Wednesday, 11 February 2026

Wednesday, 11 February 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker) (14:01): 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. Āmene.

[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.]

Debates

Climate Policies in Relation to NZ-UK Free-trade Agreement

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (14:01): Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, reporting that Ministers in the Government of the United Kingdom have asked members of the Government of New Zealand to explain climate policies in relation to our free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

The application was received by my office at 1.20 p.m. Standing Order 399(1) requires that an urgent debate application be lodged at least one hour before the House sits. Speakers may allow an application to be lodged later when it relates to a matter that occurs after 1 p.m. Nothing in the member’s application or attached authentication suggests that it relates to a matter that occurred after 1 p.m. Therefore, it is declined.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:02): Four petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:02):

Petition of Arthur Anae requesting that the House review the requirements for Pacific people to enter New Zealand and allow Pacific people to be treated in the same way as people from the 60-plus other countries who are eligible for New Zealand electronic travel authorities

petition of Hannah Shahin requesting that the House urge the Government to suspend diplomatic engagement with Iran

petition of Matt Youl requesting that the House urge the Government to collect suicide data about Pākehā as a specific group

petition of Wiremu Thomson requesting that the House require trust deeds to be lodged in a publicly viewable register.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered for presentation. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Foreign Affairs

Question No. 1

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (14:03) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he seen reports about how the Government should be responding to international developments?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (14:03): Yes. We live in the most challenging and complex international environment in the last 80 years. Every day, events occur somewhere in the world which are confounding, surprising, and even shocking for many New Zealanders. Some self-appointed experts think that the best way for New Zealand and the Government to respond to this environment is to loudly and stridently offer an instant reaction to the outrage of the day before getting all the facts. But we are running a Government here, not a global news commentary service, and our job is to promote the interests of New Zealanders in a prudent and active way, not to offer vein-popping virtue signalling in an effort to let off some steam and make ourselves feel superior. That’s something that the former leaders of the Labour Party and former New Zealand ambassadors to China could do well to remember. We don’t take lectures on foreign policy from has-been, irrelevant former pinko communists or from politicians who thought nothing of letting New Zealand’s national interest be torched by their inherent anti-Americanism.

Jamie Arbuckle: Supplementary.

Hon Willie Jackson: Could you elaborate on that a bit more?

SPEAKER: Mr—I won’t refer to a name. I won’t name the member. When everyone is quiet, Mr Arbuckle, please ask your supplementary.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are there any standards for ministerial questions now?

SPEAKER: Well, was that a point of order?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I can, if you like.

SPEAKER: No, I’d prefer you didn’t. I think, Mr Arbuckle, you can proceed with your supplementary.

Jamie Arbuckle: Would New Zealanders expect their Government to speak loudly on the international stage?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: New Zealanders expect their Government to look out for them. Our job is not to provide a running commentary about this or that action or outrage as some kind of vanity exercise. Our job is to promote our country’s interests when we can and defend them when we must. We choose to do this calmly and rationally, as realists via diplomacy. We pursue mutual interests and opportunities for the benefit of New Zealanders. That is not going to change, and it’s an approach appropriate to our chaotic and disruptive times. Many, if not all, the critics of the Government’s foreign policy are driven by the 24/7 news cycle. They demand we respond immediately to every perceived outrage, but to what end? We, in contrast, are driven by our assessments of how best to defend, grow, and strengthen New Zealand’s vital foreign policy interests.

Jamie Arbuckle: So how is the Government responding to events on the world stage?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Marvellous question. We have been pursuing a prudent, highly active foreign policy. Alongside the great work of other senior Ministers, we have spent over 200 days of this parliamentary term overseas, almost always travelling during the parliamentary recesses. We have been accentuating the role of our diplomacy in all of our bilateral engagements, learning from counterparts about their challenges, and expressing our values and our concerns wherever we go. This is true whether we are in Canberra, Washington, New York, Beijing, Brussels, London, Serbia, Cairo, or elsewhere. The Government has prioritised relationships in our own region. This term, we have visited every single Pacific Islands Forum country—every one. We have committed resources to seriously uplifting our relationship across South-east Asia and beyond. We have established a credible defence force to back up our words and other times and other expressions. While our critics want us to bang endlessly on a big drum about the latest day’s outrage, we prefer to promote the harmony of dialogue and the quiet feat of diplomacy to maintain and strengthen our regional and global relationships.

Jamie Arbuckle: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: I’ll just remind the House that questions are supposed to be relatively concise.

Jamie Arbuckle: How does the Government view the international system and the role of the United Nations?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: New Zealand has been a staunch supporter of the United Nations, going all the way back to Peter Fraser and the first Labour Government. That support is undiminished. Of course, New Zealand, as a small State, benefits from an international system with the United Nations as its core, but at the same time, we recognise that the United Nations has to change. It must return to its focus on the core of the United Nations charter, which is about peace and security, and it must be fit for purpose for the challenges facing its members in the 21st century.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Slow down.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The international system has become overgrown and it needs pruning. Well, I would slow down but you were complaining before about the answer being too long. Make up your mind, Chippy. You usually take an hour to change your mind, but this time you took only three seconds. Now, where was I before I was so rudely interrupted? The international system has become overgrown and it needs pruning. To that end, we are co-leading the reform of New York on UN mandates. We’re working constructively with Pacific nations and other partners to seriously reduce duplication, management costs, and to improve their focus and impact. We believe in the UN, but we want it and we’ve made countless speeches on their need to reform.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he adopted “we” as a pronoun?

SPEAKER: When a supplementary has been asked, the House is silent.

Jamie Arbuckle: Have you seen any reports on your travel in early 2025 to the Gulf region and North Asia?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes. Now, TVNZ ran a completely unhinged, unbalanced, and disgraceful story last night about this travel to two regions of great importance to New Zealand in both diplomatic and trade terms. This was a visit during which we met political leaders, including foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, China, and Mongolia—some fairly important countries in that list. To those most important political leaders, we talked about all aspects of New Zealand’s relations with North Asia and the Gulf, as well as a range of priorities and international issues, including the Middle East, and—you know what—today, about their support for our developments in Antarctica. Did TVNZ report any of this last night, despite us supplying them with all this information? Of course not. They don’t believe in balance and honesty and integrity. They believe in gratuitous hit jobs. They even mentioned the Parker fight in London. If they’d had the decency to ask me, I would have showed them receipts of me paying personally for me and my staff member, not the taxpayer, unlike you, you bludger.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:10) 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) (14:10): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why has his Government declined funding for the Tairāwhiti transition case, among other community-led climate adaptation and resilience projects?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s a question that would be best directed to the climate change Minister, but I’d just say this is a Government that is committed to actually doing the work in a bipartisan way around climate adaptation and, actually, all of us working together on a framework over the coming years, because it’s going to involve central government, local government, landowners, bankers, and insurers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he then commit to restarting said cross-party climate adaptation work, which has wound up several months ago, as we wrote to him requesting on 28 January?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, I think there was a very successful meeting last October, and I’m sure that work will continue.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he request that Cabinet restarts work on climate adaptation cost-sharing in light of recent climate-charged weather events and states of emergency instead of delaying that decision, as his Cabinet agreed to in October of last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in light of the first part of the question, the answer to that is that we haven’t stopped anything.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think that it is fair that under his current policy settings, the Government enables property buyouts for people left impacted by earthquakes but it is up to ad hoc Government decisions if they are instead impacted by climate-charged weather events?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said before, that’s why we need to have a bipartisan approach and a national climate adaptation framework, because, as we’ve said before, it’s not going to be feasible for central government to buy out all those properties. The burden share is going to be between central government, local government, homeowners, bankers, and insurers. It’s ongoing work.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can he say that his Government is committed to climate adaptation, as he has just said, yet he will not fund community-led adaptation programmes, has substantially delayed any decision making on cost-sharing programmes, won’t restart cross-party work on adaptation, and has cut flood protection funding by three quarters?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member, we have spent $200 million on strengthening stopbanks and flood protection, and I want to thank the Minister for the Regional Infrastructure Fund, who’s done a good job on that investment. Equally, we are building back roads with much stronger resilience. Just look at the Hawke’s Bay Expressway—I think it’s twice as strong as it was before we were rebuilding it.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader—Labour) (14:13) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:13): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders believe that paying a new gas tax to pay for a new gas power plant that might never produce a single megawatt of electricity will ever lower their power bills?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we discussed yesterday, we’re going to save average households about $50, according to the projections. We’re making an investment in a LNG import facility so we can lower power bills. If the member doesn’t support it, he wants higher power bills.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders have faith in his claim that his new gas tax will lower the cost of their power bills when the official advice his own Cabinet was presented with questioned whether any savings will ever be passed on to consumers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. That’s not what the advice said.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour that forcing households to subsidise gas through his new gas tax is, in fact, a levy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I haven’t seen the quote from the Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters that adding costs to electricity bills amounts to a new tax?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I haven’t seen those comments, but I can tell you that power bills are going down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with his Energy Minister’s own Cabinet Paper, which states that the liquefied natural gas facility will be paid for via a levy on electricity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There’s a charge charged to electricity companies as we discussed yesterday, but the great thing is there’s a saving to power bills for every single consumer in this country. And for that member to talk about energy policy having banned the oil and gas ban; having had a Lake Onslow project that was $17 billion in 2037, costing $8,000 a household; left New Zealand high and dry with $800 per megawatt-hour prices—this is shameful policy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it a tax, a levy, a fee, or a charge?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What it is is lower power bills for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee, therefore, that the increased cost on electricity that his Government is imposing will not be passed on to consumers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there won’t be a higher cost.

Finance

Question No. 4

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (14:15) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcement has she made relating to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:16): Today, I announced an independent review into the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy response to the COVID19 pandemic. The purpose of the review is to learn from experience so that future shocks can be navigated in the best possible way. The review will focus on decisions by the Monetary Policy Committee and the analysis provided by the Reserve Bank to support those decisions.

Carl Bates: Why is it important to learn from the monetary policy choices made in response to the pandemic?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Reserve Bank took unprecedented action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This included reducing the official cash rate to 0.25 percent and using additional monetary policy tools significantly, including the Large Scale Asset Purchase (LSAP) programme, sometimes colloquially referred to as “money printing”. These actions, of course, did help preserve jobs and keep businesses afloat. At the same time, the indirect impacts included decades-high inflation, losses of about $10.3 billion on the LSAP programme, and a spike in house prices as much as 30 percent in one year. It is important that independent eyes are cast over these decisions to ensure the best decisions are made in future major events. Those who do not learn the lessons of history, colleagues, are doomed to repeat them.

Carl Bates: Who has been appointed to conduct the review?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Athanasios Orphanides and David Archer have been appointed to conduct the review. Mr Orphanides is a former governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus and member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, and a Professor of the Practice, Global Economics and Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr Archer is a former Reserve Bank assistant governor and former head of the Central Banking Studies Unit at the Bank for International Settlements. I took extensive advice from Treasury on who would have the suitable qualifications and experience to conduct this independent review. Their review will be independent, which means that the conclusions found can be objective and constructive.

Carl Bates: Will the review look at the fiscal policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, not specifically. However, the review will consider whether the Monetary Policy Committee and the Treasury were effectively sharing information and what improvements could be made to the framework and operation of the coordination of monetary and fiscal policy. Which is to say that if you’ve got a lot of spending happening on one side and a lot of money printing happening on the other side, you need to consider how that comes together. It is important because loose fiscal policy through out-of-control spending can of course work against monetary policy objectives. For example, when the Reserve Bank is raising interest rates to bring down high inflation, expansionary fiscal policy can work counter to that. Sadly, New Zealanders have recently experienced the pain of that as inflation soared under the previous Government, but of course it continued spending. This Government is getting spending under control and has supported the Reserve Bank to bring inflation down, and that is good news for every Kiwi household.

Prime Minister

Question No. 5

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:19) 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) (14:20): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he want to see more or less protection for the environment under the new resource management system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we want is more economic growth.

Hon Marama Davidson: What aspects of his proposed resource management reforms would hold multinational companies like Veolia to account for the tens of millions of litres of human waste spewing into Wellington’s south coast every day?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s an issue, as the member will be aware, for Wellington City Council to answer. We are supporting and doing everything we can to help them with an independent review and any other analysis we can help with, but that’s ultimately a council call.

SPEAKER: I’d just make it clear that members that interrupt a question being asked will be asked to leave the House.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is his Minister for resource management reform correct that under the new proposed resource management bills, offshore forestry companies could possibly be compensated if communities like Tairāwhiti wanted to protect their homes and rivers from forestry slash with environmental rules?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. This is a set of Resource Management Act bills that are designed to simplify the New Zealand system so that we can get on and get things done and built. We expect 50 percent less consents—we want to get things done and built in this country. We are accelerating economic growth, and we will also support our environment as well.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why should New Zealanders pay polluters not to pollute?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d reject the premise of the question. What we’re doing is we’re accelerating economic growth so we can make New Zealand wealthier and lift the living standards of every single Kiwi.

Hon David Seymour: Will the new resource management laws make, for example, it easier for a Green Party council to consent the infrastructure to keep the sewage out of the sea?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely; that’s the point. Irrespective of the political flavour of a city council, we want them to be able to get on and get things done.

Finance

Question No. 6

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:22) to the Minister of Finance: Is a 15-year high in liquidations one of her “signs of a growing economy”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:22): No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is a 50 percent increase in hospitality liquidations a sign of a growing economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m pleased to report that I spoke with a representative from Hospitality New Zealand yesterday, who said that things are feeling so much better in the hospitality sector. With many new bars and cafes being created, the sector is extraordinarily grateful to Minister Louise Upston for her work on events boost; her work to support the tourism industry and the tourists who are attending cafes and restaurants; and they’re also grateful for lower interest rates, which has seen consumer confidence increase and more people going out for a meal or a drink.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the liquidation of 751 construction companies a sign of an economy that is growing?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, but what has been traversed in this House, frequently, is that one of the things construction companies are most sensitive to is interest rates, because construction projects are often debt financed and whether or not projects can proceed will depend on interest rates. Unfortunately, construction companies have found it very difficult during a period of high interest—another reason why we stand very strongly on our record of supporting the Reserve Bank to have lower interest rates than would otherwise be the case.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are 156,000 children living in material hardship, as reported by the Salvation Army, a sign of a growing economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. However, what I would say is that there would be more children who would be experiencing material hardship if it were not for this Government’s decisive measures to increase Working for Families payments to low and middle income households, to provide tax relief to working families, to support the FamilyBoost tax credit for those with children in early childhood education, and, most importantly to me—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Rare and reasonable for interjections, not continued commentary in the form of barrage like that. Carry on.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —our work to take children who were living in squalid motel rooms out of those motel rooms and put them into warm, dry State houses.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are 42,000 more people unemployed since she took office a sign of a growing economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, but I encourage the member to go back and look at the pre-election fiscal update that her predecessor, Grant Robertson, published, which forecast that this would occur as a result of a period of high inflation and high interest rates. Boy, oh boy, are we working hard as a team to drive job creation and get that unemployment number down. I want to congratulate Ministers Bishop and Shane Jones for the nine projects that are advancing under the fast-track projects—which will literally support thousands of jobs—and again say what a shame it is that that member didn’t win the argument in her caucus that job creation is more important than cuddling up to the Greens.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she admit that what the economy really needs to start improving is just one person—her—to lose her job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, things from Barbara Edmonds have taken a turn for the worse, and I can confirm for her that I take responsibility for fixing the mess her predecessor left me, and I am supported by an extraordinary team of Ministers who are on that case.

Agriculture

Question No. 7

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (14:26) to the Minister of Agriculture: How do New Zealand sheep farmers contribute to the economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:26): In so many ways. Last year, lamb exports exceeded $4 billion for the first time, with almost 300,000 tonnes exported. That’s about 3 billion lamb cutlets, less what members ate on the lawn today, or about $2,000 for every New Zealand household. We heard on The Country, live with Jamie Mackay, live on the Speaker’s lawn, that Sunday is National Lamb Day and marks the beginning of New Zealand’s multibillion-dollar red meat export industry. That first shipment of sheep meat 144 years ago established our global reputation for high-quality meat exports. This week, it’s fitting we acknowledge the generations of farmers, processors, and exporters whose dedication has made New Zealand a world leader in primary food production and whose efforts continue to underpin our export performance.

Suze Redmayne: What contribution has the food and fibre sector made to New Zealand’s export performance?

Hon TODD McCLAY: For the first time ever, New Zealand’s annual exports have exceeded $80 billion. More than 75 percent of that is driven by the food and fibre sector, signalling the strong global demand for New Zealand’s trusted, high-value products. Our sheep farmers, processors, and exporters delivered an exceptional result last year, with lamb exports up 30 percent and mutton exports up 43 percent from the previous year. This growth exceeded that of other primary exports. It is clear that agriculture is the backbone of our economy. This important export milestone demonstrates the ongoing international demand for high-quality New Zealand products. When rural New Zealand does well, so does all of New Zealand.

Suze Redmayne: How is the Government continuing to support farmers and exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We’re making it easier to farm by cutting red tape, including replacing the Resource Management Act, delivering sensible freshwater farm plans, investing in the health and wellbeing of rural New Zealand, and working closely with farmers, not against them. We’re also backing exporters with practical action, removing barriers to trade, leading more trade missions, and opening preferential access to new markets. As an example, since the EU fair-trade agreement entered into force in May 2024, exports have grown from New Zealand by $2 billion. Since the UAE free-trade agreement entered into force in August of last year, we’ve seen a 38 percent increase in exports. We’ve concluded a deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council and, most notably, concluded negotiations with India. With a population of 1.4 billion people, as with many other exporters, lamb farmers will see a tariff rate fall from 33 percent to 0 on day one, which is good for red meat consumers in India.

Suze Redmayne: What does the latest data tell us about the strength of New Zealand’s food and fibre sector overall?

Hon TODD McCLAY: It shows a sector that is world leading and continues to reach new heights on the international stage, on behalf of all New Zealanders. Surpassing $80 billion in total exports for the first time is a milestone driven largely by the New Zealand food and fibre sector, our farmers, and growers. Demand remains strong across key markets, reflecting the quality of New Zealand production and the hard work of those farmers and growers. This year, as we celebrate 144 years since that first shipment of lamb left our shores, I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking our farmers and growers for their hard work and dedication.

Energy

Question No. 8

SPEAKER (14:30): Before I call the member, can I just say I thought very carefully about this particular question when it was considered this morning. I would simply say that the material that was provided was somewhat thin in its verification of the terminology used in the question. Because someone says something doesn’t make necessarily the case. It is always the Opposition’s desire—I understand this fully—to name or brand a particular initiative in a particular way. It is the Government’s job to refute that, and therefore the question was able to stand.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (14:31) to the Minister for Energy: Is it correct that gas users won’t pay the reported “gas tax” but households and businesses that use electricity will?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy) (14:31): No, the levy is on the electricity sector; LNG is a backup for electricity supply in dry years. Having an LNG terminal will lower power prices for businesses and households.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will gas users pay a levy?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As I have answered in my primary question, the levy is on the electricity sector, because LNG is a backup for the electricity supply in dry years.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Was the Prime Minister wrong to refer to the reported “gas tax” as a charge electricity companies will pay when his cost recovery impact statement made clear that these charges will likely be passed on to consumers via their monthly power bills?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The Prime Minister is never wrong, but what he also said is that the outcome of this policy announcement will be to lower power prices.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is the Prime Minister correct when he said in question time today, “Well, there won’t be … higher cost.”, or was he correct in his Cabinet paper when he said overreliance on LNG would link domestic gas prices to global markets, increasing costs for consumers?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The Prime Minister was correct, and I will help the member by reading the full quote that officials provided to Cabinet, which ends with saying that it is expected to be “more than offset by lower electricity prices.”

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Any time.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What are the specific market dynamics he is referring to in his Cabinet paper, that states “the extent to which this downward pressure actually results in a reduction in electricity bills will depend on a range of market dynamics.”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: In reference to the member’s question, ultimately the policy outcome from an LNG terminal will be to lower power prices. The reality of power prices is that they are subject to international factors because it is a market place, but at the end of the day, households and businesses can have certainty that their power prices will reduce.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order. I asked a very straight and very direct question, asking what the specific market dynamics were that were referred to in a Cabinet paper. The Minister did not address that question; he did not tell us what those market dynamics were.

SPEAKER: Well, I heard him talk about international pricing.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No—would you like me to repeat it?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t want you to repeat it because I heard the answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he intends to follow the Megan Woods solution to supply side by shutting the source of supply down and leaving it open to the vagaries of the international market, namely Marsden Point?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No, but I do want to refer the member to feedback from Business New Zealand today which says that the procurement of an LNG terminal has the potential to lower extreme electricity prices that New Zealand faces in dry years.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Megan Woods.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Hon Dr Megan Woods: On what date will he—

SPEAKER: Sorry; she may have forgotten who she was.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Well, I’ll remind you, Mr Speaker. On what date will he release the modelling that sits behind the reported savings?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The Cabinet paper that includes a full range of advice that Cabinet considered was actually released yesterday.

Building and Construction

Question No. 9

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (14:35) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress, if any, has been made in approving overseas building products for use in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (14:35): This week the Government recognised the second tranche of overseas building products certified under the reputable Australian WaterMark scheme, issuing 54 recognition notices covering nearly 40,000 products. This builds on the first round in October of last year, which made it easier to bring more than 90,000 WaterMark-approved products to market, including tapware, water service products, and sanitary and stormwater drainage products.

Greg Fleming: How will easier access to a broader range of building products benefit New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS PENK: This new pipeline of products features materials that are already tried and tested in Australia and are familiar to many Kiwi tradies. Until now, though, builders and designers have to individually prove each product met the building code when seeking consent. Rather than accessing products one by one, the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) can now recognise tens of thousands at once. Building consent authorities must accept them as compliant, thereby cutting red tape costs and delays in their usage.

Greg Fleming: Are the overseas building products entering the New Zealand market meeting high quality standards?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Before any product can be recognised, MBIE undertakes a clear two-step assessment. Number one: it ensures the overseas certification scheme itself is robust, accredited and comparable to New Zealand’s system; second, it confirms that there’s sufficient evidence that the products meet the requirements of the New Zealand building code. MBIE also retains strong powers under the Building Act to investigate products, issue warnings or bans, and respond to complaints about false or misleading claims. As a result, Kiwis can be confident that the products now being made more readily available are well made, high performing, and tested against rigorous international standards.

Greg Fleming: Can Kiwis expect to see more overseas building products become available?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Why, yes; WaterMark is just the beginning, and as MBIE continues to actively review overseas building products under the new law, tradies and homeowners can expect steadily increasing access to a wider range of essential materials—[Interruption] my friend says that we’ve turned on the tap, and he’s not wrong—alongside the plumbing and drainage products already approved, including plasterboard, cladding, windows, and doors. Our reforms to expand access to building products are already delivering real results and will help strengthen the New Zealand construction sector for decades to come.

Children

Question No. 10

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (14:38) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding partnerships between Oranga Tamariki and community organisations?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (14:38): Last week in Whangarei, I attended the launch of Tama-Āriki, a new prototype between Oranga Tamariki and Tai Timu Tai Pari, a collective of three Māori NGOs. The prototype expands on the work that Tai Timu Tai Pari has already been doing with Oranga Tamariki in supporting the triaging of reports of concern across three sites in the region, and will see the establishment of a community hub. The hub will provide a physical space to triage reports of concern and community-based referrals and will help families navigate a range of services which will ultimately ensure the safety and wellbeing of children and young people.

Cameron Luxton: What other partnerships does Oranga Tamariki have with community organisations?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki currently has 10 strategic partnerships under section 7 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. Despite claims at the time, the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Act did not mean the end of strategic partnerships between Oranga Tamariki, iwi, and Māori. I’ve always been committed to the idea of Oranga Tamariki working alongside those on the ground who have solutions and are enabling communities to develop and deliver approaches that work best for their area. We know that the top-down and one-size-fits-all approach from Wellington is not the solution and we are about empowering people and communities to be able to choose for themselves and have real self-determination.

Cameron Luxton: What are her aspirations for these partnerships?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: My aspiration is that more and more of these partnerships will develop over time and that the existing ones will continue to be strengthened and expanded as capacity and capability grows. Each of these will be unique and dependent on the needs of the local communities, children, and their families. I want to see Oranga Tamariki, through their enabling communities programme, test new initiatives and approaches for supporting children and young people within their own communities. In some cases, this will even involve the formal decision-making powers currently held by Oranga Tamariki being transferred to the community partners where this is going to result in better outcomes for our young people.

Cameron Luxton: What is the Minister’s response to people who say that there has been a decline in trust in the relationships between Oranga Tamariki and Māori communities?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Since becoming the Minister for Children, I’ve been up and down the country meeting not only with Oranga Tamariki front line staff, but with the community social service providers including iwi, hapū, and Māori providers that Oranga Tamariki work with. I’ve been building up those relationships alongside Oranga Tamariki and we’re working through new agreements across the country, like the one with Tai Timu Tai Pari in the Whangārei and Te Tai Tokerau area. Even in the last week, while at Waitangi I had many productive conversations with a number of representatives from various iwi and hapū who are excited about the opportunities to work with Oranga Tamariki in genuine partnership and take the lead in delivering better outcomes. I want to acknowledge these partners and communities, as well as the staff involved in this complex but vital work to ensure we have a system that truly puts the children first.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 11

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:41) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does the Minister stand by her statement, “This Government is focussed on helping more Kiwis into work and giving them greater opportunities”, and, if so, where is that reflected in the latest unemployment stats that show that unemployment is at a 10-year high?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:42): Yes. The labour market figures for the December quarter, released last week, show an additional 15,000 people in work, and, positively, the total hours worked, the number of people actively seeking work, the number of job advertisements, and the hiring intentions of employers have also increased. The labour force participation rate has also increased for the first time since March 2024. During the early stages of a labour market recovery, participation typically increases before unemployment begins to fall as more people enter the labour market and start looking for work. We know the unemployment rate is always one of the last things to come right after a recession, but we are seeing positive signs of a growing economy.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask the Minister how many Māori are currently unemployed, and what are the greater opportunities, as she calls it, that Māori are receiving?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I’ve said, there are some really positive signs in terms of the economy turning. Let me give you just one example: the latest filled jobs data shows that the strongest annual growth is in the hospitality sector with jobs up 19 percent compared with the same quarter last year. During labour market downturns, hospitality is one of the first sectors to show signs of recovery as demand in this industry tends to respond quickly when consumer spending picks up. I know, in terms of the growth in tourism, hospitality is directly connected to the growth in opportunities for Māori employment, and I look forward to seeing those numbers increase.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she agree with the Salvation Army State of the Nation Report that, under her watch, the number of unemployed people continues to rise, disproportionately impacting Māori, Pasifika, and disabled people, and, if so, what is she doing to address the mess that she has created?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We know that the last five years have been challenging for New Zealanders. We saw the unemployment rate start to rise in March 2021. So I accept for many families it has been challenging and continues to be challenging. We do know that certain groups in our population are disproportionately affected. That’s why I’m really encouraged by the fact that we are now seeing total hours worked increase by a percent over the last quarter, which is the second consecutive rise after an increase in September 2025. We’re also seeing work exits from benefit continuing to rise despite there being some challenging circumstances with 83,532 people exiting a main benefit into work in the last year.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ll ask it again. The question is—

SPEAKER: No, no, no—just make your point.

Hon Willie Jackson: OK. I talked about Māori, Pasifika, and disabled, and I don’t believe the Minister addressed any of those groups.

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister certainly addressed the hours that are worked by people. If the Minister wants to, I’ll ask the Minister to perhaps respond in a way that addresses some of those aspects.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Speaker, I did. I said that certain groups of the population, including Māori, Pasifika, and disabled, are disproportionately affected when we have unemployment rates, and I would add that, actually, in terms of the pre-election fiscal update, unemployment is exactly where it was meant to be.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether she’s got a view on the fact that if you blow out the national debt by $92 billion, you’re likely to have problems with unemployment in the ensuing years, and it’ll be a most difficult problem to get on top of?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That’s why I said that unemployment has been rising since March 2021. Our Government has been dealing head on with the challenges that we inherited, and we haven’t shied away from it. We are really clear about the opportunities that employment brings. That’s why we are focused on growing the economy and providing new employment opportunities, whether it’s in areas like mining, tourism and hospitality, or building and construction—or those who are working in farming and growing our wonderful sheep.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister take any—any—responsibility for the increase in jobseeker numbers, given that the Minister’s target for having 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit is now completely off the track, and it is worse now, since the Minister came into office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I’ve said, unemployment has been rising since March 2021 and we have confronted the challenge head on. That’s why I’m really proud to see that the team at the Ministry of Social Development are working very differently, in a far more active way and very intensively, with some groups of jobseekers, and it’s no surprise to me that despite challenging economic times, we’ve seen 83,532 people exit benefit into work in the last year alone.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she agree with the State of the Nation Report that was released today that said that since 2023, the average amount of hardship payments has reduced, making it even harder for jobseekers and those on a benefit to make ends meet?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as one of my colleagues traversed before, one of the challenges when we have the rates of unemployment that we have had is that families do it tough, and we fully accept that they have been. Our focus is on ensuring that families have the opportunity to be in employment to take up the opportunities that exist in this great country of ours. Unlike the other side, we’re not willing to sit back and let people rot on welfare. We are very active in supporting them into work, which improves their opportunities and reduces hardship.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, to—

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Government planning on helping the Māori Party into work, or is that just the Labour Party’s position?

SPEAKER: The Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister, does she think it’s helpful that members of her own Government have described workers as “losers” and “bottom feeders” when it is her and her Government that are making things worse, not better?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I refute the comments that that member made. Anyone who has followed any of what has happened over the last five years knows exactly what happens when there is wasteful spending, high Government debt, high inflation, and high interest rates. It leads to a recession, and people lose their jobs. Our side is fixing it.

Transport

Question No. 12

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (14:49) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has the Minister made about roading in Canterbury?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (14:49): On Sunday, along with Waitaki MP and local boy Miles Anderson, we announced that work to replace State Highway 82’s existing Waihao North River and Elephant Hill Stream Bridges was under way. These two South Canterbury bridges are both more than a century old now and it’s actually more cost-effective to replace them than to continue paying for maintenance. We are investing $14 million in the Waihao North River Bridge replacement, and $5.7 million in the new Elephant Hill Stream Bridge. These bridge replacements are part of our Government’s plan to fix the basics when it comes to roading infrastructure and build the future for a resilient and thriving South Canterbury.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other announcements has the Minister made about roading in the Canterbury region?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: There’s good news here as well. The NZ Transport Agency has signed a contract with Fletcher Construction for the construction of the second Ashburton bridge, aka “Brown’s Bridge”. They’ll progress detailed designs so construction can kick off next month. We’ve also confirmed $38.5 million to replace the earthquake-damaged Pages Road bridge in Christchurch. This is an important project for the people of New Brighton, South Shore, and the greater Christchurch area. Geotech work is well under way on the State Highway 1 Belfast to Pegasus motorway and the Woodend Bypass project. This road of national significance will save up to 10 minutes at peak time and is also expected to reduce traffic through Woodend from 21,000 vehicles per day down to 8,000. Work on Brougham Street continues. The Rolleston flyover project is under way, with significant works at the Burnham end of State Highway 1. Finally, I’m aware that Minister Patterson recently announced $2.8 million to upgrade the Timaru Showgrounds intersection, an investment which I’m told was very well received by the local MP.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Where else in the South Island has the Government invested in roading?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Many more places. We’ve announced $23 million for a range of high-priority roading corridors in the South Island to protect against natural disasters. These include State Highway 60 Takaka Hill, State Highway 94 Milford Road Sound to Te Anau Downs, State Highway 6 Cromwell to Frankton and Frankton to Kingston, and the Hope Saddle to State Highway 65 Higgins Bluff. Last year, we announced $72.6 million of funding to progress design, consenting, and procurement activities for the Hope Bypass in sunny and ambitious Nelson, and at the end of last year, we announced $7 million in funding to progress the State Highway 6 Epitaph landslide resilience improvements project. Taxpayers are also investing $5 million into critical improvements around the Gates of Haast on State Highway 6. Both projects are crucial not only for the West Coast connectivity but for the wider South Island and are vital for our tourism connections. Can I thank my colleague Maureen Pugh, who’s been a tireless champion for the coast, and whoever follows in her footsteps has huge shoes to fill.

Tākuta Ferris: Will the Minister consider applying an iwi partnership model, similar to those used in other major roading projects across the country, such as the Kaikōura works for the Woodend Bypass and the wider Canterbury transport programmes?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: That sounds like a public-private partnership, and I’m sure the Minister of Transport would be interested in all such proposals.

Tākuta Ferris: What steps will the Minister take to ensure that iwi such as Ngāi Tahu and iwi in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui, along with Māori, are provided the opportunity to contribute to such infrastructure projects and have opportunities such as workforce participation and procurement?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Entities like Ngāi Tahu make a huge and valuable contribution to the South Island and if they are interested in supporting any of our Government’s initiatives we would welcome them with open arms.

Tākuta Ferris: What engagement has occurred to date with mana whenua in the Canterbury and the wider Te Wai Waiponamu area on the Woodend Bypass and other projects obviously in the pipe work, and how has that input influenced the project’s design and/or delivery?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I’d like to get the member some specific information about the Woodend Bypass project, but we are constantly in talks with the likes of Ngāi Tahu because they of course make a huge and significant contribution to the South Island and are an important part to play in the future of our country.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Members who have other business, please leave the House quickly and without conversation on the way.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) (14:54): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the continuation of: the committee stages of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, and the Public Service Amendment Bill, and the second readings of the Online Casino Gambling Bill, the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, and the Patents Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Government Business

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 10 February.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) (14:55): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement today. It’s quite fitting, having joined members from across the House at International Lamb Day out on the Speaker’s lawn, to speak about export opportunities and how well the economy is going.

I have to say, when you reflect back to 1882, when a ship departed from Dunedin with frozen lamb on board, no one could have foreseen the success that New Zealand has become as an exporting nation, particularly of food and fibre. We owe a great debt to those visionaries that started that journey for New Zealand. As was said on the lawn today, at that time Central Otago and the Otago region was known mostly for its gold, but we didn’t realise that there was gold in the hills, in terms of sheep and meat production, that we could export overseas.

That follows hot on the heels from learning that we have just had $80 billion of exports last year, which is a record. Our food and fibre sector made up a massive part of that, and it’s great that we are celebrating New Zealand farmers for that. Three hundred and sixty thousand people are employed in that sector, so it’s really significant in terms of jobs. That money goes right back through all of our towns and cities and ends up driving our economy. It’s much wider than the impact you would expect from just 360,000 people working there, and I would like to salute them today. I think it’s fantastic. We’ve done well in the horticulture sector, the seafood sector, and forestry, of course. It’s a great, great sector.

Moving all of that produce around requires good infrastructure, and I have to say, while the Associate Minister is in the House, the Hurunui one-lane bridge remains the only one-lane bridge on State Highway 1 in the South Island, and I’d have to say it is not only a bone of contention with my constituents, it is with everyone who drives down that road. When these big new ferries come on stream, the issues at the Hurunui Bridge will become much more acute. It’s already causing issues for emergency vehicles to respond to incidents on State Highway 1. Given the large distances they have to travel to attend an accident scene, the better infrastructure we have, the better the outcomes for everyone concerned.

I am pleased that the Minister is still sitting here in the House and can hear the frustration from my constituents about the lack of progress on that bridge.

SPEAKER: Hear, hear!

STUART SMITH: Even Mr Speaker is quite frustrated. Given all of that success and all of the success particularly for the sheep and beef farmers and dairy farmers in my electorate, there is a somewhat slightly not so positive story in the wine industry at the moment. I’d like to acknowledge that today.

The wine industry is going through quite a tough time, and that’s actually a story of production growing faster than sales. Sales are still growing, but production has grown much faster, and the problem that that has caused is being felt right through the economy, particularly in Marlborough. That’s quite sad for the people concerned. That said, I was just speaking to a prominent wine company on Monday, actually, and their exports are growing. They sell predominantly to the on-premise market—that being restaurants and bars—and that area is growing strongly, so it’s not all negative at all.

The best news, in terms of my electorate over the summer, has been the return of tourists to Kaikōura. Actually, the numbers in the summer are back to the numbers not seen since before the earthquake in 2016. Everyone is doing really well in that area, and it’s fantastic to see the smiles on people’s faces, the hotels with “no vacancy” signs up, and everyone going so well with that. Actually, the Sudima Hotel has a big part to play in that; it has really extended the stays of people in Kaikōura, thanks to that investment that was made. It’s with great pleasure that I commend the Prime Minister’s speech to the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (15:01): Well, it will be absolutely on the record that I love to stand up and speak in support of our Government’s economic growth plan. To be able to stand up in support of the Prime Minister’s statement, “fixing the basics, and building the future”, is also a wonderful chance for me to talk about events and tourism, one of the major ways we plan to build the future. A massive shout-out to our Minister for Tourism and Hospitality, Minister Upston; she has had a massive workload, and she just pointed out earlier how well that is tied to job growth.

Now, let me just talk to you about what our Government has done so far: $70 million for our Major Events and Tourism package; the increase in visitor numbers we have seen as a result; further funding for regional events—and I’m going to get back to that later—conferences, and business events. For those of you that don’t know, conferences and business events are the number one way to fill the shoulder season—a little bit of technical jargon there for those outside the tourism and events sector. It’s the best way to get people into New Zealand in autumn in spring—the least likely time they would otherwise come, because of, of course, our wonderful summers and wonderful winters. We’ve invested in global marketing because, of course, how else do we get them here? That is all part of the suite of work that we’ve done. Let’s not forget the digital nomad policy—a wonderful way to get people to come to New Zealand for a longer time, really get embedded in the community, and spend money on local hospitality and accommodation.

We’ve seen all of this play out recently. We have seen bigger numbers of visitors than we have seen for a really long time, and my colleague Stuart Smith just talked about that. We are also seeing hotels investing; they are upgrading; they are seeing maximum capacity. We’re seeing it in Wellington, we’re seeing it in Auckland, and we’re seeing it in the provinces, and that is massive for us. All of this is to say that numbers are up, and that is how we grow the economy—with practical changes that affect industries and get right into the back pockets of everyday Kiwis. We have more people in hospitality and tourism support businesses—lighting and sound companies—who get more benefit from supplying cafes and restaurants. All of these companies—bus companies; you know I’m always going to talk about buses—benefit from growth in events and tourism.

I’m going to, of course, mention what we have done for Hawke’s Bay—the event capital of New Zealand—and specifically Napier, the art deco capital of New Zealand. Next weekend, for those of you that don’t know, and for those of you who have nothing planned, pack your bags and come to Napier for art deco weekend. What a wonderful event. We have got a massive line-up, and, of course, the Government has put more funding into regional events like art deco weekend, which sees thousands of Kiwis and thousands of people coming from overseas, dressed up in their art deco finery to celebrate heritage and culture. This is all because of a historical event in 1931, which gives us the fortune to celebrate and commemorate at the same time. We also have a wonderful event in Hawke’s Bay, in Napier, on this Saturday. It’s not Valentine’s Day, for those who might be thinking it is, it is the Warriors’ pre-season game.

Hon James Meager: Up the Wahs!

KATIE NIMON: We have fought to get that back—wonderful work from our local events team in Napier. “Up the Wahs”, is exactly what my colleague James Meager said. These things make a big difference. That game is nearly sold out—and when I say “nearly sold out”, the last thing you can buy is a bar leaner. That’s all that’s left, and this is wonderful for our region.

I’m going to just reiterate some of thing things that are happening around the country. Raglan: World Surf League. Walks and trails: the Great Walks; the Great Rides. The Michelin Guide coming to Queenstown and Auckland. The Masters Games in Timaru, thank you, wonderful MP James Meager. The newly opened Auckland Convention Centre. All of these are part of our growth plan in events and tourism, and it is all there to help grow the economy and put money into the back pockets of everyday Kiwis.

The tourism and events sector spreads so much wider than what people think. I talk about this all the time in my own electorate—that the restaurants and cafes that we have open to us, the accommodation that we have open for family to come and stay in, is because of our growing and strong tourism sector. We have wonderful places to celebrate the fineries of our regions, whether it’s wine, whether it’s music—let’s not forget the Mission concert, one of the most famous events that we have in Hawke’s Bay—and, of course, our growing cruise market.

This is all part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future. This is a very clear—very clear—economic growth plan that has targeted benefits to jobs and money in the back pockets of everyday Kiwis. I am so proud to be able to stand up here in support of it. This is wonderful for Hawke’s Bay, and I cannot wait to see you all in Napier next weekend at art deco weekend. Thank you very much.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (15:06): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call to support the Prime Minister’s statement. I’m so glad that the speeches before me were from this side of the House. If they were from that side of the House, I know that they would have been full of negativity, because that is how they are. If families are doing well, they don’t like it. If businesses are doing well, they don’t like that. If people are getting off welfare or getting into employment, they don’t like that.

On this side, we are continuing to deliver on our promises. We are fixing what matters. It’s in the space of law and order; whether it’s education—we know the Hon David Seymour is doing an amazing job reducing red tape. In the health and safety space, the Hon Brooke van Velden is doing an amazing job. All of our Ministers are doing a great job to fix the things that matter.

There are so many things to talk about, but I’ll start with law and order, because law and order was such a mess under the previous Labour Government. We know that when somebody starts a business—whether it’s a small business like a liquor store, a dairy, or a bakery—they put their whole life savings into that business. What was happening? They were seeing their business being destroyed in front of their own eyes by ram-raiders—yes. They complained—they complained again and again, and they were being ignored by that Government when they were there in Government.

We noticed that there were so many people, they were so desperate to be heard, and there were so many protests being organised all around the country. There was a really massive protest that was organised in Auckland, and I went to that protest, and I was really surprised to see so many people were there at that protest. When I spoke to these people, many of them told me that they had decided to shut the door of their shop for a day to be at that protest. This is not something that businesses decide lightly, because this is a small business and they need that income to run their families, to pay their bills. But they decided to shut the door of their business to be at that protest so that they could be heard.

This is how desperate people were. And what happened? They were ignored—they were ignored by the Opposition when they were in Government. Instead of cracking down on criminals, they decided to reduce prison capacity, and obviously when offenders are out, they’re going to offend again and again.

