environment, in particular around forestry and fresh water.
Colleagues tonight have talked about the fact that Kiwis do actually expect that there are safeguards in place when it comes to investment and what that means in a New Zealand context. I guess the question for the Government is: why is the Government afraid simply to allow Kiwis to take a role in this? Why is the Government so afraid to back Kiwis? Why is the Government so afraid to invest in Kiwis? This is about priority at the end of the day. We’ve heard a little bit about the decision-making process that would be involved as part of this bill. The reality of delegating decision-making around matters when it comes to New Zealand and investment by foreign investors is it would now be actually given over to officials, through delegation, to make those decisions.
As the Hon Damien O’Connor has already indicated, the Associate Minister of Agriculture himself, this evening, has said to the House that it would be prefaced on the suggestion that officials would favour the foreign investment avenue, that this is heavily weighted, in terms of the way in which decision makers would go about making those decisions, to fall in favour of foreign investment. What that basically means is that if you have the moolah, then you get to have the opportunity to have a ticket here to New Zealand, that you can set up a future for yourself. When we step back and have a look at the other avenues, which are quite limited, and for good reason, as to how and why others would be able to come here and settle or set up base or whatever it might be, there is a real sense of injustice, I think, in saying that, if you have the money, you have the capacity—you can buy your way here to New Zealand.
That value base and that value proposition is very far removed from the value base and the value proposition that the New Zealand Labour Party has in this particular space. We have always supported, and will continue to support, high-quality strategic investment that delivers benefit for all New Zealanders, and this bill falls far short of that particular threshold. The reason why we fall in favour of that particular approach, in the Labour Party, is quite simple and straightforward. It’s actually about investment that will lead to the creation of jobs here in New Zealand—something that this Government really do need to tackle and address, and this is not the way in which they go about doing that—to raise the wages for Kiwis, and we’re not talking about the minimal sort of level of wage increase for the minimum wage that this Government has sparingly thrown about, over the last 24 hours or thereabouts. It’s also about, actually, not just delivering profits to those that would flow those profits offshore.
This is an opportunity for us, I think, to reflect on how it is that investment by the Government, in terms of their priority, should actually be directed. It’s very clear that, in the Government promoting this bill through the remaining stages of urgency, again they are saying, “Actually, Government and Ministers don’t need to be involved in the decision-making capacity, we can delegate that to officials.” The expectation is that officials will, in the majority of cases, fall in favour of making decisions, under delegation, in favour of foreign investment rather than backing Kiwis, backing the creation opportunities for jobs, backing a future here in New Zealand. This is a terrible piece of legislation, and we will continue to oppose it.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Outside of these walls, it’s 11 o’clock on a Friday night. Inside these walls, we’re trapped in a perpetual Tuesday, and I think this year we have been trapped in a blur of legislation delivered at an extraordinary pace.
I want to just go over the numbers that my colleague Vanushi Walters quoted in this House today—well, in some version of today. This Government has spent 30 percent of its time in urgency—30 percent—in comparison to the previous Government, which spent 15 percent of its time in urgency, and during that time was dealing with a global pandemic, was dealing with emergencies, was dealing with extraordinary situations. What extraordinary situation exists that this particular bill needs to be heard in urgency? There was no urgency required. It is only in this House because that Government could not organise itself, because that Government crammed so much legislation into this House that it has made mistakes. It’s having to recall legislation. There’s omitted stuff from bills. It has actually played fast and loose with the rules of this House, and we see that impact in the quality of the legislation that is coming before us. Now, this bill, I think, has some of that blur, that rush, that fast and loose expressed in this bill.
Foreign investment in New Zealand is an interesting issue to think really hard about, because we do need to walk a very, very fine line on foreign investment. Yes, we think it’s important that we have at least some foreign investment in this country. Yes, we do want to be open to the world. Yes, we can see the value that foreign investment brings, but, at the same time, we want to be sure that it is the right kind of foreign investment, that it is foreign investment that enhances New Zealand, that it is foreign investment that ensures that New Zealanders remain in control of their own destiny. I think the example was quoted earlier on as to what has happened with our banking sector, where our major banks are now controlled from overseas, where we have seen extraordinary amounts of profits extracted from New Zealand, where we’ve tried to control that through various means, but, nevertheless, because some of our major assets are owned overseas, what we see is those overseas investors quite rightly wanting a profit but seeming to extract extraordinary profits from New Zealand. That’s the danger with foreign investment as well. We want the quality of foreign investment, but there is a danger in it, and we need to walk a very, very fine line.
I think that this particular piece of legislation has a bit of a misstep in it. It stumbles along that fine line. Yes, we support efficiency, but we do not support open slather. Yes, we support testing the quality of foreign investment that is coming into this country, but that Government has reduced the quality of the tests that we’re applying to foreign investment. Reducing to a single national interest test reduces the amount of scrutiny. I’ve looked at it, in terms of the efficiency that is going to allegedly come through this legislation—and, of course, it begs the question: is that Government going to staff the Overseas Investment Agency in order to enable that efficiency to be realised? If they do not staff it adequately, we will have rushed and sketchy investigation of proposed foreign investment. It’s all very well to put a time frame into the legislation, but then, if officials are not given sufficient resources to actually conduct the investigation, to actually assess the proposals, that becomes another risk for the country. There’s a real question there, and I think it’s something that that Government wants to keep a close eye on, and we as Opposition will be keeping a close eye on, as to whether or not those efficiency gains which are promised in this legislation are coming at the expense of quality investigation of the investments that are coming into this country.
I am worried about two sets of proposals here, and they kind of pull against each other. One is the delegation of decision making to officials. Look, our officials work hard and the public servants that I’ve worked with have been extraordinarily smart and able. They’ve been committed to New Zealand. Nevertheless, officials do not face election every three years. They do not face direct accountability, and that, I think, is a concern here. There’s another concern here with some of the proposals, some of the investments, then having, as I understand it, that the Minister can issue a directive letter—in other words, tell the officials what to do. Now, that’s a problem too. The interesting thing is that, when you have two elected officials having to scrutinise an investment, that reduces the chance of someone doing something awry. In order to have something dodgy go through, you’d need a degree of collusion. There’s a protection there in having two Ministers; with having just one Minister who can issue a directive letter, that’s a risk. I don’t think it’s a risk we ought to be taking.
Although this bill, on the lid, says it’s going to promote efficiency, it’s going to promote foreign investment, and it’s still going to test that investment, in fact there is a whole series of risks inherent in what this Government has put into this legislation. For that reason, the Labour Party opposes this bill.
NANCY LU (National): Of course I commend this bill to the House, because we are building New Zealand’s future.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hate to deprive the House of an “‘I support this bill’ and then sit down” speech from the members Opposite, but alas, I have to deprive the House of that—
Tim Costley: I’m going to buy you an iron for Christmas.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Buy a what? I’d love a Christmas present from you.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who do you think is listening to you?
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, nobody’s listening, but it doesn’t matter. This is the thing, right? We have all sorts of members—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I am listening.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: That’s right—that’s right. The most important person is listening, and that’s enough for me, Mr Speaker. Anyway—on to the bill. The Green Party of Aotearoa opposes this bill because we have really serious concerns that it repeals the essential environmental, cultural, and public benefit tests that are really important if you actually want to consider overseas investment in this country.
We do know there is value in overseas capital; we do know there is value in bringing skills, bringing important talents, and bringing important things that New Zealand doesn’t currently have so that it can be used to serve the country. My question is: why can’t they go through the same process that migrants have to go through? It’s actually quite hard to be able to migrate to this country—it is rightfully seen as a privilege—and there’s a lot of hoops you actually have to jump through, and there’s a lot of payment and tests you have to go through to have the privilege of coming here and putting your labour and service to this country. Why do we not apply the same logic to capital? If it’s really important to have people here who do valued work at the nursing homes, at the hospitals, and at the dairy farms, but we make it so hard for them, it’s only really fair that we actually apply the same tests—that we apply the same logic—to the potential of capital. If the members opposite wanted to suggest a like-for-like liberalisation of labour and capital rules coming here, perhaps something in the shape of a deal could be reached here. The reality is that we should apply the same standards when it comes to capital that we do apply for labour.