On this side, we are always on the side of hard-working New Zealanders. Yes, we have implemented a number of policies—I’m not going to list all the policies because otherwise all of my time will go to just listing those policies. What I would say is this: that I’m really proud to see that the policies the ACT Party had in the coalition agreement are making a real difference, and we are seeing a real difference out there as well. I go to so many community events and I speak to businesses, I speak to people—those who work in businesses—and what I hear is this: they feel supported, they feel heard, and the confidence is returning, which is really good.

The second issue I want to talk about is education, as I touched on briefly at the start. Attendance, school attendance—one would imagine that school attendance would be the basic thing that any education Minister would pay attention to. But Labour Ministers? Nah. Attendance was not important for them. They were doing all the fluff stuff, but as soon as the Hon David Seymour became the Associate Minister of Education, that was the first thing he was working on, and we are seeing some great results there. We are also working on lifting numeracy and literacy levels. Instead of doing that, the other side decided to throw some money at the first year of university as Fees Free policy. That Fees Free policy didn’t result in anything that was expected; that was such a waste of taxpayers’ money. Instead of fixing disparity where it needs to be fixed, they decided to throw money at the wrong end. For them it’s always throwing money, and they believe that somehow throwing money will solve the problems, but on this side, we are fixing the education system where it needs to be fixed.

As a tertiary education spokesperson, I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one who stood beside me in the campaign that I ran to get rid of the Treaty paper that the University of Auckland had introduced. That was a compulsory paper introduced for all undergraduate degree programmes. That lasted only a year as a compulsory paper; I’m really glad to see that. This is a big win for families, a big win for students, and a big win for academic freedom.

The time that university announced that paper, this was towards the end of 2024, and from that time, I was saying that that is not a good idea. Some students thought maybe it’s not that bad, but when they saw the content of that paper, they also came on board. Because of that voice becoming louder and louder, the University of Auckland had no option; they had to do a big U-turn. Now that paper is no longer a compulsory paper for many, many students who are going to start an undergraduate degree programme at the University of Auckland.

Having said this, I’m mindful that there are a handful of degrees where this paper remains a compulsory paper. And let me say this, let me be clear that I’m not done, because I’ll be closely monitoring the content of this paper. I’ll be evaluating it, and if it is a paper that doesn’t add any value, then again, there will be another campaign from me and from the ACT Party.

Shanan Halbert: You have no cultural competency whatsoever.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes, those kind of comments—it’s important that New Zealanders hear those kind of comments because, on this side, we believe that tertiary education institutions should not be used to indoctrinate young people with one-sided political views. They want to do that ideological brainwashing of our young people, but we will not let that happen. We will not let that happen. We know that that is the reason why they oppose the Treaty principles bill as well, because for them it was a threat to their sense of being special—yes, their sense of being special. Some MPs here—some parties here—believe that somehow if you treat some ethnicities differently, it means equality. No, equality is not selective. Equality is not racist. We will continue to send this message out to New Zealanders, and we know that New Zealanders can’t be fooled by them. They can keep twisting the facts, but New Zealanders can’t be fooled by them.

We know that in this House—some of us—there are rules, and we follow those rules. We always follow those rules. We know there are standards to be followed. But then there are some MPs for whom it’s rules for everybody else except them. They turn up to this House in jeans. They turn up to this House in sneakers. They turn up when they like, or they don’t turn up when they don’t want to. Imagine, if people out there in other workplaces did that, what would happen? They will be dismissed. Then, sitting here, they are telling other people what equality is. No, they can’t lecture others about equality when they don’t behave themselves in their own workplace.

Some of the conversations that the ACT Party is having—yes, they are harder conversations, but the ACT Party is always there to make choices which are right, not just for the current generation but for our future generations as well. We are not here for that momentary kind of applause, introducing policies, but then policies that our children will have to pay for. We’re here to make policies and introduce policies that are going to work for both our current generation and our future generations as well. We will continue to do that.

It’s very important that we keep this in mind. New Zealand’s future needs to be kept in mind when we decide or make any policies in this House, because the future is reliant on us, the current members of Parliament in this House, and it is our responsibility to ensure that we are introducing policies that are going to work.

We know that law and order was a big mess; we are fixing that. Education: we are fixing that. Tertiary education: I’m receiving so many emails still about the University of Auckland doing indigenisation, which is quite concerning, and I don’t have enough time to read this correspondence that I have received, and I have received a few such emails where people are really concerned about the approach that the University of Auckland is taking.

Our tertiary institutions are really important because that’s the place where our young people go to learn. We want them to learn and become capable of competing not just here in New Zealand but internationally as well. This kind of approach of one of our prominent universities is not the approach that we expect from them, and that is why I will continue to monitor what is happening at the University of Auckland or any other universities. We will continue to ensure that we send the message that needs to be sent to the academics and to the universities so that they know what needs to be done to ensure that our young people are achieving the way they should be achieving.

Yes, as I said, we are here to make harder choices. Sometimes these kind of choices look harder, but we are here to make the right kind of choices even when they are harder. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (15:16): Oh my God, Mr Speaker. That was so—

SPEAKER: No, no. There’s no need to address me like that.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Mr Speaker. My apologies, but that was very, very tough to listen to. I know I’m responding to the Prime Minister’s statement, but God!

When we listen to the Prime Minister’s statement, we look for inspiration, we look for aspiration, we look for excitement, we look for something, and we got absolutely nothing. In fact, we didn’t even get a 20-minute statement. Now, Mr Speaker, you’ve been around a long time. I think you’re being honest today—I know you’re honest all the time—but, seriously, have we heard a worse prime ministerial statement? It didn’t even go the 20 minutes—it didn’t even go the 20 minutes—it went 14. We timed it. With respect, he should have been point of ordered and ordered to fulfil his speech, to finish his speech. I look back at all the great Prime Ministers, like Jacinda Ardern and Helen Clark—I even had a look at the odd Tory Prime Minister. Every one finished their speech.

I was talking with Kieran McAnulty, and we were thinking, “I wonder what was happening?” Was he under warning from the Bish: “You’re not to say too much today.”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Less is more.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Less is more.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: After Bish’s failed coup—the warning—I mean, there was no other explanation. It was so bad. It was so poor. It was shocking. The only thing he said was “Watch out for the Māoris!” That is what he said. “The terrorists on the other side, the Māori Party”. This is what he was saying—“Willie’s mates”. That’s what he said. That’s the only thing he said—“Willie’s mates—watch out! Willie’s doing a deal.”

It’s just terrible. There’s no deal. We’re not going to do no deal with the—I mean, I love them. I know Kieran gets on—I love them, but we aren’t going to do no deal. We can’t do that, but we’ll talk with whoever we want to to get rid of this rotten, filthy, useless Government. We’ll talk with Donald Duck. We’ll do a deal with Donald Duck if it means getting rid of this useless lot.

Hon Member: That’s a low base.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, seriously: “Oh, watch out for Willie!”—this is the fearmongering speech from the Prime Minister and the Bish. The Bish does a media release. We thought it was going to be something about Māori unemployment, or it was going to be something about employment, or it was going to be about Māori doing well in business. No, it’s about Willie Jackson talking to the terrorists!

Oh, Bish! Wake up! Grow up! We’ll talk with anybody who we want to. We won’t do a deal with them, because the boss is very clear about that—the deals don’t happen until after the election, do they, Kieran McAnulty? But we’ll do a deal with Donald Duck to get rid of this rotten, filthy, useless Government, because—Mr Speaker, I know you’re enjoying this—the numbers don’t lie. I want to come to the numbers: over half a million New Zealanders need support from food banks each month—half a million; 400,000 are on benefits; 140,000 have left in the last two years. Over 100,000 are in severe housing situations. Over 165,000 don’t have jobs. Over 900,000 Kiwis live in poverty. We’ve got 3.1 percent inflation and a cost of living crisis that this useless Government refuses to acknowledge. That side of the House will claim inflation was higher under Labour, but we had a global pandemic. We had a global pandemic. I knew you would agree with that, Mr Speaker—good to see you nodding. We had a global pandemic. These guys have got nothing—these guys have got nothing.

Hon Damien O'Connor: They cancelled the ferries.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They cancelled everything, Damien O’Connor. Thirteen to 18 percent of our kids living in low-income households are suffering from poverty, and one in seven has material hardship. It’s just unbelievable.

It’s like they’ve got no money, but they have got money. Where’s that money going? To their rich mates—to their rich mates. Fourteen billion for tax cuts, $3 billion for the landlords, in terms of tax breaks, $300 million in terms of tobacco—these are Bish’s mates.

SPEAKER: Refer to members by their full name.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: OK. Chris—what’s his full name? Chris Bishop, my colleague, former tobacco lobbyist. He’s borrowed—he advocated—$300 million for his tobacco subsidies and $200 million for gas and oil subsidies for Shane Jones’ and Winston Peters’ mates. So don’t tell us they don’t have money. It’s about priorities, and their priorities are for the people who are doing well.

This is all we’re saying. This is what Labour is saying. The Prime Minister, in his speech, claims that National is fixing the basics and building the future. Ha, ha! Can you believe that? What happened to your “Back on Track” slogan, Prime Minister? Was that so ridiculous in light of all these negative statistics. So many are losing hope and leaving New Zealand—200 a day. There is a total disconnect between the Government’s policies and reality. The basics in terms of building the future—it’s unbelievable. We’re looking at the housing side—our housing spokesman here. Every week, we make it clear to Christopher Bishop: what’s happening in terms of housing? They’re putting our people out on the streets. The people are out on the streets, suffering, freezing. They’re saying “We’re putting them in …”—no, no, no, all the evidence says something else. It’s just shocking, in terms of the policies that are being rolled out by this Government.

I was up in Waitangi, listening to some more terrible speeches from the Prime Minister and Tama Potaka—oh God, Tama Potaka, jeepers! They were taking to me about Māori housing and funding Māori housing in the North. It’s all Labour Party money. These guys haven’t put up one cent. “Oh, come over and enjoy the Māori housing”—and then some of those silly blinkin’—oh, I shouldn’t say that; I’m talking about our own up there. But, anyway, they’re all saying, “Yes, Prime Minister”, “No, Prime Minister”, but it’s Labour Māori money. This Government hasn’t put up any money in terms of Māori. In fact, Māori relations are at an all-time low.

Mr Meager knows this. He knows this. That’s why he’s navigating his career very well. He wants to be the first Māori Prime Minister. You heard him today: “Yes, we’ll talk to Ngāi Tahu”—he’s never even been in the office. He doesn’t even know where it is. “Yes, we’ll talk to Ngāi Tahu”—and “We’ll do this” and “We’ll do that”—but Māori-Crown relations are at an all-time low. That’s because of this Prime Minister and this Cabinet at the moment, who are treating Māori so disrespectfully. We’ve seen that. We’ve seen that particularly with the way old Winston—I mean, we heard Winston today. I mean, I don’t know what the heck he was on today, but jeepers, Winston’s ruling them. He humiliates them with this trade agreement. He told them “a tax is a tax” yesterday. The other Māori—David Seymour—we don’t know what he’s on, but this Prime Minister will not stand up for a partnership, Mr Meager, a partnership that National supported so many years ago. Doug Graham, Jim Bolger—he’d turn in his grave right now, looking at you lot, I tell you. He was embarrassed by you when he was alive. He was—[Interruption] No, he was. I tell you, he was. He told us. The Speaker will know this. This is a relationship that National has had for many, many years, and this Government’s policies are just driving people into homelessness.

The question is: how is throwing vulnerable people—and this is what Kieran McAnulty is saying—on to the street fixing or building anything? I mean, that’s the question. How is allowing mining companies and big polluters to fast track their interests at the cost of the environment fixing the basics and building for the future? I have serious doubts whether this Prime Minister understands what the words “fixing” and “future” even mean after such appalling statistics. If this is the National Government we have after two years, they simply don’t deserve another term in Government.

The Prime Minister’s state of the nation speech is not a state of the nation speech at all; it’s a state of emergency address. Kia ora tātou.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (15:26): Well, you do learn something new every single day. Willie Jackson wants to do a deal with Donald Duck. We always thought it was the “Mickey Mouse” Māori Party. It turns out it’s actually Donald Duck. In this unlikely cartoon coalition, I think Mr Willie Jackson should be very worried that Donald Duck may just pip him to the post for a Cabinet position after that appalling rant of a speech.

On to more important things, I rise to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement, especially his comments about improvements in education. When I became the Minister, I received, as all Ministers do, a briefing to the incoming Minister. In a very sobering reading, one of the very first statements that briefing made was the ministry admitting that they do not provide equitable or excellent outcomes for students. I’ll just let that sink in: the ministry telling their new Minister that they do not provide excellent or equitable outcomes for students. Not only is that a failure for the future of those students, it is a failure for this country, because a good education and making sure that students live up to their absolute potential is the single-most important driver of the future economic success of this country, of productivity, of wealth generation. It is how we educate our kids today, and I am proud to be a part of a reforming Government that is putting student outcomes and raising achievement at the heart of every single thing we do. We are wrapping that protective cloak of education around every student so that their means do not determine their destiny, so that they can change their circumstances.

In Opposition, I set out a programme of six priority areas defined by clarity and pace, and in our reforming Government we have achieved more in two years than any Government in decades. We started with an hour a day. We started with cellphone bans. We started with banning the open-plan classrooms. We overhauled the entire primary curriculum. In fact, right up to year 10 is now out for consultation, in just two short years. But, of course, what matters is results.

One of the very first things we did was in literacy, and I am proud, and have been proud to say for the last two years, that the reading wars are over. We have mandated structured literacy. Explicit teaching of a structured curriculum and the explicit teaching of phonics is in every single primary school in this country. We removed reading recovery. We removed the idea that you can look at a picture and guess the word—that you can think about the context of what you’re reading to guess the word—and the impacts on our dyslexic children in teaching them to read that way has been profound. But that is over.

We have trained over 30,000 teachers in stage 1 of structured literacy. We have provided cash grants to schools. We’ve got 349 fulltime-equivalent teachers doing structured literacy intervention across New Zealand to make sure we’re identifying those children who are falling behind and intervening. We’ve implemented a phonics check at 20 weeks. We’re tracking results. We’re providing support, and the results: 88 percent of teachers have changed their teaching practice. In the phonics check data—these are the kids who hit 20 weeks at school—in term 1, only 36 percent of those students met curriculum expectations in phonics in year 1. By term 3, the next cohort of children who reached their 20-week mark, after having an entire year of 20 weeks of structured literacy—58 percent met that. When I look at comparative countries across the world who’ve implemented structured literacy and phonics checks, it’s taken them years to get where we got in two terms. I want to shout out to our amazing teachers and principals who have put in the hard work this year to make those results happen; 88 percent of teachers have changed their teaching practice.

When I think about equity—because, after reading that briefing to the incoming Minister, it was really crucial to us to close the equity gap—I want to make sure everybody understands: not only did we raise that phonics result across the board, but particularly for our Māori students. Twenty-five percent met the expectations in term 1; by term 3, it was 43 percent. For Pasifika, it was 27 percent to 43 percent, and for low-decile, 18 percent to 35 percent. These are the results—the very early results—that our reform programme is taking hold, through professional learning and development, through a reformed curriculum, through mandating structured literacy, through identifying kids who need help early and surging that support in.

We’re doing the same thing in maths. When we looked at the results for mathematics, we knew that only one in five kids were hitting curriculum expectations by the time they went to high school. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results showed us that our 15-year-olds today are a year and a half behind where our 15-year-olds were in 2003—we’ve lost a year and a half. All the warning lights were flashing—and to be fair to the previous Government, to be fair to them, in 2021, they asked for a report from the Royal Society of New Zealand, led by Gaven Martin, who recently got a New Year honours. They asked for a report, and it was an extraordinary report, and it laid out 14 clear recommendations for change. In true style of the previous Government—lots of reports, lots of strategy documents—how many of these 14 things did they do? Absolutely none. We have a blueprint put out by Gaven Martin, one of the best mathematics professors in this country, with 14 recommendations, in 2021. How many did they do? None.

What they actually did was deprioritise maths professional learning and development, in the light of all this evidence. Do you know what some of these things said? It said: “How about you do an hour a day of maths?” Well, done—tick—straight away. “How about you provide a curriculum that lays out exactly what has to be taught every single year in detail?” We’ve done that. “How about you revise the curriculum regularly so you keep it up to date?” Well, that’s the piece of legislation that’s going through at the moment. “Move some concepts earlier in the curriculum.”—tick, we’ve done that. “Align and clarify the language used to describe student progress.” Well, we just announced that this week—clear reporting to parents; twice-yearly assessments so that everybody knows where their children are at. We have ticked off, or are in the process of ticking off, 10 of these things in two years. The previous Government—big ups for doing a report, but, unfortunately for our kids, they did nothing about it. We’ve done it in two years, and, actually, you know what? It wasn’t that hard.

We’re already seeing results. We’re seeing results that our kids, in schools, in terms of mathematics, are absolutely flying. The results from the maths trial show that even the kids in the control group—with all of the maths books that we’ve put in the hands of every single child in this country, and teachers with all the professional learning development—in the number strand, they’ve made 12 months’ progress in 12 weeks. That’s just in the control group. That’s not the kids who are doing the tutoring that we’ve surged into—14,000 kids this year who will be receiving tutoring in mathematics and intermediate to get them where they need to be.

My message to parents is that we know how important you are in playing your part in your child’s learning journey. We have implemented the parent portal, which tells you exactly what your child is learning, in detail. We tell you about the assessments that they’ll be sitting, the phonics check that they’ll be sitting—and there’s a maths practice tool on there. For the first time, we’ve made it available for children, after school and in the holidays, to be able to go in and practise mathematics; 22,500 children, unique users, have gone in and used that tool. We’re reporting clearly to parents, telling them exactly how their children are doing. From this year, there will be twice-yearly assessments—light-touch, low-stakes assessments to show progress across time about how children are doing, and reporting in detail to parents. No more will we get the story of a parent saying, “My child just turned up at high school, and they’ve been told that they didn’t know their times tables. I thought that was happening.” Now they will know, and that is so crucially important.

I want to shout out, at this point in time, very quickly, to a very important Labor Minister, and I want to read out something that he said that is very important. He said: “The reading wars are over. We know what works. A big part of that is phonics; a big part of that is explicit teaching; and a big part of that is identifying early children who are falling behind and giving them extra support. A [big] part of that is a phonics check [that we’re rolling out] across the country.” I have huge respect for this Labor Minister. Unfortunately, it’s Jason Clare, the Labor Minister for Education in Australia.

There is a consensus across the ditch; there is consensus in countries around the world that these reforms work—that building the basics in education and then planning for the future and building our kids’ future through these evidence-based reforms works. I suggest that the Labour Party get across the ditch and get with the programme, because otherwise we’re going to head back to where we’ve been in the past, which is failing results—unless we have another National Government.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (15:36): The previous speaker, Erica Stanford, just finished her speech talking about people getting across the ditch, and aren’t we seeing exactly that under this Government? “Everyone Must Go”—everyone must go across to Australia, because that’s what’s happening under this Government and under Christopher Luxon’s leadership.

I wanted to begin my speech with a question. Who said it—who said it? “If it looks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it’s probably a tax.”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Nicola Willis!

RACHEL BOYACK: Kieran McAnulty gets it right, so he wins the chocolate fish today—Nicola Willis said it. What we’ve heard from this Government, at this start of this year, first of all, we heard a speech that was kind of full of nothing. There was no gas to it; there was no hot air in it. It was basically just a shortened speech where the Prime Minister couldn’t even deliver on the full 20 minutes. Then, we had an announcement just recently where they can’t quite decide what it is. Is it a levy? Is it a charge? Is it a fee? The latest one: “Is it an insurance policy?” Well, actually, the last time I looked at an insurance policy, I paid for it.

We’ve got a confused Government—they’ve gone quiet now. They’re a confused Government—although Winston Peters isn’t confused: it is a tax. It is a tax on electricity users so that this Government can continue to invest in fossil fuels and undermine the electricity sector and our energy sector in New Zealand, which needs to be focused on renewables as well as bringing the prices down for consumers because I’ve had emails from my own power company and from people in my electorate about the continuing increase in the cost of electricity. It’s another area where this Government promised to make things better, but, instead, they are failing—and, once again, they go incredibly quiet when they realise that, actually, they’re not delivering on the promises that they made to New Zealand over two years ago.

Under this Government, we are seeing jobs being lost; we are seeing the cost of living making life harder for many people; we’re seeing homelessness increasing; and it’s getting harder to see a doctor and access healthcare. We’re seeing those things in my community of Nelson; we’re seeing projects cancelled, like the Rocks Road upgrade; we’re seeing other important projects, like Nelson Hospital, cut in half. In the last year, we’ve seen terrible job losses across our community. We’ve seen 130 jobs lost at Sealord; we’ve seen 142 jobs lost at Carter Holt Harvey; and Proper Crisps moving their operations to Auckland, which will affect 82 local jobs. These are real people in our community—real families. They’re now facing uncertainty and a loss of income. We need to invest in our regions properly—unlike this Government, where their decisions are making things worse for people off the back of huge promises that they were going to make life better. Well, things are getting worse. We’re seeing unemployment rise to 5.4 percent, and it’s even worse for our young people.

We have exciting opportunities to make things better, and one of those is through Labour’s Future Fund. One of the things we need to be doing is investing in New Zealand businesses, investing in New Zealand people, and investing in areas like our blue economy through things like Moananui but also through projects that we know will help grow a sector and that will grow decent jobs.

There are other areas where I have real concerns about what this Government is doing, and one is particularly about cutting the Nelson Hospital project in half. Under their plans, the ICU, the emergency department, and the operating theatres will stay in their existing buildings. If the Alpine Fault ruptures, they cannot operate. That is reckless. That Government is going to let operating theatres, the ICU, and the emergency department stay in a building that cannot operate after the Alpine Fault ruptures.

Camilla Belich: Shame.

RACHEL BOYACK: It is reckless. It is shameful, Camilla Belich. You cannot say that having half a hospital, only $500 million after a $1.1 billion plan is going to serve the people of Nelson. Nelson and New Zealand are going backwards under this Government. Labour has a plan to fix our economy, to put people first, to make sure people can access healthcare, and to make sure people aren’t living on the streets and they can access a warm, dry, affordable home. This Government is full of hot air and gas.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (15:41): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by saying how great it was to stand with the Minister of Education to open 20 new classrooms at Northcote College, a great example of a Labour Government’s investment in our communities and our education system. It was a good reminder that a Labour Government invested in people and in jobs, but under this Government, what have we seen? We’ve seen investment in tobacco companies, we’ve seen investment in landlords, and we’ve seen the highest unemployment rates that New Zealand has seen in decades. It was even as bad as in the pandemic.

When New Zealanders were looking for hope, they were looking for aspiration, and they were looking for some sort of vision, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon delivered that speech. It was short, it was boring, and it was limited. The reality is that he promised to fix the economy. He promised to fix the economy and the cost of living, and, instead, under his Government, his watch, and his leadership, he has made it worse.

Everyone knows, in New Zealand—they know in our North Shore community in Northcote—that things are getting worse for them. For working people, things are getting more expensive. Whether we’re at the petrol pump, whether we’re at our local New World, everywhere we are, everything is getting more expensive, and now they want to add an additional tax on to people’s power bills in a cost of living crisis. They promised to fix the economy. They promised to address the cost of living. Tell me of any New Zealander apart from landlords that are feeling the effects of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s policies—nobody.

I want to turn my attention to an issue that is very near and dear for me, because this National Government and Christopher Luxon have turned their backs on young people. There are more young people not engaged in education, employment, and training than there were at any time under Labour, including during the pandemic. Year on year, under National, this number has increased. In the last year alone, the number increased by more than 6,000 and we have 93,000—93,000—young people not engaged in education, training, and employment (NEET). In 2023, under a Labour Government, we brought that down to 76,000. You do the maths and you tell me what the plan is to address the NEET rate and youth unemployment in this country.

What has this Government put forward? Polytech reforms that have created no change and that have taken away opportunities for young people in regional communities. There are less courses, less campuses, and, most of all, they’ve slashed hundreds and hundreds of jobs from those regions. In Northland, in Rotorua and the Bay of Plenty, down in the Hawke’s Bay, and down South, jobs have gone as a result of their choices, their policies, and their reforms in the tertiary sector.

On top of that, we’ve seen a decline in the number of apprentices enrolling into courses under this Government. Under Prime Minister Luxon’s watch, we’ve seen less young people taking up foundation learning at level one and level two.

Last week, I asked Minister Simmonds, the Minister for Vocational Education, “What is your plan?” There were no answers, because the reality is similar to Prime Minister Luxon’s speech; he doesn’t have the answers to the promises that they made, the promises that they made to fix this economy, to create better opportunities to address the cost of living—nothing, nada, nowhere. There are 93,000 young people not engaged in education, training, and employment—National Party, Christopher Luxon, that is disgraceful. You don’t have a plan. You have no action. But under Labour—because I go back to the start—we will fix the economy, we will provide a vision for this country, and we will get young people back into work.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (15:46): Look, all I have heard from that side of the House this afternoon is negative, negative, negative, no, no, no, and literally no plan, no solutions, and no action. Well, let me tell you about the Prime Minister’s statement and the action that this Government has been taking on this side of the House.

I would also like to speak about education today and the amazing work of our Minister of Education. As we look and think about all of those parents that have been racing around getting their kids back to school in the last couple of weeks, naming the uniforms, naming the stationery, and as they do that, they think about education and they are thinking about the future of their children. Our Government is laser-focused on lifting performance in education so all our children can get ahead, so every child can reach their full potential, and so every child can succeed. On this side of the House, we are ambitious for our kids because education creates equality. It gets our kids ahead. Already, as we have heard, we have reformed so much in just two short years so that we can give our kids a world-class education, focusing on the basics of reading, writing, and maths.

Already, we have seen such progressive results in such a short time. We’ve banned mobile phones in schools. On that side of the House, Labour said, “No, no, no.”, that it wouldn’t work—enforcement wouldn’t work. But hey, every week I get a teacher coming up to me and saying what a successful policy that is. Finally, we have the kids engaging. They’re talking to each other and they are learning. What a fantastic policy that was. Hey, it was really simple and it was a basic policy that didn’t cost anything. We care about getting better academic results on this side of the House, and that is a simple, basic policy that achieves results.

We’ve also made the single biggest investment in learning support in a generation, giving neurodiverse kids and those with learning challenges the support they need. Thanks to our amazing Minister of Education, we’ve rolled out structured literacy and structured maths in schools and primary schools across New Zealand, and wow, is it making a difference—kids sounding out the words; not memorising them but sounding them out.

In primary schools, we’ve introduced new curriculum—maths and English. Kids now have maths textbooks. Fancy that! My kids are coming home from school and going, “Wow, Mum, maths is so exciting now because I have a textbook. I have exercises that I’m working through.”, and they are learning. It is making a difference, and the kids’ faces are lighting up—so happy to see simple, basic policy: a textbook—and the results are huge. Already the number of new entrants achieving where they should be in phonics has gone from a dismal 36 percent to 58 percent, and the number of students exceeding expectations has doubled. There is more to do but there is no doubt that we are fixing the basics in education.

This year we have a bolder action plan for secondary school. This includes NCEA reform, and while NCEA, let’s be honest, was designed to be flexible and for many it was about creating more flexibility and encouraging kids to get the qualifications, it turned into quite a ticking-box exercise. It was not actually challenging the students and lifting performance and pushing them higher and to where they need to be. So it has also become really hard for parents and students themselves to actually understand the whole system, and I can vouch for that myself.

This proposed new qualification will look at getting clearer grades—out of 100; hey, fancy that; an A, B, C, or D—and it will be internationally benchmarked, because on this side of the House we want our kids to have an internationally benchmarked qualification. We want to lift performance in education so that we can fix the basics, which we’re already doing, and build the future for generations of New Zealanders.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (15:51): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One cannot help but know that Catherine Wedd is a parent and has kids in the education system, and you can see the passion—

Hon Member: Lots of kids.

DAVID MacLEOD: Lots of kids; that’s right—coming through the system. I have some adult children myself. I’m pleased that they went through an era where they they’ve done pretty well through education.

I, too, would like to acknowledge the successes that our Minister of Education has had thus far this term, and two years in, a tremendous amount of change has been implemented in education, and it’s pleasing to see the results now starting to come through, through evidence itself.

But I stand to take this call to speak to the Prime Minister’s statement. I’m going to bring the tenor of my speech to a bit more of a sombre mode because the very first section that’s within the statement is appropriately acknowledging the absolute tragedy that occurred at the beginning of this year. We all know what that tragedy was that occurred at Mount Maunganui, Welcome Bay, and the Mahurangi River, with the landslides and flooding that occurred there. Tragedy struck and lives were lost, and, along with some of the other speakers during this debate, I want to pass on my deepest condolences to all those who lost loved ones. I also want to thank the first responders and all the brave local heroes who had to work in those terrible situations of endeavouring to find the lost souls that were in that. So I do start on that sombre note. I’m sorry to have to do that but it is absolutely appropriate that I acknowledge it.

The two years that have been had within this term of Government have been an incredibly busy time. I understand that in terms of legislation it has been one of the busiest terms thus far, and it continues to be so. The Prime Minister’s statement illustrates not just what has been done but also what is to be done in the remaining time we have. There has been tremendous work put in place, and the very focus point of what our coalition Government came together for—rebuilding the economy; improving the education system—has been well spoken of in the previous calls; but also it’s about refocusing our health services and making progress in the area of fighting crime.

We can look proudly of what’s been done in the short time. I’ve often said that a three-year term is far too short for any Government, and it does lead to a bit of pressure to be put on the different sectors. Speaking of education, you can see that the Minister has put some considerable pressure on the sector in delivering outcomes. It’s pleasing to see that the education sector, the schools that I’ve been visiting in my electorate, are indeed getting on with the business and, most importantly, that we’re actually seeing the outcomes of it. So I do once again acknowledge the Minister for the tremendous amount of work that she is doing in that space.

More important is the economy. If we have that thriving, that is what builds the coffers here in Government and it is what allows us to afford what many of us—on both sides of the House—want,

whether it be in education, whether it be in health, whether it be in crime, whether it be in Māori development and Māori outcomes. All these things require, in Māori terms, pūtea to be able to do that well. And, of course, a thriving economy is what allows that to occur at the basic level of it.

One of the areas that I wish to talk to within the statement, firstly, is the Resource Management Act reform. It is the most significant piece of legislative work that we’ve got on the agenda for this term, I would say. I thank my fellow select committee chairperson Catherine Wedd, sitting next to me here, for the beginning of the work that we’re doing. I’m privileged to have been put on to the Environment Committee to help out with this important piece of work. And, you know, when you look at what has actually been described as the potential outcome of reducing by 46 percent the number of consents and permits to get things done in New Zealand, that’s going to be a great outcome for our country and I’m fully supportive of it.’

In terms of energy, we’ve had the big announcement on liquefied natural gas. I’m the MP for New Plymouth, and it’s not surprising that our leaders in the local area have already publicly said they’re very pleased with this outcome. It’s an important piece of work to make sure that we have the electricity network that we need in our country. We’re fixing the basics and building the future.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (15:56): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, I attended the launch of the Salvation Army’s State of the NationReport and I thought they offered a really useful way forward for all of us in this beautiful country of ours.

They highlight the importance of care for tamariki and rangatahi that is grounded in Te Tiriti and protects identity and connection; of income supports and employment conditions that uphold dignity and participation; of housing that provides stability and strengthens whakapapa ties; of justice responses that heal and restore rather than disconnect; and of approaches to social hazards that prioritise prevention and community-led solutions over punitive or profit-driven settings.

This is simply an analysis, after pulling together a snapshot not just of what is happening today but what we have been allowing to happen for far too long, and, in far too many cases, actually proactively making decisions to make the situation worse, including for tamariki. The report this morning highlighted that, sadly but not surprisingly, more and more children are living in material hardship. More and more families are living below the poverty line and really struggling—not just struggling to make ends meet but actually struggling to live with any sort of quality, dignity, and health; and to be able to put down roots; and to be able to set up and establish themselves in communities and live with health.

The worst thing about this is that it is so unnecessary. We have everything we need in this country, and we aways have had, to prevent anyone’s child or anyone’s whānau from living with anything other than what they need to live a good life.

I really wanted to draw on the report because it offers something for all of us to consider. I readily admit and want to acknowledge that many, many people outside of this House and outside of this institution are quite exhausted, and understandably so, at the back and forth and, yes, what they see as the bickering. Certainly, we in here are energised, and the system sets us up to just keep firing shots across the aisle at each other. The system sets us up not to collaborate but to compete. I really want to acknowledge that, on the outside, it’s like a never-ending “Well, nothing really is ever going to happen that is transformational and will make things better for my family and I, and will properly protect our precious living systems and will properly stabilise a climate for our mokopuna to live in.

I get that, and yet here we have organisation after organisation, report after report, research after research, telling us quite clearly—groups who have to work with all flavours of Governments and political parties, groups whose whole entire responsibility is to be focused on the issue, not to be supporting or denigrating any particular political party but to just be focused on resolving the issues with the evidence that they know makes a difference and can actually turn people’s lives around. For example, the State of the Nation report from the Salvation Army has pointed out that the food hardship grants that people are having trouble accessing have been left on the same level of amount since 2008. For nearly 20 years, we have not increased the level of nominal support that people can access. At the same time, we have seen more and more families struggle with the cost of living and surviving, more and more families whose wages cannot keep up and are not keeping up and keep getting suppressed to not be able to cover their bills and their rents and really ordinary things.

Yet, at the same time, there are system changes and barriers that are so unnecessary. These are changes that could happen tomorrow, that wouldn’t even require a legislative change in this House, that would simply require a contractual agreement, a social agreement, surely, across all of us, where we can say families have been pushed into further hardship because of decisions made—and, yes, over successive Governments, if we’re looking at decades—and so, recognising that, here is a simple way to alleviate children living in material hardship. I honestly don’t see how any of us would want to bicker with that, how any of us would want to fire shots across the aisles and refuse that, especially when we recognise we’ve left it for nearly two decades at the same measly amount—unnecessary, uncalled for, and scandalous that we would even contemplate not changing that simple thing.

We might not all agree on the big systemic changes—that’s clear—but there are some really simple common-sense things that can be done. When you have got these organisations who are there purely—they are not political parties; they are independent, and they are purely focused on: how do we make things better? How do we create an Aotearoa that all of our mokopuna deserve—not just yours, not just mine, but all of ours? How do we ensure that we are setting whānau and community up to flourish and to not just survive but to live beautiful lives? How do we make sure that we are protecting our water quality and our ocean systems and our marine habitats and our ngahere systems? How are we making sure that we are doing everything we can to reduce our climate pollution and climate emissions and to build communities that can weather the ongoing shocks and impacts from climate-charged weather that we are continuing to see more and more of?

It’s all right there for us, and I think that people are ready for us to actually step outside—and, yeah, it will take intention to step outside of the bickering that this system absolutely sets up for us, because it seeks for us to ask for power at any cost, when, really, I would love to go home with my mokopuna and feel confident that here in this House we can agree on some really basic things. I know that being in the arms and love and environment of our families and our mokopuna and our children is a place we would much rather be than having to withstand the driven hostility that this political system here and around the world has asked us to do for far too long.

Really, where my real hope is is in the hands of the collective people. The good news here is that in an upcoming election, the people collectively have more might and power and mana to demand this of all of us, to actually say, “Oi, all of you lot, grow up. Make some decisions that collectively put community wellbeing and people and families first. Stop championing corporate profit and greed. Please redistribute wealth and power in a way that benefits us intergenerationally. Please think long term for seven generations ahead instead of just for the next election period cycle.” These are things that collectively the people can ask for, can demand of us.

That is the good news, because surely this can inspire people to get ready to vote, to enrol and register, to understand that that collective power is bigger than all of us in here. It’s bigger than any one corporation or massive giant donor or any one political party being influenced by any massive giant donors. It’s bigger than all of us across this aisle. It could put a stop to this bickering and force us to agree and work together on some really basic principles of an Aotearoa of who we are. We care about our environment, we care about justice for families, we care about Te Tiriti. We want our mokopuna to be in the most stable climate they possibly can. That power is for the people, and that’s the message I urge—for them to use it. Kia ora.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (16:06): I wanted to take this opportunity to focus on the Auckland part of the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament and the progress that is being made with our largest city and the country’s commercial capital. Auckland generates 38 percent of GDP and is set to reach 2 million people by 2033—just seven years away. Auckland is critical to New Zealand’s success, as we often say.

A regional deal with Auckland is imminent, helping to harness all the good work already under way between this Government and the likes of Auckland Council. Our reforms of Auckland Transport will improve its accountability and give elected members and the public more say over the direction of transport in Auckland. Now at select committee, the legislation will see Government and council come together to collectively work on a 30-year integrated transport plan.

Today marks the official opening of the New Zealand International Convention Centre, with over 100 events already booked, injecting $90 million into the local economy. The City Rail Link (CRL) will open in the second half of this year, transforming public transport and ensuring new housing around key stations. As part of the CRL and the dramatic lifting of train frequency, it’s this Government that has begun removing dangerous rail level crossings in both the south and west of Auckland to reduce congestion and improve safety.

Progress continues on key strategic projects, including the Eastern Busway and, of course, Mill Road. At the same time, planning is well advanced for the North West Rapid Transit corridor, aka the dedicated busway down State Highway 16, north-west of Auckland, with the construction of the station, the big bus station, at Westgate already well advanced now. The East West Link road of national significance connecting Onehunga, State Highway 20, to Mount Wellington, State Highway 1, was cancelled by Labour in 2017, but National will deliver it. The New Zealand Transport Agency’s investment case has proven very strong, and the next stages, including route protection and detailed designs, are already under way.

Our fast-track regime is great for Auckland. For example, wharf extensions required by our port were approved in months, not years, and further residential stages for Milldale have just got the green light. Key Auckland quarries can now also expand, and the massive Drury Metropolitan Centre development was approved in November.

Through the Government’s water infrastructure reform, Watercare has been separated from Auckland Council, meaning Aucklanders’ rates increases have been well below the national average, while embracing greater borrowing and investment to unlock housing and clean up our Auckland harbours. The Central Interceptor, the largest New Zealand waste-water project, is near completion. At over 16 kilometres in length, it runs from Māngere’s waste treatment plant to Point Erin near the Auckland Harbour Bridge. It’s a project that will reduce waste-water flows into Auckland’s waterways by up to 80 percent.

Our Government is restoring confidence in Auckland’s city centre to ensure people that live, work, and visit there feel safe and welcome. A new city centre police station has opened in Federal Street, funding for 200-plus additional Housing First placements has been secured, and a city centre safety action plan are all being developed.

Labour locked up Auckland for three months at the end of 2021, and Auckland suffered the most with the prolonged and, in many cases, senseless sanctions during the end of COVID-19. Businesses were hit hard and Auckland consumers were hammered with the steep rise in the cost of living, all while Labour delivered nothing. Remember Labour’s promised $45 billion harbour crossing? Remember Labour’s $29 billion light rail project? How about their $785 million project that never got off the ground—the cycle bridge, that was. All promised; nothing delivered. Our National-led Government is the most qualified to lead Auckland’s recovery. National is the party of delivery, and it’s National that backs Auckland. Thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (16:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recall very vividly campaigning in 2023 and the excellent, awesome tagline of the National Party was “Back on Track”. Why did we need to get back on track? Because crime was up by 30 percent under the Labour Government. Gang membership was growing exponentially. Inflation was over 7 percent. Less than 50 percent of our tamariki and rangatahi were attending school. That’s why we need to get us back on track. That’s why we won the faith and the vote of the New Zealand people.

We got back into Government and we decided we needed to fix the basics. That’s exactly what we have been doing in this last, very small period of time, relative to the six years that the previous Government had in power. In two years, we have been fixing the basics—and boy, do they need to be fixed. We started off by reining in the reckless, wasteful spending that the last Government was addicted to. That way, we helped bring down inflation. Interest rates have gone down, as well. The other day, one of my neighbours in Takanini said that by changing the interest rates for his home, he can now be less worried about how he’s going to continuously pay for the school fees for his young son—his 10-year-old son. Business confidence is at a 12-year high, thanks to us fixing the basics. Exports are up by $12 billion in one year. This is how we’re fixing the basics.

Education—and I’m not just here pontificating about the awesome Minister of Education because she happens to be in front of me: we all know the work that Minister Stanford is doing to reform education. It’s almost unbelievable. It’s almost like something magical—but this is what’s happening. We’re transforming the lives of our children, because we cannot afford to fail another generation of kids. That was happening under the last Labour Government.

On Monday morning, I was blessed to be at the blessing, with Minister Stanford—Minister Stanford came for the pōwhiri; my colleague Nancy Lu attended the blessing as well—of our brand new school in Flatbush, Takanini, the first that our Government has achieved in a mere 18 months: Te Kura Rau Iti, for up to 700 primary students. It was built in 13 months. This is what we call fixing the basics.

David MacLeod: On budget?

RIMA NAKHLE: Under budget, as well, Mr MacLeod.

Law and order: I remember—I remember door-knocking so much, and I still do, unlike others. I remember neighbours on the doorstep telling me they’re too afraid to go shopping. They’re too afraid to let their children—one gentleman had a set of twins, and we looked at the park in Waiata Shores, and he said, “The park is just there.” It was a mere 250 metres away, and he was too afraid to let his children go to the park.

Now, when I go door-knocking, my neighbours are telling me, “Thank you—thank you for letting me feel safe again. Thank you for making us feel safe again.” The way we make people feel safe is by fixing the basics. By banning gang patches, violent crime has gone down by 38,000; youth offending down by 16 percent.

Reuben Davidson: How about meth use?

Helen White: How about assaults on children?

RIMA NAKHLE: They’re screaming and they’re laughing on the other side, but instead of holding themselves accountable for how bad the situation became, they’re just screaming things out. I don’t even know what they’re saying, because it doesn’t make sense.

Ram raids are down by 85 percent. Neighbours in Takanini that own shops are telling me they can finally go to sleep and have a good night’s sleep, because they know they’re not going to be woken up any more by that phone call by police saying, “Your shop has been ram-raided again.” Retail crime is going down, and is going to continue to go down, with the measures that we’re taking.

The other day, while I was doing my nails in South Auckland, a gentleman came up to me and he said to me, “I’ve been a Labour supporter all my life.” He was in his forties, and he said, “For the first time, I’m going to be voting National, because you guys are making plans for the future.” That’s exactly what we’re doing: building the future, fixing the basics—building the future. We don’t waste taxpayer money on this side of the House and we don’t waste time, as well. We’ve done so much in two years and we will continue to do a lot. I can’t wait to see the progress and the growth of our beautiful country, New Zealand.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:16): Thank you. That was an interesting revision of reality, wasn’t it? Today, we had a report come out from the Salvation Army, and they’re a pretty trustworthy bunch, the Salvation Army. They put out that report every year. None of us like to see ourselves fail in the eyes of people that are respected, as the authors of that report are, but this Government, I hope, will take some stock.

We heard from the Prime Minister that he had no vision for the country. He hardly spent any time talking at all. He couldn’t even be bothered reading what was in his statement. There was a lack of vision—so apparent. I was thinking about that in light of the report. This is what the report writers wrote. They wrote: “Ensuring people have sufficient resources to live in dignity and participate in society should be a fundamental goal of any society.” I heard no such claim from the Prime Minister in his speech. The Prime Minister seemed to lack a fundamental understanding of what the foundations of wellbeing were. The people who will pay that price are the people in this country that are vulnerable and our children, and that’s showing up in the report today.

We have a situation with regard to unemployment where we have a quarter of a million people—that’s what the report finds, a quarter of a million people—wanting to find work who can’t; and we have a Prime Minister who continually repeats that he’s getting the basics right and that unemployment is the last of those things to come right. Well, wouldn’t you think that it would be the priority of every Government? Because employment is a fundamental of wellbeing. Employment is what gives us power in our lives. It gives us dignity. It is absolutely shameful that we have record—record—levels of unemployment in this country, because that’s a moral indicator. That says what your party believes in. If you cannot let people who need and want to work work, you’re in trouble—and it shows.

I wanted to talk about inflation, which is also mentioned in this report, because one of the things that the authors do is they measure inflation against people’s actual need. They find that wealthy people, under this Government, have done a lot better than beneficiaries. Inflation’s impact on wealthy people is very, very different. I think that’s worth us thinking about when we crow about such things. Yes, people with mortgages often have houses in equity, and they’re much more insulated than people who don’t. It’s actually very hard being poor in this economy. It is hurting people enormously.

I want to take us back down to the focus on children, for a minute. We have children living in poverty at record rates. It was going down. In 2022, it was going down; it was tracking down steadily. But it’s up again. We’re up, in 2024, to 156,000 children living in poverty, and it’s not equitable; it doesn’t work that way for every child, and there is a racial component here. Pacific children: three out of 10 are living in poverty; Māori children: one in four is living in material hardship. That is very serious indeed, and we have, as a result of it, a complete flourishing of violence out there. We have a concerning shift, is what they call it. There are high levels of violence in our society, drug use is up, and assaults against children are 50 percent higher than they were five years ago.

We have a serious crisis here and it’s a crisis that could make people feel hopeless. But what I want to say to people listening is that there is hope. There is a side of this House that believes that employment should be the priority, that it is important who gets the break in the economy, and that we look after people who are the most vulnerable, and we make sure our economy is built on good underpinnings. Thank you.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (16:21): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to take to my feet and enter the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement from some weeks ago. Probably one of the largest impressions was the length of the speech because this is the Prime Minister’s chance to report to the nation and to share his success and his vision over the last two years, and a 20-minute opportunity to talk about his successes—he fell well short. He fell well short by six minutes, which is symptomatic of him falling well short as a Prime Minister, something New Zealanders are getting used to.

In 2025, the Prime Minister chose not to attend Waitangi, and people were—

Hon James Meager: Where was he? Where was he?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —disappointed; people were disappointed. And in 2026—

Hon James Meager: Where was he? He was in Akaroa. He was in Akaroa; he was in Christchurch. He was in your electorate.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: He was there, but the flight schedules allow you to be in more places than one. He didn’t disassemble Air New Zealand to that extent.

Hon James Meager: Akaroa to Waitangi?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: I’ve done it, Mr Meager; it’s quite plausible. In 2025, when he didn’t turn up, people were disappointed, and in 2026, when he did turn up and deliver a speech at Waitangi, people were disappointed because Christopher Luxon promised to fix the cost of living, and, instead, he continues to make it worse.

Now, I can tell you what Christopher Luxon making it worse looks like in Christchurch East. It looks like children being served rotten school lunches at their schools. It looks like people sleeping on the footpath in Hampshire St, which I’ve seen just this week, and locals tell me they’ve never seen that before. It looks like children waiting in the rain at food banks in New Brighton; instead of being at school, waiting in the rain outside food banks. It looks like the previously abandoned streets in the Bexley red zone filling up with people in vans and in cars and in tents that have become their homes.

How does the Government respond to that? The Minister sneaks through in the dead of night to watch them sleep, but he does not talk to them, and he does not engage with them. He does not visit those people to find out what this Government is getting so wrong that it’s forcing them to live on the streets. People don’t fall into poverty; they’re pushed there. This Government is pushing. This week, you’ve pushed even more by introducing a gas tax. Call it what you will, but people know what National stands for. Not a tax; it’s officially now a levy. That is what National stands for.

Ryan Hamilton: Who cares?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: We’ve got, now, the highest unemployment—not you, obviously. We’ve got the highest unemployment in 10 years.

Sam Uffindell: What are your solutions?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Since 2023, for 15- to 19-year-olds, unemployment has gone up 28 percent. For 20- to 24-year-olds, it’s gone up 57 percent; for 25- to 29-year-olds, it’s gone up 54 percent because of this Government’s choices. Those are this Government’s numbers, but food’s gone up, too; business closures are at a 15-year high, landlords and big tobacco are getting tax cuts, but everyday Kiwis cannot get a break from this Government.

But it’s time for some good numbers, and I’m pleased that the member from the other side asked what our answers are, what our solutions are. The best number for New Zealanders today is 269, because it’s the number of days until 7 November when we’ll have an election and when New Zealanders can vote this awful, awful Government out. They can vote for a future that’s made in New Zealand. They can vote for a political party and a Government that will bring in the future fund so that we can invest in some of our best and brightest New Zealand innovation. They can vote for a fairer tax system that taxes productivity—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —that rewards productivity, not property. Pleased you’re listening. And they can vote for affordable healthcare with three free GP visits. Some days, I think members on that side will be voting for us too.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (16:26): Excellent. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. We have heard a lot of rubbish from the other side. When we took office two years ago, we inherited a country that felt like it was in a terminal downward spiral. Inflation was eating our pay cheques; interest rates were pummeling homeowners and also renters; our basic services that we rely on, whether it be schools, hospitals, or the police, were struggling despite an increase of 70 percent in core Government spending and a huge, massive explosion in our Government debt.

We campaigned on getting New Zealand back on track. We knew it wasn’t going to be easy; we knew it wouldn’t happen overnight. But here today, in 2026, the hard grind is beginning to pay off. Our plan is working. We are fixing the basics and we’ve heard brilliantly from my colleague Rima about fixing the basics, and now we’re in the position to build for the future. Fixing the basics isn’t just a slogan; it’s about the fundamental right of every Kiwi to have a stable economy, a safe street, a world-class education, and timely health care for every Kiwi.

On the economy: we’ve restored Government spending, we’ve restored the discipline, we’ve stopped the sugar hit economics, and we have tamed inflation; it is down from 7 percent to around 3 percent. That means interest rates have followed. That means that families refixing their mortgages today are seeing rates starting with a 4 percent or a 5 percent, not a 7 percent, saving them hundreds of dollars a week. That is a swimming lesson; that is piano lessons. This is real difference—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —for things for Kiwis. The other side laughs. They don’t want our kids to have these things. They want it to go to the big banks through high interest rates. It’s real money. We are witnessing the highest level of first-home buyers for decades. We have seen new rents decrease for the first time in decades. The other side destroyed homeowners, they destroyed renters, and they want to do it again.

On education, we’ve already heard many great contributions, from this side, about education so I don’t want to harp on it too much, but I do just want to emphasise some of the reforms that have happened. We have seen that new entrants’ achievement has leapt from 36 percent to 58 percent. I think that is almost—and I think my colleague used the word “magical”. It is very, very impressive, and that’s ensuring that every child, despite their background, has the tools to succeed, and we need to encourage that.

On law and order, we have sent a clear message that crime has consequences. We’ve banned gang patches, given our police more powers, and put more police on the beat patrol. The results: 38,000 fewer victims of violent crime, and an 85 percent drop in ram raids. Can I just reiterate that there are 38,000 less victims of violent crime, and that is people not being bashed, raped, or robbed here in New Zealand. The other side—they’re busy shouting out, again—want to defund the police. They want to abolish prisons, despite what the crime rate and crime levels are.

Now, let’s turn to health. The health system was obsessed with back-office bureaucracy, while wait-lists grew and emergency departments overflowed. We’re turning that round. We have brought back health targets because what gets measured gets done. Today, 80 percent of the cancer patients are starting treatment within 31 days. We’ve delivered Elective Boost, and that’s 21,000 surgeries that we’ve added, clearing the backlog of knee, hip, and cataract surgeries. We’re shifting decision making away from Wellington and back to the regions. We’ve funded Pharmac, and we’re not just fixing the financial hole that was left but actually funding more medications for New Zealanders. That includes more cancer medications, and I do just want to shout out to the two cancer charities who have brought the voices of people to Parliament in the last 48 hours—that’s Bowel Cancer New Zealand and the Ovarian Cancer Foundation New Zealand.

This is just the foundation. We are building for the future. We’re not just looking for the next three years; we are looking for the next 30 years. In healthcare, we’re training more doctors, we’re building another medical school, and we are actually planning for the future. We’re having KiwiSaver reform so that people can retire comfortably, and resource management reform so that we can actually build things in this country. We’re building roads of national significance and roads of regional significance. This is all about making New Zealand a better place.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member’s time has expired.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (16:31): I was tempted to see if I could let my colleague keep going. He was in such fine form.

What a pleasure it is to rise in support of the Prime Minister’s statement—

Rima Nakhle: And it’s a pleasure to listen to you.

GREG FLEMING: —oh, thank you very much, Rima Nakhle—and what a pleasure it is to be able to place the observations and the declarations of that statement within the context of the fine electorate of Maungakiekie. Just on Monday, I had the privilege of meeting with John Chapman and his team at MATES in Construction. They’re a national mental health charity, but are based in Penrose, just down the road from what was my office—I’ll come to that soon—and I was in awe in terms of the reach of their work in terms of the number of lives that they literally save each week in an industry that is hit so hard by the malaise of poor mental health.

I was incredibly proud to be part of a Government—as I discovered during this visit—that is giving $1 million per year in funding from the Mental Health Innovation Fund to work like that, and we’re doing it for dozens and hundreds of charities and community works like that across the country because that’s what the National Party is about. We believe that often the very best place to help people and the very best place to provide a service is at the front line, with local social works run by the community. That is what our Social Investment Agency is about and that is why, again, the Prime Minister spoke to it in his statement, and it is why I am so excited about all that will come from that in the coming 12 months.

I then moved to go and see the remains of my office, which was caught in a fire about two to three weeks ago. It is not as bad as I had feared, and in the coming months we may be able to get back into it.

Carl Bates: You’ll be back after the election.

GREG FLEMING: Thank you. But I really want to put a shout-out to those businesses that persevered during the couple of weeks when they needed to be shut down for safety’s sake. To the Gleway Cafe, to the Onehunga Jewellers, and to Barfoot & Thompson there, and to the good people of Onehunga Mall, who put up with the interruption there, you’ve put up with a lot of economic hardship in recent years, and a number of my colleagues have spelt out the very clear reasons as to why we’ve found ourselves in that economic mess. The good news is that in the very recent conversations that I’ve had with those local businesses, they have observed that things have changed. One particular quote was from Shraneel, the owner of Food me-n-u, who, for the last two years, has regularly told me how tough things are. He said to me, “Greg, it’s changed. It changed in November—it has changed.”

I also want to speak to the rapid drop in property crime in Onehunga. The Prime Minister spoke of the effect of our law and order work, and it is working. I was reminded of a local supermarket just about 150 metres down from my now-closed office. At the time that I was elected two years ago, that area was known as one of the highest crime spots in all of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and then Mark Mitchell became the Minister of Police and the directive was very, very clear: “We want the police force to focus on one thing and one thing only. We want them to enforce the rules.” Over the next eight months, they laid 140 charges, and crime dropped by over 95 percent. Our local community constable, when I spoke to him just an hour ago, confirmed that he’s been tracking figures in our community since 2012, and they are the lowest he has ever seen.

I want to speak to what is happening in terms of school attendance. I want to acknowledge the incredible work of Thomas Bartlett, the principal at Sylvia Park School, and the way that he has managed to rally all of the principals of the 16 surrounding schools in Maungakiekie in terms of, again, their own community-led and designed approach to addressing school attendance. Again, it’s the Ministry of Education (MOE), with this Government through the MOE, saying to these schools, “Hey, you guys come up with an approach that you know will work within your community, and we will enable and fund that. Rather than driving it from Wellington, you can drive it from the community.” That is what the National Government is all about.

There are so many other things that I want to speak to, but time is beyond me. I really wanted to finish by acknowledging Judith Collins—because I know that I won’t have too many chances left to do that before she leaves—and particularly her and Tama Potaka’s leadership on the Nelson Tenths case. For those people who missed it, at the end of last year, 7,500 acres and $420 million was returned to the iwi there. It was a stunning day. Again, our Government said that we recognised that we want to see iwi flourish, and that is what this Prime Minister’s statement is all about. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (16:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support and to speak to the Prime Minister’s statement. January’s severe weather event has been spoken about by a number of members across the course of this debate, but I would like to add my voice too, in acknowledging the passing of Tekanimaeu Arobati, who was swept away in the Mahurangi River in Warkworth, and the community has rallied around his whānau. There were numerous others who also passed away during that particular weather event around the country, and our prayers are with the families impacted as they now resettle into their lives without their loved ones.

The communities around the country rallied. As I’ve mentioned, much has been said about that. I would like to note, though, the leadership from Minister Mark Mitchell in his role in emergency management, and I’d also like to make special mention of the role of local community radio. There are 3.7 million New Zealanders who listen to the radio every week. Radio has an impact and, particularly in a crisis, radio can make a difference. It is a lifeline utility. It connects people to the information they need when they need it, in a really timely manner, and radio does that.

I will make a special mention today of John Grant and his team from CFM in Coromandel. They broadcast as soon as there were warnings up. They were on air for 49 continuous hours with non-stop broadcasting, delivering 98 severe weather updates. They delivered key content from officials about road closures, power outages, flooding reports, evacuations, what houses were stickered, sandbag advice, waste-water issues, and safety messages. They interviewed all the key leaders in their districts, from the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki districts. They also provided the connection from various communities, particularly those that have an FM radio station—a lot of people still listen to FM.

They had a Facebook page up, and they got 5.7 million Facebook page views as the event unfolded. They got 742,000 hits on the dedicated road information page during and after the event, and so people who sought that critical roading information could get connected with what was happening in their area in a very timely manner.

There were some high-profile endorsements about the role of the local radio station CFM. In fact, an RNZ board member—who was actually stuck in the weather event, in Matarangi—made contact with the station to say that they were providing excellent value for local radio connecting people.

Radio 1XX up the coast in Whakatāne and Andy Galbraith and his team also were on air. Whakatāne experienced the most rain in a day since records began, and they were broadcasting messages from when they were put into a red warning. Radio 1XX—if you’ve ever listened to them, they are an amazing little small community radio station running on the smell of an oily rag, but they were providing a lifeline also to those who were living further up the coast on State Highway 35. They had those road updates, which were critically important about closures and what areas to avoid. They were inundated with requests for information about roading, the closures, the travel, especially through to Tauranga from Ōpōtiki. So really, today, a shout-out to those incredible community local radio stations, who are really important in terms of localism and getting messages out.

Now, the weather events—and we’ve seen a number of them. That is why New Zealand First has always had a policy of climate adaptation. It’s really important that we note that in the Regional Infrastructure Fund, $200 million has been put aside, with co-funding of $450 million alongside regional councils for 74 flood protection schemes during the course of this Parliament. I was able to go and visit, last year, the Hokitika flood wall. I was there to give a speech for the opening of that. That’s all about flood resilience.

We have a Regional Infrastructure Fund triple dip on the West Coast with the port infrastructure upgrade programme. I was pleased to go on behalf of Minister Mark Patterson for the Jackson Bay Wharf. We’ve also put money into a number of wharfs around the West Coast—Westport Harbour infrastructure, Greymouth Port infrastructure—because New Zealand First is an integral part of this Government. We’re putting the steel in the shovel and we’re playing our part to dig us out of the fiscal hole that Labour buried us in.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (16:41): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support the Prime Minister’s statement. This statement that was produced by the Prime Minister that he spoke to in the House is a comprehensive document and it’s something that all New Zealanders should get. It’s, basically, a blueprint of where we’re headed and where we’re heading into this next year. It is about growth, it’s about employment, and it’s about job creation. It’s about getting things done. It’s about less talk and more do. When I read that statement, that’s what this side of the House will be doing.

This side of the House is also about saying “Yes, yes, yes.” We’re doing things around the Resource Management Act, we are doing things and getting projects under way. We’re now hearing the Opposition already shouting at me, “No, no, no. We don’t want to do or achieve anything.” We want to provide the economy, we want to give certainty, we want to give confidence. That’s the thing going forward. If we give certainty and we give confidence, then we will have an export-led recovery. This is what is in the Prime Minister’s statement: an export-led recovery. It’s about getting the settings right. If we get the settings right for business, like getting interest rates down, like getting inflation under control, and actually getting debt stabilised, they are the things that will give business confidence going forward. Also, if we can get our debt stabilised, we will start being able to reduce debt. Instead of the Government having to pay $10 billion in interest, we can actually start to reduce that. So it’s those things, by getting the settings right and getting our books back in order, that are so important.

But the one thing I want to say is: we don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. That side of the House won’t understand that talk, but the goose is the businesses of our economy. They are the people that employ people, they are the lifeblood, they are the people that export. We’ve got to look after our exporters and we’ve got to look after our businesses. The way we do that is we’re doing that through fast track. A piece of New Zealand First legislation through the coalition agreement, fast track gives some certainty into consenting so we can actually get a pipeline of consents. If we can get that pipeline of consents, then we can get our construction industry under way and we can give certainty into what projects are going to be granted or not. It is not a bad thing, through fast track, that some projects will be a no. Most of them will be a yes, but if we can actually give yes and no early, then we can actually concentrate on those projects.

We’ve also got the Resource Management Act replacement. That will give businesses more certainty as well. We also have our primary industries. We need to get behind our primary industries. We’ve got sheep and beef doing really well. We’ve got wool—for once, wool’s coming back. We’ve got dairy doing really well. We’ve got horticulture, kiwifruit—they are on a boom. We actually need to get behind those industries and start supporting them.

One thing to be really proud of is this Government’s ambition around education: getting the basics right around reading, writing, and maths. Also, being on the Justice Committee, hearing about law and order, and actually seeing ram raids down by 85 percent; actually seeing 38,000 less victims of violent crime—they are great stats and this Government has achieved that.

I do want to talk about the ferry replacement. Where I am in Marlborough, we’ve finally got shovels in the ground. We’ve got a Minister that understands about getting those ferries here in 2029. The infrastructure at Port Marlborough is going in the ground, and that’s happening as we’re speaking here in the House today. It’s giving that certainty and it’s giving that confidence.

The one thing I like about this in the Prime Minister’s statement: no mention of capital gains taxes—no mention of that kind of stuff. The Opposition today were talking about the future fund. Well, we already announced that about six months before they did. So get on the wagon; we’ve already got those policies.

So what I’m saying is we want the goose to be laying more golden eggs, and we are the party that will deliver that through regional New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (16:47): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real privilege and with great pride I stand up here today in support of the Prime Minister’s statement and highlight the enormous contribution of one of our most innovative and resilient and fastest growing sectors. It’s not the wool sector, Mark Patterson, but it is, indeed, New Zealand’s horticulture (hort) sector. But one day—we are in the process of making wool great again—we will stand up and talk about it being our fastest growing sector.

But, look, I’ve got the real privilege of being a Minister with a delegated responsibility for horticulture. It’s the first time a Government’s done this. The reason we’ve done it is because we see, with real excitement, the great projections for the growth of this sector. Every week, those of us who travel up and down the country and visit farms and visit orchards, we’re seeing real hard work going in, real grind, but also more and more optimism from our growers, and it’s a very exciting thing to see. So whether or not you’re growing apples in the Hawke’s Bay or kiwifruit in the Bay of Plenty or onions in Pukekohe or spuds down my patch—I think Mark Patterson’s from there too—in Southbridge or berries across the country, hort is, indeed, one of our increasingly exciting, unstoppable economic powerhouses.

Back in December 2025, just a couple of short months ago, the Ministry for Primary Industries released the latest Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries, which is colloquially known as the SOPI. It confirmed what growers themselves have been signalling: that hort and, indeed, agriculture—the pan-agricultural sector—is booming. Export revenue for hort tipped over $8 billion for the first time; in fact, it went to $8.8 billion, which well exceeded forecasts by an incredible 25 percent. It makes it one of the fastest growing sectors in agriculture. We were expecting a 5 percent growth, but 25 percent really, really knocked it out of the park. That’s, of course, not just good news and well-deserved gains and rewards for those growers, but it is good news for the entire New Zealand economy.

That’s why we on this side of the House sit up here, day after day after day, and endorse and support and back our agricultural sector, because we standing in this House—indeed, anybody walking out on the streets around this country—would not live the lives that we live or enjoy the privileges that we do enjoy without our agricultural sector. Let’s not forget that one in six jobs in this country are generated by agriculture. Every single day 150,000 New Zealanders get out of bed, rain, hail, or shine, to go to work on a farm. And they go to work on behalf of us, and for that we thank them—we really, truly, genuinely thank them.

Because, of course, behind all the numbers that we’ve all been spouting off, these are real achievements; this is real growth trajectory. So thank you to our kiwifruit growers—kiwifruit exports have surged to $4 billion. For the first time, the industry broke its $3 billion mark and it’s hit $4 billion. Thank you to our apples and pear growers; they’ve gone over a billion to $1.2 billion—again breaking records. And thanks to those of you out there who are recovering from really challenging seasons, particularly 2024; avocados, vegetables—they are rebounding strongly as that confidence returns.

Of course, these results reflect a combination of growing conditions and global supply, but crucially, a Government that actually gets the policy settings right. We spent years engaging deeply with the sectors across the country to ensure that when we came to office we would be ready to go with policy, with regulation, with legislation that was fit for purpose, that would allow them to invest, to expand, to innovate, to grow. And of course, that Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report also shows some really encouraging signs around profitability, because on this side of the House, we encourage, we endorse, we embrace companies that make a profit because of the spin-off effects for families, for communities, for society.

Input costs are easing—finally; a lot of speakers on this side of the House have talked about the very real impact that decreases in interest rates and inflation are having on New Zealanders across the country. So input costs are easing. We all know how crippling power prices have been, how crippling rates have been, how rents have been, how fertilisers have been, but we are starting to see it come right, and, therefore, yields are improving, profit’s improving. That is what real economic recovery looks like on the ground. That is what we have been determined, as a Government, to deliver to New Zealanders. We know that growth comes from investment, it creates jobs, it creates better outcomes for New Zealand and New Zealanders. So this Government proudly, unapologetically backs agriculture, backs horticulture, not just with slogans, not with press releases and fanfare, but actual policy, actual legislative shifts that are really going to shift the dial and change things for New Zealanders.

Our growers, of course, are directly benefiting from our global outreach, from the Government’s trade agenda. We’ve seen the New Zealand - European Union trade agreement delivered months ahead of where it was expected to be. It’s already boosted kiwifruit returns. It’s removed multiple amounts of tariffs. We’ve seen strengthened agreements and all sorts of new and emerging—existing markets like the UK, but new and emerging markets like the United Arab Emirates, like the Gulf Cooperation Council, and then South-east Asian markets, of course, are opening further high-value opportunities.

I’ve had the opportunity myself to travel with the Prime Minister, who is absolutely sensational on a world stage. When we go off on these trade missions into these really exciting parts of the world, into South-east Asia, into places like Malaysia and Vietnam and the Philippines, they are really, really open to what New Zealand has to offer. They’re very excited about what New Zealand has to offer, and they want to do business with us.

We are working really hard here at home. We must acknowledge the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials working to remove the likes of tariff barriers. They’re working side by side with our exporters. Again, we are in lock step; we are hand in glove with the real people on the ground to make sure we get it right.

Just today, I received some advice around trade data that’s showing exponential growth across the globe, but in some markets New Zealand exporters are reporting growth anywhere from 20 percent up to 32 percent. That is quite extraordinary, and hats off to those growers and exporters but also, I have to say, to the officials who get the hard work done.

Look, our growers, we know, can compete with the best in the world, and that’s why we’re making sure they can actually reach the world. So now with all of the work that trade Minister the Hon Todd McClay has been doing, and all of the hard workers behind him, over 70 percent of New Zealand’s trade is now covered by a formal trade arrangement. And, of course, MFAT and MPI again need to be acknowledged: they’ve managed to iron out over $730 million in trade barriers—again, real results being delivered to New Zealand businesses.

One of the most consistent frustrations I hear from growers, and indeed, you know, I’m sure members across the House will be hearing from businesses across New Zealand, is the detrimental impact the Resource Management Act (RMA) has had on them for the past three decades. I think that 900-page behemoth had become completely unwieldy, completely unworkable, and was really, really hamstringing both this economy, but actually—it needs to be acknowledged—was hamstringing the environment, was preventing the improvement of the environment and environmental outcomes. Consents were taking years. We’ve all heard the horror stories, compliance costs—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s why Labour repealed it.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: And, unfortunately, I can hear some barracking from across the Chamber. The unfortunate thing is that the previous Government spent quite some time developing a new RMA, which actually turned out to be worse than the first one. We’ve taken it back to the drawing board and actually done a real job with it. We’re very excited about that. Already with the engagement through the submissions process, we’re very much looking forward to the select committee process, so we really can start to, as Chris Bishop would say, panel-beat the thing and make sure we deliver something that’s workable and that’s enduring and has better economic outcomes and better environmental outcomes.

The Prime Minister’s been very clear—very clear—that this Government has listened and it has acted. That is our duty to do, as legislators in this House. Of course, we passed the first reading of that legislation late last year. We’re now working on it so that we can get it progressed into law before the third quarter of this year. It is going to deliver a new planning system that is faster, it’s more consistent, and it gives people some surety, because that surety is what drives investment, which is what drives business growth and therefore job growth. It never ceases to amaze me how very difficult that party finds that simple concept to understand.

Look, I can see my time is running out. I had so much more I wanted to talk about, but suffice to say we’re here, we’re committed, we’re doing the job because we see the benefits to New Zealand and New Zealanders, and we want to ensure that flows on to every facet of our society.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (16:57): Thank you. There are few things that make New Zealanders more grumpy than when they cannot get the medical treatment and the healthcare that they need, when they need it and where they need it. And of course, on the doorsteps of West Auckland, when I go out on a Saturday morning and talk to my constituents, the very first issue that, almost always, they raise is the cost of living. And they are deeply, deeply unhappy with this National-led coalition because at every turn, food, electricity, housing, rates, insurance, almost every item in the household budget has become more expensive under National, even though they promised to fix it. Everything from the car rego to prescriptions is more expensive under National.

But close behind the cost of living is the running down and the deterioration, the underfunding and under-staffing of our public health system. I thought the House might like to know about the story of Troy Stewart, a cardiology nurse who recently told The Post that he was so disillusioned with his work as a cardiology nurse at Waitākere Hospital in West Auckland that he has upped sticks and gone to Australia to work, unbelievably leaving his family here in New Zealand and sending money back to support them. He told The Post that at one point on the cardiac ward where he worked, he had to leave an elderly cardiac patient who’d been ringing the bell for more than 10 minutes while he dealt with another patient on the ward that was acutely ill. Troy said that this was almost a daily occurrence on his ward.

Now, official documents show that in the last 18 months, more than 70 percent of the shifts at Waitākere Hospital, my local hospital in West Auckland, were below the agreed safe staffing levels—70 percent of the shifts. Now, why is that? It’s because Christopher Luxon will not let the hospitals employ the nurses that they need. At the same time, half of our nursing grads are without jobs. There is a crippling shortage of nurses in our hospitals, but half the nursing grads cannot find a job. There’s something absolutely mad about that situation, and the people that I represent in West Auckland, they desperately want that to change.

I want to also tell the House about an email that I received this week from a local resident, Vijay Farley-Naiker, who actually wrote to the health Minister—and he was kind enough to copy me on his email—saying that “The reports and lived experience from patients, whānau, front-line staff in our community point to overcrowding, extended waiting times, workforce shortages, and uncertainty in clinical decision-making, particularly in emergency and acute services.” He talked about the fact that his father was misdiagnosed at Waitakere Hospital after prolonged waiting times and a lack of continuity and urgency in his care. His father had other problems at Waitakere Hospital, and Vijay Farley-Naiker observes that “These experiences point to systemic issues rather than individual failings. Staff appear overstretched, decision making is compromised by workload pressures, and families are left feeling anxious, excluded, and unsure whether their loved ones are receiving the care they need.”

According to the NZ Health Survey, 65,000 people cannot get the care they need, but, luckily, Labour has a plan. We will provide a Medicard for every New Zealander, which provides three free doctors visits. We will invest in the health system. Labour will make sure that people get the care that they need, locally. New Zealand cannot afford three more years of National.

Ingrid Leary: Madam Speaker?

Simon Court: Lucky there’s ACT!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me. I call Ingrid Leary.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:02): Madam Speaker, I would really suggest that members of the Government get out into their electorates a little bit more because sitting, listening to their speeches today, they are in an alternative reality. They love to quote facts and figures and statistics and targets and trickle-down economics, when the reality for people on the ground is so very different. I haven’t heard any of them talk about the price of cheese, which has gone up 30 percent—around $13 to $14 in most supermarkets. I haven’t heard them talk about the price of eggs—up 20 percent—the price of milk—2 litres now close to $6. I remember when you could go down to the dairy and get two bottles for around $6. They are in an alternative reality, and that has been made very clear in the State of the Nation Report by the Salvation Army this morning, which highlighted the worsening child poverty, the worsening unemployment—in fact, unemployment is now at record highs—the worst statistics in a decade. Some sections of the community are really feeling the impact, including our Pasifika youth with one-in-four unemployed—horrendous statistics. The trickle-down economics that they love to speak about do not work, and that is what the evidence is telling us, and that is what our constituents are telling us.

Rising family violence is a really worrying trend that the Salvation Army is reporting. It correlates with the increased mental distress, and we know that the mental health system is yet another part of the health system that has been neglected by this Government. What does the Government do in response? Well, today, Nicola Willis, so desperate as the Minister of Finance, decides that she’s going to try a political tactic and get an inquiry into the Reserve Bank around its monetary policy that happened under COVID—that independent institution, the Reserve Bank. Because she is so desperate, she wants to talk about lessons learnt, she wants to talk about governance, and she wants to talk about transparency, because she cannot stand the fact that things are sliding under her watch, and that the cost of living that is crippling New Zealand families and that so many people are

struggling with is happening right now under her watch. This is a classic distraction. It is a classic smokescreen. It is a classic manoeuvre to direct the anger that is so rightfully being directed to her by people on the street. We hear this all the time when we do our issues boards at the local A & Ps. When I was down at the Invercargill Southland Institute of Technology open day the other day, I heard the anger at this Government and heard people say they want to change this Government because they are concerned with what’s happening right now, not with what happened in COVID.

What is happening right now is that we are seeing these record unemployment figures and we are seeing people struggling with housing and people sleeping in cars. I have been dealing with a constituent case this week—heartbreaking—of a mother of children sleeping in cars. I have been dealing with Housing New Zealand. I’ve been dealing with Oranga Tamariki. They simply do not have the people and the services available to support our struggling families. When we look at that and then look at the cynical timing of the report that the finance Minister has commissioned, surprisingly, today—and guess what! It’s going to land in September, several weeks before the election—so that she can do what she does day after day in this House and try to point the finger at everybody else for her fiscal mismanagement. We heard today in question time how she can’t even read the books properly. That is why she is creating new financial indicators. It is a sad state of affairs. It is easier to try to count large-scale asset purchase losses rather than talk about job losses, and those job losses are happening right here, right now, under this Government’s watch.

What is her plan? Her plan is simply the blame game. It is desperation from the other side. We don’t see any credible plan, and I would invite people at home watching this debate to listen to the theory, the trickle-down economics, the stats, the words like “engagement with the sector”. They should be out on the ground, boots on the ground, talking to their constituents and at least acknowledging the hardship that is out there currently. It might be easier to swallow the words that they are saying if there was some acknowledgment of what is going on for ordinary New Zealanders, but, sadly, they are so out of touch that they cannot even do that. That is why we will be changing this Government come November.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (17:07): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had intended on coming in and speaking about a few of the things that are going on in the wonderful Whanganui electorate, but I cannot sit here and listen to the garbage coming from the other side of the House. On Monday, I had the privilege of visiting Whanganui Hospital because, like a good local MP, like many of my colleagues on this side of the House, I’m regularly engaged and seen in my actual electorate. I went to the maternity ward—not generally somewhere I frequent often, but we have recently had a baby—and they invited me into the maternity ward to see what was going on in Whanganui. Now, the maternity ward in Whanganui is 100 percent staffed. It’s also 100 percent staffed by midwives. They were very happy. We had a great chat. We talked about positive things going on in the healthcare sector—things that Labour don’t know about, because they don’t get out and actually talk to real New Zealanders. They don’t understand that their legacy, their $100 billion of debt they created for this country, actually costs New Zealanders every day.

The member had the tenacity to talk about eggs. Now, I’m not talking about eggs in the maternity ward; I’m now talking about eggs in supermarkets. They go up because, surprisingly enough, their inability to solve the Resource Management Act (RMA) and to fix the RMA and to actually remove the cost of paperwork in farming, in primary industries, in horticulture, has a cost at the supermarket till. My local egg manufacturer—one of them—one of the egg production facilities in the Whanganui electorate, has been struggling to actually put up a whole new barn because of the RMA. Even though they’ve been there for 60 years and even though they’ve been having chickens in this place and producing eggs for years, they have been unable to put up the next barn because of the RMA. I tell you what: they are looking forward to the changes that this Government is bringing through the House, this year, to be able to do things that directly impact the price of food in New Zealand.

Let’s talk about energy security, another area where the Labour Party want to scaremonger because, quite frankly, that’s all they’re good at—scaremongering and trying to convince New Zealanders that it would be worse than if they were in power. But New Zealanders don’t have short memories. They remember what that Government left this country with. They remember that that Government was the Government that banned oil and gas exploration. In the Taranaki, part of which is in the mighty Whanganui electorate, we announced, this week, the LNG import facility to ensure that we have critical risks protected in this country. Let’s simplify it. One of the things that Labour do when they scaremonger is they don’t tell New Zealand what’s actually going on.

Hon Members: Oh!

CARL BATES: It’s pretty simple: having the LNG facility—listen up, listen up—means lower energy costs for New Zealanders.

I’ll tell you what isn’t scaremongering: it’s telling New Zealanders what would occur if—if—the Opposition ever returned to the Treasury benches. The first thing they’d do is bring in a capital gains tax—I’m not sure if it would be Barbara Edmonds, as the Minister of Finance, that would do it, or if it would be Chlöe Swarbrick—along with an inheritance tax. Just imagine that: the Greens holding the Treasury purse, along with what’s left of Te Pāti Māori, trying to work out what a justice system actually means.

Let’s talk about positive things this Government is actually doing to fix the mess that lot left when they left the Treasury benches a couple of years ago. One is the focus that the Prime Minister spoke about in the Prime Minister’s statement on the Tourism Growth Roadmap—another great thing for the Taranaki - Whanganui region. The Regional Events Promotion Fund this week announced it will support the Winter Fest in Taranaki and New Zealand’s first Festival of Design to be held, for the first time, in the wonderful Whanganui electorate; 16,000 people will come to Whanganui and Manawatū. Restaurants and cafes will thrive; accommodation and hotels will be full; local businesses will see more customers. That is what economic growth is.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (17:12): We are focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and while we do that, the members on the other side are scrambling. I’ve never seen them look so nervous as when the inquiry into the use of public money during the COVID pandemic was announced. They won’t front the COVID inquiry—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That’s misinformation. Tell the truth.

TIM COSTLEY: —and now they’re worried about what this one might show happened to public money. There’s Megan Woods yelling out, and they’re all worried about some new imports for liquefied natural gas, which will save consumers $50 a year. Who was the Minister of Energy and Resources in the last Government, and what happened to gas exploration during that time? What happened to power prices? There were $800 spot prices—every single person in the Ōtaki electorate has experienced the impact of that—whereas we are focused on making life more affordable.

Let me tell you what fixing the basics and building the future looks like where I come from—from Foxton, all the way down through Whitby, and all through the new Kāpiti electorate as well. The average mortgage, we hear the numbers, is almost $11,000 a year cheaper, but what it looks like on the ground is the woman I spoke to last week who had just refixed their mortgage, and it’s $180 cheaper per week—$180 cheaper. She told me that that was going to pay for one of their children’s dance lessons; they were going to pay a little bit more off the capital to get it down so future interest would be cheaper, and then there was a bit of flex, whether that was fish and chips on a Friday night on the beautiful beaches of Kāpiti—whatever it might be. It gave the family options. That’s what it means when we fix the basics—it gives people options.

I spoke to a contractor, in January, who’d just bought a new digger; last year, I met three farmers who’ve bought new tractors—all of those because of our Investment Boost policy. It’s fixing the basics. It’s making life cheaper for them and opening up new options for their companies, but it’s also building the future, because for the contractor, they could go and get new jobs that they didn’t previously have the technology to do. It builds their income. It secures up jobs.

What about education? Fixing the basics by getting kids learning with the structured approach to literacy and to numeracy. We hear the stats, like instead of 36 percent it went to 58 percent, last year, of new entrants at the reading level, or, at the other end of primary school, that kids were going up two years in just 12 weeks. But what it looks like is when you meet those parents, you see the families, and you see the kids who are actually engaged and enjoy reading and the trajectory it puts them on.

I think of the schools like Ōtaki School. I got to contact their principal last year, Matua Rauru, and tell him that their school property funding, this year, was increasing by 50 percent. I got to talk about the difference that meant for the classrooms that were leaky—not just at Ōtaki School but Te Horo School and Horowhenua College and Discovery School. Schools that are getting new learning support coordinators this year have been crying out for that for years. At Paraparaumu School, Steven Caldwell must be over the moon with what this Government has done for that school; or Bec and the team at Kāpiti School; Pāuatahanui School, Plimmerton, Raumati Beach, Postgate, Discovery—I could name so many. It also comes down to the little things—a good local MP fighting for people at Taitoko School to get the new school crossing when the council said no. It’s those kinds of things that actually build the future—that get kids to school safely and get them learning the basics.

There’s so much more we could talk about when we think about what we are fixing in terms of the basics and building the future. There were 38,000 less victims, last year, of violent crime. It’s a big number, but when we break it down to 484 families in Kāpiti that didn’t suffer that crime—that didn’t have to go on suffering as they try to negotiate and navigate the justice system to find justice and to find answers. That’s the difference it makes on the ground. I could talk about the new breast cancer clinic in Waikanae. I met a woman last week who said she used to have to climb up into this old, cold, cramped bus, and now she can go into a nice, warm space that’s not on the side of the road, and what a difference that meant for her. I think about events like the Faultline, which will be running in Wellington in April, run by Bengy and the team out of Kāpiti, and which got funding from our major Events Boost Fund. That’s fantastic—that has a meaningful difference to people on the Kāpiti Coast.

I could talk about transport. We’re literally building the future with Ō2NL, the new expressway that Suze and I fought so hard for, from Ōtaki to Levin. The new electric trains that are going to connect in Ōtaki and Levin and Shannon and Palmerston North—there will be four trains north a day and four trains south; eight trains a day, and on weekends. It is literally building the future. There is a lot to be proud of over the last two years, and a lot to be excited about as we move into this year. We are a party focused on fixing the basics, and building the future.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (17:17): We’re seeing a concerning shift in our foreign policy, but if you read the Prime Minister’s statement, you wouldn’t know it, and that’s a concern in itself. The final line of the Prime Minister’s statement on the foreign affairs section says this: “The Government is restoring New Zealand’s standing as a constructive supporter of the rules-based order.” That is simply not true. In many ways, this Government is behaving in a way that contradicts the rules-based order. This is a Government who have failed to join South Africa’s legal challenge at the International Court of Justice, despite joining it in the Ukraine-Russia case. Suddenly, the rules-based order no longer matters.

This is Government who has failed to recognise Palestine. This is a Government where the Foreign Minister has been publicly mulling leaving the World Health Organization. It’s a Government who, in one breath, says they stand up for human rights, and, in the next, they abstain on a vote on the Golan Heights, which is completely out of step with our position. It’s completely against the rule of law, and completely against the way in which our Defence Force have been contributing to the region since 1954. It is a significant shift, and one we should be concerned about. This is a Prime Minister who says he’s concerned with the rule of law but took several weeks to consider joining Trump’s Board of Peace. This is a Government who, when faced by mass human rights violations in Iran, has not spoken strongly enough to condemn those violations and has not asked for an independent investigation led by the UN in response.

We are seeing a shift in policy. We have gone from solidarity to silence and from silence to strangeness. It’s remarkable that when New Zealand takes the podium at the United Nations these days, no one has any idea what we might say. Is that better for our ethics? No. I would argue that it’s certainly not good for our security. We are becoming a nation that is squeezable—so that foreign forces might believe that if they put enough pressure on New Zealand, New Zealand may bend their way. Being squeezable is not consistent with our moral standpoint and it is certainly not something that will keep us safe in a changing world.

Now, in this world, we often talk about the left and right, but what the centre has protected for decades is our foreign policy position. But under this Government, we are shifting, make no mistake. Apparently, the Government is attempting to shift under the cover of darkness by not being clear about it in the Prime Minister’s statement.