I’ve heard many members on these Opposition benches try to convince New Zealand First to change their mind at the last minute and vote against this legislation. I think we’ll actually find that when it comes to the election next year, or maybe as soon as two weeks from now, that New Zealand First will always have been against this bill—just like they were always against the—
Rachel Boyack: Regulatory Standards Bill.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: That’s right, the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Hon Casey Costello said, “We have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House”, but then, two weeks later—
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Two days.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Two days—sorry. Two days later, the Rt Hon Winston Peters announced that, actually, they were very much against it and that they were going to go to the election campaigning to repeal it—
Andy Foster: You just don’t understand the system, Francisco.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I anticipate that we’ll actually see—I understand the system perfectly well, Mr Foster. This is why I’m, in fact, throwing too many slurs down New Zealand First’s way, because we might be sharing the benches opposite some time next year. I don’t want to be offending my potential Government colleagues here.
Todd Stephenson: He’s delirious!
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Ha, ha! Well, we’re all delirious here—it’s 11.15 p.m. I’ll return to the concerns that we have about this bill. It weakens oversight of sensitive land, forestry, and water resources. It has the potential to centralise power and create even more centralisation in the heart of this Government. We have seen an over-reliance on ministerial decision-making during this term of Government. That’s good if you become a Minister, but my message—and I think the Hon Damien O’Connor was correct in trying to warn the members opposite—is that it’s all very well when you have a Minister from your side making these decisions, but what happens when you have Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan calling these shots next year? You have to think about what happens when you centralise power. In conclusion, we oppose this bill. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill
Recommittal
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be recommitted immediately to consider Amendment Paper 472 in my name.
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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I declare the House in committee for consideration of Amendment Paper 472.
In Committee
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good evening, members, on Tuesday, 9 December. Members, the House is in committee. The House has resolved to recommit the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill to the committee of the whole House to consider the Minister’s amendments to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 472. This is a limited debate, and all contributions must be relevant to the proposed amendments. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 472 be agreed to.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The amendments inadvertently agreed to by the committee of the whole House increased the number of High Court judges from 55 full-time equivalents to a minimum of 60 full-time equivalents and a maximum of 65 full-time equivalents. Any decision to increase the statutory cap has a fiscal impact, as cap increases automatically create the authority to pay judicial salaries up to the level of the cap at the rate set by the Remuneration Authority. Judicial salaries are not the only consideration; we need to ensure appropriate physical facilities, courtrooms, and judges’ chambers, etc.
A minimum number of judges is not necessary or desirable. Once a judge is appointed, they stay in office until retirement. In effect, appointments up to a maximum cap are likely to occur in practice, and it’s unlikely that appointments would fall below a minimum. If a minimum number is included, there’s a risk of inadvertently breaching the law if the number of judges dips below the minimum for any unforeseen reason, such as a judge passing away while in office or resigning with immediate effect.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The irony that here we are—I think the Hon Chris Bishop described this as a snafu—I won’t spell out the meaning of that; I might be breaching some Standing Orders—it’s a mistake. But the irony is the symbolism of it, the symbolism of the fact that we are here at the end of a Friday evening—oh no, sorry, it’s a Tuesday evening, isn’t it!—after four days of quite intense legislation and in urgency, to fix a mistake that was made after the last intense period of urgency, which again shows the problem with considering very serious matters under urgency, ill-prepared. I think the irony, the symbolism, of this is that a lot of the legislation that has gone through in the last four days, and a lot of the legislation has gone through in the last year, will be exactly the same.
Now, Madam Speaker, you’re looking at me quizzically—
Hon Members: Madam Chair!
GREG O’CONNOR: —saying, “What is the irony of it?”
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, actually, I just want to interrupt the member—not because of anything the member’s doing, but we ended up in this predicament, as the member said, at the last urgency motion because people weren’t listening. Actually, people are not listening. So I call on Greg O’Connor to carry on with his speech.
GREG O’CONNOR: Yeah, well, perhaps those voices were missing when the bill was being voted on last time, so perhaps they maybe are making up for their silence at that time.
But anyway, Madam Speaker—the symbolism that we’re fixing this now. I will be bringing forward two amendments to the Minister of Justice’s Amendment Paper 472—
Hon Member: The Deputy Speaker’s a bit confused.
GREG O’CONNOR: —that I’ll be speaking to, which now—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He knows I’m the Chair; it’s just late at night.
GREG O’CONNOR: Madam Chair, there is a lot of noise coming from the opposite side. If they were just to be a little quiet, they may learn something, because, clearly, they made a mistake last time. If you listen, you may prevent yourself from making the same mistake next time—again, the danger of rushed urgency.