So what does this hold for us going into the future? We either drift into irrelevance because we no longer call out human rights abuses, or we’re simply seen as an acolyte, squeezable, depending on who can put the most pressure on us. This year, we have a chance to change the Government, to bring back a Government that we have seen for decades throughout New Zealand’s history that stands for clear, principled, pragmatic foreign policy but also foreign policy that is predictable on the basis of our values, that demonstrates that we are not squeezable.

Now, this is a Government that is not only failing us internationally; it is failing us here at home, as we’re seeing a generation of young New Zealanders leave to find jobs overseas, as we’re seeing the Westies that I speak to unable to get doctors appointments, unable to afford the fees that are $70 and upwards for many of them. We’re seeing a Government who have gotten rid of our smoke-free generation. When I protested with doctors in Auckland early in the term, they called this a betrayal. This is a betrayal and this is a Government of broken promises. Come November, we, along with the people of New Zealand, will be changing this Government.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (17:22): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to be able to stand up and respond to the Prime Minister’s statement. I just want to acknowledge very quickly—and I did forget to say talofa lava—a number of our community leaders were out on the front lawn just a couple of hours ago. The reason why I want to acknowledge them was because these people from my local community of Māngere have come all the way down on a bus to put their petition in, and it was wonderful to be with them today. I do want to acknowledge those members who took the time to say kia ora, talofa.

The economy and the cost of living is getting worse for many people across Aotearoa. Why? Because the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, is out of touch. I’ve heard contributions since the Prime Minister gave his contribution, and even today he made statements, and I don’t know if he’s ever walked the streets in Māngere, Auckland. The reason I say that is because things are getting worse for New Zealanders. Record numbers are leaving Aotearoa in their thousands, and we are losing many of our families, our aiga, who just cannot survive. They’re on Struggle Street daily—not weekly, not monthly; daily. One of the things that Labour will do when it gets into Government on 7 November is we’re going to ease the cost of living. Our policy is jobs, health, homes, and real action on the cost of living.

In my contribution, I wanted to highlight what it’s like in Māngere, and it’s been like that for quite some time—actually, since this Government has stepped in. We cannot afford, in Aotearoa, another three years of the National Party. Why? In Māngere—and I have never seen this in all the years that I’ve lived in Māngere—we have whāea, we have women, Māori and Pacific, living and sleeping in laundromats that are open 24 hours; our whāea are actually living in bus shelters. Many of the services have reached out, including the Ministry of Social Development, to help these whāea, but they just cannot afford the cost of living. They cannot afford housing. They are receiving partial benefits, but food has become very, very expensive. I want to acknowledge the social agencies in Māngere, in South Auckland. I’ve never seen this in my life. To go past a bus shelter and see whāea living in there with a shopping trolley—that is the reality for some of our whāea, some of our elderly people. They’re living in bus shelters and sleeping in laundromats.

I really appreciate that many of our members have highlighted the macroeconomics—the reasons why many of our Kiwis are facing cost of living. Things like bread, milk—just the basic necessities are so expensive. My job as a member of Parliament for the Māngere community is to say that many of our young people are struggling, and many of our families. In South Auckland, we have the highest youth population in the country. We have a very diverse community. We have proud people, and some of those people, they were out on the lawn today, this afternoon, because of the petition they brought to Parliament. They feel so strongly about the issue, they gave up their weekly allowance to get on that bus.

It’s my job here—I have the opportunity and I have the privilege of raising these issues and to tell that Government the reality for people living in South Auckland. I’m a very proud member of my community. I do appreciate that some of our social agencies have really stepped away from their normal role and are actually fronting up after hours to help the whāea living in those bus shelters. That’s a really sad thing. I’ve never seen that in all the decades that I’ve lived in Māngere.

That Government are making choices that are affecting people. They are out of touch, and they need to front up to the communities that put them over there. On 7 November, we have a choice to make.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (17:27): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, and the Public Service Amendment Bill.

Bills

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Part 1 Main Amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, and the Public Service Amendment Bill. We come first to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, and we begin with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 19, the main amendments. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do hope that we’ll hear from the Minister about this bill, because it is really quite a shocking bill. I appreciate it might be not something that you have been particularly familiar with, but just to give a brief overview of how I see the Opposition, at least, engaging with this committee of the whole House stage, there are a number of key changes that this amendment bill brings into the primary bill, which is the Employment Relations Act. Those are, in summary, the changes in relation to employee contractors, which is in this part, and then we move on to several subparts up to, I think, Subpart 5. It would be our view that—and I hope you’ll pass this on to other presiding officers—we would want to be making substantive contributions to each of those particular areas in the course of this debate, because there are a number of points that we want to make and also a number of amendments that we have made in relation to each of those particular clauses.

So for your awareness and at the start of this committee stage, this is a significant change to the employment relations regime in New Zealand. As such, we’ll be engaging thoroughly with each clause, obviously, in accordance with the Standing Orders and bringing out new material in the correct manner, but there is a substantial amount of information to get through within this committee stage. As you said, the first part that we will be looking at will be the parts in relation to the definition of an employee. This is clause 4, which is the first clause in this first part that we’re debating.

I do know that the Minister has put up an Amendment Paper. That Amendment Paper is number 504. I would just seek some guidance as to when that is proposed to be debated. I see that it inserts new clause 25A, so I imagine that we would be debating that Amendment Paper some time in about possibly Subpart 5. But if the Chair could check that, because that Amendment Paper is significant. I do look forward to the Minister’s explanation as to why this Amendment Paper, which appears to retrospectively take away rights from existing employees or contractors to challenge their employment status—so I think I definitely would be interested to hear what the possible justification of that could be and imagine that we would be wanting to have a significant debate on that amendment, given that it is an Amendment Paper and it has been tabled at this stage and hasn’t been to select committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That is Part 2.

CAMILLA BELICH: Part 2—OK, fantastic. Thank you for letting me know about that.

I come back to Part 1, the meaning of “employee”. This has been a settled part of employment law in New Zealand—as far as I’m aware—for a very long time. The meaning of “employee” is essential to the rights that flow from employment. To be an employee in New Zealand means that you have certain rights that other types of workplace engagement don’t have—for example, parental leave, sick leave, holiday pay, you have certain rights in relation to personal grievances, and many other important rights that most people in New Zealand will think go hand in hand with working; however, we know that that’s not the case if you’re not an employee. The definition of what an employee is and how that’s interpreted is of fundamental importance to New Zealand.

Now, we know the background of this particular section. We know that one of the things that the ACT Party negotiated with the National Party was a provision to actually look at this particular contractual relationship. I’ve gone back and I’ve read the nucleus of this particular first section on employees in the ACT-National agreement. I referred to it, I think, in my contribution in the second reading. I don’t believe that it is correctly recorded in that agreement. I think it appears that there is an error in that. I would be interested to hear the Minister speak to that, because it appears to say that it will uphold the status quo, which is that people are not allowed to challenge their employment status in court.

Now, of course, we know from the Uber case that the status quo is that you can challenge your employment status in court. In fact, all of these changes are based on the fact that you can challenge your employment status in court. So I would like to know: was there an error in that? How material is that in terms of the coalition partners actually understanding what the Minister is trying to do here? We can see what she’s trying to do, which is to make it much easier for people not to be considered employees. So I would like some comment on that from the Minister, if possible.

Also, I have some further contributions I’d like to make in due course around clause 7.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’d just note for the member’s benefit that we are not debating the coalition agreement; we are debating this bill.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (17:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to make that exact point. This is specifically about the bill that we see in front of us.

I wanted to take a very short call right at the start, because I think it’s very important for me to have this on record right at the start of this debate. I note the Chair has suggested that my Amendment Paper will be debated at length in Part 2, but in reference to the member suggesting that my Amendment Paper is retrospective, I want to have it written in Hansard, and for everybody listening and everybody in this Chamber, that that Amendment Paper is not retrospective. My officials advise me it is not retrospective. There will be some people in the business community who are not in favour of that particular Amendment Paper, while many of them are, because it is not retrospective. Through this entire debate I have not intended for our law to be retrospective at all. That has been my entire intention this whole way through for the past two years, because this law will not override workers’ rights under the current law. That Amendment Paper is to make it very clear about the distinction between the current and the future law.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:37): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an area I worked in for 25 years. Some of the worst behaviour that I saw involved exploited workers who were called contractors, so I am absolutely gutted to see this law come through tonight. But I want to start with some of the fundamental reasons and ask about what you’ve done about these things in terms of protecting the real people who are impacted by this.

So the section 6 test, until now, has been a mixture of tests where the judge has looked at various qualities of the relationship between the two people that are involved. They’ve looked at the nature of that relationship and its fundamentals. So they’ve always taken into account the intention of the parties—that’s been an important feature—but they’ve also taken into account things like the level of control of the principal and the worker. That’s always been a feature. They’ve always taken into account the economic reality and the real independence of that worker. And they’ve looked at the fundamentals, and they’ve looked at the integration with the business, and they’ve also looked at intention. One of my favourite things that they’ve looked at is the chance of a profit, which feeds into all of those.

So workers who have thought that they were contractors, wanted to be independent businesses, have been prevented from any chance of a profit by the terms that they have been constrained on by the principal. I want to explain to the Minister an example, and I’d like her comment on—this is my question that’s central to this example—how is it that the Minister is addressing those vulnerabilities and how are they protecting that chance of a profit? So now that we are going to move to a test where you can just specify a contractor, how is she protecting New Zealanders from exploitation and broken hopes?

Now, I want to give you an example of that, and it’s a real example—it happened. So it was a company that has set up a relationship that considered contracting. It involved transporting—so the person had to buy the vehicle, the vehicle was very expensive, so they had to go into debt to get that vehicle. They were, at that point, signed up to giving all the financial information that they had to the principal. Every time they did a job, they would have to collect that information, and they would have that financial information. The truck had the regalia of the principal on it, so it looked like it was the business of the principal. They had to follow very strong rules by that principal. There were detailed rules and instructions. In fact, when they had someone working with them, that person had to follow rules directly from the principal. Every time they made any money over a certain percentage, then that was something that meant that the contract got revised down unilaterally, so they were never able to make a profit.

That person had hopes, they had dreams, they wanted to be a contractor in that they wanted to run their own business, but they weren’t independent—they were what we would call under the law “tied hand and foot”. They couldn’t do anything. How is the Minister going to protect that person under this law, where they are simply signing up that they’re specified to be a contractor but, in fact, they’ll be subject to great exploitation? I want to point out that that worker earned a lot less than the minimum wage. They had no savings at all. They were unable to challenge that situation without significant financial help from others. [Interruption] Madam Chair, I just want to finish my scenario.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Helen White.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. They were in a situation where they were vulnerable to exploitation. I want to know: how is it that this law will protect such people? What happens to things like the test for independence? What happens to the test for integration? In that situation, they were so integrated in the business that no one else would know that they weren’t an employee. What happens to the fact that they had no chance to make a profit? I’m very interested to hear. I can see there are a lot of other questions I’d like to ask on this part, but I just want to ask this single question because I can see that you’re likely to answer it. Thank you very much. I’ll take my seat and ask for an answer to that question so far.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (17:43): Well, I thank the member for her question. I think all of us in this House do care about the rights of people who work within New Zealand, and want to make sure that we are helping people who are in vulnerable situations. When it comes to the example that Helen White has asked for, in terms of there being anything within this section 6 change that would help people who might be vulnerable as contractors, I can absolutely assure you that there is. There was one area in particular that I was quite keen on making as an addition, which is that in order to meet the gateway test, the contract has to be written down.

Now, for contracts, there are actually many people out there who don’t have written contracts—that is not specified in law—but, in order to meet this particular part of the gateway test, everything needs to be written into your contract. I think that is actually quite useful for people who might be a current vulnerable worker if their employer was hopeful to meet the gateway test. But in regards to the specific example the member has used, I want to make it very clear: the gateway test is used to give clarity to a small subset of people who may wish to use the gateway test. In order to use the gateway test, all four different types of criteria must be met, which are written down into the law—about the intention, the restriction, the availability, subcontracting, etc. If those gateway criteria are not met, then the current section 6 actually still applies, so employees can still challenge their status based on the existing test if any of those criteria are not met. It’s actually quite comprehensive as part of the law.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (17:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise on behalf of the Greens and join with the concerns of my friends and colleagues in the Labour Party as well. This is a significant rewrite of employment law. It does tilt the balance to the employers over the employees. We support the call that we make sure that we give this a thorough going-over.

We are, at this particular point in time, talking about the gateway test and the impact of whether someone can be classified as a contractor as opposed to an employee. That will have massive ramifications for those workers because it means that they could, potentially, lose out on holiday pay, sick pay—all of those types of things that you would expect if you were an employee. The 30-day revocation rule, as well, is also a significant departure, and that is something that must be thoroughly interrogated, along with, in my mind, the undermining of the personal grievance system. There are a lot of issues here that we need to unpack.

I did hear the Minister talk about the gateway test, and she did say, “Well, if it’s not written down, then they can’t use the gateway test.” I guess it’s a start of a number of questions that I have as well. Not just having it written down, what are the other criteria? What other safeguards are in there for workers, for employees, before they get to the gateway test? I think it’s incredibly important to make sure that we get that on the Hansard so that people are clear, out there, exactly of the impacts of this law on the workforce.

I also acknowledge that a lot of this came out—well, all of this came out—because of the case that the Uber drivers took and won in every single court. They were misclassified as contractors when actually they were employees. They were trying to access their rights via section 6, and now they’re going to have to jump through another hoop, this so-called gateway test, as well. I wanted to acknowledge the hard work of those workers as well and to also note that if we want to do everything that we can for workers in this country, we’ve got to provide a vision of hope, and we’ve got to make sure that we provide those foundations and make sure we get the balance right. I don’t think that this piece of legislation gets that balance right at all, and people should be alarmed, across both sides of the House, about exactly what this piece of legislation is doing, because we are seeing too many people getting on a plane and flying over to better paying conditions in Australia. We don’t want that. We want our young people to stay here.

I have got a tabled amendment—I’m not sure if it’s hit the Table—and it is related to clause 4 in this Part 1, which we are debating as well. I would be interested to see if the Minister might support this because it tries to tilt the balance back towards employees. What I’m proposing is after clause 4, new section 6(8), after page 4 line 12, to insert a new section 9, which is: “Person A, as classified as a specified contractor, can notify person B in writing that they’re an employee, not a specified contractor. Person A is classified as an employee under the Act from the time they send written notice to person B.” In my mind, what this will do is it will give the opportunity for the workers to say, “You know what? You think I’m a contractor. You’re actually wrong.” We should be able to have a rethink about that relationship.

For me, that ensures that the classification of the specified contractor, actually, accurately reflects the contracting intentions of both parties. Sometimes, when you go in there and you sign these contracts, the relationship changes as well. There has to be an opportunity somehow, somewhere within this piece of legislation to make sure that we get that balance right. At this particular point in time, this is so balanced towards the employers and this is so balanced towards the bosses that it doesn’t give many options for the workers. This is something that really needs to be interrogated.

Once again, just for the sake of the Minister, the Minister did talk about how, before you can access the gateway test, you’ve got to make sure that it’s written down; what other criteria are there? My other follow-up question is around whether she will accept my tabled amendment—which should be on the Table there—which I think would help to provide a bit more balance to this legislation.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (17:50): I thank the member for his question. While I was creating the gateway test and it was being thought through, it was very important for me that we were getting the balance right between businesses’ and workers’ rights. For that reason, you’ve outlined the importance of the written agreement. I’m asked further about what other parts of the gateway test uphold rights for workers, and I’m very happy to oblige because there are a number of them within here which I think are of benefit to a worker in that arrangement—especially the fact that there is the availability criterion, which essentially says that if a person is in this arrangement with this business, they cannot meet the gateway test if they’re being told as a worker they cannot work for any other person.

There are some arrangements out there as contracts where people have exclusivity clauses. That would not meet the gateway test. It’s also important for the termination criterion that a person cannot be terminated from their contract with this person because they’ve declined additional work. That’s also very important because part of the fundamental clauses of this gateway test is that it’s about flexibility. Part of contract work, I think, is that people are able to pick and choose their hours, and they should not be denied their contract because they have declined additional work. I think that’s really important for the rights of those workers. So I thank him for his question.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (17:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call, and I will have a few questions for the Minister on this bill tonight. I want to just keep to Subpart 1 because I have some particular scenarios to put to the Minister and some suggested amendments that I just want to foreshadow that I’ll probably table later in the evening.

The concern I have, and I want to put this scenario to the Minister, is based on the fact that what actually happens in practice, and in the Employment Relations Act, as the Minister will know, one of the things that it mentions right upfront is the inherent inequality in power between employee and employer. In practice, what often happens—and the Minister has talked a little bit in her answers about employees or contractors or people accepting some type of an employment relationship, some type of job offer, having something put in writing—is there is a letter of offer and a contract of some type put in front of a person.

Those of us who’ve worked in this industry know, and I actually think probably most New Zealanders would know this, that very few people ever actually go through and read that document, especially young people going into their first jobs. It’s really unusual for people to take the time to read the document. One of the concerns I have is that while there is a gateway test and we’re changing the rules in the law to say that it needs to be agreed between the two parties, there will be many people, especially young people, who will sign a document and not know what they are signing. There are some suggestions that I have that would make this fairer.

The first is that it would be wise to have a cooling-off period. It would be wise to be able to say that a person who had signed a document saying they agreed to be a contractor could have a 24-hour, 48-hour cooling-off period where perhaps they then go home and see mum and dad and they say, “Oh, what have you signed up for?” They can go back and say, “Actually no, my preference is to be an employee.” That’s my first suggested change.

The second is a requirement that independent advice must be offered to anybody accepting such an arrangement, so that they actually can go to community law, pop into a union, talk to a family friend who’s a lawyer and seek some independent advice before making such a determination.

The third is actually being really clear around when this occurs in the process, because if there is a genuineness from the Minister and from the Government that this is a genuine agreement, is it included in the job offer? Does the job offer letter actually have a requirement that says, “You may choose option (a) or option (b) and whichever option you so choose will not revoke the offer.” So therefore, it says “You can choose to be (a) a contractor, and here’s what it looks like; or (b) you can choose to be an employee, and here’s what it looks like, and up to you which one you choose.” Because the reality is what’s more likely to happen is that there’s a job offer put in front of someone where someone must sign off to be a contractor or else they actually don’t get the job. That’s how it works in practice, right? You don’t agree with the terms and conditions—actually, the job’s not yours.

Then the final point I want to make around this is that the reason why these questions of mine matter is that you’re going to end up in situations where person A is going to be working at one business doing a job with a set number of hours and duties and all sorts of other arrangements in terms of the employment relationship, and person B will be in a completely different organisation doing a very, very similar job. Let’s say it’s Burger King and McDonald’s—you know, very similar jobs, but in one job they could be an employee and in one job they could be a contractor. And this is the point here—

Simon Court: There is nothing similar about Burger King and McDonald’s.

RACHEL BOYACK: There is a lot similar between McDonald’s and Burger King in terms of the roles, but—

Simon Court: It’s like Coke and Pepsi.

RACHEL BOYACK: OK, like Coke and Pepsi, like Woolworths and Countdown. I mean, we could go on and on, Mr Court—BP and Z; whatever. The point I’m making is that one of the things about law is that it actually needs to be consistent across occupations and industries. We’re going to end up with inconsistent employment relationship applications within the same job and industry depending on which employer is in operation, and so these are my scenarios I’m posing to the Minister.

Again, I do just want to foreshadow that I’ll come back to this because I’m intending over the dinner break to actually write up some amendments on these very things, particularly around having a cooling-off period and actually ensuring that people have sought independent advice and have been offered that by their employer before such time as they actually sign an agreement. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (17:57): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her question. She raises the idea of giving some time before the document is signed, and I just wanted to point out to the member and other members, and members of the public listening, that one of the parts of the gateway test allows for that very idea. The criteria already requires the employer to provide a reasonable opportunity for this person to seek advice. That’s already been something that we’ve thought about. I thank her for the amendment, but I won’t be accepting it because that’s already part of the thinking of the gateway test.

In response to Teanau Tuiono’s amendment, I’ve finally seen this one, which is good, and it’s about whether or not the worker is able to write down that they’re an employee and then they just become an employee. I won’t be supporting that amendment, and the Government won’t be supporting that, because that is a significant deviation from what Cabinet has agreed to. If the parties have agreed in writing that it is not an employment relationship, then to change that would be something that both parties would have to agree to; that could not just be one-sided.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee is suspended, and we will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. The committee is resumed. We are resuming the debate on clauses 4 to 19, “Main amendments”.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (19:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise for the evening in response to some of the questions from before the dinner break from my colleague Rachel Boyack. She had a number of questions that I wish to respond to.

Firstly, there was a suggestion that job offer letters should include options of either having employee or contractor, and that the worker can choose between both. I believe that that would go against the intention of my bill, which is to enable businesses the flexibility and certainty to choose the business model that actually best suits them. This bill requires the business to be explicit in the agreement if the role is a contractor or not an employee.

There was a second question suggesting a change to require that independent advice must be offered so the worker can go to community law, a union, or a family friend. That is not necessary. The bill already requires the business to give a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice, like those that the member described.

The third question from Rachel Boyack was how this bill will protect against a worker who’s feeling pressured to accept terms immediately. If the business required the worker to sign straight away, then they would not meet the criterion in the gateway test, so the full section 6 test would apply. I think that’s pretty comprehensive. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (19:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask you, first of all, about that independent advice and what advice you got about the difference between what you’re offering and what the law currently does, which is that people take into account whether the person actually got independent advice. I wondered what your position was on moving to something that actually mandated that. We mandate independent advice in many situations where there’s a power imbalance. One of the places that we do that is actually in property settlements in families; we make sure that the person has a certification that they’ve had independent advice. It’s because, at the time that people are going through such crises in their lives, they don’t necessarily make the best decisions. So I’d like to know what sort of advice you’ve got with regard to the quality of the clause that you’ve put in—which is an opportunity and will not be taken in the majority of positions, but will still hold the person to the standard and the actuality of independent advice.

I also want to know what you consider should happen in situations which have morphed. You have here a category of “specified contractor”, which seems to mean it doesn’t really matter what is going on in the actual situation any more. But one of the complex situations in an employment relationship, or any relationship of this kind, is that over time, things change, and they morph enormously in that time. There will be times when somebody starts off and they are free to work at other places, etc., and it might say that on the dotted line, but, in fact, there’s pressure being put on them not to work on other places.

I also wanted—this is something that I raised earlier, but I don’t think you understood me, so I am going to ask you about it: I raised a concern about people who would have been subject to other tests, but there were complicated clauses that constrained them. One that I raised was the fact that you have this financial clause that says, “I’m going to have to show all my books to the principal.” In that situation, the advantage is taken to make sure that that supposed contractor never has a chance of profit. I don’t know if you understood that I was asking about that situation in the gateway. So if the person meets the gateway test, but, in fact, there are constraints on them that mean they have no independence whatsoever—and again, these things only play out over time—what happens to them and how do you propose to protect them from vicious behaviour; from behaviour that takes away their capacity, that exploits them so they cannot act as an independent business would, that we hoped they would be?

Now, I’d also like to know about the potential risk here that employers are at a disadvantage to the employer or the person next door running a business, who runs it on a contractual model with specified contractors at less than the minimum wage. So here are all these good employers, in good faith, engaging with employees in an upfront way, and they’re doing their best to be good-faith employers. What happens in terms of that risk of the competition to good, sound, ethical businesses from rascals who use this particular mechanism to get a labour pool that is really poor and is poorly paid?

I wondered if you’d had any advice as to the tax implications of that, because what I have noticed with regard to the contractor class that I’m talking about—the exploited contractor—is that they never have any savings, they’re living off the smell of an oily rag, and they end up with no KiwiSaver, either. Have you had advice as to the risk that we run as taxpayers that we end up subsidising rascal, often international companies who basically pillage our system of labour and are able—[Time expired]

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (19:37): Mr Chair, thank you.This is the first opportunity I’ve been able to speak to clause 47, which is something I highlighted at the beginning that I wanted to focus on.This is a really huge change, and the Minister was asked previously around the intersection with section 6, which is the primary piece of the Employment Relations Act that is being changed.She said that section 6 would apply if these new changes didn’t come into place, which I understand.

The question that I have, though, in relation to that is, in this particular change that she’s making—essentially, if it is written in a contract that you are an employee, then it appears to me that section 6 doesn’t apply at all, because the statement in the particular piece of paper takes precedence over section 6, which codifies many decades of employment law around the true nature test of whether you’re an employee or not. So I want to check with her if that is her intention: that simply having a piece of paper, a written agreement, that specifies that someone’s an independent contractor and is not an employee, if that means, even in situations of dispute, that there is no place for section 6 in this new clause 7 that she has put forward. I think this is a really important point, because it goes towards whether there is any space at all for the authority of the Employment Court be able to look into a contract to be able to see what the true nature of that employment is.

The reason that’s so important is because, if it is correct that, in fact, you cannot look inside an employment agreement to see what the true nature is, basically, because something is written on a piece of paper, then what is to stop—and has she received any advice on whether this particular clause is likely to lead to people like meat workers being suddenly classified as independent contractors where they currently would be employees; people in factories around New Zealand; employers deciding to use this, as my colleague Helen White has alluded to, in order to get away and remove the liability that they have under employment law for the terms and conditions that employees had?

This is a significant risk, Minister, and we would be grateful if you would be able to share any advice that you have in relation to this. I think this is, perhaps, one of the most important questions in this section: the impact that this change that you’re bringing in to introduce this third category of worker, a “specified contractor”, will bring. So that is a big question, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that and is getting advice from her officials on this.

The second question I have in relation to clause 7 is this. The Minister will be aware that in the select committee stage, there was a change to do with the definition of “specified contractor”, and that change was specifically made in the select committee report to allow for specified contractors to be non-natural persons. There was a definition previously in the bill that the Minister had sent to select committee that indicated that a “specified contractor” would only be a human being. But the select committee has changed that to “person”, and, of course, the word “person” can also include a legal person. What I’m interested in is whether, in fact, the Minister agrees with the select committee change, what the impact of this will be to allow specified contractors to, essentially, be companies, and how that would work with the rest of the legislation, which is written very much from this perspective of dealing with human beings and not with legal entities, which can be considered legal persons. I’d really appreciate the Minister’s considered thoughts on that. I think that that is a really important thing for the Minister to get back to us on.

The other thing is I do have an amendment on the Table—which, hopefully, is on the Table at the moment—in relation to independent advice and making sure that that is provided by a lawyer. As my colleague Helen White has said, that is very usual, and there’s a specific amendment on that that says that it should be from a lawyer and, in fact, that the employer should be able to cover the costs of that to make sure that the person is entering into this freely. There is a huge concern that people will not be entering into this freely; they’ll be entering into these contracts because they feel they have no choice. The disparate nature of power within an employment relationship is such that they have to agree to whatever is put in front of them, and just having a reasonable opportunity is, in my view, not sufficient to mitigate that risk.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (19:42): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll respond to a number of colleagues now. Helen White, firstly, talked about when situations have morphed and the relationship changes over time, and what happens in those cases. Well, the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court can consider both what is in the agreement and what happens in practice, and a couple of top-of-mind examples there would be the vetting criterion that can be used and the availability criterion that would actually look at actual practice.

She also asked whether I would consider mandating the requirement to obtain advice—which we heard echoed. I don’t consider that that would be required and useful for all types of contracting, and so it is superfluous. During the select committee process, the Education and Workforce Committee did, in fact, consider recommending for more process requirements, and they did not recommend that any further requirement be added.

Helen White also asked then about tax implications and whether IRD was part of this process. They were consulted before the Cabinet paper and they did not consider that the introduction of the gateway test would have any significant tax implications.

Camilla Belich, secondly, then also talked about what happens if the agreement says that you are not an employee, and she asked whether that means that you then cannot challenge further into the courts. No, that’s not quite correct. In order to meet the gateway test, you do have to meet all stages of that gateway test, and not just the fact that your agreement says that you are not an employee. You must meet all of the criteria, and the authority can consider what is in the agreement and what does occur in practice.

Camilla Belich also asked about persons that are not natural persons. The select committee amended the gateway test to apply to a “person”, as opposed to a “natural person”, and this change was made to ensure that the construction of the gateway test can be applied in the same situations where the real nature of the relationship section 6 test could be applied.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:44): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a handful of questions in relation to clause 4, and the first one is in relation to page 5 of the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—the one that talks about contractors providing greater certainty for contracting parties. My first question is this. In the advice in the RIS, on page 5, there was a breakdown of the workforce of who is deemed to be contractors as of most recently, but I wondered whether she had a breakdown of the industries in which those contractors are found. The reason for that is that I know that publicly, a lot of this conversation has centred a lot on Uber drivers because of the court cases, but I’m particularly interested in who she deems will be most likely to be affected and what industries she thinks will be most likely impacted as a result of the provisions in clause 4.

Now, I wanted to move to an amendment from my colleague Teanau Tuiono, and it is the one that amends clause 4 and section 6. That would allow person A to be entitled to a review of their employment status after six months of performing work for person B, or a third party facilitated by person B, and for the review person B must undertake this review in consultation with person A and this review must consider whether the nature of the relationship has changed in any way that would affect the classification of person A as a specified contractor. The reason why I wanted to bring up this amendment actually follows Camilla Belich’s questions, because I think that we also want to take the opportunity to raise the potential scenario that we could be seeing a greater proportion of our workforce becoming contractors.

Page 5 of the RIS identifies that about 5 percent of the workforce are contractors right now. What this amendment from my colleague Teanau Tuiono would allow is that it would create a bit of a safeguard so that if we started seeing a greater proportion of the workforce become contractors, there’s a bit of a safeguard whereby this can be reviewed after six months. I don’t—well, I haven’t heard the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety say whether it is her intent to have a greater proportion of the workforce as contractors. That would be useful to also have clarified, because, if so, I think that having these safeguards would be a really useful way to mitigate an unintended consequence.

That leads me to my follow-up question, which is whether the provisions in clause 4 are being enacted with the intention of having a greater proportion of our workforce being contractors. I would ask whether she has received any advice on whether this could happen, and, if so, to what degree this could end up happening—for example, if right now the proportion is around 5 percent, according to the statistics presented in the RIS, I would ask whether she thinks that that percentage could shoot up to, say, 8 percent or 10 percent. I’m keen to know if she has received any advice and whether that’s her intent, at all, and if it is not her intent, why would she not add additional safeguards to ensure that we do not see a greater proportion of our workforce being deemed as contractors. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (19:47): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to just acknowledge the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety responding to my questions from my earlier contribution—and, just for the record, I’m still talking here to Part 1 and Subpart 1, which is in relation to specified contractors. I will also just foreshadow that I have tabled some amendments on those matters that I raised earlier.

There was a question that I had asked the Minister that I haven’t had a specific response to. I’ve got a related question and I would like to hear a response to both of these, but particularly the second part, which I’m about to ask, because I do think that from a legal point of view, it would be helpful for there to be responses on the Hansard. Where I can see some legal risk is—and in the question I asked earlier, I made the observation around the likes of a Burger King and a McDonald’s—where you have workers working across the same industry, but being treated in very different ways. I would still appreciate having a response from the Minister on that, but my contribution now is about what happens within a workplace. I’m going to use the example of a building company because I think it’s quite a good example of where there are employment options and also contract options, and under the current law they be genuine contractor options.

The scenario I want to put to the Minister which I think could present some legal risk to an employer is if you have an employer—let’s say it’s a small building company and they have 10 workers. Some are employees and some are contractors, and yet if you look at the work they are doing and the nature of the relationship, it’s identical. You could have people who, for example, are working the exact same hours, starting at the same time and finishing at the same time, taking the same breaks, and working on the same location. It could be a building site, building three or four apartments, and they’re working on that same site. They’re all wearing the same uniform. They’re all reporting to the same boss, and so the authority is consistent. They’re all performing the same or similar tasks. They all have the same skill level and the same qualification or comparable qualifications, and this would be quite common when you perhaps have a group of apprentices or people who are four or five years into an industry or working on the same site. Some would be gibbing and some would be putting the frames up, but they might be switching tasks.

These are the types of things that are inherent in things like the control test, for example, that’s currently in case law. The question I have is: what would the legal risk be if, say, right now, all the things that I’ve outlined would, under the law, make them likely to be treated as employees under current tests, but under the new law, they could go through a process of having new people come into the workplace where they agree to be specified contractors, and yet they’re reporting to the same person, wearing the same uniform, reporting to the same worksite, doing the same tasks, and have the same qualification and are working the same hours?

Does that not present a legal risk, and I think we need quite a detailed answer from the Minister going into the Hansard. If there’s a situation where someone feels that perhaps the one difference would be the remuneration, because, in one situation, the remuneration involves PAYE, paying KiwiSaver, responsibility for health and safety, paying ACC—all of those things—whereas under the contractor model, of course, you pay your own tax, you pay your own ACC, and you’re responsible for all of those things. If there was a sense of unfairness around the remuneration based on the exact same nature of the relationship and the only thing that was different was what was put in writing, could that not present a legal risk to the employer in that situation?

I am concerned with what’s being proposed in that if there is an existing nature of a relationship occurring in existing practice, that employer will now have a broader opportunity to be able to put in place a specified contractor model. Other matters to do with that are that that person who’s a contractor would probably be expected to provide their own tools, whereas they normally are provided to an employee. Would that be packaged in for remuneration, and, if it wasn’t, could that then open that person up to some type of challenge, if not through the employment relationship, then through a disputes tribunal or other civil jurisdiction that can help resolve civil types of disputes?

That’s the scenario I’m presenting to the Minister that I can see absolutely happening in practice. Some advice from officials and some response in detail on the Hansard would, I think, be important, because there could be legal challenges presented on this law change in the future.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (19:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll respond to quite a few queries that have come through this evening. To Helen White, who’s talked about the situation where a worker might be subject to other constraints like having to open their books to the business so that they, essentially, can never make a profit—how would the law protect them? The gateway test includes several protections against constraints, such as preventing workers from working for other people. If the arrangement meets the gateway test, the contract is subject to contract law, and the usual constraints applied by the law of contract will apply in relation to any unfair or unconscionable terms.

To Ricardo Menéndez March, who has asked about what industries will be most impacted—look, that’s not the purpose of this law. The make-up of contractors in any particular industry is not why I am doing this. What will matter is whether the arrangement of an employer meets the criteria, and that can differ quite a lot even within the same industry.

Also, to Ricardo Menéndez March’s question of whether it is my intent to increase the proportion of the workforce to be contractors, no, it’s not. What I am aiming for here is that businesses have flexibility, but they also have certainty to choose the business model that does actually work best for them as a business.

Helen White also asked what would happen to a good employer who has employees and who then has to compete with others that might use a gateway test or use a contractor model. Look, the business will have to meet the criteria for their workers to be considered a specified contractor. If that does work for their business model, then the test is appropriate.

Camilla Belich also referenced her amendment making an amendment to clause 4, new section 7(e), about independent advice, and her amendment, essentially, requires that businesses will have to pay for legal advice for the employee. I believe that this would add a significant compliance cost across the economy and to businesses, and it would not be necessary in many cases because not everybody does require legal advice.

Ricardo Menéndez March also talked about his colleague’s tabled amendment from Teanau Tuiono, which, essentially, requires a review of whether the nature of the arrangement has changed over time. The Government won’t be supporting that amendment, because we do believe it would create unnecessary compliance costs. If the relationship has changed and the employee challenges their status, the Employment Relations Authority and the court can consider both what is in the agreement and what does happen in practice through that process.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (19:56): Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I want to point out that the answer on tax has got the fundamental question wrong, and it might be my fault for not being clear enough, but I am asking about the cost to the taxpayer. When people are on minimal amounts of income because of these onerous contracts, they end up not saving anything, they end up paying less tax, and, actually, often it ends up going offshore to big, sharky businesses. So, for example, I want to know whether you got advice about the implications for retirement savings of having this kind of contractor model, because the taxpayers—the people who vote us in—are the ones who end up paying the bill. We end up subsidising those big multinationals.

Now, I want to move on from that. I want to ask a real question here, which is: if the people of Gloriavale met the gateway test, are they in—is that the end of the law? Those people were totally exploited, and if they had signed a bit of paper and said that they were a contractor in this way, is that enough? They’re allowed to work the full week and they’re allowed to do all those things—that is all OK. So I want to know, genuinely, and I want you to address those women at Gloriavale, and those children.

I want to ask you another question, and this is quite a deep one. It’s about the object of the Employment Relations Act. The major object of this Act—it’s built on it—is that we accept that there is an inherent inequality in bargaining power.

What I want to know from you is how, as a Minister, you have reconciled that inequality of bargaining power—that section—with this one, because it’s at the beginning and it’s already there when we get to this point. Do you accept that the workers that I’ve described, who may be specified contractors, also have an inherent bargaining power differential—because I think they do. If you have someone in that situation where they are turning up and the only job that they’re being offered is a contractual position as a specified contractor, and they’re on very low money and they have some of those clauses that I’ve talked to tonight that are onerous but do not meet the standard of being an unconscionable bargain, etc., are they going to receive any protection at all?

My understanding is that contract law has never really accepted an inherent inequality of bargaining power, and we’re moving these people from the paradigm of protection, which actually accepts that, to the paradigm of not accepting that there is inherent inequality in the bargaining power of those players, and yet they’re the same players. As my friend Rachel Boyack has pointed out, they will be the very same people.

I want to know whether you got advice on how you reconcile your objects clause and that acceptance with this, or do you not accept—and it’s up to you to tell us this—that there’s any kind of inequality of bargaining power in the relationship of, say, a big multinational with a contractor in this situation? Have you got any plans to put together some law that protects people who are specified contractors beyond the four very small issues that have been covered?

I gave you one example, of many, of the creativity that someone will come up with to actually milk a contractor and exploit them, and none of them would meet the standard of being an unconscionable term. Now, we have done this in things like the supermarket sector by way of our Fair Trading Act. We have said that there are unconscionable things going on in the sector, people are being treated badly, and the suppliers are being treated badly, and so we’ve made standard contracts in that situation meet certain obligations—you cannot do certain things. We have realised that we have been naive about contract law.

What I want to know is how come you’ve got people in supermarkets who are suppliers, where we’re recognising an inequality of bargaining power and stopping that kind of exploitation, and yet when it comes to our contractors, who are probably smaller—[Time expired]

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (20:01): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank for the engagement so far. The Minister addressed a couple of questions, but it actually gave me more questions. One of them was around the answer around whether there has been any reports and analysis on different industries. We know that this whole thing is around—and we’ve talked about it—the misclassification of Uber drivers. They won all the way through the court, and the Government took the side of the Uber company, so this clause is for the Government to try to do what it can to support what Uber was trying to tell them to do.

I mean, that’s clearly what it does, but the questions that people on this side of the House have asked are because of that limited way of looking at that particular cause, what does it mean for other sectors? I know a member on this side—I think it was Camilla Belich—talked about meat workers as well. Has there been any other analysis done in other sectors and in other industries or is it just general? This has been narrowly focused on gig economy workers as well, so it’s incredibly important for us to know.

If it is just general, then possibly that is something that we need to question and push a lot more deeper, because different industries, different sectors have different things about them, and this could cause problems. So my question there is: is there any specific industry sector-to-sector analysis done on this clause?

Following up from that as well with my amendment—which my friend Ricardo Menéndez March talked about—around the six-month review period, the Minister did say that that would create extra administrative burden or however she put it. However, wouldn’t going to court be more burdensome than actually having a review period? It seems to me that if you’ve got a six-month review period within your contract where you can actually check in and say you know what, the issues that I think Helen White brought up around the nature of work morphing and changing into something else that both parties might not have realised, but at the six-month period might have actually realised, that might be a good point to actually have a review point.

I think I don’t accept the point that actually this might create extra burden. I don’t accept that. I think going to court and having a judge look into it would actually create more burden, so I would encourage the Minister to reconsider that or to provide a better answer.

I also have another amendment based around who pays for what, and I think it might have hit the Table there. It’s around the amendment in clause 4 to section 6, “Meaning of employee”. My amendment would add this new subsection (9): “Person B is required to pay any legal costs incurred by person A in the legitimate”—this is the important part—“pursuit of understanding their rights and obligations. This includes seeking advice on appropriate application of the specified contractor classification and any representation, and challenging any such decision.”

This is about making sure that there’s actually a check in there to make sure that the classification is actually correct and by placing the burden of that on the employer. What we’re seeing in the conversations and the interactions so far with the Minister is that all of the burden, all of the balance, is in favour of the bosses. All of that is in favour of the employers, and that’s why it’s so incredibly important for us to get, I think, more specific answers.

Just to just to recap: was there anything done industry- or sector-wide—and I would like to see something really specific to different sectors. We’ve talked about the meat industry, for example, and the health sector, as well. If you’re having people that are critical to the running of our hospital and all of a sudden they’re a contractor in one of these contracts, that could have ramifications within the health sector, right—I mean, I’d imagine it would—and so has there been any analysis done on the health sector? Has there been any analysis done on the education sector?

We know that this is targeting those Uber drivers—who I think deserve all their rights—who are employees, and Uber should actually just pay them properly. Following up from that question is my question around who should incur the legal costs. I think that should be borne by the employer, as well and then—[Time expired]

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m rising to answer a few questions from colleagues. Firstly, from Helen White, who had a question about reconciling the objective of the Act, I’d say that this is addressing the inherent imbalance of powers with the gateway test. Do I accept that there could be imbalance? Look, the answer to this is that I consider that the criteria are appropriate for whether a person is an employee or a contractor. If they are a contractor, then contract law will apply.

For the question here about whether the people of Gloriavale would meet the gateway test and could that mean that they are contractors: the arrangements would need to meet all of the criteria, which would then state that they are not required to be available to work on particular times or days or that they could subcontract the work out. That law applies to all people within New Zealand.

Helen White also asked if a business has workers, and some are employees and some are contractors—

Rachel Boyack: No, I asked that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: —but they have the same conditions—I’m sorry, what was that?

Rachel Boyack: I asked that.

Helen White: It was Rachel.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Oh, Rachel Boyack asked that. My apologies—it’s early in the night to be mixing up names. But each arrangement will be assessed on a case by case basis, and so it will really depend on what the parties have agreed and whether they can meet the gateway test criteria or not—or the section 6 test. But there are actually many examples currently where workers do similar things but have different arrangements—for example, having an in-house IT worker versus having a contractor that provides extra IT support.

Helen White, I believe, asked a question about the cost to taxpayers and about whether or not we got advice on retirement savings or tax for the contractor model. The answer is no, because that’s quite simple. I’m not trying to increase or decrease the proportion of contractors; the goal here is to give businesses flexibility to choose the business model that does work for them.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Right, now can I just suggest to members that some of the broader issues have now been covered and, on looking, this is the substantive part of the Act and there’s plenty in here. It would be best to now look for questions that start to point towards parts of the bill.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:09): Thank you, Mr Chair—noted. Yes, I do note that Part 1 has a number of different clauses in it, and we are just up to Subpart 1 at the moment. I did see a few people on the other side hopping up and I am sure that that was to take substantive contributions because we are absolutely nowhere near through this part of the bill, as this is the substantive part. I do have some new material to cover off in this part before—as you suggest, Mr Chair—definitely moving on to another section.

The issue that I wanted to raise was this. The Minister has provided us a copy of the regulatory impact statement on this particular part—clause 4—in relation to the change to specified contractors. This was produced in August 2004. In this regulatory impact statement (RIS), it states that “There is limited data available about contractors in New Zealand, including limited demographic data and information of which industries and sectors they worked in.”, and it also goes on to say that there was not sufficient time for officials to be able to properly analyse the different options in relation to this particular proposal.

There have been a number of questions to the Minister which remain unanswered around the impact of this particular change. We’ve read the regulatory impact statement, which should have the answers in there. This was in August 2004. I would assume that the Minister has not simply asked for a proposal from her officials in August 2004 and not requested any further information, considering that it was produced on a restricted time frame, as is stated within the regulatory impact statement. I wanted to know whether there is further information, because, as she is from a party which proudly represents the interests of capitalists, it just seems absolutely unbelievable to me that she wouldn’t understand that putting in a change to make it easier for employers to avoid things like parental leave, sick leave, annual leave, KiwiSaver, personal grievance risk, and ACC payments—that companies would not decide to take that option, as opposed to an employment engagement.

Surely, just on the basis of cost saving alone, companies will take the specified contractor route, if available to them, once this is passed, removing these rights and entitlements from New Zealanders. I would encourage the Minister, if she has—and I would assume that she has, as a diligent Minister—asked for advice on the impact of this, as the workplace relations Minister, on the workforce of New Zealand, because this is a significant change and, on any obvious read, there is clearly an incentive to move away from employment rights. So if the Minister could please respond to that.

There are other things in the RIS which I would also like to just mention. It specifically mentions that in employment relationships, the relationship can move over time, and this is specifically covered in the regulatory impact statement, on page 6. What provisions are there within the specified contractor provision to allow for changes in relationship over time? If someone meets a specified contractor test—and I can see it written out there; I understand the different things and that you have to meet all of them—what if that relationship changes over time? How is someone meant to move from that to an employment relationship if that test is no longer met, because there doesn’t seem to be a provision for that in the bill.

Additionally in the regulatory impact statement, there is a lot of information about international agreements that is redacted. What does it say, Minister, and what international agreements are we not complying with through taking away these employment rights from New Zealanders? There must be something there, because there’s a significant amount of redaction.

The last thing I wanted to mention in relation to clause 4 before moving on to the next part—which there is a lot to discuss on—is the two substantive amendments that I’ve made in relation to this. I think the main one that I want to focus on is, basically, allowing free assessments by the Employment Relations Authority so that people can check their status, and I’ve set that out in additional clauses 9, 10, 11, and 12. That would provide some way for people to get an assessment as to whether they are a contractor or an employee and to have that actually assessed, and, additionally, the true nature test in a different amendment to clause 4 would trump everything in the specified contractor gateway test if, in fact, the true nature of that employment relationship is one of employment. I’d like the Minister to respond to that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:14): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’ll start by answering some questions that came from my colleague Teanau Tuiono. He was asking whether a six-month review period is less expensive than a potential court action. The proposed clause that I understand he’s putting forward would add to the review costs for all contractors and the cost of challenging an arrangement would only occur if there is a concern as and when was required, and so it’s not in all cases.

Teanau Tuiono also asked: what does the gateway mean for other sectors? There hasn’t been any specific sector or industry analysis done, because the law will apply to all sectors and industries, but it would depend on the arrangements for each business, which would differ quite significantly case by case. That was also a query from Camilla Belich, I would note.

Teanau Tuiono also asked about his tabled amendment to clause 4, which would add a new subsection (9) after new section 6(8), and what this one does is requires the business to pay the legal costs if the worker does seek advice. The Government will not be supporting this, because it does significantly increase compliance costs for our businesses and it’s inconsistent with the intention to reduce compliance costs across the broader economy, which this Government is achieving.

Camilla Belich also queried why we wouldn’t necessarily see this mad rush for everybody to take up a contract in this particular model because of this law, and I’ve got a really simple answer to that query of: why would you not see just everything move to contracts? Well, because quite a lot of our workforce and our economy actually rely on stability for their business models. Having stability of a workforce, with people who might need to be required to turn up at specific days or specific times of days—they might really like the exclusivity of having a worker that doesn’t work for their competitors. They may not actually want a flexible business model, and so there is actually, in some ways, a difference between a contract and employment.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (20:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I move on to Subpart 2—and I am doing that—I also want to ask about whether the International Labour Organization conventions are breached by this, because my understanding is that they include inequality of bargaining power. I want to know: has the Minister received advice that we are breaching what we are signatories to in terms of those conventions?

I also would like to go to new section 6(7)(c) in clause 4(2), and that is about vetting someone. It’s an exception, as I understand it, from the idea that you can just substitute yourself with someone else. You can’t under this law, as I understand it—the Minister can confirm it—take somebody else and subcontract the work if there is a need to vet them, and so the principal can approve that worker. What it says at new section 6(7)(c)(ii)(B) is that that might be necessary because of a relevant statutory requirement or “if justified by the nature of the work, to check for a relevant qualification or criminal record,” etc.

Now, what I want to know is how broad is that, because there would be a lot of employers out there right now who would check everybody’s criminal history. They would be looking at qualifications in a way that was very much one of choice, because you can still drive a truck if you’ve had a conviction, but an employer might not want that to happen. Is the suggestion here that that would justify the imposition of the will of the principal, or is this something where the specified contractor situation means that because it wasn’t necessary for that task, the principal loses that discretion and they must accept the person who comes in place, as long as they can do that job?

These are real issues. People go through a whole lot of drug testing and criminal record checking, qualifications are looked at, and there’ll be a choice between people on the basis of qualifications, and so it will be a matter of quality rather than necessity in that way.

Again, one of the situations I’ve had is where there has been a kind of work that involved a level of security—it was counting money. Is that a situation where the contractor has to meet a special, necessary group of controls, or, in fact, is that one where as long as the person has the ability to drive the vehicle, etc., they will not need to meet this test but they will be able to substitute? It makes a big difference in terms of the freedom to substitute. I don’t see anything specific dealing with that, and I think that the court will want to know whether that’s possible. Part of our job is to make sure that, in the Hansard, we know where these things are going.

I’ve wondered as well, out of the questioning that we’ve had, would the Minister consider an amendment that looked at collective bargaining for this group of workers? I can see that this particular group in this subsection is in a different category from other kinds of contractors, and they are vulnerable.

I’ve had a lot of contractors over the years come and ask for the right to collectively bargain because they have had onerous conditions, and I will give you one example of that. There were workers who were driving big bread trucks, and they would take the bread to the supermarkets. They didn’t want to be employees; they wanted to be contractors who could collectively bargain, because—[Time expired] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Helen White.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. I’ll just finish this anecdote. They were really—

Rachel Boyack: There are still more subparts.

HELEN WHITE: —yes—very keen to set up a model whereby they could be contractors, but they could collectively bargain because of what was in their agreements and because they had bought in to the bread runs that they were doing. They had paid about $160,000 at that point for the trucks and they were very vulnerable if that principal were to cut their run or cancel their run, and so they wanted to work collectively. We originally set up a collective bargaining regime because we accepted there was an inequality of bargaining power, and this actually balanced the situation. It balanced the power.

I wanted to know whether the Minister has considered collective bargaining for this group of what I consider are particularly vulnerable workers, and whether you would consider it if I were to put an amendment on the Table. I’d be a very appreciative of an answer. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. In response to Camilla Belich’s query about what analysis was redacted in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) about international obligations, and also in response, then, to my colleague Helen White, who had a similar query about International Labour Organization, advice on international labour obligations was provided in the policy process, and the Government took these obligations into account in its decision making.

Camilla Belich also then asked whether there was further information subsequent to the RIS. The RIS was developed to inform Cabinet. After those decisions were made, the focus then moved to drafting the bill to implement those decisions. Camilla Belich also asked what provisions there are in the gateway test to cover situations when the relationship changes, and I believe that that is starting to get a little repetitive. But if at any point the relationship changes, the employee can challenge that, and if the arrangement no longer meets the gateway test, the worker’s status would be determined by the section 6 test.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to move to clauses 6 and 7, under Subpart 2. I’m sure that there are going to be plenty of questions on clause 6 from other people, but I particularly wanted to home in on the language in new section 123B in clause 6, around the prevention of the courts, effectively, when it comes to remedies—which are reinstatement or compensation, basically—to determine whether an employee contributed to the situation that gave rise to the personal grievance and whether those actions amount to serious misconduct.

I wanted to ask whether the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety had at any point investigated whether the lack of consideration of psychosocial harm in the workplace that could have led to an action from an employee that could have then amounted to serious misconduct—whether that was considered. From my experience of having talked to union organisers, often when people are fighting for reinstatement or compensation, there are cases in which psychosocial harm in the workplace—which is a term that I feel is becoming more and more popular and more well understood. By that, I mean, for example, bullying in the workplace, longer hours, a lack of proper onboarding, etc.

These are things that could end up leading to the provisions that we now have in the new section 123B in clause 7, which is around the actions of an employee and whether those actions amount to serious misconduct. I feel like it really narrows the scope in which some of those actions could have occurred, and so I wondered whether the Minister has considered the factor of psychosocial harm in the workplace when she was putting this bit in the bill; if not, why not? If she did, how does she perceive this narrowing down of provisions which would, basically, almost prevent most people from being able to fight for compensation?

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (20:26): Thank you, Mr Chair. I can see that others on the other side are getting a bit excited, but I did just want to point out to the committee that we’re at Part 1. We’ve spent quite a bit of time on Subpart 1, relating to specified contractors, but there’s quite a few more subparts, and so I might just read those out to make it clear that on the side of the Chamber, we intend to interrogate all of the other subparts.

Mr Menéndez March has just asked a question related to Subpart 2, around remedies for personal grievances, which is where I intend to ask a question. We’ve still got Subpart 3, “Amendments relating to specified remuneration threshold”. Following that, we have Subpart 4, “Amendments relating to collective agreements and new or prospective employees”, which is the 30-day rule, and so we will have questions around that. Then, in Subpart 5, there are some other amendments.

This is all part of Part 1. We’re sort of drawing towards the end. There may still be other contributions on Subpart 1, but it’s Subpart 1 of five subparts in Part 1. I just wanted to point out that on this side of the Chamber, those of us who have worked in this field—which I have—have a lot of questions.

Mine is specifically related to Subpart 2 and “Amendment relating to remedies for personal grievance if contributing behaviour by employee”—and so we’re looking at page 4. In my particular question, I’m going to reference a case from 2013 from the Employment Relations Court, Harris v The Warehouse, which I would hope the Minister has been advised on by officials. It’s quite a substantive public interest case.

That particular case involved a woman who was working for The Warehouse as a loss prevention officer. She was summarily dismissed. The ruling from the Employment Relations Authority was challenged both by The Warehouse and by Ms Harris’ counsel, and what that particular case focused in on was contributing behaviour from the employee. What that case particularly found was that while there was a very small amount of contributing behaviour from the employee, and that was clear, the determination on whether it reached the serious misconduct level or not was disputed, and the particular part of that case, which is of usefulness—which I want the Minister’s response to—is actually around the procedural errors that occurred in that case.

One of the things that case showed was that, actually, you need to consider the procedural matters in a case. There were some significant procedural errors that The Warehouse undertook in that case. Two in particular were that they interviewed witnesses and did not provide that information to Ms Harris, the employee, and the second part was that they made inferences from the CCTV footage without having the audio available; only the visuals from that. Those were two of the substantive errors in procedure, and what that meant was that Ms Harris was not able to fully involve herself in the hearing, because not all of the information that was used to make a decision was actually made available to her at the time for her to respond to.

This particular case is an interesting one because allegations of racism were made on both sides. In the case of the customers, they actually made extremely racist comments about Ms Harris, who is a Māori worker, and on the other side, there were allegations—there was no audio of it—from the customers that Ms Harris had made racist comments. That was a big part of the dispute in the case.

Having represented many workers who have been alleged to have committed serious misconduct, my concern coming from this particular clause that’s being introduced here is that there are many cases where it is the case that there is an element of misconduct. However, there are other significant considerations that need to be taken into account.

For example, Mr Menéndez March talked about health and safety, but there are many others—and I could come back to this in a future contribution, if necessary. One of which, as was pointed out in the Harris v The Warehouse case—which was a case of public interest—is serious defections in the procedure. When a large employer like The Warehouse has access to a large legal and human resource department—Mr Chair, I might need a little bit of extra time just to frame this piece out—they should be expected, because they’re not a small business—Mr Chair, I’d just like a few more seconds. They’re not a small business. There was always an expectation under the court—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Rachel Boyack, but finishing.

RACHEL BOYACK: —yes—that they have a higher standard and threshold required based around procedural matters, because they can actually afford to seek that advice.

So that’s my specific question to the Minister. It is around the procedural matters and whether she’s had advice on that particular case, because it is one of public interest.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’m very pleased to hear that we’ve moved on to other parts of this Part. Just to tie up the last bits of the gateway test, in response to my colleague Helen White, who has asked if the Minister would consider an amendment which enables collective bargaining for contractors under the gateway test. No, I’m not going to consider that. Those workers are covered by contract law. Enabling collective bargaining for contractors would be a significant change to contracting law in New Zealand, and the bill does not create a third type of worker.

Helen White also asked how broad is the vetting allowed in the subcontracting criterion and whether it is OK if businesses want it for all workers. The vetting criteria must be reasonable, given the nature of the work. If it isn’t clearly reasonable given the nature of the work, then they will not meet the criteria and the section 6 test applies, and it is up to the authority or the court to determine whether in that case the vetting requirement was reasonable, given the nature of the work.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take another call, Miss Boyack very skilfully laid out the parts that are still be spoken about. I do reiterate now that I will be expecting people to be referring to the parts that they will be talking to.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:33): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am looking specifically at clause 7, which I understand is also tied into new section 123(4A)(a)(i) and (ii) in clause 6. I want to first start by asking the Minister—and I want to thank the Minister for her continued engagement—around the options that were presented. Now, looking at the regulatory impact statement in terms of what has been suggested, in paragraph 86 of the regulatory impact statement, on page 22, it talks about the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation (MBIE) and the different analysis they’ve done and the different options that were available in terms of what should be considered as instances where remedies are no longer available. This is tied into paragraph 119, but I will focus on that in just a little bit.

This is more of a clarification question for the Minister. My understanding of new section 123B in clause 7 is that if there’s an instance where and an employee has contributed to the situation that gave rise to the personal grievance or/and the action amounts to serious misconduct, then the authority must not provide for any remedy, and the remedy can be reduced by up to 100 percent. But I want to check with the Minister: in paragraph 119, on page 30 of the regulatory impact statement, which does talk about the removal of remedies specifically in the instances of both serial misconduct but also when employees contribute to the rise of the personal grievance, MBIE’s recommendation is that “We do not recommend” this option. So my question to the Minister is: why has she taken up this option when MBIE themselves, after pages and pages of analysis, do not recommend this particular option? That’s my first question.

My second question is, although paragraph 88 on page 22 of the regulatory impact statement does state certain common occurrences of what is considered serious misconduct, paragraph 89 of the regulatory impact statement suggests that there is a risk that this option—i.e., the serious misconduct portion—could create a limited number of disproportionate outcomes against employees. I wanted to check with the Minister how then she would expect, either through the Employment Relations Authority or by the introduction of this bill, to work around that likelihood of disproportionate outcomes when the action amounts to serious misconduct.

My final question is around what one of the previous speakers—my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March—talked about in terms of where the employee has contributed to the situation that gave rise to the personal grievance. In the regulatory impact statement it does talk about hurt and humiliation being a key component of that, and I guess my question to the Minister is this. In light of the fact that people are able to claim or WorkSafe is able to investigate certain aspects of psychological injury in the context of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, because, as the Minister would understand, that psychological injury is only considered or covered, particularly also under ACC, if there is a physical injury attached to that psychological injury—some of these complaints that we’re seeing might be the only way for psychological injury in the workplace to be considered. I wondered whether from a health and safety perspective there have been any linkages between introducing this bill and having the employee’s contribution to the personal grievance considered in line with other changes that should be made in terms of psychological injury.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (20:37): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to speak to new sections 123B and 123C in clause 7, and I have a number of questions for the Minister. The first is in relation to the choice that she has made to completely remove the discretion by the court to award remedies. The Law Society and the Law Association raised questions about this at the committee, and I’m interested to hear what advice she received on why removing the discretion entirely was preferable to, for example, having a rebuttable presumption or just having a higher deduction threshold.

The second point really is about the choice that’s been made in the drafting not to have any kind of definition of serious misconduct. That’s significant, given how central serious misconduct is to the entire section, and the Law Society said in their submission that “This lack of clarity could lead to litigation on these points, and therefore cost, for both employers and employees. [It might] also encourage parties to make other types of claims, including those for breach of good faith,”. So why did the Government reject defining serious misconduct in this section, despite advice that it would create uncertainty and litigation risk?

The third point is the fact that remedies are barred in spite of procedural unfairness, which is extremely unusual in our legal system, and a number of submitters at the committee pointed out that this creates an incentive for the employer to dismiss without proper process. The fact that normally under the law, procedural fairness is given equal weight with substantive fairness or unfairness—that principle is there precisely to incentivise employers, in this case, to respect fair process. But the decision that the Minister has made and the Cabinet has made in this case, we believe, creates an incentive to dismiss without a proper process. Question for the Minister: did officials advise that employers may short-cut investigation processes, for example, if remedies are barred, regardless of procedural fairness?

The other extremely unusual dimension of this section is that the effect of it is to focus solely on employee conduct. Misconduct by the employer—apparently, that’s not important to this Government in this bill. Minister, why does the bill contain no mechanism to assess or sanction employer misconduct once employee contribution is established?

The next point, and the question I wanted to ask, really, is about the increased cost and complexity, and this links back to my earlier point about litigation. I think that the way this section has been put together, basically, is likely to put a premium for employers and employees on preliminary litigation over serious misconduct. What modelling was done by the ministry on having increased hearing time and cost from mandatory threshold litigation over serious misconduct, because, as a number of submitters have pointed out, that is likely to be the effect from the way this section has been constructed.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:42): Thank you, Mr Chair. Responding to my colleague Rachel Boyack, who was describing at length a case where there was a small amount of contributory behaviour from the employee, but there were procedural errors by the employer, and she asked whether I had had advice on that case. Look, there have been many, many cases under the Employment Relations Act in the Employment Court, and my officials don’t brief me on all of them, but, in this case, the employee could still receive reimbursement of lost wages under this bill, and that could be an appropriate outcome with contributory behaviour.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked why I am removing remedies of reinstatement when there is serious misconduct. I appreciate the analysis and advice that is provided by officials, but the Government is committed to strengthening the accountability of the employee’s behaviour in the personal grievance process, and this is a critical measure that does that. But I would also put it to him that I have heard of many, many cases, and I’ll just outline one in particular.

There was a case of serious misconduct where there was one employee in a workplace who had been quite threatening to another worker, and a boss was then put in the very, very difficult situation of having a personal grievance being taken by both employees. The employee that had been threatening was then reinstated into their role, putting that employer in a very difficult situation of having two aggrieved people at work, with one who had been reinstated who had been threatening the other worker. Those are the sorts of cases that we are dealing with here. We’re actually looking out for employees who are sometimes the recipient of unpleasant and unwelcome employee behaviour in the workplace.

Ricardo Menéndez March also asked: did I consider psychosocial harm that leads to serious misconduct or contributory behaviour? Look, the changes to remedies will rebalance the personal grievance system and strengthen accountability for employee behaviour. Removing serious misconduct is justified as it is behaviour that fundamentally undermines trust in the employment relationship, and for contributory behaviour, the employee can still receive lost wages. That would be an appropriate balance that recognises fault by the employer.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:45): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your response—sorry, I’m just trying to grab the regulatory impact statement. Can I just check this with you? I first want to pick up the last example that the Minister gave. I do acknowledge that when you are looking at employment relations, there are going to be extreme cases on both ends, and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has just demonstrated an example of an extreme case. But one of the things that the Minister said at the very beginning was that this is going to apply to all workplaces, and I think, based on the regulatory impact statement, there is generally a lack of data. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence, but there’s no empirical evidence that suggests what the Minister is saying is prevalent enough that it requires a widespread policy or legislative change that would remove the ability for remedies for all in these sorts of cases.

From the Minister’s perspective, just to dig in a little bit deeper in terms of the Minister’s response, maybe there was evidence presented to the Minister—and I’m looking specifically at the empirical evidence, not anecdotal—that suggests that this is a widespread enough issue that deserves attention. For the benefit of the Chairperson who has just taken her seat, currently we’re looking at section 123B(a) and (b) in clause 7, and those are the circumstances we’re looking at.

Finally, I just want to check with the Minister. We’re looking at new section 124(2) in clause 8(2). What additional advice has been taken, because in the regulatory statement, when we’re looking at general remedies in terms of reduction, there has already been existing—and I believe that in the regulatory impact statement it mentions two cases where the reduction has already been able to provide for this. Why does the Minister think that we need to have a specific, additional clause where a reduction can be or may be made up to and by 100 percent?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:47): Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the committee stage. We are debating Part 1, and I’m sure that you’ve been well informed by the previous person in the Chair, but in case not, we do have some more to say around Subpart 2. There are also Subpart 3, Subpart 4, and, I believe, Subpart 5, which have not been covered at all yet. The design of this legislation is such that there is one major substantive part that we’ll vote on, then there’s Part 2, and then preliminary clauses. So it is only three votes, but the majority of it is on this Part, which, I’m sure, Madam Chair, you’re well aware of.

I just wanted to let you know that because I feel that some colleagues on the other side of the Chamber may not be aware of that.

Hon Louise Upston: I wouldn’t lecture the Chair if I was you.

CAMILLA BELICH: I’m not lecturing the Chair; I’m just outlining exactly what we’re doing, and I’m sure she can speak for herself. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, OK—I’ll be the Chair, because it sounds like we’re getting a bit of advice from the people on this side, as well. But what I will say at this point is that I’ve been watching and I’m looking at the outline of Subpart 2 and I’m seeing that that is pretty well traversed, and so I wouldn’t want to be spending a lot more time on Subpart 2, I think. But if this member has a question on that, which you’ve stood up to ask, that’s fine.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I would like to make a small contribution on Subpart 2, and then I agree that we can move on to perhaps Subpart 3 after that.

The point that I wanted to make was that it seems that there is a very weak basis for the introduction of this rule, and that is because there are several reported cases on which there have already been contributions that have been made. One of them that was brought up in the submission process was Stewart v Open Country Dairy Ltd, where the procedural matters were taken to be the only good point that was made by the person taking the claim, and so because of that, the reduction was made down to 100 percent. In fact, the objective that the Minister is trying to achieve through saying that there needs to be contribution and that that needs to be assessed can already be assessed by the Employment Relations Authority. However, there is really a danger with these two sections that have been put in—or these several sections that have been put in—that allow remedies to be reduced, and that is because there is a chance that an employee could be contributing in a very small way to the situation and still have their remedies reduced.

Two points which definitely have not been covered are the amendments which I have tabled in relation to clause 7, and that is to insert that any contribution by the employee needs to be significant and blameworthy. I think that only goes towards natural justice, and so I’d be interested to know if the Minister is willing to support that amendment.

Additionally—the point has been made already, but I have put an amendment in specifically addressing this—if the employer contributes to the situation, there appears to be no consideration of that particular situation. So if someone raises a personal grievance and the employee may have talked back when spoken to really rudely and inappropriately by the employer, arguably that employee did contribute to that bad employment situation, but it was initiated by the employer, and there’s currently no reflection of that at all within the bill. So I’ve put forward an amendment to say that this contribution or this reduction in remedies must not be taken if the authority considers that the substantial reason for the personal grievance being raised was actually the conduct of the employer.

This is a really serious matter because there are people who are unfairly treated at work every single day by employers and mostly they don’t take personal grievances, and when they do take personal grievances, in 99.9 percent of the cases, it’s because they have been really unfairly treated. This provision takes away a small amount of remedy that they could possibly get if they are not absolutely perfect within their employment relationships, and I think that this could be abused by employers.

I think this is serious. I would like to know what the Minister thinks of those amendments, because I think, actually, they would restore some balance, if she is intent on bringing this forward, and, as I’ve said, according to case law, there already is a place for contribution. I think those amendments would make the situation a lot fairer, and it would be a situation where it could be that employers do actually try and utilise this provision to get away with terrible behaviour towards employees.

I have one really important question to ask the Minister. Can the Minister confirm that these contribution remedies are not in relation to discrimination personal grievances?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (20:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the Hon Phil Twyford’s contribution asking why the bill doesn’t contain measures to sanction employer misconduct, the employer’s misconduct is covered by the personal grievance itself, or the unjustified disadvantage or unjustified dismissal that resulted from the employer’s behaviour. Phil Twyford also said—

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. We can’t hear the Minister, so the request would be for her to repeat what she was just saying before, around the removal—

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Well, I hope this is not a measure to try and get me to repeat every contribution tonight.

Teanau Tuiono: No, no, I just—we didn’t hear it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, actually, I’m going to leave Mr Tuiono to decide—if you can hear. The Minister will repeat, and then if there’s anything that needs adjustment, we’ll deal with it from there.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Right. So, the Hon Phil Twyford—actually, that is a lot louder, now that the microphone has been moved—asked why the bill contains no measure to sanction employer misconduct. An employer’s misconduct is covered by the personal grievance itself, or the unjustified disadvantage or unjustified dismissal that resulted from the employer’s behaviour. Phil Twyford also asked about the bill removing discretion for the Employment Relations Authority to provide remedies and what advice did I receive about removing the remedies entirely, and I think that’s also the same question that Lawrence Xu-Nan and Camilla Belich have also referenced about clarifying the 100 percent reduction. The bill clarifies that the authority and the court can make 100 percent reductions because case law has put an effective 50 percent cap on remedy reductions. As a result, the average reductions were around 40 percent in 2013 and they decreased to around 22 percent in 2023, and I don’t believe that that is a great trend for levels of contributory employee behaviour.

Phil Twyford also then asked why serious misconduct itself was not defined. There is actually significant jurisprudence around this term which will continue to apply, and having a definition in this law would have put that at risk. Phil Twywood also then asked: did officials advise that employers can short-cut the process if remedies are barred? Look, the officials’ advice about this is set out in the regulatory impact statement. Employers are still required to meet fair and reasonable obligations and meet their good-faith obligations.

We also then had another question from Lawrence Xu-Nan: are there linkages between psychosocial harm, personal grievance, and health and safety? Look, if there is psychosocial harm in the workplace, the employee can raise complaints, including of unjustified disadvantage. These changes are about changing remedies where an employee contributes to the situation that gives rise to a personal grievance.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also then asked: can the court already remove remedies; if so, why do we need to do more? The existing threshold in case law for not providing remedies is for disgraceful, outrageous, and particularly egregious employee behaviour. That is a high threshold that is very rarely reached, with only two instances occurring in the past two years to 2024.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from the Hon Phil Twyford, and I think I pretty much agreed with one of the members on your side of the Chamber that we are on Subpart 3 and beyond now—OK? Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (20:56): Speaking to Subpart 3, clauses 9 to 11, I serve on the Education and Workforce Committee and I’m particularly interested in relation to this issue of the remuneration threshold. I have some questions for the Minister about the advice she received and the empirical data to support the policy intent of this subpart.

In relation to income, now that a $200,000 a year salary is being used as a proxy for bargaining power, what empirical evidence—because we didn’t hear any at the select committee—supports the idea of using income as a reliable proxy for bargaining power or a reduced need for procedural fairness? I would like to know, and now is the time, I think, to share it with the committee. It hasn’t been divulged during our lengthy select committee process.

Secondly, there was a lot of debate and public commentary about the specific cases being relied upon in Cabinet papers in supporting the allegation or the assertion of the misuse of the personal grievance system by people on higher-than-average incomes, and my contention to the committee is that that kind of vague hearsay is not enough. This is a very significant part of the bill. It takes us away from well-established principles of universality in relation to access to justice, and so which cases did Cabinet rely on to support this assertion that there has been some kind of misuse of personal grievances?

Related to that, I say to the Minister, what advice did she receive on whether removing access to a statutory cause of action based solely on income raises constitutional or rule-of-law issues? What did the Attorney-General have to say in Cabinet on this question? An entire class of people are being denied access to justice on this issue because they earn $200,000 a year, but if they earn $199,000 a year, it’s fine—they can get access to a personal grievance.

That is a significant departure from the established principle of having one law for all, and I’m interested to know the Minister’s own justification and her own rationale for abandoning the principle of universal access to justice that I would have thought, going on all of the public statements of the ACT Party, would have been central to the Minister’s own political beliefs. So I’m keen to hear that—keen to hear them.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m not going to get at large into what goes on in Cabinet, because the former Minister Phil Twyford will be quite sure to remember that what happens in Cabinet is confidential. However, I will give you a small insight into where we’ve landed with the $200,000 threshold for personal grievance. I originally took to Cabinet a threshold of $200,000; Cabinet determined to set that at $180,000. Post - Education and Workforce Committee, that has now gone back up to $200,000. The main point I would make is that this is not actually a radical proposal in the slightest. It is, in effect, what Australia has had in place for decades.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (21:01): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for the engagement so far. I guess my question relates to what the Hon Phil Twyford said, but also what Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan said earlier, which wasn’t addressed by the Minister in that subpart: where is the data to show that this is actually an issue? I asked that around the previously $180k but now 200k threshold, and also with the other subparts as well. I mean, where is the data, and where is the issue? I think it’s really important that the Minister gives us some answers. She’s given us a couple of examples. One of them was if employees are being incredibly aggressive, then that’s an issue, but we haven’t heard anything about what happens if an employer is being aggressive as well.

So my question is about the data: where is this coming from? How is she coming to these conclusions that this is actually an issue? Also, this threshold: why there? When you look at it, it looks like you have a class of workers who get to a particular point, and once you get to that point, you better behave yourself or else you’re not going to be able to access any of the personal grievance system at all. My question is: what kind of signal does that send to the sector? What kind of signal does that send to workers?

So two questions: one of them is around where’s the data; where is this coming from—both in the previous examples by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and by the Hon Phil Twyford. Let’s go from there.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:03): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to take this opportunity to take a call on Subpart 3. I do want to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety—though I haven’t had an answer yet to my question around discrimination claims in relation to Subpart 2, so I still would like a clear answer on that because I do think that’s important to know and to have on the record.

I mean, this is such a huge change to employment law, basically saying that there’s a category of people, and by virtue of their earnings—and the Education and Workforce Committee has changed this to make this every single bit of earnings. It’s not just your normal wages; it’s not just people who think that they’re on $200,000 a year; it’s actually looking at their total remuneration and all of the other different parts of their salaries as well, so it might actually include a lot of people who aren’t currently aware that they would be excluded from it. It means that they can’t take an unfair dismissal claim or an unjustified treatment claim. I do want to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that in this section, this is not covered by discrimination claims—personal grievances (PGs)—which I think is the right thing to do. I think it would be a terrible situation if people, just because they’re on high salaries, were not able to take a claim that they had been racially discriminated against or sexually harassed, so that’s good that that hasn’t been excluded.

I think something that we need to look at—and I wonder if the Minister has had any advice on this—is the statistics of the number of people who actually take discrimination claims to the Employment Relations Authority in New Zealand; they are incredibly low. We know that that is not because sexual harassment does not happen in this country. We know that sexual harassment happens in this country. We know that it’s under-reported, but we don’t see those types of claims, for whatever reason, being brought through the Employment Relations Authority. One of the theories that I have for that is, because we have a claim of unjustified treatment—which is actually quite unusual in terms of other comparable countries, and people feel, for whatever reason, that that type of claim benefits their situation—it’s difficult for people to say, “I’ve been discriminated against.”, based on a protected characteristic. People find that to be a difficult step to take, and it’s understandable why.

So the question really is—we know that this treatment happens; it’s good that people can still take those claims, but there are a lot of people who take unjustified dismissal claims or who take unjustifiable treatment claims but who actually do have claims of terrible treatment, and they’re not able to do that. So I think it will probably—and I’d be interested to know if the Minister has had advice on this—lead to higher earners taking discrimination claims because that’s the only claim which is left available to them.

Helen White: Which is what happens in America.

CAMILLA BELICH: Exactly. Is this going to be something good for New Zealand companies? Instead of having unfair dismissal claims, they’re suddenly going to have sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and race discrimination claims brought against them. I think this is going to be something that New Zealand companies are going to find to be absolutely horrific. To be clear: the treatment itself—if we can bring a claim like that—is absolutely unacceptable as well.

This is a huge change, taking away the standard PG rights—that have existed in New Zealand for decades and decades and decades—from a certain group of people. I have to tell you: this is the particular section that I’ve received so much feedback on from people who have never engaged with employment-law processes before—people who just cannot understand the justification for taking away these rights from this group of people. I mean, is it really the Minister’s answer to say, “Well, they earn a high salary”—and no one’s saying that this is not a high salary—“so, therefore, they should be able to somehow deal with losing their job.”? We earn high salaries in this House, and we know that if we suddenly lost our salary, there are a whole lot of bills that we wouldn’t be able to pay, and a whole lot of people that we wouldn’t be able to support. It isn’t the case that every single individual only supports themselves, so this is going to have huge impacts.

There isn’t a lot of information in the regulatory impact statement on this since it was first put forward. In previous answers to questions, the Minister said that she hasn’t asked for additional advice. I’m going to ask: for this specific section, has she got advice on what the impact of this is likely to be for New Zealand workplaces? This is her responsibility as Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. It will have a huge impact. It will fundamentally change workplaces in New Zealand.

The last question I want to ask is in relation to how this salary cap is going to change over time, to make sure that more and more people don’t have their rights taken away.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, in response to Camilla Belich’s earlier queries about an amendment where the reduction of remedies should not be taken if the main issue was caused by the behaviour of the employer. Look, the behaviour of the employer is already taken into account in the establishment of the personal grievance that the remedy relates to.

Camilla Belich was also asking if can there be contributory behaviour for discrimination and harassment personal grievances. I do, in good faith, believe this is a genuine concern. Look, I’m advised that there have been no cases of contributory behaviour being established in sexual harassment, racial harassment, or discrimination personal grievance cases in the last 10 years, which is as far back as my officials were to look through all the cases. But unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage are the most common grounds for raising a personal grievance. For other grounds like discrimination, racial harassment or sexual harassment, it is unlikely the court or authority could establish a contributory behaviour, based on what evidence we had from the cases.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked: where is the evidence backing up the need for a change in relation to remedies? For some evidence here: in the three years to February 2024, approximately 16 percent of cases had contributory behaviour. Data shows that remedies have significantly increased. For example, compensation for hurt and humiliation increased from an average of around $5,600 in 2014 to $16,200 in 2023. At the same time, remedy reductions for contributory behaviour decreased from 40 percent in 2013 to 22 percent in 2023.

Phil Twyford then moved on, in some ways, to talk about the high-income threshold. He was talking about what evidence we have of misuse of personal grievance systems for high-income earners. I believe that’s not taking into account the different parts of the personal grievance changes that we’re doing are there for. The rationale for the threshold is not about misuse of the personal grievance system for high-income earners; it’s about what happens in the workplace when high-income earners have significant impact on performance and culture. Having a poor performer in a role like that has a huge impact on a company. The threshold will ensure that businesses have the best fit of skills and abilities for their organisation.

Phil Twyford also asked, then, what evidence there is for using income as a proxy for bargaining power. Look, I consider that employees earning over $200,000 do have a sufficient level of bargaining power to enable them to negotiate their dismissal processes that will work for them and their employee. Like I say, this is relatively in alignment with what has happened for decades in Australia; it is not a radical proposition. But I’d also make the point that I’ve spoken to people who are involved in the start-up world who are quite in favour of these types of changes, because they acknowledge that when you are working quite quickly to try and start up and establish a company, having the wrong person there at that very crucial moment in time can be the difference between a company getting off the ground and not being able to pivot fast enough.

I think these are actually really important changes for our economy, but also what’s missing here is that it also helps for people who are coming up through the career ladder to have a go at a higher income role within that company. It’s not good for any culture for someone who’s not a good fit for that company to be staying around and being paid on a very high salary—remember, this is the top 2 percent of Kiwi earners that we are talking about here.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a question from Helen White, because you’ve been looking for a call about Subpart 3 for quite some time, and I think we have traversed quite a bit, because it’s largely about the remuneration thresholds.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (21:12): I have a series of questions. The first is I’m concerned about what advice was given about the chilling effect of this in terms of people taking up employment in such key roles. There will be a lot of people who will not be prepared to move from something safe to something that has a bit more risk associated with it if, in fact, by doing so, they are putting themselves in harm’s way in terms of suddenly losing their job. I appreciate that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is having a conversation on foot, and I wonder if I should just wait, because there’s no way that she can hear me at this point. Minister, can I have your attention, please? Thank you. We don’t get a lot of time, and it’s a really important change for New Zealanders.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If I can just give the Minister—the question was mainly around—

HELEN WHITE: I can just start again.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —appetite for moving above that threshold in a new job.

HELEN WHITE: I asked about the chilling effect of this. If you’ve got an employee at a relatively high salary in one place, I can see myself being really reluctant to move into another situation where I take on an employer I don’t know, because of the risk. I’ve had this happen with clients where they’ve gone somewhere and they’ve actually turned out to go to somebody who’s absolutely—it’s been a very terrible experience and there’s been a sudden loss of their job. It hasn’t been because they’re not a right fit or to give somebody a better turn; it’s because of the nature of the employer they’ve gone to.

You can understand people’s fear, particularly at a senior level, about moving on. Did you get any advice about the chilling effect that this might have economically, because this does not seem like flexibility? What we want with modern, productive employment relationships is something called portability, where people move and they are actually able to do so. This is why I brought a law to this House on restraints of trade, because they stopped portability. My next question is about that—that restraint issue. If a senior employee has a restraint of trade, are they going to be held to it when they’re cut off at the knees? Are they going to be held by the same contract to a restraint of trade so they can’t go somewhere else, when, in fact, they don’t even get the benefit of due process or a personal grievance process? Is that going to happen in that situation?

My next question is actually about the good-faith provisions here. I see that in the same subsection we have the end of a good-faith obligation here. The employer, in making a decision as to whether to terminate the employee’s employment agreement, is not required to comply with section 4(1A)(c) in observing the obligation to deal in good faith. Why are we getting rid of the obligation to deal in good faith, when that is the greatest underpinning of our employment regime? We have always dealt with each other in good faith. We make sure that people deal with each other in good faith, because that is the least that we can expect in a human relationship. Why has that gone? Why are we not going to oblige people to act well towards one another, to act in good faith?

I also wanted to ask about the precedent value and the risk and whether you’d had any advice on this, because my experience is we had a system that was too expensive at the bottom end. It costs a lot of money to run a personal grievance right up the chain. I think the law needs some definite remedies in that way. It needs some change so that it is much cheaper to go through the system as it is. But what actually happened was we had a cluster of cases going to the court and the Court of Appeal, and they were high-income earner cases, on the whole. There was occasionally one that was actually coming in from the union, and so it was for a lower-paid worker. But a lot of them were from high-paid workers. So we have airline pilots taking cases and making precedent, etc. All those cases will suddenly disappear, and they’re the ones that test and improve the application of law for everyone. So, in fact, they do us all a favour when they take those cases, because they test and tease out the law and develop it.

So has the Minister—sorry, I am just going over; I just want to finish this point, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just finish this point, yes.

HELEN WHITE: Has the Minister taken advice on how this might impact on the ecosystem of employment law, if we don’t have cases taken by the very people who can afford to go through them? Thank you; I would be very appreciative of the answers.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:18): Thank you. So tidying off a few answers here to, I believe, the Hon Phil Twyford—

Tim Costley: Hey, look at her when she’s talking.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’m very confused who was saying what there. How will the bill ensure that the threshold doesn’t decrease over time due to inflation? Look, the bill has an annual upwards adjustment for the threshold. Helen White was asking about whether it will cause a chilling effect to change roles to a new employer. Look, I don’t believe that there is a risk of disincentivising employees from taking high-paying positions, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the employers and employees can agree to opt back into unjustified dismissal protection at any time, as well as negotiate dismissal procedures that work for them. Secondly, I consider that there’ll be more opportunities to move into high-income positions as employers will be more willing to give employees a go in a high-impact position.

Teanau Tuiono had a range of questions, starting with what the consequences are when an employer is aggressive, and what the concerns are about the employee behaviour in those sorts of cases. As I’ve said multiple times already in this debate, if an employer is being aggressive or has poor conduct, that is the basis for the personal grievance itself.

In regards to whether or not I’ve got some examples of serious misconduct, look, there are a couple of them. In 2022 an employee was dismissed for theft of company food, but they still received $21,000 in compensation from their former employer. In 2021, an employee was dismissed for falsifying information on timesheets and still received $10,500 in compensation and 13 weeks of lost wages. In 2021, an employee worked in an art gallery and was dismissed for starting up a business commissioning artworks in competition with the gallery that they were working at and still received $21,875 in compensation from the former employer. In 2012, a health professional was dismissed for being physically violent towards a patient. They received remedy reductions but were still reinstated into their role after a successful personal grievance.

Teanau Tuiono was also asking: what’s the justification for removing the high-income earners’ right to raise a personal grievance? Look, this threshold doesn’t remove access to all personal grievances. It is intended to provide more flexibility regarding dismissal processes so that it only applies to unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims that relate to that dismissal. The threshold is not intended to allow for things like discrimination and harassment. High-income earners can still continue to take those sorts of claims.