But, perhaps, Madam Speaker, maybe it wasn’t a mistake.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The problem, Mr O’Connor—
GREG O’CONNOR: Sorry—Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. Yay!
GREG O’CONNOR: Perhaps, Madam Chair—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We solved the problem.
GREG O’CONNOR: Perhaps it wasn’t, maybe, a snafu, maybe it wasn’t a mistake. Perhaps there was just a slight bit of enlightenment crept in into that ocean of darkness, that ocean of backward legislation that we’ve seen. Again, the symbolism, the mistakes—because the mistakes, the snafus, that have been made in a lot of legislation will be back here, being fixed over the next several years.
But back to my amendment.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That would be a good idea, thank you.
GREG O’CONNOR: What I’m hoping is that the same enlightenment—and let’s think, we’re near Christmas. Let’s maybe think that this was not a snafu at all, maybe just a little bit of enlightenment did come through on the Government benches. Maybe it was Greg Fleming, who’s over with the Dalai Lama at the moment. Maybe with the enlightenment he’s learning there, some of that osmosed back here again.
The amendments that I’m presenting here today are actually to ensure that the another snafu is not made, and that the Minister’s amendment doesn’t end up with the reduced number, and a shortage of, judges that clearly has brought about the need for this amendment in the first place. One of my amendments talks of actually a range of judges from 60 to 69. Now, 69 might sound like a quite a large number, but if we applied the proportionality of the population growth since the last time we increased the number of judges, which was in 1984—sorry, it was actually in 2004—it’s a 30 percent population increase. That is why we would now need 69 judges at least.
Of course, there is a need for those judges. If you listen to Justice Winkelmann, in her report, she made it clear about the pressure the courts are under. In fact, Douglas Brown, one of the High Court barristers, also talked about the fact that two judges will make very little difference to what is required to make the court work.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Greg O’Connor.
GREG O'CONNOR: So, Madam Speaker, speaking to my second amendment—Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I did call you again.
GREG O’CONNOR: Speaking to my second amendment—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Chair.
GREG O’CONNOR: —if that proves too much, perhaps, for the Minister, perhaps we could go to 65, which is my second amendment. We could perhaps go to 65, a compromise—again, because we’re getting near Christmas, a compromise mightn’t be a bad idea.
We do need more judges. As I said in my second reading speech, we look at crime statistics—crime statistics can be manipulated all sorts of ways. Every Government is guilty of this—bringing forward the stats, if this is down, just by changing categories; there’s various ways it can be done. But one thing you can’t hide is the bodies. If we have a look at the crime stats but we actually have a look at the category A offences, which are murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter, they are going up. They now represent 76 percent of new cases. So whatever else is happening in the crime sector, whatever helps in the criminal statistics sector, have a look for where the bodies are.
The other place that the amount of work that’s being required, the work load in the High Court, is actually also in the insolvency area—of course, as well as the bodies of people that have been left around, the bodies of a lot of companies that are going broke at record levels. That is being also reflected in the insolvency numbers that have being heard by High Court judges. Right now, we’re very short of High Court judges, not only by two—in fact, as I say, statistically, we could go to 69. My second amendment says let’s have a compromise, let’s make it up to 65—it doesn’t mean we have to have 65. It may be when we get this high, when we get the spike, in murders and manslaughters that we have at the moment, we can actually increase the number of judges, and then not replace retiring judges or judges who leave the profession for any reason.
So, Madam Speaker—Madam Chair—here we are. I’m now going to hope that same enlightenment—and we’ll say it was enlightenment that we saw—that saw the Government members vote for my last amendment not three weeks ago, perhaps that same enlightenment can now permeate through and we’ll see that vote. So I recommend that my two amendments be voted on, or at least one of them, then we will end up with a situation—an enlightened look at the justice system from across the floor, and we will end up where we need to be, in this case. So I’m recommending those two amendments.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan because he needs some practise in speaking to Amendment Papers!
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I only have two amendments, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And I know how brief you can be.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I actually wanted to check with you, Madam Chair. I want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Greg O’Connor, and particularly the previous amendment that has had the committee’s support, in terms of increasing the number of judges to 65. But I want to check with a couple of quick-fire questions, if that’s OK, to the Minister of Justice.