Camilla Belich also then asked: have I had advice on the impact of the remuneration threshold on workers and workforces? Look, high-income earners have a huge impact on workplace culture. Having a poor performer has a huge flow-on effect for the entire business and risk of poor culture and low morale. This change will provide greater flexibility to ensure that they have the right fit of skills and abilities for their organisation. I’ll just reiterate that it’s a very, very small number of employees.

Camilla Belich asked: will this lead to other types of personal grievance claims? Look, the intent of the threshold is to continue to allow other claims to be raised. This is only unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims that relate to the dismissal. It is not, as I reiterate, about things like discrimination and harassment. High-income earners can still do those sorts of claims.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I feel like we’ve gone through the threshold questions. I will take some questions on Subpart 4.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (21:22): I’ll give you exactly that, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. You read my mind, Mr Twyford.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yeah, Subpart 4. I wanted to ask a couple of questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on Subpart 4, which, effectively, repeals what’s commonly known as the 30-day rule in the Employment Relations Act. For folks who are listening at home, here is just a brief explanation of the 30-day rule: it provides that all employees who start a new job covered by a collective agreement will continue to be covered by that agreement for the first 30 days, and, after that, they’re free to join a union and remain under collective coverage or to leave the union and enter into an individual employment contract.

Employers under the 30-day rule are required to provide new workers with what are called in the law “act of choice forms” that the worker has the option of completing. These provisions support one of the two core purposes of the Employment Relations Act, and that is to promote collective bargaining. What Subpart 4 of this bill does, which we’re debating tonight, is it repeals those. I think it’s pretty clear that it’s in contravention of one of the two key purposes of the Employment Relations Act, which is a very strange thing to be going on.

Under these amendments in Subpart 4, employers will only have the very basic obligations to inform a new worker that a collective agreement exists, to give them a copy of that agreement, and to tell the employee that they won’t come under the terms of the collective agreement, if there is one, unless they become a member of the union. The concern that we have, and that many submitters at select committee expressed, was that this, essentially, gives employers the opportunity to sidestep unions completely and impose individual employment contracts on workers before they even have the experience of being under the collective agreement. What I would like to ask the Minister is: what evidence supports the claim that underpins Subpart 4, that removing the 30-day rule improves genuine freedom of association rather than just undermining one of the two core principles of the Employment Relations Act, and that is to promote collective bargaining?

My second question for the Minister is, really: now that we’re at Subpart 4—we’ve traversed several of the main provisions of this odious bill—I’d like to know what advice the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) provided to the Minister and to Cabinet about the cumulative impact of undermining collective bargaining in the way that the abolition of the 30-day rule is clearly intended to do, the effect of the contractor changes that we’ve been discussing—and, add to that, trial periods—and the demolition of the personal grievance system, which lies at the heart of our industrial relations system. Has the Minister had advice from MBIE about the cumulative effect of the impact of those changes on the rights and the wellbeing of New Zealand workers at work?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. Starting with Helen White’s question and tying that section off about the good-faith exclusions. The first example I’d give on the exemption for good-faith requirements is the obligation to provide information and an opportunity to comment on decisions that would adversely affect employment. That obligation creates process requirements for employers with associated legal risk, and so that is consequential in why we are removing that part for the personal grievance changes.

There was also a question from Helen White about how this will impact on precedent setting in the employment courts. Analysis from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment found few cases of high-income earners taking personal grievance, indicating that the vast majority of personal grievances are taken by people well below that threshold. The high-income earners, however, can still take other types of grievance cases.

Then, moving on to the Hon Phil Twyford; now, moving on to the 30-day rule and the changes to this provision. I don’t believe that this change will impact on collective bargaining or disincentivise employees from joining a union. Ultimately, the decision made and taken by Cabinet on this provision is to uphold Cabinet’s original intention of reintroducing the 90-day trials. This was seen as an omission in the original changes to bring back the 90-day trials for all employers and all employees as an option, so this is part of a Cabinet decision.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (21:28): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was, before, going to take another question from Camilla Belich. It is on Subpart 4. We’ve only, really, had one question on that, and I know that you were standing up to take a call before. It’s not a broad subpart, so I’m happy to accept a question.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Subpart 4 is quite a significant change to the way that, currently, people are introduced to trade unions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, it’s a change, but it’s not a broad part.

CAMILLA BELICH: No, well, that’s true. Well, the impact of it will be significant, but in terms of the parts of the legislation, it’s not.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, exactly. We agree.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes. The main issue that I’ve heard from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in relation to Subpart 4, is in relation to the ability for people to be able to be part of 90-day trials, because of the 30-day rule preventing people being part of a 90-day trial, because most people in collective agreements don’t have 90day trials in their collective employment agreement. I wanted to ask the Minister: is that genuinely the main reason for this change? If so, why is there not a change to allow 90-day trials to be agreed as part of the 30-day rule, as opposed to just getting rid of that rule entirely?

That would seem, to me, not one that I would agree with—I oppose 90-day trials; I think they’re terrible because you don’t have any employment rights, but it seems to me a more straightforward way of addressing what is actually quite a significant change that is being made to the way that people are informed of their rights. It should also be noted that the 30-day rule only applies in places where there are currently collective employment agreements. We’re not talking about every single workplace here. It would, obviously, be a change that only applied in relation to those workplaces where they have a collective employment agreement.

It does beg the question: if the 90-day trial question can be so easily solved by allowing employers and employees to agree a 90-day trial in the same way that they would normally be able to do if it’s an individual employment contract, why, then, is the entire 30-day rule being removed? It begs the question: it appears to be an attack on trade unions, because, obviously, when people are provided with information and are part of a collective employment agreement, they can see some of the terms and conditions which are normally associated with being part of a collective agreement, and that allows them to see the benefit of perhaps being in that union or perhaps continuing to be covered by the collective employment agreement past the 30-day rule. That is a genuine question to the Minister: is this an attack on trade unions in New Zealand?

I think it’s a fair question considering the nature of this section. It applies to unionised workplaces, and it affects people’s knowledge about trade unions. I think it’s a very fair question, straightly put. I’d appreciate the Minister answering that—also, additionally, my question around whether there were other things that she considered if her concern is 90-day trials. That’s the only concern that I’ve seen articulated in relation to that. I would appreciate the Minister’s answers on that. I just would note for the Chair that there is another subpart following this, once we’ve heard from the Minister, and that is also a part of Part 1.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:32): I can answer this one quite straightforward. Ultimately, this is not an attack on trade unions; this is about allowing the flexibility for businesses up and down New Zealand to be able to use the 90-day trial provision.

Under the 30-day rule, which is currently the law, if an employer is party to a collective employment agreement that covers the work of the new employee, when the employer and employee agree to an individual employment agreement, the terms of that agreement must reflect the terms of the collective employment agreement for the first 30 days of that employee’s employment, which makes it very, very, very difficult for an employer and an employee to agree to terms outside of a collective employment agreement, such as a 90-day trial for the first 30 days of employment.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Teanau Tuiono, I know you’ve been wanting a question for a little while. I think we’re at about the point where we’re at Subpart 5. Is this on 4 or 5?

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (21:33): This is still on Subpart 4, and it’s to do with the evidence that the Minister may have or not have—analysis that she might have received on the impact of this on young workers, on youth workers. I’m thinking about people going out there and getting their first job. They enter a place; there’s a collective agreement in there. In this situation, that employer doesn’t have to pass those on. That creates incredible pressure for those young workers. My question is: what analysis has she done about the impact on those young workers? Also, could she tell us about the impact on wage growth, as well, on all of this? What analysis has she seen about the impact on wage growth in this particular space as well? These are incredibly, incredibly important questions.

I do actually support the point that was made by Camilla Belich about this being an attack on trade unions, because this is what it looks like. Having some more fulsome answers would, I think, be important. I would think that if we wanted to make sure that workers, particularly young workers getting their first job, were able to put that first step forward, they would be able to do it in a way where they are fully supported and step into a workplace where they have all the benefits that everybody else has, where they don’t have to fight for it; they don’t actually feel that pressure from the employer who says, “You know what, they’ve all got that, but because we’ve got this new law, I’m going to give you less.”, which is what this looks like. What we actually should have is what many people have been calling for, and that is opt-out union membership: if there is a collective agreement there and people join up, they should be able to join the union and, if they want to, voluntarily leave that union as well. What we need to be doing is actually strengthening the workers’ movement. We need to be strengthening unions. This does the absolute opposite of it, and the explanations are not good.

My question, once again, is about the impact on wage growth, in terms of her analysis on the 30-day rule, and then, also, the analysis that she may have received or not received on how this will work for young workers, particularly those who are stepping into their first jobs as well. On top of that, has there been any analysis done on any other workers as well? I’m thinking of Māori and Pasifika workers as well, who would look to a collective agreement as a way to protect their pay and conditions. Those are my questions.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:36): Thank you. In response to Teanau Tuiono, about the impact on young workers, look, all workers—which does include young workers—will have to get information about a collective employment agreement if it does exist.

If a collective agreement does exist, the employer will still need to inform the employee that the collective employment agreement does exist and covers the work done by the employee, that they can join a union, how to contact the union, and, if the employee joins the union, that the collective employment agreement will bind the employee. They would also still have to give the employee a copy of the collective agreement.

I don’t see how that actually harms the trade union movement. There is still an option there. This is simply about allowing for all businesses across New Zealand to use the 90-day trial provision that is currently unable to be used because of the 30-day rule.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a quick question, not a five-minute speech, on Subpart 5—from Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:37): Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, that is relieving to hear, because Subpart 5—I do have questions on it—is a little bit technical. I would be grateful if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety could just, please, exactly explain the purpose of this.

My understanding, in Subpart 5, is that when we talk about a trial period—this is, essentially, where people are not able to take a personal grievance, because they’re part of a 90-day trial period. I’ve got the original Act here as well, so I’m just cross-referencing that. It appears to say that they can’t take personal grievances when they’re part of a trial period. That’s the amendment to section 67B(2), in clause 18(1). I’d be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. But it does allow for a personal grievance—and I just wanted to check if this is a new right that people have—under section 103(1)(b), which I have in front of me as well. That specifies that the conditions of the employee’s employment, or one or more conditions of employment, survive the termination. What exactly does Subpart 5 allow employees to do that they can’t currently do when they’re subjected to a trial period? What are the conditions that would apply? I know this is part of the existing Act, but I’m interested to know what the change would mean.

Also, it refers to section 103(1)(c) to (k). Now, if I look at section 101(3)(c) to (k)—these are the discrimination grounds—my understanding has always been that people who are under a trial period can take discrimination claims if they’re discriminated against in employment. Is this a codification of what is already in place? What’s the reason, really, for putting this in this particular bill? I realise it’s other amendments, so it might be like the miscellaneous provisions, but I am genuinely interested—and I’m not going to take the full five minutes. Please, if the Minister could explain exactly what this is trying to achieve, because it does appear to be codifying something which is already in place. I’d be grateful if the Minister could get some advice, and I can see that her advisers are working hard on that.

In terms of the test for justification in section 103A, in clause 19, which is also part of Subpart 5, the purpose of this particular section as well, it would be good to have that elucidated. That also applies to section 103, so I’m assuming that this is also providing an additional justification test if people are taking discrimination claims. I see the Minister may have received some advice, so I appreciate that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:40): Sure. I’ll knock this one off. Look, I think, in broad, it’s talking about what are the changes regarding the trial periods. There are several settings for the threshold to align them with the 90-day trial period, including the restriction on unjustified dismissal claims. The threshold introduces a restriction on unjustified disadvantage claims where the disadvantage is related to the dismissal. To ensure that the two policies remain aligned, it extends that restriction on unjustified disadvantage claims relating to the dismissal to the 90-day trial.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (21:41): 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): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), section 6(1), deleting paragraph (d), is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the bill.

The question is that Georgie Dansey’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), section 6(7), replacing subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) be agreed to

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 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 Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), section 6(7), deleting subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), section 6(7)(a) inserting 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), section 6(7), amending paragraph (e) and inserting new paragraph (f) 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), deleting section 6(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): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), section 6, inserting new subsection (9) to require Person B to pay legal costs incurred by Person 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): Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), section 6, inserting new subsection (9) to allow Person A to notify that they are an employee, not a specified contractor, is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), section 6, inserting new subsection (9) to require a review of employment status after six months 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2), section 6, inserting new subsections (9) to (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): Rachel Boyack’s three tabled amendments proposing to insert new section 4A are ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Teanau Tuiono’s amendment to insert new clause 4A is ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The question is—

Dana Kirkpatrick: Surely not.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Quiet during voting, thank you.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 123(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 Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 6A is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace clause 7 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 123B, inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 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 Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 7, deleting new section 123C 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): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 123C, inserting new paragraph (c) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting new section 123D regarding financial compensation from the Government 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 Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting new section 123D regarding video audio evidence to prove serious misconduct 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 Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace clause 8 is inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 8(2), section 124(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): Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 10, replacing the heading to new section 67I, is ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 67I, inserting 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 the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to clause 10, amending new sections 67I and 67J 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 10, replacing new section 67J, 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 Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to clause 11, amending new sections 113A and 113B, are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11 new section 113B(1)(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 Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to delete clause 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 Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 12 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete clause 13 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 Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 13, section 62(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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 13, section 62(3)(a), inserting new subparagraph (v) to prevent 90-day trials if they are bound by the collective agreement, 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): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 13, section 62(3)(a), inserting new subparagraph (v) to prevent 90-day trials as described in section 67A if they are bound by the collective agreement is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 13(1) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the objects and principles of the bill.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 13, section 62, inserting 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 Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to delete clause 13(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): The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments inserting new clauses 13A and 15A are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 17A 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 Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 19(1), section 103A(3)(e), deleting subparagraph (ii) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 19 deleting subclause (2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 19 deleting subclause (2) is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 19 replacing subclause (2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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 55

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

Part 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will suspend the House and we will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Sitting suspended from 10.15 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Extended Sitting

Thursday, 12 February 2026

Bills

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Transitional amendment and Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good morning, members. The committee is resumed on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. We were debating the bill last night and had just concluded the debate on Part 1. We now come to Part 2, “Transitional amendment”, the debate on clause 20 and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:00): Point of order, Mr Chair. In a moment, I intend to move a motion for the committee to report progress in order to seek leave of the House to refer the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s Amendment Paper 504 to select committee. The reason that I’m doing that is because it’s a substantive amendment which has only recently been available to members. There’s substantive discussion around the impacts of it, and, in good faith, I believe the best course of action would be to—so that’s just intending that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): So you’re seeking leave?

CAMILLA BELICH: I’m indicating that I am going to intend to seek leave for that reason. It’s not to disrupt the committee stage; it’s for that purpose.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): All right. Well, you seek leave at the—

CAMILLA BELICH: I seek leave—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No. Well, it’s in your hands when you seek leave.

CAMILLA BELICH: I seek leave to move a motion without notice to refer Amendment Paper 504 to be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee and to be reported back to the House by 17 March 2026.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The committee can’t do that. What you would need to do is seek leave to report progress to enable to do that, which is actually what you explained.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You’re ahead of me.

CAMILLA BELICH: Apologies. I seek leave to report progress for that purpose.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Are you speaking to that point of order?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (09:02): Well, Mr Chair, I would point out that a point of order was made. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety rose to respond to that point of order and wasn’t allowed to speak.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you were speaking on the point of order; I thought that you were standing to speak to the beginning of the debate. Did the Minister wish to speak to the point of order?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes, I think—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, the point of order is not really a point of order; it’s just an indication of what you intend to do, so it’s not a true point of order. The member is just going to seek leave, which she’s entitled to do. I’ll allow the member to speak since she’s on her feet.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:02): Thank you, Mr Chair. If the member is allowed to talk about things that she hopes to do in the future as a point of order, I would also just raise to say I’m hoping, in about three seconds, to explain the Amendment Paper, which is minor and technical.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, does the member still wish to seek leave to report progress? Alright, so I’m informed that you can actually move that we report progress.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:03): I move, That the committee report progress.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the committee report progress.

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 68.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:05): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I rise to take the first call in Part 2 of this particular debate this morning because there is Amendment Paper 504 in my name in this particular section. I alluded to it last night. I knew that there were going to be some questions, and I wanted to knock it off really early because I knew that there would be some members of this committee who might believe that this is a retrospective law change. I wanted to give absolute assurance last night—and I do again this morning—that this particular amendment is not retrospective.

What this Amendment Paper aims to do is make the application of the new law clearer than it was originally drafted. If a work arrangement meets the gateway test on the day the new law starts, then the gateway test applies from that day forward. These transitional rules are not retrospective. This means that they do not affect decisions about employment status made before the new law starts; cases that were already filed before the new law starts, as these will still use the existing section 6 test.

For the cases filed after the new law begins, the existing section 6 test applies to the time before the new law. The new gateway test can still be used for the time after the new law, and this means that a worker can get a split decision—for example, that they were an employee before the law changed under section 6 but a specified contractor after the law changed under the gateway test. This is not a radical provision, and, in fact, it is making what I believe is the best manoeuvre that we can, that the new law will take effect and people will be able to use the new law in the gateway test, but it is not overriding existing workers’ rights.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:07): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for that explanation. I did say when we first came to this committee stage that there would be questions around that, and I’m happy to receive your assurance that Amendment Paper 504 is not retrospective based on that question. There are a significant number of questions around this Amendment Paper, and that’s why I did seek to move that motion. Even though I accept the Minister’s reasoning that she’s given for putting this Amendment Paper forward, because of the complexity—the law, as specified in here, is complex. That’s not to say that’s the same thing as radical, which the Minister has said that it’s not, but it does seek to determine and crystallise rights for various groups of employees at various points in their cycle. We’re not talking about a small number of people here. We know that there are thousands of people impacted by this law—thousands of Uber drivers around the country that may or may not have put claims in, in order to be properly determined as an employee.

I think that, even by looking at the other sections, it’s a substantive Amendment Paper. I think it would have been, in a perfect world—that’s why I sought to move that motion—a better idea to be able to receive submissions on this, because this is directly affecting and crystallising the rights. I do have a number of questions around it, and I know the Minister may need to receive some advice. It’s something that those of us who are previous lawyers in caucus have studied extensively. I don’t think it’s something that is necessarily as straightforward to determine exactly what the impact of it will be.

The question I have is: if not for this Amendment Paper, then the situation that the Minister describes would seem to me to be the logical impact of her passing of the substantive Act; is this Amendment Paper purely to clarify the fact that this is not a retrospective law, which I don’t see in the law, and I would like the Minister to point me to where that would be? Is it purely a clarification of the way that the law works, or is there something in the law that would indicate that, but for this Amendment Paper, there would be an extinguishment of retrospective rights in relation to employment law? That is a big question, and I can see the Minister has a response to that—I’m also happy if anyone else seeks to give her advice on that.

The second issue that I wanted to discuss was just to clarify that this Amendment Paper applies only, as I read it, to people who have not brought proceedings. That is the part that we’re looking at, subclauses (1) and (2), inserted by new clause 25A. They are people who may fit the specified contractor test but have not brought proceedings in the Employment Court.

The other thing is if we look at subclause (3) we see that specifically there is stated to be protection around section 6 claims. Now, section 6 is a claim around determination of employment status. There are many other—a myriad of—employment claims that can be brought in relation to determination of status. For example, arrears of wages. That would include things like unpaid holiday pay. There are many, many different claims that can be raised to seek to enforce employment rights that are not section 6 claims.

Accepting the Minister’s explanation for this amendment, I put an amendment forward on the Table myself, to actually address that if the effect is as described, it would apply to other claims too, because my understanding is that the claims that the people who are Uber drivers have currently made are not section 6 claims. So this is a big gap in the Amendment Paper, accepting in good faith the impacts that the Minister describes. I want to know why it’s limited to section 6 and if she would consider expanding that, because that seems to be quite a significant thing that has been left out of this Amendment Paper. I have much time left on this call, but I wanted to give the Minister an opportunity.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I will take the member’s question in good faith. What I have said before, and what I will say again, is that this is a minor change to clarify the law as it was already drafted. It doesn’t substantively change anything.

I did want to provide some evidence to back that by my officials, which is actually from the departmental report that was sent to the select committee. At paragraph 66, it does say the bill is not retrospective. “The gateway test will apply for employment periods following the bill’s enactment. If a worker who was employed before the bill comes into force were to challenge their employment status, the real nature of the relationship test would apply to the period before the bill came into force and either the gateway test or the real nature of the relationship test, depending on whether the agreement meets the gateway test criteria, would apply to the period after the bill came into force.”

My officials have wanted to clarify the law even stronger through this minor Amendment Paper, but it does not, in substance, change the overall intent of what was drafted.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (09:13): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let’s talk about what new clause 25A does. I have a series of questions that I want to put to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety.

Just to be clear, under this provision, any person who meets the new specified contractor definition on the day of the commencement of this law is deemed to be a specified contractor from that day forward even if their working arrangement began before the Act commenced. If the Employment Relations Authority later finds that before commencement they were in fact an employee, the only workers who are protected under this provision are those who have already filed proceedings under section 6 before commencement.

If a worker hasn’t filed proceeding before commencement, their right to have their status determined for the future is extinguished by this law, even if the authority confirms that they were an employee prior to commencement. The effect of this is that if you haven’t filed proceedings by commencement of this bill, you lose your future rights permanently. It’s as clear as that.

From our perspective, that is serious. In spite of what the Minister has said about retrospectivity, it does operate retrospectively in substance, even if it’s framed in the language as “from commencement”. It extinguishes both accrued and contingent legal rights. It creates a hard cut-off that favours those who have legal awareness and access to legal advice. It overrides the finding of the Employment Relations Authority about the real nature of the relationship. It incentivises rushed and speculative litigation before commencement. There’s no doubt that it will disadvantage non-unionised, low paid, and migrant workers.

I have some questions for the Minister that I would like her to answer. Notwithstanding what she’s told us before about the official’s advice on retrospectivity, did they advise that the effect of this provision is to extinguish existing rights arising from arrangements entered into before commencement, and isn’t that in fact retrospectivity?

Secondly, did officials advise that clause 25A extinguishes accrued statutory rights for workers who were employees under section 6 prior to commencement but had not filed proceedings? What is the policy justification for permanently removing a worker’s future employment protections solely because they didn’t commence proceedings before an arbitrary commencement date?

The next issue I want to raise is about access to justice and procedural fairness. What assessment did Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) officials make of how many affected workers would realistically know that they needed to file proceedings before commencement to preserve their rights? I assume that would have been part of the advice.

Did officials advise that this amendment favours workers who have legal representation or are members of the union over vulnerable or migrant workers who may not be aware of what this provision does to their rights? What will the minimum notice period be that workers will have between Royal assent and commencement to understand this amendment and file proceedings?

I want to turn now to the question of the way that this amendment overrides the findings of the Employment Relations Authority. That’s new clause 25A(3)(b). My question for the Minister is: how is it legally coherent for the authority to determine that a person was an employee immediately before commencement, and yet the statute deems them a contractor immediately after? What advice did the Minister receive on the constitutional implications of Parliament directing that authority findings have no operative effect for the future? What kind of position does that leave the authority in? Can the Minister identify any precedent in employment law where Parliament has required and authority finding of employee status to be treated as legally irrelevant going forward?

One the question of incentivising premature and strategic litigation, did MBIE advise that this amendment creates an incentive to file precautionary or pre-emptive proceedings before commencement to preserve their rights? What modelling was done on the likely surge in section 6 proceedings immediately prior to commencement and the impact that might have on the Employment Relations Authority? How does the Minister reconcile this amendment with claims that the bill will reduce litigation and actually improve certainty? I’ll leave it there.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. The previous member, Phil Twyford, actually took a few more questions around the potential for search and litigation, so we’re also interested to know whether the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety received any advice that this could happen. But more importantly, what we are interested in knowing is whether she received advice on who is currently expected to be captured as a result of the provisions of this amendment. Which groups does she expect to be captured as part of this? Which groups does she understand have already filed proceedings and challenged their status and were able to be deemed employees? Would she be able to name, for the sake of Hansard, the groups that she actually expects are currently being captured as a result of this amendment?

I think it’s important to be able to name the groups of people, to give clarity about who exactly the Minister is trying to supposedly not retrospectively affect. I think that clarity would be particularly helpful for the public because I think it’s about bringing it less from the abstract and actually being able to name the groups that she perceives have already challenged this in the court, have effectively won, and now this Amendment Paper deems to sort of say, according to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, that they will not be affected by the bill in front of us. I know that, on top of that, there may be a hypothetical set of groups that may enter into a process between us debating this and commencement, but who already has been affected, and did she receive advice in which she is able to actually name the groups of people that would likely be captured as a result of this amendment?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:21): Thank you. Look, I rise to take a call in response to the Hon Phil Twyford’s contribution where he queried mainly that if a worker hasn’t filed until after the commencement of this law, does this mean that their right to have their status as an employee will be removed or thereabouts. I just wanted to once again reiterate that the changes to the test apply from the commencement of this law. That’s what happens when a law changes: we change for the period going forward, and the current law or the law that exists today will apply in respect of the period before the commencement. That is not changing with this Amendment Paper.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:22): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’d be good to get a lot more fulsome answers to the questions by the Hon Phil Twyford, but also just to pick up what my friend Ricardo Menéndez March was saying around particular groups of people. Just to be straight up: how does this impact those Uber drivers? How are they captured or not captured by this? Are some of them now employees or not? At what point can that be determined or not determined as well? Can we get some specifics from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on how this impacts particular workers? I did say Uber drivers—they have been in court; how does this impact them? How does it impact those that have been filed as well? Is there any other advice about how this has impacted other specific examples? This amendment did get dropped on the House quite late last night. It is quite abstract. It is important for us to know that there have been concrete examples that have been mapped out, so that people can actually understand the impact of this.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (09:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will only make a brief contribution, but I do have some questions that I think are very important on this matter of retrospectivity, which has been dropped on to the House. What I want to know is the impacts of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s interpretation currently as it will have on lawmaking in this House generally. I’ll give you an example with the retirement villages—my member’s bill. One of the reasons other parties have said they won’t support it is they were concerned about retrospectivity. What they are saying is that they don’t want to see a bill that is going to pull a whole class of individuals who have signed a contract into a new regime where the sanctity of contract would find that unfair. Now I am hearing the Minister say that from the commencement date that retrospectivity, in this situation, won’t apply because the law comes into effect. Those two concepts don’t reconcile. This is going to be really relevant and significant in the ensuing debate that will happen around the country, around my bill, but also for all other lawmaking in this House.

I’d really like to hear, very clearly, and I’d really invite the Minister to choose her words carefully and to answer the very specific question that I’m about to ask, which is: when somebody has signed a contract and a new regime comes into effect—generally, not just in employment law—does it mean that they are suddenly subject to the new regime and that there is no sanctity of contract? If so, does she have a problem with that? If she doesn’t, then that would fly in the face of all of the rhetoric that we hear from the member’s political party, but the answer to that question, as I say, is going to be highly relevant to other legislation made in this House.

I can give you another example of the Residential Tenancies Act and protections for tenants. When that came through, Labour transparently said this is going to have a retrospective impact on those who have signed those tenancy agreements. We don’t have a problem with that. That’s about fairness. Getting clarity from the Minister about when retrospectivity occurs and when it doesn’t and what it means for all of those who have signed a contract in law, in general, is really important, and also as it relates to the specific example.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:26): Thank you Mr Chair. And thanks to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her answers to my previous questions. It’s not surprising that people have questions around this amendment because, as I said, it’s something that I was only made aware of yesterday, and I’ve said, it was published shortly before that.

It is complicated and I haven’t heard from the Minister around the Amendment Paper that I’ve tabled. I would like to know about that because it seems to me that, if her explanation is correct, then I don’t understand the reason for section 6 claims being the only ones that have been chosen.

As I said, I understand that those are not the most usual claims to be filing. Usually, in unemployment cases, if you are seeking a declaration that someone’s an employee—as happened in the Uber case—a few employees would take that claim and there would be a few, like lead employees, and you would look into their examples, but it wouldn’t be that every single claimant had their particular employment situation analysed, because, of course, they’re almost identical. Mostly what happens is that after those initial kind of headline claims are filed and there’s a determination based on the facts in that particular case, the other claims that then follow are for the remedies that are associated with employment. Those are things like holiday pay, wage arrears, etc. So that’s important.

The other question I have is in terms of the right that is alleged to continue in this Amendment Paper. The Amendment Paper seems to state that the rights of someone to bring a claim in the period of time prior to commencement continue—and that’s the Minister’s response to that. How long is someone able to rely on those rights? In employment law, for example, if you were to take a claim to the authority, that would be a three-month or a 90-day period of time that you must take a claim within.

Does this Amendment Paper change any of the limitation dates that would otherwise apply or does it make it clear that, essentially, once the commencement date starts, that within three months—because that would be the normal employment law rule that people would have to file the claims in order to have any retrospective entitlement due to this Amendment Paper. This is an important thing, I think, to note: even if it is a clarification as the Minister has expressed—so it doesn’t actually fundamentally change the working of the primary piece of legislation—it does clarify that, upon commencement, employees and people who previously may have been considered to be employees due to the test that the Minister has put in, will be, from commencement, specified contractors. That’s regardless of the retrospective question—it’s looking at that status moving forward.

The purpose of the Act is further solidified and clarified, and rights are more clearly extinguished on a particular date because of the passage of this amendment bill. My question is a genuine question that I think is important for the public to know the answer to. It’s very regretful, I feel—we’re not under urgency, but we are in a situation where we are debating this amendment, which we only received this week and will be passed later today. That is due to an extended sitting, and that is due to the way the Government has designed and made decisions around this particular piece of legislation. An important question for the public of New Zealand and for people following along with this, who may have rights extinguished by this legislation, is: what is the limitation date in relation to being able to utilise the rights that are alleged to be protected within this Amendment Paper? I think that is really important.

Another really important question that I would like an answer to is: for the people who have claims already, does this Amendment Paper protect their position as ongoing employees, or does the primary piece of legislation, regardless of the Amendment Paper, mean that if the specified contractor test applies to them, they will considered to be specified contractors after commencement? That is a genuine question and one that I think is really important that we get the answer to.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:31): Look, I’ll try and respond to as many as I can, starting with questions from the Hon Phil Twyford, who talked about how many workers would be affected by this Amendment Paper. It’s highly theoretical. This will depend on how many workers might have a different status depending on the test as it applies. That is only going to be a subset of workers. Phil Twyford also asked, what precedent is there that Parliament overrules an authority decision? I just wanted to ensure clarity here: the change does not impact the determination made by the Supreme Court. That only applies to those workers. Each employment status challenge is always determined on a case by case basis.

Ricardo Menéndez March then also asked what groups would be affected by this Amendment Paper. It is quite clearly uncertain, as per my previous answer, who will be affected, as that ultimately depends on who raises claims after commencement that covered a pre-commencement part. Ricardo Menéndez March also asked, what specifically is the impact on Uber drivers? I believe this is, essentially, in essence, what Camilla Belich was also asking. Look, the bill is not retrospective, so it will not change the outcome for the Uber drivers that have been determined to be employees—so there is that.

Camilla Belich also asked, what about other claims that could be raised to seek to enforce employment rights, not just section 6 claims? Look, this Amendment Paper is quite limited to section 6 to clarify the change to section 6 and how it will apply to the commencement date. It does need to cover other rights as those are not impacted by the change of the amendment.

Phil Twyford then also asked, what is the period between commencement and when the potential employees need to lodge legal proceedings? Look, I’m hardly going to be giving legal advice here to people on how to lodge proceedings into the authority or the court. The period before commencement will continue to be determined under the previous law, and the bill will commence the day after Royal assent.

Ingrid Leary also asked, when someone has signed a contract and then the law changes, are they covered by the new law and is there sanctity of contract? I won’t get into the specifics of other types of laws that she was referencing, but at the time when they signed, the parties agreed that it was a contracting relationship, or not employment. That is one limit of the gateway test. What is changing is that the test applies if the worker challenges their status after commencement.

Camilla Belich also had a query about whether or not the Amendment Paper affects time limits for filing claims. No.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:35): Thank you, Minister, for your response to those questions. I want to pick up on the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s response just now, as well as the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, and discuss the very real scenario that many have suggested prompted this bill, around the Uber drivers. I have an amendment on this that has just been tabled. One of the things that should be clarified—and I guess the Minister, in some ways, has clarified—is that those who have brought the proceeding in front of authorities are covered under this Amendment Paper and transitional measures. I do think that this Amendment Paper does clarify certain aspects. However, what that would also mean is that any other Uber drivers who are not party to that proceeding would not be covered under these transition measures, and particularly the one we were looking at, the amended clause 25A(1)(b).

My question to the Minister is, how then would she reconcile this Amendment Paper in the context of the long-held tradition when it comes to case law and also common law when we’re looking at, in some ways, a class action law lawsuit? My suggestion—and I want to see if the Minister would be interested—is still a transition measure, but it allows clarity for the whole class of, say, Uber drivers, or anyone else. My suggestion is: after clause 25A(1), which says “This clause applies to a person”, insert “or class of persons”. The same would be applicable to clause 25(A)(3)b, to say that “the Authority determines that the person or class of persons …” That way, it not only covers those who have brought the proceedings the general understanding under our court and our court ruling that that whole class of, I guess, contractors would be treated and considered as employees. I think that is an important clarification to be made here.

In addition to that, it also prevents, potentially, a scramble between now and the commencement date of people bringing proceedings to the authority because of the fact that, what this potentially means—and, again, I’d like clarification from the Minister—is that when someone brings a proceeding to the court, up until the commencement date, the court is still able to rule them as employees, but not post the commencement date. Post commencement date, they will be considered as specific contractors. I think it also potentially creates ambiguity or a lack of clarity in our court system where if someone does bring or further people bring a proceeding in front of the authority, they’re going to have to proportionalise it to ensure that part of it is going to be employees and part of that is going to be contractors, as opposed to saying there has been a class suit on this general theme in the beginning, and therefore everyone within this will be considered. That is a much cleaner and clearer way, both in terms of this bill but also existing common law.

I think that my amendment on this, which has just been tabled, would clarify this particular aspect and potentially reduce some of the burdens further down the track for the authority, but I’m keen to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (09:39): Thank you to the Minister for addressing my question. She didn’t provide any clarity. I won’t labour this any further, but it would be really good to understand, so I will ask it again. When someone signs a contract, and, at a later date, they are caught by a new regime, is that or is that not retrospective? This is really important for our lawmaking, Minister. Can you please answer the question.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:39): Thank you, Mr Chair. I stand corrected. I understand that the Government has taken the third reading off the Order Paper this afternoon. I think that that is a very wise decision from the Government, because, obviously, we are in the midst of trying to determine what the impacts of this Amendment Paper 504 are. I think it would not be prudent or democratic to do it this afternoon, and so, hopefully, some of these questions that we’ve raised have impacted the thinking and I support that call.

Regardless, there are outstanding questions on the Amendment Paper. I haven’t had an answer to the question of people who have filed proceedings and the impact of this Amendment Paper on them. I imagine that the answer is that because it’s drafted in a certain way, it will not impact people who have filed proceedings because it’s focused on another group, but I’d like confirmation of that. The question I had was: because there is not an Amendment Paper that clarifies this situation for those who have brought proceedings, does that mean that the people who have brought proceedings will not move to be a specified contractor if they comply with the test, and will continue as employees? This is a really important question, and it’s important for us in determining our support for this Amendment Paper.

I’m disappointed to hear that the Minister won’t be supporting my amendment on putting in other employment rights under section 6. The entire purpose of section 6 is to determine employment. That is the test in the primary legislation, which is to determine whether someone is an employee or not. So, by its nature, anything that impacts on section 6, which determines who is an employee and who is not an employee, means that there are rights flowing from that which could be impacted. Because this Amendment Paper only specifically mentions section 6, it doesn’t mention the rights that flow from that, and, respectfully, I cannot understand how this will not impact on limitation dates.

The purpose—as the Minister has explained—of this Amendment Paper is to crystallise and clarify when certain statuses apply to individuals who may be currently employees but who, on the passage of this legislation, will be considered to be contractors. Because of that change, of course there are legal implications that flow from it, and I’ll just explain by way of an example. If I am currently an employee, I have rights to take a claim in the Employment Relations Authority, I have rights to appeal the decisions of the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court, I have rights to take that to the Court of Appeal, and I can get my rights enforced in the Supreme Court if my appeal is successful. I have rights to holiday pay, I have rights to parental leave, I have rights to annual leave, and I have rights to sick pay. I get ACC as an employee. My employer has KiwiSaver obligations if I opt in to that scheme.

There are all of these rights associated with being an employee, and what the Minister has said that this Amendment Paper does is clarify that on a certain date, someone is no longer, on commencement—if I was, for example, an Uber driver in that position, currently, the Supreme Court considers that I’m an employee. This Amendment Paper says that I am suddenly to be a specified contractor from the commencement date. That means that I’ve got a certain window of time in which to assert my employment rights. They don’t go on for ever—as you’ll be well aware from your involvement, Mr Chair, in the Police Association.

These rights do not continue forever. They have a certain limitation date, and so this will have an impact on limitation dates, and I can’t understand—and I would like the Minister to explain it to me. I really, really would like to know the answer to people who are not covered by this amendment and who have filed claims—what is the impact on them—and also how can it possibly not impact on limitation dates?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (09:44): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’ll take quite a few of these questions, starting with Ingrid Leary’s question, once again, about when people sign a contract and they have a later change to the law—is that not retrospective? No, it’s not retrospective, as the new law applies only to the period going forward from commencement.

Camilla Belich has had many questions about claims and whether or not things apply to them. I’m just seeking to clarify here that if a worker brings a claim for minimum entitlements and the employer defends that claim on the basis that the worker is not an employee, then the Employment Relations Authority would necessarily make a declaration as to the worker’s status by using the gateway test, or section 6 if the gateway test is not met.

Lawrence Xu-Nan has an amendment that I wish to speak to. It is specifically talking about Uber drivers who have not yet filed proceedings, and whether or not they will necessarily be covered or not covered. Look, it’s highly theoretical. It is up to workers to decide whether or not to challenge their status. Employment status decisions are always made on a case by case basis, applying the relevant law at the time.

Camilla Belich also has an amendment, which is not necessary as the bill has no retrospective impact, and so it does not impact existing entitlements, although I suspect there will be many other amendments coming. Camilla Belich also asked: does the Amendment Paper affect time limits for filing claims? No. I think I’m ticking off quite few.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Celia Wade-Brown—what are you calling for?

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (09:46): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to correct a vote cast for Te Pāti Māori on the earlier vote for the committee to report progress to a select committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There’s no objection.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: The vote should have been two in favour, not four in favour.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (09:47): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some more questions for the Minister—no need to draw this out. I think her Amendment Paper 504 improves the situation, from what’s she’s told us, and so I’m seeking to clarify that. One question is: in the situation where claims have been brought before the commencement date, should people who are covered by the definition and who are employees now and who, under her definition, will be specified contractors bring a claim, either a wages claim or a personal grievance—will they be afforded the rights that exist for employees, because I think that that’s what she said.

The second question is this: in the situation where we have employees today, or people who might have the rights that accrue to employees today, and then from the commencement date they don’t enter into a new relationship—this was a relationship between them and their employer, who will now be the contracting party after the commencement date, but with no new arrangement, were any rights that existed for them prior to the commencement date that are not related to any of what the Minister is calling a gateway test—so I assume that there she means something like bringing proceedings, like bringing a personal grievance, because there are other rights. The rights that accrue to those employees include things like being able to bring a claim for debts owed on their behalf to IRD in the form of PAYE, or a straight wages claim where they have been paid under the minimum wage. Those are things where what I think the Minister is meaning to say is that a gateway test wouldn’t be the time that those would crystallise; they exist outside of 90 days.

Do those rights that exist for someone now continue to exist after the commencement date? I think that in the situation that the Minister is describing, the answer is in the affirmative, in which case this amendment is something that improves the situation and it does clarify that situation for thousands of New Zealanders. Perhaps if the Minister could just address that point about taking on the example of IRD debt, that would be helpful.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:49): Thank you, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, for that response. I just want to, I guess, prompt the Minister a little bit further: I agree with the Minister in the sense that it is up to individuals to bring a proceeding in front of the authority.

Arena Williams: Not on some things!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Not on some things. But in that sense, what this bill and what the amendment has done is not so much allowing for that kind of scenario but actually in some ways pulls the rug under those people, because if this bill didn’t exist or if I didn’t put in an amendment that talks about a class of persons, those people would bring a proceeding in front of an authority and the judge will base on case law—make a determination—and then they will use the current case that the four Uber drivers have brought to the Supreme Court to make a judgment. However, what the Minister has done, with the introduction of this bill—unless I’m wrong, in which case Minister please correct me—is that the legislation would trump existing case law, which means that even though it is the other Uber drivers’ ability to bring it forth, the conditions that the judge is able to rule or the authority or the court is able to rule has fundamentally changed with this amendment and with this bill.

So in some ways that’s not what—while the Minister says that it is up to the individuals, but the conditions for those individuals have changed. So I guess my question to the Minister, again, is: should future—I’m not talking about every class of contractors because we’re specifically talking about those who have already brought proceedings in front of authority and it’s successful but, should additional people bring that forward, are they going to be treated as contractors, now, under this new legislation or are they going to be treated like what is in existence under the case law and under common law?

If not, once again, I do ask the Minister to consider my amendment to change it to include a class of persons so that way any future person will be entitled—which is their right—to the same treatment as their predecessor. And we’re not asking it to be covered for every single contractor in this case. I’m only asking for those who have been successful in determining employment status either before authority or actually in front of the judiciary. I’ll be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Carl Bates: Mr Chair?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:53): Thank you Mr Chair. Certainly there are a lot of questions left on the table, so I assume that my colleague Carl Bates is standing up to make a detailed contribution. I know he has worked hard on this bill at select committee. I see that the Minister is getting advice so I don’t think we want to move away from Amendment Paper 504 because there are questions on the table, but there are additional parts in the section to cover which I will ask some questions on now.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just note: it’s not exhaustive, the number of questions on the Amendment Paper, and there has been a little bit of repetition of the same points, so there will be a need to—

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you, Mr Chair, I appreciate that, and the number of questions and the complexity of the questions is exactly why—the first thing that I attempted to do in this committee stage was to send it back to select committee so the very good officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will be able to assure the House of the impact of this Amendment Paper, which we’ve only just seen. Not to have those questions answered at the committee stage is concerning in terms of people’s rights. So I appreciate the Standing Orders advice and, of course, you’re always 100 percent correct on that, Mr Speaker, but I would implore the Minister and advisers to be able to answer some of these difficult questions.

There are important sections within the transitional provisions which apply to parts of this Act. For example, we spoke in the previous part about the changes to section 67I, which is the threshold test in respect of remuneration. Now, that is covered in the transitional provisions which are a part of this part, and it has some really interesting facts around when an employee would be covered by the threshold test. For example it appears to say, in these transitional provisions, that people who are already employed by an employer, if they earn over $200,000—which is the new rate—will not be covered by the new provision which prevents them for taking a personal grievance for 12 months.

My question to the Minister is: is this in relation to commencement date? This also says the commencement date is the date in which it commences, in 2025. I think that is a normal drafting thing that will be changed to 2026. So I’d appreciate, if that’s incorrect, if the Minister could correct that, because at the moment it obviously comments on the wrong year. But the threshold in relation to employees, essentially, from my reading of this transitional provision, seems to mean that if you are employed on $200,000, you will be able to take a personal grievance for 12 months, and there’s some conditions in here around restructuring. So if the Minister can just clarify that as well—because it isn’t set out as clearly as it could be in the law—that would be really helpful.

Hopefully, the Minister can maybe respond to some of those previous questions, but I do think that there are some issues in the transitional provisions including exactly when employees—and also how would they be told? So if you’re earning over $200,000 and this doesn’t kick in for a year, this is going to be something that happens, presumably, which is going to go relatively unnoticed until you decide to take a personal grievance. Then you’ll have to look back to this particular Act, and you’ll see when the commencement date is, and then you have to calculate, well, is it a year since that date when your rights actually are extinguished? So what is the communication going to be for people in that position, or is it just going to be something where they feel that they are unfairly dismissed at work or they’re sacked for no reason and suddenly they can’t take a personal grievance?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (09:57): Thank you, Mr Chair. To come back to the Amendment Paper 504, the question is: is the Government cancelling debts owed by a few large corporates to IRD? The context for that question is, right now, there are a few companies who have used a model of contracting—for example, New Zealand Post—where the implications of the Supreme Court decision mean that today and in the past, there are a number of people who were working as contractors who the companies did not pay PAYE or other payments on their behalf. Perhaps it’s alleged that they were paid less than the minimum wage where those debts are owing.

My question is not about arrangements going forward, because there’s no question that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety intends to create a situation where those debts are not accrued after the commencement date, but what I’m asking is: there are debts owed now in the view of the Supreme Court, there are a number of companies which will be booking liabilities for that; is it right that anything that they have set aside that they may be liable for, given the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decisions, no longer needs to be held aside?

I would impress upon the committee that that is a significant issue, though there are not many companies that are implicated by that. There are a number of employees and the debts may be very large. For some companies, the debts may be so large that they have not been able to put aside a contingent liability because it is too large to book for them, because that could go back a few years. It’s understandable that you would want to curtail this from the date of commencement. It’s also understandable that you would want to put some parameters around what sort of litigation that you could bring around that, so that the claims are known and knowable to the Government. But this is not a potential cost to the Government which is being avoided; it’s a potential debt owing to the Government.

So the question is about forgone tax revenues and about what this will mean for those companies that have very large outstanding debts, because those debts have crystallised. I’m not asking about theoretical rights; I’m not asking about those rights that only exist should a claim be brought. I’m asking about the debts that are owed now, have been tested in the court, and have been found to exist.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:00): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are still some outstanding questions on the table for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, so I’m hoping that we will get some of those answered. This is genuinely an attempt for us to do the best we can as legislators in a very tough situation of having the relatively complex Amendment Paper 504, not being briefed on it, not having any heads-up about it, reading it yesterday, trying to make the best sense that we can of it, feeling apprehensive about the potential implications of it; feeling that—you know, some of the assurances that the Minister has given have been reassuring that the intention is not to take away, retrospectively, rights from people—

Arena Williams: This is still an improvement.

CAMILLA BELICH: This is—yeah. So that is valuable to us, but we do have questions on the table around the impact of it that, I still think, remain outstanding.

I don’t accept the time-limit question. I can’t see how it wouldn’t affect time limits. I haven’t had a clear explanation. I know the Minister said, I think, that the law and the test for whether someone’s an employee or not would continue, but what I want to know—I suppose, a real nucleus of that question around people who have filed claims is—and what I just want to hear from the Minister is: does this Amendment Paper provide any additional rights that would not otherwise exist for those who have filed claims in terms of them continuing their employment status?

I accept that everything in relation to employment status is a test—it is currently: in common law, it’s a test; in the statute, it’s a test. Under this Amendment Paper, there are tests that apply, but if we step through that and we think, if people meet those criteria—if, currently, under the law they would be an employee and, currently, after this law, they’ll be a specified contractor, there will be people in those categories. What I really want to know—and it’s important for our consideration on this Amendment Paper—is: is there a group of people whose rights are more protected under this Amendment Paper than they would otherwise be?

What I’ve heard from the Minister, and she can correct me if I’m wrong, is that this is a clarification of how the law works, so, actually, there wouldn’t be any additional rights that would be gained from the Amendment Paper being passed. But it was just a clarification that, in fact, there isn’t retrospective wiping of existing employment rights as a result of the primary piece of legislation without the amendment.

Suze Redmayne: It’s been answered.

CAMILLA BELICH: She hasn’t answered it—and if you know the answer, tell me the answer, because I haven’t heard it. It’s really important for us, as the Opposition, to be able to determine if we are going to support this Amendment Paper, because we want to understand exactly how it works. We’ve suggested, in good faith, amendments to make this better and we want to understand how it works. This is the committee stage. This bill, this Amendment Paper, has not been to select committee. We are not privy to information from advisers. This is our democratic chance to get the answers that we need.

We haven’t heard—and this is not directed at the Minister; this is at colleagues: please allow us to make informed decisions about the laws that we vote for that apply to every single New Zealander in this country. This is an extremely serious matter. We haven’t heard the answers. We haven’t heard the answers in relation to the student employees not being entitled to take personal grievances. These are really important. I understand that committee stages can be long, but this is our opportunity to get answers. We’d appreciate a clear answer on that question.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (10:04): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will try to take a call and respond to a few questions. Firstly, to Arena Williams: will the gateway test affect employment rights pre-commencement—and she gave an example about debts owed by an employer to IRD. Look, it’s starting to become ad nauseam, but the bill does not impact tests applied pre-commencement.

Lawrence Xu-Nan, he’s got a tabled amendment, I believe, urging me to consider it, about classes of people to be included in the Amendment Paper. Look, the employment status is determined on a case by case basis. Applying a decision to a class of people, regardless of whether or not they have challenged their status, would undermine the ability of parties to agree to an arrangement that actually does suit them.

Camilla Belich has also asked how employees will be made aware of the threshold changes. Officials will develop and publish guidance to support both employers and employees in understanding their legislative changes and obligations. They do that on a range of different laws when they change. Camilla Belich has also asked for the references to the 2025 amendment Act to be updated to 2026. That’s a yes.

Lawrence Xu-Nan has asked: does the legislation trump existing case law? The bill changes the test and, therefore, the authority in the court will need to apply the amended law to cases filed after commencement.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (10:06): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Now, we’ve covered a lot. The Minister has been answering, perhaps, not to the extent that members would like. However, we’ll be looking for new material. I’m also aware that people new to the committee asking the same question is not new material. Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (10:06): Thank you; I appreciate that. Actually, it comes out of the last answer of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and it has raised, very much, a question. It’s a very practical question. The nature of the people that I’m most concerned about being caught by this new clause is that they are often migrants. They speak different languages, but they’re also scattered, and they have no unions, etc.—they have no collectivity. They have very little access to knowledge of systems. I’m concerned about how much the Minister knows about how difficult it is going to be to inform those people.

There’s a second issue that is of serious concern with regard to that. If somebody raises a claim—so they’re in the position where they raise a claim from now, because, otherwise, they’re going to miss out—there’s been a real fear of retaliation in that situation. We’ve had it where people would raise a claim that they were an employee rather than a contractor, and they would lose their contract. That was very real. I wanted to know whether the Minister had looked at the risk of that and protecting from that risk, which is totally genuine. I’ve seen it happen; because they are on a precarious contractual term, it can just be cut off, so expecting people to go through and raise a claim pre-emptively is particularly difficult.

I want to know whether there was any advice on the nature of the people that are most impacted; and whether there was going to be reach-out in different languages; and whether there was going to be that kind of protection or reassurance, or what safeguards were put in place, for people who raised the claim at this point. This is honestly totally genuine. I’ve had this situation many times. I suspect it’s why a lot of people have never challenged status when they should: they’re living off the smell of an oily rag and the last thing they need is to lose their job because they’ve challenged their status. Putting your head above the parapet is a big deal. So I want to know what the situation is with regard to those two features. I have got a follow-up question on this, but I would very much like the answer to this question before I do. I’m mindful of the time, so I would like to—am I going to get an answer from the Minister now on that? I know that there’s an attempt to make this a back and forth, and I would appreciate the answer to that before I ask my next question.

We’ll just be moving on, then? My next concern is just about payment backwards. If people have been misdiagnosed—miscategorised—as contractors and they are employees, their holiday pay rights don’t stop at six years; they actually go back for the entire term. They have, therefore, often potential rights to large sums of money, and that money is attached to what they have been, rather than what they’re deemed on the day. I want a really practical answer here: do they lose the right to that money if they don’t claim status on that day? Are they able to claim for the time they have accumulated it? We’re often talking about thousands of dollars, and I would like to know whether they can do that.

I’d also like to know whether they can claim a debt, because, in that situation, that would also be subject to back-pay claims. I want to know how much scope there is for them to claim back monies owed in that situation, and what happens to things like holiday pay.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (10:11): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Camilla Belich—with some new material.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:11): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a totally new section that we have not covered at all. I want to ask the Minister about how dispute resolution procedures that are currently in employment contracts will be applied following the passage of this Act. This is in the Schedule, new Part 8—page 13—new clause 28. This appears to say that, if there’s a dispute resolution procedure already in someone’s employment contract and they earn over $200,000, this legislation would actually go into their employment contract and seek to make aspects of that already-agreed employment contract void in respect of dispute resolution procedures. This is because it’s stated in the Schedule, because of the changes that the Government has made to the fact that they can’t bring a personal grievance.

On a practical level, I want to know what that actually leaves an employee with. Say you’re currently employed, you earn over $200,000, you have a dispute resolution clause—which is very, very common in employment agreements—and you have this clause 28, which is, essentially, saying that so long as they are related to personal grievances or unjustified dismissal, they will no longer be effective. What are we going to have? Are we going to have a paragraph that has redacted parts? Will it remain intact but certain parts of it will be ineffective? This seems to be a very unusual clause, and what I would suggest to the Minister is an easier way of achieving what the Minister is maybe wanting to achieve is actually to say that agreed dispute-resolution clauses can continue if they are agreed by employer and employee. I mean, why wouldn’t you be able to have that in an employment agreement?

Obviously, if someone tried to take a personal grievance or decided to make a legal claim, there would be a barrier there. I don’t understand why this provision is necessary. It just seems to me that an easier situation would be to leave the employment contract intact and then just stop any legal proceedings, which would be inevitably stopped by the change in law. I mean, this is very unusual, and as a former practitioner, it would be really difficult to get away with doing anything other than charging my clients to redraft their entire contract and making money for myself as a lawyer and costing companies more money in order to redraft these contracts, which I think is a waste of time. I wonder if the Minister would be open to changing that, because it seems to me an unusual step, and I’d appreciate some answers on that.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:14): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just referring to Helen White’s questions—“Does the individual lose rights to money if they don’t apply on the date?”—I’ve been advised this doesn’t affect the limitation period, and I think that question has been answered before. Also, there was a question, “Has the Minister looked at the risk of someone raising a claim and losing their contract?” I’ve been advised that contract law will apply regarding what happens if a contract is cancelled.

Just responding to the member Camilla Belich—“How will existing dispute resolution procedures in existing agreements apply?”—I have been advised the Act requires employment agreements to describe services available for resolving employment relationship problems. To meet this requirement, some agreements state that an employee may raise an unjustified-dismissal claim. This transitional provision is intended to prevent existing employment agreements that state that employees may raise an unjustified-dismissal claim from being interpreted as contracting back into unjustified-dismissal protection, but to maintain any bespoke dispute resolution agreements.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (10:16): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (10:16): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I will say thank you very much. This is my first opportunity and it’s an area that is in my spokesperson role, but, unfortunately, yesterday, as you know, Mr Chair, I had to attend my auntie’s funeral, so I’ve been very limited in this debate so far. I do to appreciate the ability to be able to contribute to the debate when we’re looking at the transition phases in Schedule 1AA, inserted by the Schedule. Thank you very much for that opportunity.

I really was wanting to follow on from my colleague Camilla Belich’s contribution about the personal grievances. I was very intrigued listening to that, as someone who has worked in employment law, and the take on what happens in that and the confusion that is being caused by clause 28, I think it is, that’s there in this new Schedule 1AA, as it is newly defined. There’s a very quick question that I hope the Minister is able to answer. As I say, it’s following on from that contribution.

How does the Minister reconcile Schedule 1AA’s default outcomes with the Act’s stated purpose of promoting good faith and fair bargaining, especially for those employees with, as my colleague Helen White said, really limited bargaining power? I’m really wanting to understand this whole transition period for those people that, coming through in the personal grievance, might have that personal grievance but also have that really limited bargaining power. I’ve listened very carefully to both contributions here, and I still am not satisfied that we really understand how difficult it is going to be for those people. I really want to have that spelt out.

There is another key area that came from my colleague’s contribution over here: why did the Government consider it was necessary to include a bespoke transitional regime in Schedule 1AA rather than relying on the standard commencement and savings provisions in the Employment Relations Act? I’d really appreciate an answer from the Minister about that, and, as I say, I really appreciate the opportunity, not having been able to be here yesterday, to have my contribution too.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (10:19): Thank you, Mr Chair, and condolences to Jan Tinetti and her whānau as well. E mihi ana.

This contribution is based on an amendment that I’ve got on the Table, as part of new Part 8 of Schedule 1AA, inserted by the Schedule. It is around those transitional provisions, because, once you hit that threshold around about $200,000, once this bill passes, all of a sudden you lose rights to the personal grievance system. My amendment is about giving some time for that employee to be able to negotiate some more of their terms, because they’re actually losing out, right? So you get to this particular point, this bill comes in, and all of a sudden this whole system that you used to be able to engage in is no longer available for you, so, surely, there should be some space there for that employee or those employees to actually have a sit down with their employers to be able to see if something can be done, because they are, in my mind, losing out.

My amendment, dated 11 February 7.45 p.m., is: in Schedule “New Part 8 inserted into Schedule 1AA”—which we have talked about—clause 26(2), replace “12 months” with “24 months”. Just to give it that much more breathing space because you are dealing with employees that are operating at that particular bracket that would need a particular amount of time for them to able to negotiate that, and I think that would be important. If the Minister could consider that, that would be good.

Just to reflect back on a number of the comments that we have heard around the committee regarding the Minister’s Amendment Paper 504, it is still not clear on the advice that she received from officials; it is still not clear about how that will impact different people. There have been numerous amounts of questions about that, and there was an opportunity for us to seek leave for the House and actually have a have a better, more fulsome discussion about this at the select committee because it will impact large numbers of workers, so I do want to make that comment.

My question is: will the Minister accept my amendment? You need a bit of time to sort these things out. These are big moves that will be happening, and this will be new territory for everybody, particularly those up at that threshold. Will the Minister consider my amendment?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (10:22): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to the member Jan Tinetti, who asked how consistent the transitional provision is with good faith. I’ve been advised the threshold will apply to existing employment agreements 12 months after commencement of the bill, providing an opportunity to negotiate how the threshold will apply. Employers and employees are subject to the obligation of good faith when proposing to negotiate existing employment agreements. If they do not agree to the change—the employment agreement—the threshold will automatically apply after 12 months. I consider this is consistent with good faith.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (10:22): 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 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 21 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; Te Pāti Māori 2.

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 Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 21A 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; Te Pāti Māori 2.

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 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the vote on the Schedule. We’ll just change.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good morning, members. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A amending subclauses (1)(a) and (2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 504, new clause 25A, amending subclauses (1) and (3)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 amendment to Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A(1)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, inserting new subclause (2) of clause 25A to clarify that the section is not intended to have retrospective effect, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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): Arena Williams’ remaining tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, inserting new subclause (2) of clause 25A, is ruled out of order as merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A, amending subclause (3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, inserting new subclause (5) of clause 25A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, inserting new clause 25B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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): Members, there are six tabled amendments that seek to amend Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A, from Arena Williams. They all seek to replace the wording of subclause (2). I will now put separate questions on these six tabled amendments.

The question is that subclause (2) read “The person is a specified contractor in relation to the arrangement on and from the commencement date only if their employment began on or after the commencement date.” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 subclause (2) read “The person is a specified contractor in relation to the arrangement entered into on and from the commencement date and not in relation to any arrangements that were entered into before the commencement date.” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 subclause (2) read “The person is a specified contractor only in relation to an arrangement entered into on or after the commencement date, and is not a specified contractor in respect of any arrangement entered into before that date because no retrospective effect is intended.” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 subclause (2) read “The person is a specified contractor solely for arrangements entered into from the commencement date onwards and is not deemed to be a specified contractor for arrangements entered into prior to that date.” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 34

New Zealand Labour 34.

Noes 87

New Zealand National 49; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that subclause (2) read “To avoid any retrospective effect, a person is to be treated as a specified contractor in relation to any arrangement entered into on or after the commencement date, but is not to be treated as a specified contractor in relation to any arrangement entered into before that date.” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 subclause (2) read “The status of specified contractor applies only to arrangements entered into on and from the commencement date, and does not apply to arrangements entered into before the commencement date.” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 the Minister’s amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 504 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 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 26(2) 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 30 into the Schedule 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 as amended 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (10:47): Mr Chair—Madam Chair. Sorry about that. That would have been a terrible thing to do to you. I want to ask about the commencement date. I am particularly concerned because we have tried to thoroughly examine this bill as we’ve gone through. One thing that I asked about was the contractor’s notification. I drilled down a little bit while there was another Minister in the chair about the nature of the communication of the changes that were happening, because we have people who speak all sorts of languages. There are, obviously, different types of people in this situation, but a lot of the people that we’re dealing with actually are particularly alienated from the systems that we are running, because they are migrants—they’re new to the country, and don’t necessarily know, and aren’t familiar with, this system. They don’t have the necessary connections in it. They don’t have the language quite often. There may be issues with education. There is a level of vulnerability in this group, and what we have here is a commencement date that is very sharp.

What I heard the Minister talk about was that there was going to be a campaign to notify people. I can’t reconcile that in my head, because how do you notify people that their rights are going to be extinguished—and extinguished back, which we’ve just seen from the denial of some of the amendments that were made to make sure that the rights were retained at least for the period when they would have been deemed to be employees? No, that’s going. They’re stealing lots of money off lots of people, actually. That’s the way I see it, because all of the things that they were going to get are gone as of this law change. There’s a huge amount of money at stake for people—holiday pay, claims for different amounts of money if they were under the minimum wage, etc. All of those we’re stealing from the bottom part of the income stream. These are people who have, perhaps, been on less than the minimum wage. We are stealing money from them, and we should at least inform them, and they should at least have a chance to claim in that time so that they’ve got at least something of a claim in on time.

It looks like we’re doing this straight away, so I want to ask about the commencement date. Given that risk—and I appreciate I’m using language the Minister probably doesn’t agree with, but the facts remain the same: lots of money—lots of money, lots of vulnerability, lots of rights gone, and only if they make a claim is there any chance, etc.

If that is the case—and those are serious consequences—would the Minister look at a date that was advised by the capacity to actually let people know that this was happening so they had a fighting chance? Could we have a date that was advised by that? Has she sought advice about how long it would take for people to become aware of this? I’ve talked about this in the last stage—about is there any analysis of the demographic in terms of languages that are spoken by our contractors? Think about our cleaners, our Uber drivers, etc. Has there been a plan put forward to do that, how long would it take to inform those people, and could we consider a commencement date that made sense of that? If it was, for example, a year out, could we get an education programme into the right places? Remember, these people have no central place to go. They are not members of unions. They are very much scattered populations. So how would we do that, and would the Minister consider giving time?

If she is not prepared to do that, if she’s saying, “Right, it’s just happening straight after commencement, etc.”, then can she explain why? Why would you suddenly bring this in in this way rather than give people a chance to make claims? In other situations, we have always allowed time for people to make a claim, and I just cannot understand why not. So I would like an answer to that question. Thank you very much, Minister.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to be able to take a call on the preliminary provisions of this particular Act. These can sometimes be overlooked, but these are in fact the main operative parts—if we didn’t have a commencement date, then obviously we wouldn’t know when the Act came in—so I think it’s important to give them the attention that they deserve.

This Act—or this bill, and this Act, as it possibly will be—has a number of different commencement dates which are referred to in the transitional provisions. I wanted to know, for clarity, if it might be more prudent to have more of that information contained in clause 2. Someone reading this Act will just simply look at the Royal assent date and think everything comes in, whereas, actually, if you look further into the Act, which, of course, we’ve traversed slightly, we see that there are different dates in relation to different parts—for example, when personal grievance rights apply to certain employees.

We’ve also put a number of amendments up, looking to just extend the commencement date. I think, from the conversations that we’ve had around our concerns about this particular bill, that that is justified, because this is a particular Act that I think would benefit from a longer period of time to allow people to understand their rights. That’s especially so because the committee has just passed an amendment that hasn’t been to select committee and hasn’t had the opportunity of having submissions into the impact of it.

The commencement date at the moment is after the Royal assent. I wonder if the Minister might consider—because that amendment has come in, and that obviously wasn’t part of the original drafting when this bill was put in place—allowing the commencement date to be extended for a short period of time. I think when I asked to get this sent back to select committee, I suggested 17 March, so a very short period of time—just over a month—where the commencement could be delayed.

That would just give the public and officials time to digest the bill as a whole, with Amendment Paper 504 which has been agreed, and if there were any concerns around the bill, it would give the opportunity for that to be addressed prior to the bill actually coming into effect.

I think it would have been preferable to send it back to select committee. I think that would have been easier. But I do think that perhaps having a short delay would allow, I’m sure, the very interested legal employment law, union, business, Uber drivers, gig economy workers—everyone who needs to work in order to earn a living is potentially impacted by this bill, no matter what their particular characterisation of their engagement in work is. I think that that would be something that I would look to.

The other question I had is a technical question around the title. Obviously, the version that we have on the Table refers to 2025. I would be very surprised if this wasn’t changed to 2026 when it actually becomes law, but I wanted to know what is the mechanism for making that change? Obviously, we debate and we agree and we look in detail at the words in front of us when we are passing pieces of legislation through this House. What is the authority for those minor amendment changes that will undoubtedly need to be made to this Act because it still states 2025, and what is the threshold for making those particular amendments? We’ve had statutes amendment Acts which have made arguably more minor changes than that, and they’ve had to be put in place and debated in this House.

I’m sure there’s a really logical answer. I’m interested in what that answer is, but I think, more substantively, the commencement date is something I would like to have some responses on.

In terms of the title, I don’t want to suggest titles which are obviously just making fun of the Act. There is a Standing Order which prohibits me from doing that. As someone who’s looked back through laws, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what law we’re talking about because of the manner in which we describe things like changes to the Employment Relations Act, and the education amendment Acts are also similarly only identifiable really by the year that they are passed, and sometimes you can have more than one in a year. I wonder if the Minister did think is there a way to differentiate this particular piece of legislation?

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (10:57): Thank you, Madam Chair. We are at the title and commencement debate, and an opportunity for members to sum up their observations to date on this committee of the whole House stage as well. When we started this committee stage, I thought this was a horrible and terrible bill, and as we went through it, through the night, sort of seeing the detail of how horrible and terrible this is for the workers became more and more apparent.

I worry—I worry about the impacts of this bill in terms of the detail that we have heard this morning but also last night as well and how that will impact workers, particularly vulnerable workers. We had wide-ranging debate, with many amendments on this side of the House to sort of try to balance out the rights for the workers. We are seeing thousands and thousands of people leaving the country for better pastures where they have better working rights and conditions—I’m talking about Australia. To see that not being reflected in this iteration of the bill is disappointing. I do know that it’s important for us to put on record on Hansard to note that disappointment.

I do note the conversation—that this is about title and commencement. When you look at the title of this bill—Employment Relations Amendment Bill—it’s quite vanilla. It’s going to be very, very difficult to find it online. There’s nothing in that title that distinguishes it from any other employment-type bill as well. It’ll be difficult for people to find.

I do take the point that we can’t suggest names which will denigrate and are contrary to the policy intent of the bill. So I couldn’t call it the “Punching Down on the Workers Bill”—that would not be acceptable—I couldn’t call it “Punching Down on the Workers Bill”. I couldn’t call it the “Ripping Off the Workers Bill”—that would not be in Standing Orders, so I could not suggest that at all. I couldn’t call it the “Misclassification of Workers and Taking Away Their Rights Bill”, because that would be completely against Standing Orders. I won’t suggest that—that would be absolutely, absolutely terrible. I would never, ever call it the “See You Later, New Zealand; I’m Going Over to Australia Where They’ve Got Better Working Rights and Conditions Bill”, because that would absolutely be against Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and I wouldn’t do that—I wouldn’t do that. But I think there is a point that needs to be made that they need to be able to find this bill when they search for it, right, because it’s the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. What does that mean? Perhaps a title which actually might fit within Standing Orders could be the “Employment Relations (Changing Classification and Impacts on the 30-Day Revocation) Bill”. Maybe it’s a bit lengthy. It’s a bit lengthy, but actually it will make it easier for people to find.

I also take the point that others have made around the commencement date. I’m being serious here. Something that should be considered is pushing out the commencement date to January 2027. We did have a long, elongated debate around the Minister’s Amendment Paper. Many, many concerns were raised about how this would impact on workers, whether they are now able to be employees because of court cases, but then all of a sudden, down the track, certain other things might happen as well. None of that was made very, very clear. The Amendment Paper was put on the Table late last night as well.

So having the commencement date stretched out so that people can actually get their heads around what’s happening for them, so they can understand actually what their employment status is at the point of commencement is incredibly, incredibly important. That’s linked to a whole lot of other things that we’ve heard as well. People’s rights and access to the personal grievance system are going to disappear on commencement. People need to be able to understand that. They need to have an opportunity to be able to possibly renegotiate their contracts, and I had an Amendment Paper to that effect as well.

I think there is a strong argument to be made that we need to be looking at pushing out the commencement date, because there are a lot of moving parts here. People are not informed. I’m not convinced by the arguments that the Minister has made or this House has presented that this will be fit to go on a commencement date, and so, on that, thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (11:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to respond to a number of comments and questions. Firstly, to Helen White, how will people be notified about the changes and would I consider a delay? No, I wouldn’t consider a delay. Officials will be developing and publishing guidance to support both employers and employees in understanding the legislative changes like they do every time the law does change in this space. But the changes in this bill have been well signalled through the ACT and National Party coalition agreements and announcements over, I think, the past two years.

Camilla Belich then moved on to ask about whether it would helpful to move the transitional provisions into the clause about the commencement date. No. The bill is drafted according to standard drafting practice and the Parliamentary Counsel Office has standard practices to ensure consistency of law.

Camilla Belich also then asked if I would consider delaying the commencement. Once again, no. As I previously had signalled right at the start of this debate this morning, the Amendment Paper simply clarifies the intended application of the bill as it was explained in the departmental report during the Education and Workforce Committee that the member was also quite privy too.

Camilla Belich also then asked if I would consider renaming the bill to be clearer about what it does, and that was also Teanau Tuiono’s contribution this morning. No, I think it is actually quite clear. I actually think that in New Zealand it’s quite good that our bill names are sometimes dry because I think that helps us move away from hyperbole and catastrophising issues when they are not. It’s the same as if you change the Education and Training Act. We’ve had multiple of those. They do what they say they do. They amend the Act.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (11:04): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “(Change to Existing Employment Rights)” 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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’ five 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 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’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 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 requiring the Act to come into force six months after Royal assent 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 requiring all provisions apart from clauses 1 to 3 to come into force on the day after Royal assent 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we have a number of amendments from Camilla Belich to clause 2 that propose to replace the commencement with a specified date. 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. I’ll read Standing Order 315(4): ”Where amendments are proposed that, in the opinion of the chairperson, are the same in substance, the chairperson may select amendments on which to put a question, in order to test the will of the committee.”

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to amend the commencement to “February 15^th 2027” 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to amend the commencement date to “July 1st 2027” 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; 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 Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to amend the commencement to “January 1st 2028” 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 2 insofar as they replace the commencement with a specified date. The will of the committee having been tested, Camilla Belich’s remaining five tabled amendments are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 is also ruled out of order on this basis.

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 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a clause 3 review provision 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 3 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Anzac Day Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to the Anzac Day Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on clause 1, which is the title. The question is that clause 1 be agreed to.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:17): It’s a real pleasure to stand in for Minister Penk, who has done a lot of work in the veterans space. This is a small step to more widely and properly recognising all of our veterans and commemorating all of those who have served for our country, whether here or overseas. I know this is a very brief bill, which makes a very significant contribution to our veterans and to those who have served. It also makes some significant changes to recognise those who have lost their lives in incidents that are not necessarily in combat or in war, but maybe in training or in accidents, and I think that’s an appropriate change to make, so I look forward to the passage of the bill through the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Helen Clark—oh, sorry. Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:18): Those are big shoes to fill. We also have quite different views on China. Thank you for bringing this bill to the House. It’s something I’d like to speak to, particularly in light of the wonderful role lots of us have in our electorates with regards to Anzac Day. It’s probably my favourite duty. I don’t know how many people in this committee would share that view, but I love being involved in Anzac Day. It feels like a very great honour, but the community has definitely moved into a space where, in my community, it has long since recognised the people that we will recognise in this bill.

In my area I have an RSA, but I also have what’s called a Returned Services Club (RSC). The RSC is one that recognises the merchant ship contribution and they’ve done that for many, many years. They are people who meet every Anzac Day in the street outside of that RSC. They have a very creative approach, a very inclusive approach, but I’m always cognisant that I’m standing amongst people who would be different if we hadn’t had the world wars we’ve had, because there are people missing from that community—generations of people missing from it. A lot of people who come to those ceremonies are people who have been very involved and they’ve often lost people in those wars. It is an incredibly bonding thing for a community as old as that one in Grey Lynn and for the Mt Albert community. We also have a school that has just really taken on board the need to remember these things. Mount Albert Grammar has little white crosses outside it—my children went there—and it is a devastating number of their pupils who lost their lives in those wars.

I wanted to ask about the expansion of the group. I’d love to hear from the Minister about why we selected the definition we did for the group that we will now include in our commemorations. What, for example, is it about the merchant shipmen? We’ve also included training in the situation—people killed in training accidents. I think that’s a very good inclusion, but I would like to hear from the Minister about why we drew the lines where we did.

Then I’d like to ask the Minister about the peacekeeping missions that we have had. I used to go to Helen Clark’s LEC—Labour Electoral Commission—and one of the things I really loved about Helen Clark was how seriously she took the lives of the people in service. She was very concerned that there was a careful deployment of people, and she saw the vision of New Zealand as a place where we would be involved in peacekeeping missions. I’d love to hear from the Minister about that work that we do and whether we’ve included the people who do that kind of work in the new Act. How will we be commemorating the work they do, and the value of the work they do at an international level? Because I, for one, am incredibly proud of the way that we have become peacekeepers in the world and the involvement that we have had in that work.

Finally, I would love to know about some of that work in the Pacific and the price that people have had to pay. I’m well aware that there is a case that was brought over the harm that was done by Agent Orange. Madam Chair, I’ll just finish my statement, and I promise I’ll sit down. I’m well aware that people have paid huge prices, and they’ve fallen through the gaps for a while, so I would love to hear a little bit more from the Minister about some of the prices and the risks that people have faced that we need to recognise as serious sacrifices they have made. Thank you. I’d just like to mention that the spokesperson in this role is Greg O’Connor, and he is waiting to ask some more questions.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National) (11:23): Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Leave is not approved.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (11:24): I want to speak to an amendment that I have on the Table. It’s a very small amendment, but I think it’s an important symbolic amendment. I think it’s a question of interpretation. I took this amendment to the Minister’s office—in fact—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I interrupt the member—we are not taking all the provisions as one question—

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, we’re not?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): —that is the last part. We are still on the title.

ANDY FOSTER: I thought we got agreement on that one.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, we did not. There was objection.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) (11:24): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. This is a bill that has arrived here, and all the speeches to date have been pretty much in support, when we broadly look at the issue. As we’re standing here in the Chamber, we’re looking around what is actually a war memorial. Behind the names here are a lot of very human stories. Every Anzac Day, there’s yet another family we’ll read about who are still being impacted—where uncles and grandparents and various others, their stories have come to light. We tend, as we drive around the country, to see a memorial in every town drive through. Those memorials give some idea of just what impact there has been in those days, particularly World War I.

We’re on the title and commencement of this bill, and, of course, it’s the Anzac Day Amendment Bill. The reason I bring that up is that the name “Anzac” was conceived around that. The very first Anzac Day ceremony was actually held in the Wairarapa, out in Tinui. That was the first time it was ever celebrated. Our minds are locked into “Anzac Day”, and this is what I’m now speaking about. I’m just putting to the Minister that when this was being discussed, because of the broadening of the whole of the issue, whether any consideration was given to actually changing the whole “Anzac Day” name of it? It does almost lock us in to that period, to that time, to World War I. As we talk about, now, these increased number of engagements, what we’re going to do is be reminded of just how many places New Zealanders have fought as peacekeepers, and, latterly, there are more plaques that could go on this wall—East Timor and places like this, because these are places where New Zealanders have actually died.

I’d just ask the Minister, in the discussion around this bill, was there ever any thought, as we are expanding the numbers, whether the term “Anzac” is fit for purpose? Was any thought given to whether we should rename the whole of the Anzac Day Act?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:27): Thank you, Madam Chair. Apologies—I started quite broadly because I assumed we were going to take the debate as one. If we are to move it through clause by clause, I’ll address Helen White’s questions when we get to them in clause 4.

Just on clause 1, the title clause, my understanding is that there was no discussion around whether or not to change the name of Anzac Day or the name of the Anzac Day Act itself, which would be a different section of the bill. I’m sure the member has some views on it, but I think that Anzac Day is a good, well-understood point of commemoration and celebration of those who have served our country, and I don’t think there’s any intention at this point to make any changes to that.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) (11:28): I just want to clarify that there is no amendment and there’s certainly no proposal from this side that it be changed. It was merely a query. As the Minister will know, all aspects of any amendment—and this is a reasonably significant amendment to a bill—are considered. I just, I suppose, wanted the reassurance that the thought was given to this—and, certainly, I want to make sure that there’s absolutely no thought that we are proposing anything other than that. It’s just good to know that there has actually been some thought given to it.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (11:29): Members, we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Clause 3 Principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh) (11:29): We move on to clause 3, which is the Principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Clause 4 Section 2 replaced (Anzac Day to be a day of commemoration)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we move to clause 4. This is the debate on the replacement of section 2, “Anzac Day to be a day of commemoration”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. And, just like that, as though through magic, we have moved to clause 4 almost as though the debate has been taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It’s not magic; it’s process, Minister.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: It is process, and rigorous, and I appreciate the commitment to it. Now, I’ll just go and address Helen White’s questions that were raised earlier on. The first question was around the expansion of the group and where the lines were drawn. Essentially, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee endorsed this approach to broaden the category to recognise that service during a conflict involves more than just those who wear a military uniform. All of the those who serve their country in these circumstances should be remembered and commemorated, and that includes peacekeepers. I draw the member’s attention to clause 4 replacing section 2. If we go to the new subsection (2) of that section 2, it defines warlike conflict as being when an individual serves ”in response to an armed conflict that has occurred, is occurring, or may occur or recur.” I think that quite fairly and squarely would capture those in a peacekeeping role.

In terms of the member’s last question, just around those who served in the Pacific and the ongoing health issues and concerns that many people have raised, that’s a very important issue that the Government is actively looking at, but it’s probably beyond the scope of this short bill to address.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:31): Thank you. I can see that one of the changes is that New Zealand residents and other persons who served in allied forces in the two world wars is extended, and I’d be keen for a little bit of elaboration on that. I wondered about the issue about United Nations missions, multi-force groupings and organisations—for example, the UN peacekeepers—and to what extent that was a scope that had some discretion in it. We’re going to have strange alliances at the present time. We’ve got things breaking down in our global alliances, so how flexible is that in terms of our troops being engaged in places and with alliances that might not be our traditional groupings? Is that covered by multi-force groupings, for example?

I also am interested—again, it’s very similar: it’s the definition of ”warlike conflicts” and what we get in terms of certainty over that. I would be grateful for your answers.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans) (11:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve followed the debate as best I can, albeit arriving at a time that I was able to. I do want to start by perhaps echoing the words of my friend and colleague the Hon James Meager in acknowledging, number one, the points that have been made around the committee, and he’s answered those very satisfactorily—better, in fact, than I would have done, were I here—but also, of course, just to acknowledge those who made submissions to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (RSA) and other submitters, and all MPs who have taken an interest in the matter, including at the committee of the whole House stage.

In terms of the inclusion of those who have served—and I use that term deliberately very broadly and openly—it’s quite explicitly our aim with this legislation to take it from the relatively narrow, confined, even constrained circumstances that are currently reflected in the wording of the bill, to a place that actually can be much more inclusive, as we stand here in this war memorial that doubles as a debating chamber for our House of Representatives. Looking at the battle honours, there’s a broad range of those, and that’s appropriate. And, of course, at Anzac Day services, it’s the case now that many people are obviously unaware of the legislation—as I was unaware, too, myself, until relatively recently. Of course, we’re celebrating peacekeeping and other ways of serving our nation, however you might describe those. There’s a bit of a tension between wanting to be as specific as possible and, of course, not losing the intent where Anzac Day itself harkened back to that very important nation-defining moment that was that particular campaign and all the mythology, but genuinely also, of course, the practical implications—not to mention the service and sacrifice, and, frankly, the bloodshed of that occasion.

To respond to a point that Mr Greg O’Connor was making—and making well—it seems to me important that we retain that original spirit and intent, and we broaden it out without diluting the fact of those world wars and other conflicts before and since being recognised. On that note, I wonder, Madam Chair, if you’d also indulge me to speak to a matter within the clause that we’re currently considering, and it’s the amendment put forward very thoughtfully by Mr Andy Foster. I do want to acknowledge the point that I understand he’s making through the amendment, which, of course, is to make sure that we acknowledge the service of every New Zealander who has fought, frankly, on the right side of history—and you think of obvious instances such as the Second World War and Sir Keith Park having served, effectively, under the banner of the Royal Air Force, but, of course, serving New Zealand by doing that, albeit with an allied or Commonwealth or partner nation at that time.

To me, there’s nothing in the legislation as we have drafted and as the select committee has diligently considered—and as the RSA has submitted they are comfortable with—that would preclude that interpretation whatsoever. I would respectfully say I don’t consider that amendment to be necessary, even though, of course, I understand the intent that he has in putting it forward. For what it’s worth, we share that desire that we have as broad as possible a conception so that we don’t preclude the service of anyone and, indeed, the sacrifice of anyone who has fought and otherwise worked hard in these situations on behalf of New Zealand, its interests and ideals, across the ages.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (11:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry to get in front of the member with the amendment, but I do have some questions about this particular part of the Act, and particularly the changes that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has made. I am quite interested in digging into that a little bit more in terms of the interpretation, where it talks about including warlike conflicts—so language around warlike conflicts. That’s come from the select committee. In the commentary from the committee, it references the type of service that could be included in warlike conflicts—it says here specifically in the commentary, for example, during military training.

What I do want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk, because I think it would be useful to get this on to the Hansard, is what other types of warlike conflicts would you consider to be referenced in that section? For example, peacekeeping—somebody may not be in an active war zone necessarily but undertaking some type of military training on behalf of New Zealand in another country. I could understand—and I’m not an expert on this—that there would be a few examples of what a warlike conflict is. So a quick question: I’m just quite interested in whether the Minister has some more examples that he could use to further advance what the select committee has put in their commentary.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans) (11:38): I think it’s, hopefully, been made clear already in commentary in this stage, but also through the excellent deliberation of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, that peacekeeping operations are included. I look across to Tim Costley, who’s served in some of these places, in situations in which he could speak much more meaningfully than I’ll be able to. But I would say, not only conflicts that have occurred—and we could go through a number of examples: I look around and I see variously described conflicts or situations of a warlike nature where conflict may yet to be occurring as well. Deliberately, again, to be as broad as possible, I see in front of me the New Zealand Wars, I see Afghanistan, I see Timor-Leste, I see Vietnam. That is probably the extent that my eyesight will allow, but, hopefully, our vision more generally, in a metaphorical sense, can be back into the past but also contemplating situations, sadly, that will inevitably arise over the years which we don’t know about now. Of course, part of the reason that we’re looking to amend the bill in this deliberately broad way is to capture scenarios later that we don’t know about in 2026, because then we won’t need to come back and amend it every time specifically to add individual conflicts, as has been the case since this bill was originally passed.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (11:39): Madam Chair, thank you. Thanks, Minister, for the initial comments you’ve made on the amendment that I’ve got on the Table, which I do want to ask some more questions about, if I can.

The whole intent of this bill is to be inclusive, which I think we all completely agree with. New Zealand First has always been a strong supporter of our Defence Force, a strong supporter of our veterans, and a strong supporter of the memory of our veterans, and also of all of those people who have put themselves at risk in the service of our country.

The thing is, the particular concern that I’ve got with the language that’s being used at the moment in the bill as opposed to what’s in the Act at the moment, is you might interpret it inadvertently as excluding some people who are currently included in terms of the recognition.

In the Act as it is at the moment, it’s got that list of the six conflicts, but it then says, ”and in memory of those who at any time have given their lives for New Zealand and the British Empire or Commonwealth of Nations,”. Now, I acknowledge that that might exclude some nations that New Zealanders fought alongside. It was quite explicit when it said that if you’re a New Zealander, if you served in the forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, India, a nation which is in the Commonwealth of Nations, we recognise you.