I guess the first question is, when that amendment was voted on, did the Minister actually consider just accepting the amendment because it’s something that we know, and the High Court judges and the Chief Supreme Court Judge Dame Helen Winkelmann has said, that we need 25 percent more judges because of the increase in our population? So did the Minister actually consider to simply keep the number of judges to 65?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes, we considered it and we decided not to.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you for that response, Minister.
The second question is: the Minister of Justice has mentioned in terms of the physical aspect—I do understand that judges are a huge imposition in terms of the budget. But, again, is that something that the Minister has considered as part of a supplementary budget, to bring up the 65, again, considering the need that is asked by the Minister? Has the Minister considered putting in a supplementary budget here for that?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): No.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): OK. So if the Minister of Justice considered it but didn’t consider putting in a supplementary budget, then what was the decision-making process for the Minister to bring it back here, then? Because if the Minister—OK, actually, another good question for that. Did the Minister have a conversation with the Minister of Finance to see if there’s any wiggle room on the Budget for us to have five more judges, which is much needed? No? OK. I see that the Minister has decided not to respond to that question. That’s fine. I can just keep on asking a few more questions and then go on to my amendments, understanding that the Minister has also had a very long day yesterday. But, as people can see, I still think that we are having a great time and I’m still super energetic. So I think we can go on for another day if we really want.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not with the scope—not with the scope.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Not with the scope. OK.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not another day.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: This is a test to see how far I can stretch this particular scope.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not much further.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: But, anyway, I do want to speak to my amendment. So I guess the first thing is that when we are looking at this, I do actually want to acknowledge—I think it was the original Amendment Paper 442, that the Minister put forward, that increases the judges. Because in the original judicature bill, it was 55 to 57. Then the Minister has put in—and it’s something that I think we supported as well, that brought it up to 60. So, clearly, the budgetary consideration was there to bring it up from 57 to 60. So it is disappointing, I guess, in some ways, that the Minister has decided not to do that.
But I do think that my amendment, very much like the previous speaker, Greg O’Connor, has mentioned, is something that is much needed. So rather than the compromise that Greg O’Connor’s amendment made, I actually just said that, you know, we should just go back and replace 60 with 69, and in the amendment to clause 4(2), replace 59.5 with 68.5, because this is something that the court themselves has asked for. We are going to be seeing an increased number of cases, etc., particularly going up to the higher courts. I feel like some of the bills that have been passed this week might see an increase in the capacity or the need for the higher courts, particularly the High Court. So I do think that it’s important for the Minister to consider our amendments, either mine or Greg O’Connor’s.
My second amendment is actually just to kind of give a little bit of leeway in understanding that the Minister did say that the budgetary implication was a consideration. So, in that case, let’s not simply go all the way in the first year. So my second amendment is that we should be looking at maybe 65 on the day of the commencement date, and maybe on the first anniversary of the commencement date, bringing it up to 69. Then in the amended clause 4(2), we’re looking at .5 less than that, noting that when we’re looking at full-time equivalents (FTEs) and distribution of judges, that we’re not going to get a perfect number of FTEs at 60 or 65 or, indeed, 69. So the second part of the amendment is to replace 59.5 with 64.5 on the day of the commencement date, and 68.5 on the first anniversary of the commencement date. So I think both of those two amendment papers, as well as Greg O’Connor’s amendment, deserve some attention from the Minister.
But I guess the other question I have finally for the Minister is: if the Minister isn’t going to accept any of our amendments, I do wonder what is the Minister going to say to the judges and the judiciary system, who obviously now has been very excited by the prospect of having their number of judges increased to 65, just to have their Christmas present being taken away from them as a result of the Amendment Paper 472?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I will say, “Thank you for your service to the country” to the judges.
TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): 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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Greg O’Connor’s tabled amendments to the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 472, relating to increasing the maximum number of High Court judges to 65, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Greg O’Connor’s tabled amendments to the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 472, relating to increasing the number of High Court judges to between 60 and 69, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 472, relating to increasing the maximum number of High Court judges to 69, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 472, relating to increasing the maximum number of High Court judges in two stages, is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 472 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 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
SPEAKER: Thank you all for turning up.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. That concludes urgency. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 16 December.
The House adjourned at 11.40 p.m. (Friday)