Now, what we’ve gone to in the bill at the moment is—because all of that existing section is being taken out—”In commemoration of the contribution of … those who have served New Zealand … in time of war and … warlike conflicts”. Now, the interpretation that you’ve taken is—I think, at the very least, it’s important that we get this in the Hansard—that in service of New Zealand includes when you are fighting for or serving in the colours of another nation which is standing alongside New Zealand.

Now, I think of people you mentioned: Keith Park. Now, of course, he would be—if you just said it was purely New Zealand and it wasn’t in the colours of any other nation, and my amendment simply says, “including through service with other nations”. So Keith Park served in the Second World War with the Royal Air Force (RAF), not with the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF)—in fact, we barely had an RNZAF at that particular point in time—but he served with the RAF.

If you go to Pukeahu, our National War Memorial Park, there are traffic lights there. Those traffic lights have a solider on them. That solider is Alfred Shout VC. Born in Wellington, served in the Boer War under a British command—not New Zealand, but a British commander—went to Australia with his Australian wife, served with the Australian Light Horse, I think it was, at Gallipoli, and was killed and awarded the Victoria Cross (VC). People like that need to be recognised in this bill, and that’s the really important thing.

I think of my wife’s grandfather: born in the Manawatū very close to Ōhakea. He was a flier, joined the RAF, flew bombers, shot down and killed over Denmark. But he was standing side by side with New Zealand services as well. We need to be able to go to Anzac Day and say if we are recognising him, if we are recognising all of these people, that they are explicitly included. My endeavour with that little amendment was to make sure that we are not forgetting those people. We’re trying to include lots of other people—great! But let’s not exclude some people by accident or by interpretation.

At the very least, Mr Minister, I would really like to hear from you that those people are explicitly included. Even if the language in the Act, in my view, is interpretable in two different ways—I think we need to get it very, very crystal clear that those people are in, but even if the Act is not quite so clear, at least people can look back to the Hansard and say, “Yeah, those people are in.”

I might give one other example. New Zealand did not have a navy in the First World War. Any New Zealander, and there was over 500 of them, who served in the navy at that stage, they served in the navy of another nation. In fact, the only naval person who won a VC in the First World War was for serving, in this case, in the British Royal Navy. We need to make sure that all of those people are recognised.

It’s interesting also, when you look at the list of VCs—you just look up the list of VCs for New Zealand—you have to go a second stage to get the inclusion of the people who served in the colours of another nation. First stage just has, I think it’s 22 or 23 who served in New Zealand military forces.

So I think, Mr Minister, that the really important thing here is to make it crystal clear that we are going to continue to recognise those people who have served, who fought, who often died alongside New Zealanders, but in the service of a military of another country.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans) (11:44): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I acknowledge the intent of the member’s amendment. I’m very happy to clarify, in the clearest terms that I can manage, that it is every intent of the legislation, and I think tolerably clear in its construction as well—that is to say, its specific wording—that in serving New Zealand we include the likes of Sir Keith Park. Not only a New Zealander, as you rightly point out, arguably the greatest New Zealander—and reasonable minds can differ on such accolades—but to say that he’s a great New Zealander at the very least. To have seen, for example, the pride with which his home town of Thames unveiled a sculpture in his honour of the man himself, which I was pleased to attend last year with my colleague and friend, the MP for Coromandel, Scott Simpson.

It’s clear, of course, that we want to include such people. There’s no doubt in my mind that these great New Zealanders, men and women of the past, and potentially in similar equivalent situations in the future, are included. I note that the wording that we’ve based our legislation on, which was consistent with Cabinet direction, and I’m appealing to the committee of the whole House to agree, is consistent with the Australian legislation.

To me, that’s important in itself, not least of all because this is an Anzac bill. Again, reflecting the original intent and the comradeship in the particular moment in time at which these antipodean nations found themselves alongside each other in the trenches in the horror of the warfare in Gallipoli and other places, including the Western Front and so on. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re including everyone who was included already before, as well as others.

By the way, I should pivot back to a point I think that had been made by Helen White around the breadth of the discussion, although I apologise to you both if it was Rachel Boyack. It was around New Zealanders having been killed in training in service—effectively in anticipation of warlike situations. For them, and more to the point, I suppose, looking forward for their families, that’s no less of a loss than if they were killed in action on some foreign land or, goodness knows, somewhere else in New Zealand in a conflict or a warlike situation, or any other operation for that matter.

We’re trying to take as broad an approach as possible with diluting the service and sacrifice that was originally contemplated in the Act. Just to reiterate again in the clearest possible terms that I can for Mr Foster: to me, the service of New Zealand very unambiguously does include those who are serving under a different banner—different colours as the member said, albeit that the Royal Air Force colours and the Royal New Zealand Air Force colours are literally the same; symbology adds a single Kiwi in the middle. But you’d almost literally be fighting under the same banner in those situations. They did. We’re proud of them. We respect them. We acknowledge them. We honour them. That’s the intent of this bill, and I’m very clear that they are acknowledged, honoured, and respected in that way.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (11:47): I actually think it’s really important that we leave the text as it passed at second reading. I guess I’m speaking against this amendment. There are a couple of reasons for that.

Firstly, it does provide alignment with the Australian legislation. I think that’s important, as the Minister has stressed, given the symbology of the day. Secondly, I’d just like to speak to the point about who New Zealanders serve alongside. In Afghanistan, I served alongside Romanians; I served alongside troops from Georgia, France, Germany, Italy, America—the list goes on.

I don’t believe that Anzac Day is to remember those forces. We remember the conflict that took place. We commemorate the 10 New Zealander’s who lost their lives in Afghanistan, and we acknowledge all that served in that place in pursuit of peace, but this is our special day. If you served the United Kingdom, if you served Britain, you have your day of remembrance on 11 November. If it was in the USA, you have Memorial Day in May. Australia shares the same day, but to a degree, as the legislation points out, have their own unique day—their Anzac Day.

I think it’s important that we are remembering those that served—and there is a difference between those that served in the Royal New Zealand Air Force who were posted overseas through the Commonwealth training scheme and served in Royal Air Force units, but serving New Zealand, compared to those that maybe had moved to the UK some years earlier and were actually fighting for their new country, just as people now move to New Zealand and serve New Zealand even though they were born in another country.

I think we need to make that distinction. The Royal New Zealand Navy didn’t exist, actually, until October 1941, but on 30 September, they were serving the Royal Navy, 1 October they were the Royal New Zealand Navy. It’s the same service. It’s serving New Zealand.

The final reason, to keep this brief, is that I think there was something really special about the way that this motion passed select committee unanimously—not just with all parties that were present and had the opportunity to be there but also that it went back to the RSA and they spoke in support of it. There are important changes that were made to honour our veterans, and I think we should honour them by showing the solidarity and unity of this House in supporting what they want as well.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) (11:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. In previous debates in the House on this bill, there’s been unanimous support, and we have really spoken in quite broad terms. It’s quite interesting, with this amendment, that it has, probably, raised some issues that, perhaps, we hadn’t thought of.

The first question, I’d just ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk—and perhaps there could be a little bit of back and forth with this one—is that in the discussions—now, this is somewhat symbolic, and it’s been very clear that this doesn’t bring with it any entitlements, certainly any financial entitlements, and it will not impact on other issues that are taking place around veterans’ entitlements, certainly. That’s been an important part of these discussions. However, what does the Minister anticipate will make a difference?

Now, I’ll just give an example—the Tawa RSA, which I attend. Each year, they read a good case study of one of those whose names appear on the wall. Last year, the individual had actually died of illness on his way to the Boer War. There’s always, once you break down into detail—and no one would ever deny that that person should be honoured. Let’s face it, we were actually honouring his sacrifice—the ultimate sacrifice. This is somewhat broadening this out. In discussions, particularly with officials, how does he anticipate this will manifest itself, this change? Will it make any difference? This legislation will be passed—I think there’s anticipation that it will be passed this afternoon—before Anzac Day. Will it make any difference to this Anzac Day or subsequent Anzac Days?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans) (11:52): Thank you. I want to thank the member for the good faith in which he has approached all these questions, and also that of Andy Foster. I do understand Mr Foster’s withdrawn his amendment—hopefully having felt satisfied that the point that he was looking to make, which was an entirely reasonable one, around not wanting to exclude certain New Zealanders in certain ways has proven not to be necessary.

In terms of those who have served—for example, as recognised in what sounds like a wonderful gesture and tribute by the Tawa RSA, and I know that others engage in similar remembrance—it seems to me that there will be nothing tangible that is different on any given ceremony on 25 April this year or any other. The importance is really, I suppose, symbolic. I say that not to undermine the intent of providing something that is meaningful to people. Certainly, the RSA, as an organisation, has been good enough to support this, and, indeed, they’ve suggested other initiatives, which are firmly in the category of recognition as opposed to support. As the member rightly acknowledges, the question of entitlements under the Veterans’ Support Act, more generally, is a separate question from the scope of this bill. But the symbolism of acknowledging those who have served in ways that are not currently recognised is important, in the same way that the symbolism of a silver fern or a cross or a medal or a flag is meaningful to the soldiers, the sailors, and the aviators as they’re serving at that time. I make no pretence of the fact that this bill could be viewed merely as symbolic, but I would argue that that’s important in itself. Of course, if we didn’t have legislation that said that only certain conflicts should be recognised and only certain categories of New Zealanders serving should be recognised, then we wouldn’t need to legislate.

I think the thing that has perhaps offended—certainly caused some consternation in—the veteran community is the fact that we do have legislation but it’s quite narrow, and it does exclude according to the timelines with a bill having passed previously into law and not being updated regularly, and, of

course, the certain categories of New Zealanders who we’ve discussed have been excluded, certainly unfairly and almost certainly unintentionally—those who have died in training accidents and so on. For all those reasons, and to answer the question very directly from the member, nothing specific will change. There will be nothing that would have stopped anyone recognising more recent service, just as, actually, we tend to recognise first responders who turn up. I love to see the police—and I know the member himself has a storied background in that service—the St John’s, the other volunteers, and those who serve our community at those services as well.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (11:55): Tēnā koe, e te Tiamana, otirā tātou katoa. Tuatahi māku he mihi ki ngā hōia kua hinga, ngā ingoa o ngā whenua kua iriiri i runga i ngā pakitara o tēnei Whare. Nā reira ki a koutou kua wehe atu, hei te tōranga o te rā, ā, a te ata hoki, ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.

[Greetings, Madam Chair, and to all here. Firstly, I acknowledge the fallen soldiers; the names of those lands hang on the walls of this House. Therefore, to those who have departed, at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them.]

I will start by acknowledging our fallen who fought in places that we see on the walls surrounding us. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. I just want to acknowledge, first of all, that this is personal for all of us here in the House, and how pleased I am that this amendment bill has cross-party support and, in particular, the acknowledgement of non-military service. My kuia, Hiria Te Kiekie Tangaere served in the Military Women’s Auxiliary and herself was presented a British Empire Medal for civilian service during World War II. I want to also thank you, Minister, for your fulsome answers to this question, which, as I said, affects us all personally.

Anzac Day in Tikitiki is where everyone makes the pilgrimage home to acknowledge those fallen. I want to acknowledge, in terms of non-service volunteers, someone who became absolutely symbolic with our RSA, Nanny Kui Ngata, who we lost earlier this year at the ripe old age of 97, and the symbolism that you spoke of, Minister. For a while now, all services have stood together with our veterans at the Waiapū RSA, acknowledging not only the fact that we have fewer veterans with us today but also the service that they provide. I absolutely commend that notion of this bill.

My question for you, Minister, is: while you’ve alluded to the scope of who will be acknowledged in terms of non-military service, will this recognition be retrospective, and, if so, how far back will it go? In terms of ceremony, in terms of acknowledgement and of procedures, how will this be executed? How will the execution, the delivery, of these acknowledgements be practically managed, and how will, for example, RSAs be a part of that process? Tēnā tātou.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans) (11:57): Kia ora and thank you to the member, including for her beautiful and poignant rendition of the “Ode of Remembrance” in te reo Māori, as well as that famous English phrase that we conclude with. We will remember them indeed.

I think one of the beauties of Anzac Days around the country is that they’re each celebrated in a very local way that makes sense for those communities. I see the member for Northland, Grant McCallum, nodding, and goodness knows he’ll have enough different services to get around in his area, and I know he does so diligently. Actually, for the member, it will be up to every community to continue to celebrate Anzac Day in a way that is appropriate for them—of course, celebrating that broader sense of marking or commemorating, not celebrating in a jingoistic way of suggesting there’s anything to glorify or honour the fact of war, except of course that it’s an unfortunate reality of human existence so far.

For that reason, I’d be hesitant to suggest any particular additional or alternate measure that should be taken, but I would just flag, more generally, in this space, the Government is very hopeful of improving recognition in other ways that we can speak to on another occasion, including through the institution of a day in which we can celebrate veterans’ service separate to Anzac Day, because that seems to have a particular meaning and form, and again, to be as broad and inclusive as we can in that endeavour as well.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:59): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. I just have two short questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk, regarding this particular bill. The Minister has previously articulated the ability for communities to commemorate Anzac Day in a way that is fit for the community, and also, this bill doesn’t really preclude that.

I guess my first question for the Minister is: if it doesn’t preclude that and communities are still able to do it in a way that is most appropriate to them, what is the purpose that, then, the updated legislation would serve? I guess, from two perspectives, in terms of the changes that we see in clause 4, section 2 replaced, on the commemoration of Anzac Day, is there consideration of additional resources or funding to be provided to communities to be able to commemorate Anzac Day in a way that is important and special to them?

The second question, then, to the Minister is: would the definition that is now presented and those who are included—understanding a broadening of the existing scope would have other effects from the perspective of writing entitlements of veterans in general, or is that something that’s going to be considered separately?

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) (12:00): Thank you. I note that the amendment of Andy Foster’s has been withdrawn, and that probably does make things a little easier. However, in discussing that amendment, some issues arose that would probably be useful to get on to Hansard now, during this discussion.

In my electorate, Lance Corporal Leon Smith was an SAS solider who was killed in Afghanistan, and he is commemorated each year at the Johnsonville Rugby Club. Now, he was a New Zealand - born solider who was killed in conflict in Afghanistan. That’s what this legislation is designed to do, because, previously, where Afghanistan was not recognised—it wasn’t one of the six recognised conflicts—he wouldn’t actually have been officially commemorated.

However, there is another area that opens up, and that is where people immigrate to New Zealand who may have served in overseas forces. I’m just giving an example of Afghanistan, of people who have come here, who were translators, who very much worked with the New Zealand forces, and, under this, will be entitled to be recognised on Anzac Day.

Now, I know it’s difficult for the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, because I presume he wasn’t able to speak, but it would be useful at some stage to actually define—because I can see where this is actually going to perhaps become something of an issue in the future as the New Zealand demographic changes, as more and more immigration arrives from non-traditional countries, and where people may arrive here where, particularly on peacekeeping missions, there may have been some confusion as to which side a person was on in a conflict. Let’s face it: as Mr Costley will know, things are never black and white when you go, particularly, to the modern conflict zones, where alliances can move daily and even more quickly.

I know, again, it’s probably a difficult one for the Minister in the chair, but I think it would be useful to have some sort of clarity as to how those matters may be treated, particularly, as I say, where we have now New Zealand citizens born elsewhere who may have taken part in conflicts, who were part of the New Zealand contingent or may or may not have been. I know it’s going to be difficult to actually now give an answer, but the Minister may like to have a crack.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:04): I’ll have a crack, as the member suggests. I think if you were reading what will hopefully soon be the new Act and you see that it says, “In commemoration of the contribution of all those who have served New Zealand in time of war and in warlike conflicts”—I think the purpose behind this provision is just to enable us to recognise the wide and varied and many different types of service that people have given over many years to New Zealand.

I think if you keep that definition quite broad, recognising that what this Act does is set up Anzac Day to be a day of commemoration—it doesn’t touch on other issues like entitlements or definitions of veterans or anything like that. It simply establishes Anzac Day as a day of commemoration, to commemorate, as Minister Penk and as Tim Costley and others have pointed out, the genesis of the name of this day as being that formative moment in our country’s history, but also now to commemorate and to recognise all types of service to New Zealand in wartime or warlike conditions. I think if you read it like that, you would be able to incorporate that kind of commemoration.

Of course, as the member Dr Xu-Nan mentioned, communities and individuals have the ability to themselves commemorate those people in the way that they see fit for their community. I actually think the clause is well written. I think it’s been well traversed by the select committee—that’s my view on it. I’m sure if others have another view, they can contribute at some point.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (12:06): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m really just wanting to, I guess, reiterate a couple of the points that were considered through select committee that we are looking at here in clause 4. I want to start by acknowledging those that were on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and those that submitted to it. It was a very collegial approach that was taken to amending this piece of legislation to ensure we can get it fit for purpose to cover all the scenarios we’ve heard about today as well. I think that we have got there with the particular text there.

There are a couple of aspects I want to pick up on, though, in relation to that last piece. I agree, obviously, with the Minister for Hunting and Fishing’s comments around “all those who have served New Zealand in time of war and in warlike conflicts”. That “served New Zealand” piece was critical to the importance of this Act but actually was specifically left more broad than might otherwise be the case with legislation to allow for that sort of flexibility that Mr O’Connor raised, where people may indeed have been born in another country and have been supporting New Zealand’s efforts whilst citizens still of that other country but have now ended up here in New Zealand. In that instance, interpreters, for example, absolutely would be covered under that service to New Zealand in times of war and warlike conflicts.

The other aspect within that that we wanted to make sure that we were capturing—and I think this comes to one of the earlier comments that was raised as well around what tangible difference might this make. For me, it was really about those few people that have made a meaningful contribution but, for the sake of a few words on paper, felt they weren’t necessarily acknowledged or commemorated appropriately in the legislation as it was. Whilst I’m not anticipating at my Anzac services in the Waikato to see any significant change to how they play out—because communities are very inclusive and broadly acknowledge that service, as they rightly should—there will be some individuals who now feel that, yes, they are covered. That’s really what we’re wanting to achieve through the intent of this legislation—to ensure that those in uniform or outside uniform but who have supported our military efforts are indeed acknowledged through this.

Now, the other change we’d heard from the Minister around how this was aligned with the Australian legislation—obviously, an important consideration for us with the Anzac Day Amendment Bill. We did err or vary slightly from the Australians in one regard, and that is on the back page there, the first line, where we have included Australia in there. Interestingly, you might think, being Australia and New Zealand, the first three letters of Anzac, it should be in there, but it’s actually of interest that in the Australian legislation, New Zealand is not mentioned. The original proposal had been not to mention Australia in New Zealand’s legislation to ensure the two align, but we thought, actually, in the spirit of Anzac, certainly from the Kiwi perspective, we were keen to ensure that joint effort was still acknowledged, so we included Australia in there as well.

With that, I think we’ve traversed it pretty well, acknowledging the contribution from Mr Foster earlier as well. Again, I think the wording we have broadly captures the accurate scenarios that he had provided. I’m keen to progress and appreciate the unanimous support of the House on this.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) (12:09): A question for the Minister, and he may like to consult his officials: where did Police sit on this, given that the police have served in all the modern conflict zones? My good friend Paul Carpenter served up in Bamyam province with the New Zealand Police, alongside military colleagues. So are they catered for?

Tim Costley: Yes, that’s why it doesn’t say New Zealand Defence Force.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ll just take a pause while we wait for the Minister to answer. I think we’ve had some answers, but we’ll just—

Tim van de Molen: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tim van de Molen, are you going to answer on behalf of the Minister or are you taking a call?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (12:10): I was just going to make a couple of other observations. I’m sure the Minister is quite capable of answering on his own, but I just wanted to make two quick points there in relation to, first, all those who have served New Zealand. We wanted to make sure that we were being quite broad with that so other services could come under there, but also the additional piece we included is around all those who have died in New Zealand military service or whose death was connected with New Zealand military service—that could be police, for example, or it could be someone in a training accident. As was raised earlier, it could be Customs officials; it could be any number of people that have served in support of that effort. So the intent there was to broaden it just beyond military service.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (12:11): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Public Service Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Part 1 Amendments to Public Service Act 2020, and Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the Public Service Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 47, “Amendments to the Public Service Act 2020”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:12): It’s a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none at the moment, I think, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You asked for it quite well, Mr Meager.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: It’s a real pleasure to step in and take this first call on the Public Service Amendment Bill. So it’s, I think, a very straightforward bill: two parts. It amends the Public Service Act 2020. Of course, that Act provides the statutory framework for the operation of the Public Service, which replaced the State Sector Act 1988—which is a good year since it was the year after I was born!

The bill has two main parts. Part 1 provides the substantive amendments to the Act and Part 2 makes a small number of consequential amendments to other legislation. Currently, the state of the bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent.

Now, the amendments that we’re proposing in Part 1 are because of changes made in the 2020 Act. Those changes that were made five or six years ago, de-emphasise responsibility for implementing the policies of the Government of the day and efficient use of taxpayers’ money. The changes also, in our view, generated excessive prescription, which in some places duplicates other legislation and ends up distracting our agencies from their core mission.

We’ve made some changes to the bill to meet a few objectives. They are to drive improvements in Public Service performance, to ensure the Public Service can efficiently and effectively serve the Government and deliver value for money for all New Zealanders. Thirdly, to create more stability by removing those prescriptions and allowing individual Government agencies more flexibility to express certain policy objectives using non-legislative functions and levers.

We’ll do this in a number of ways. First, we are going to clarify the role of the Public Service and streamline the responsibilities of Public Service chief executives. We want them to focus on delivering policies of the Government of the day in a politically neutral manner. We’re going to reinforce those core principles of political neutrality and appointment on merit to all positions. We are improving chief executive and agency performance management, ensuring capability in key positions, and providing for better management of risks to national security and to issues in the national interest.

I think it’s worth at the moment to just head off a couple of misconceptions that were raised at second reading and try and limit some of the confusion there. Now, some individual members were raising questions or points around the removal of the reappointment provisions. The removal of the option for the Public Service Commissioner to reappoint chief executives without a contestable process doesn’t mean Ministers will be making those appointments, and it doesn’t mean they’ll be politicising such an important part of our government system. The contestable process already exists in the Act. It actually is used in a vast majority of those appointments. Chief executive contracts are very clear that there is no expectation of reappointment. That’s why we have the reappointment process happening quite regularly.

The existing contestable process involves consultation with Ministers on issues that they think should be taken into account when it comes to appointing a chief executive. This is constitutionally appropriate, but it is the Public Service Commissioner who was required to make an independent decision to recommend that particular person. Those chief executives are then appointed by the Governor-General on the basis of that recommendation.

None of this is changing, so there’s no incentive created for chief executives to be “closer to Ministers” or to compromise their political neutrality. They are there to serve the Government of the day and the policies of the Government of the day. If, God forbid, that Government may change in the distant future, they are there to serve the policies of a new Government of the day.

Similarly, the commissioner, when designating key positions that are critical to Public Service performance and having a role in the appointment and performance management of those people appointed doesn’t mean those people will be political appointees. Appointments made under that mechanism must still adhere to the requirements for merit-based appointments set out in the principles in section 72 of the Act, and the people appointed will still be public servants bound by that principle of political neutrality which we are very strong on. So I think that’s probably a good comprehensive overall way to start the debate on this part. I look forward to rigorous and politically neutral questions from members.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the Minister in the chair for his comments on the bill overall. I will respond by making comments on the bill overall as he has invited such an approach at this committee stage.

First of all, so, obviously, I agree with the Minister that we’ve got two parts here. The first part is really on the primary bill, which my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has pulled from the dusty shelves outside for me, so we can make sure that we’re all on the same page in terms of these amendments, which are to the primary piece of legislation. Then, I understand, there’s amendments to other bills, which we’ll talk about later.

I suppose the overall point, if we’re starting on this note, is there’s a certain amount of disappointment from the Opposition on the fact that we weren’t consulted around specifically the objects change within the Public Service Act. Now, I understand the practice in the past has been that this should be politically neutral and, ideally, bipartisan. I understand that that will not always be possible, but in terms of the principles that underpin the Public Service, I think everyone in this House would agree that it is within New Zealand’s interests to have those be non-politicised and also to be agreed widely so that we are assured that the main structure and the main piece of legislation which our public servants work under is a piece of legislation that is not a tool of politicians but is actually something that the Public Service can look towards in terms of their contribution that they make to us as New Zealand.

I want to acknowledge all the public servants in New Zealand. They do a great job and it’s been a difficult time, but I have not seen a single example of a public servant in my work that has not wanted to uphold very much their role of serving the Government of the day—yes—but also of political neutrality. It is something which sometimes people, especially those outside the Public Service may struggle with, but those people that work within the Public Service are consummate professionals. I think we can only support them by making sure that this legislation—you know, an attempt to make this legislation bipartisan would have been appreciated.

In terms of these initial parts—and I’m speaking overall but this is in relation to Part 1 as well—the definitions around what the Public Service is to do in the objectives have changed and there’s been a little bit of moving around of the spirit of service to the community. It’s been deleted from some parts and added into other parts. The main thing, though, that came up in submissions around the purpose of the Act was the move away from active citizenship. I think that’s an interesting clause to get rid of, at this point in time. I wouldn’t mind a response from the Minister on the process to make those changes.

As I said, ideally, at least on this purpose section, we could have come together and been involved—been consulted—around what the purposes were, and tried to find some agreement. I note, from the material that is supporting this regulatory impact statement, that there was a constrained consultation by the Minister in relation to getting this piece of legislation put forward. However, there is a significantly long list of ministries and departments and agencies who were consulted about the contents of this bill. I think, for the future—and it’s a request, really, to the House, and those who will be here after us, too—that, in this type of legislation, especially when it relates to the purpose of the Public Service, that, ideally, if you can reach or attempt to reach a position of bipartisan support, that would be helpful.

We are not supporting this bill. We weren’t consulted about the purpose part, but there are other parts that we feel very strongly are not something that is going to be positive for the Public Service. I think those original clauses are something that we could have worked with, in terms of making sure that there was a politically neutral Public Service. I have put some amendments up around that, too, which I’ll speak to, but I just wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to comment on that position of bipartisanship, the Public Service, and just those initial, first definitional parts—especially that deletion of the participation of active citizenship—and see his responses to that, before we get into a clause by clause debate. Thank you.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:21): Madam Chair, I don’t know if we’re having a clause by clause debate or we’re having a part by part debate, but I look forward to the leave motion asking to do that.

I will address Camilla Belich’s points around consultation. Actually, what I was going to do was read out the purpose of the Public Service that’s being put into the Act and see if anyone has any wild objections to it: “The purpose of the public service is to support the Government to develop and implement its policies, to deliver high-quality and efficient public services and meet the needs of New Zealanders; and supports constitutional and democratic Government; and acts with a spirit of service to the community and in accordance with the law.” Now, I think they’re quite good purposes and good objectives, and in terms of there being anything constitutionally offensive or undemocratic about them, I’d like to hear the arguments for that. I think they’re actually very good purposes.

In terms of consultation, I mean, Government has a legislative agenda and has to implement changes that it sees fit. Of course, that’s why we have the select committee process, so that every member of the Parliament, regardless of the party that they’re in, has the ability to sit on those select committees to input into the questions or the testing or the rigor of the legislation that’s put before them. I think this bill went through a very good and thorough select committee process, and I’m very happy with the select committee report that was produced out of that.

Just in terms of the Act as a citizenship question, it’s an interesting question—and, of course, this, as the member raises, is an interesting time to be in politics, whether in New Zealand or around the world. We would agree with her—and, I would hope, all colleagues across the House—that transparency and public participation are a good part of our democracy, and fundamental to the running of an open and liberal democracy. But at the same time, we do live in a representative democracy. Many individual decisions that need to be made by Government and by our elected representatives do need to be made with the responsibility that we’ve been given by the public to make those decisions. And, of course, the most active thing that a citizen can do, every three years, is to go to the ballot box and elect the representatives that they want to have represent their views in Parliament when it comes to administering the executive or making laws in this country.

Given this, we don’t think having a broad reference in the purpose statement acknowledges that choices of when and how to engage the public will depend on the context of what’s happening and what the Government—or the Parliament, in fact—needs to do on a particular occasion. We consider it’s a better approach to take a principles-based approach, and that your active citizenship principles are already provided by the principle of open government in section 12 and the value of responsiveness in section 16.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Before I take a call, I just want to say that that was a very good overall picture of Part 1 of the bill. What I’m going to ask speakers to do from here on is to be very specific to the clauses, because some of it’s quite technical, and it will be around certain places, so let’s see how specific we can get.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (12:25): Thank you. I’d like to talk about clause 11. It is a very interesting discussion about active citizenship. I’d like to start with a comment on that, because, I think, in this House, we don’t do enough of that deep debate that we should do on these things. It’s an extremely important time in our democracy and democracies around the world. I would say that my objection to what the Minister has said is that, while we wouldn’t object to anything in the wording of the clause at the present time, it’s so generic it doesn’t give any teeth to anything. I would object to the view that active democracy just requires someone to turn up and vote. Actually, these kinds of depths of mindfulness of our Public Service to push for active citizenship—they are very important in terms of people responding.

I wanted to ask about “long-termism”, because most of us who come in here become pretty quickly aware that we have a problem in our processes of very short-term thinking, because we’re on an electoral cycle. It’s one of the weaknesses that we have. What this purpose does is it actually leaves aside—[Interruption] sorry, I can see things are going on—that really specific intention of our Public Service to be looking at long-term public interest. In fact, I would have said that I would have been reassured in New Zealand that our public servants are constantly, and the purpose of our Public Service is constantly to take that longer-term view—when we, as politicians on the clock being voted in every three years might be a little bit tending towards short-term gains, and that kind of approach is, in fact, so damaging to the long-term interests of the country.

I’m interested to see why the Minister decided that that part of it wasn’t something that was so valuable in terms of directing and reassuring public servants that that’s where their view is—that they are not on a short clock. Obviously, this resonates later—and there’ll be another part to speak about this—but it resonates with the issue of putting people into a situation where, at a high level, their appointment might be at three years, because, again, it reinforces the short-term security of employment rather than that long-term view. I’ll talk about that later. But in terms of this, I’d like to know: why have we pulled out that principle?

Also, we’ve removed the reference to future Governments. It’s the same thing; it takes people into the future space. Recently, I was doing an exercise—this place is quite challenging, and one of the exercises that I’ve come across that I’ve found helpful in really thinking about things for my own personal growth was to think, “What would you say 20 years on?” These are incredibly important skills—always looking 20 years on. I can see that the Public Service, in this situation, has that skill embedded in it here, of always thinking, “What’s it going to mean for children? What’s it going to mean for the future of our Government, and for future Governments?”, and to actually really look and be given licence to look at those things—versus a word like “efficiency”, which has become very loaded and doesn’t tell us anything, because something might be efficient in the short term, but it’s not in the long term. It’s really important that if we’re going to use a word like “efficiency” that we actually balance it with what we mean by that; otherwise, it can actually get caught up in some very, very dangerous ideas that say efficiency is something that I wouldn’t think it is.

I would really like the Minister, and I genuinely would like to know: how, now, should the Public Service feel about their obligation under this new definition to look long term, to look to future Governments, etc., in their role? Can they be reassured that that’s still something you want them to do? Remember, we are doing this partly for the Hansard. So it’s really important that the Minister spells out if it is still there and it is still important—and it’s really important that we know that in terms of specific answers. Thank you.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:30): Thanks, Madam Chair. Helen White raises a couple of interesting points—good points. I wasn’t saying that active citizenship, the only way you can do it is by voting. I think it is one of the best ways you can do it, but I was the chair of a select committee where 300,000 people decided to exercise their right of active citizenship and make a submission on a particular bill, and that is probably one of the more extreme versions of activity when it comes to exercising your rights and your obligations as a citizen. But there are a wide range of things that individuals in the electorate can do in terms of becoming an active citizen, and I think I explained before how we think that those principles of active citizenship are provided in other sections in the existing legislation.

In terms of the question around long-termism, it’s an interesting one. Perhaps the member was listening to my speech in the House on Tuesday when I asked members across the House to look at components of the Prime Minister’s statement and identify things that they may well agree to and commit to doing over the long term. In response, I was heckled by saying that it was very sweet and it was the worst speech that the Hon Willie Jackson had ever heard in his entire life. But putting Mr Jackson’s views on long-termism aside, it is, of course, a concept that I think we are all interested in. If you look at the new purpose in clause 10, replacing section 11, you’ll notice there’s a balance between efficient public services and high quality; they have to be high quality and efficient. I think, inherent in that terminology is that trade-off between what the member raised, something that may be efficient now in the short term, might not be effective in the long term. I think when you’re considering that the requirement is of the Public Service to deliver both high quality and efficient public services, that has an inherent trade-off between the two. They can be complimentary, but they can, as the member points out, ask us to look a bit forward into the future.

Now, in terms of long-termism and what we can do to make sure the Public Service looks ahead to the future, there is a package of provisions in the Act that provide a mix of clear requirements for long-term thinking, and I direct the member’s attention to the stewardship principle in section 12, which promotes long-term capability. Our chief executives will be required to provide advice on the long-term implications of policies under what is clause 11, inserting new section 11A(1)(j). Finally, just for another part of that, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will be providing guidance on long-term thinking and providing long-term insights briefings on behalf of the Public Service. So that and a myriad of other ways encourage the Public Service and New Zealand to think about long-termism.

Of course, we’ve also got to make sure that we have that careful balance between locking in Governments for incredibly long periods of time and staying responsive to the electorate. We do need regular, free, and fair elections to keep us accountable to the electorate. I think having those elections on a regular basis maintains our connection to the electorate, but also allows us to plan three, six, nine, 12 years into the future.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (12:34): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on this very important bill. I just wanted to zoom back a little bit into a section that I think we’ve slightly overlooked, which is around clause 5(1)(b) around the deletion of the clause, “acting with the spirit of service to the community,”. Now, I think, as members of Parliament, we should be the ones that really know and really centre that important principle, which is to act in service to the community. It’s something that, sometimes, politicians refer to us and ourselves as public servants, but it is something that politicians have to take into account. But it’s something that we should, I think, also ask public servants to take into account as well, because it’s that spirit of acting in service to the community—it’s a very important principle to keep in mind. So I’m just a little bit concerned about the deletion of it.

I really want the Minister to lay out the rationale for its deletion and whether it’s possible that this has just been deleted from that section but incorporated in other parts of this legislation. I do have an amendment that restores it if the Minister were so inclined to bring it back. I also have alternative suggestions for the word “community” in case it’s that word that the Minister and this Government finds objectionable. I think I had an amendment that substitutes the word “public” over “community”. So, if it’s the word “community” that’s causing the problem, there is an alternative to that.

I also wanted to respond to something the Minister said in his opening statement around the importance of having merit-based appointments in the Public Service. I think that is a principle that we all agree with, and there is certainly going to be—you know, there’s a specific section around that later on. But I do want to ask the Minister at this stage, because he did bring it up in his original statement, whether he believes that all Government appointments need to go through a stage whereby people are interviewed and vetted, where there’s a proper selection panel, where, essentially, the guidelines that are being prescribed by the Public Service Commission should be followed and whether that’s a core part in merit-based appointments and whether that’s something the Government strongly supports.

I want to turn now to the section that we’ve got to, which is new section 11A, inserted by clause 11. I want to look at subsection (g) around “working to improve inter-operability, co-ordination, and collaboration across public service agencies;”. Now, I want the Minister to consider whether it would be possible to change that to “public sector”, because Public Service agencies, I believe, unnecessarily narrows that principle to just the core Public Service itself.

I’ll raise an example of why that’s really important. When I was working at the Climate Change Commission as the waste lead, one of our tasks was to recommend and provide advice for the Emissions Reduction Plan. To do that, we needed access to data around the Government. Now, the data from landfills is held by the Environmental Protection Authority, but it’s also held by the Ministry for the Environment. Because the Climate Change Commission was considered a Crown agency, and therefore not a core Public Service agency, it was actually really, really difficult to access that data. So I’m sympathetic to the idea that we need to improve the workings of the public sector and to make inter-operability and sharing data much more accessible in the Public Service, because it took, like, six months and several meetings to get access to that landfill data that we needed. I mean, we were able to do the work we needed by going to the commercial operators in the end, which was kind of ironic, given that the reason why we weren’t given that data was that it was commercially sensitive.

So, again, just reiterating my points around why was the spirit of service to the community deleted? Does this Government hold to the principle of merit-based appointment and is it something they intend to practise within their appointments? And around a section around changing Public Service agencies to public sector so that the principles of it can be applied more broadly.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:39): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I start by congratulating the member on his elevation to the second most powerful select committee in the Parliament, the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Of course, when he makes it to the Regulations Review Committee, we will hold a proper party for him.

Just to address his questions. First of all, around the spirit of service. I think he misunderstands what’s happening in the Act. The concept of the spirit of service is actually being elevated by being shifted to the purpose of the Act. So if the member looks at clause 10, replacing section 11 with new section 11 and 11(b), says the purpose of the Public Service is it “(b) supports constitutional and democratic government and acts with a spirit of service to the community and in accordance with the law.” The removal of spirit of service in other sections is simply a removal of the cross references in order to make that happen.

The second question the member asked was around whether we are committed to merit-based appointments. Of course we are. If you look across the National Party caucus, every one of my colleagues is appointed purely on merit and talent and skill. I can’t speak for other parties, because you control your own processes, but, of course across Government, all of our appointments are merit based. When it comes to putting strict requirements for every single appointment, having sat on the appointment and honours committee, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of appointments made across the Government, and there will be occasions where different processes will be needed for different appointments. You could understand where an inquiry may need to be stood up very, very quickly and completed within a short time frame in order to get very important information out to the public on an important matter of public urgency, and the people appointed to those inquiries may need to be, maybe, handpicked or selected for their particular skills without going through a wider tender process. I don’t think it’d be appropriate to put a blanket carte blanche rule across every appointment. Of course, the principle of merit-based appointments is throughout this particular bill and is something that we feel very strongly about.

Just finally, in terms of the member’s question around whether or not we’d change the terminology of “Public Service” to the “public sector”. Look, I understand the member’s frustrations with getting access to landfill data. As with the other former student politician, climate-advising member with some Filipino heritage, I share his concerns with access to Government data. I don’t think changing the terminology of “Public Service” to “public sector” in this bill will address that issue sufficiently, but I admire his commitment to it.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:41): Thank you. I’d like to remind the Minister in the chair that, as a former student politician, I did work for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Hon James Meager: But do you have Filipino heritage?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, no, I didn’t hear the bit about Filipino heritage. I’d also like to ask the Minister if National MPs are elected or are, as he said, appointed. There would be interesting repercussions there.

My main question stems from his answers to Helen White’s contribution. That was a discussion around active citizenship, and the Minister said that when he was the chair of a select committee—so I presume he referred to the Justice Committee—there were many thousands of submissions and that this was a problem. My question is: is this change to the purpose of the Public Service Act that removes the phrase “active citizenship” because of the number of submissions that were made on the treaty principles bill? That is my first question.

I was also interested in the discussion about the removal of reference to successive Governments and that long-term element. The Minister referred to some other aspects in the bill that referred to the long term. He referred to new section 11A(1)(j), inserted by clause 11, and these provisions, though, are narrower in their language than the purpose that’s in the Act at the moment, so it’s about providing advice on long-term implications rather than pursuing the long-term public interest, which are the words in the Act as they are now. Going to the Minister’s point, my question is: is that removal of the long term in the purpose section a diminishment of the need to consider the long term, or is his argument that it’s simply been replicated through other provisions in the amendment bill? If it is a diminishment, is the reason for that diminishment to do with the trade-off that he was talking about—about high quality and efficiency—or is it something else? I will leave those questions there—oh no! I had one last one on that spirit of service to community.

The Minister, just before in response to my colleague’s question, said that spirit of service to the community is now in the purpose section. Even though, when we turn over the page, section 13 is repealed, which was spirit of service to the community, he said that now it is heightened in importance the service to community. If that is the case and if we can confirm that is the case, is the reason for clause 9, “Cross-heading above section 11 repealed”, which was “Purpose, Public Service principles, and spirit of service to the community, simply because, now, section 13 will be repealed, or is it more substantive than that because, actually, there are changes to spirit of service to the community, so it doesn’t need to be in the cross heading. Thank you.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:46): Thank you. In reverse order, no. It’s administrative. Spirit of service is included in the purpose of the Public Service, and the other changes to that term where it’s repealed and cross headings are removed to reflect the shifting of spirit of service into new section 11 with the purpose of Public Service.

What else did we have? We had quite a few there from Rachel Brooking. The very first question was about National Party MPs. Look, my colleagues are all excellent, but I wouldn’t want to go through each of their excellent selections. But in terms of it being merit based, I can give the member assurances that our selection processes are done at a local level by very talented and very intelligent local members who have the ability to select very excellent candidates. Whether you call that an appointment or a selection is up to you.

In terms of the question around mentioning active citizenship and receiving thousands of submissions. No, I was using that as an example of a way that you can be an active citizen, whether that is by voting in a general election or by making a submission to Parliament or by filling out a petition or by running for Parliament itself. There are many ways to become an active citizen, and the Public Service Amendment Bill, of course, highlights many of those ways throughout, as I mentioned before to a previous colleague.

Finally, is the rewording of long-termism a diminishment? No, it’s not. As I think I explained to Helen White before, there are many parts of the bill and, in fact, the Act, which refers to long-term views needing to be taken by chief executives in stewardship roles and, of course, the lengthy diatribe I went on about the benefits of long-termism, including in this House as well.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:47): Thank you, Madam Chair, I have some questions, and I note the Minister’s comments around going part by part, but this particular bill is split into amendments to parts of the bill, and we’ve been talking about the amendments to Part 1, so I’m sticking with that at the moment.

I do have some specific questions around the leadership changes in the Public Service that this bill is focused on. You’ll see that there are some associated changes, which focus on having one deputy commissioner as opposed to deputy commissioners in this part. I want at some point—and I think probably this is as appropriate as any—to have some explanation as to how the Minister sees the role of the deputy commissioner and why this change is necessary within this particular bill. This bill also has a focus on a change of the responsibilities of the Public Service Commissioner and, I think, probably a strengthening of those rules, so these questions around leadership of the Public Service are pertinent to the way that this bill will work.

I do have a slight rebuttal to the spirit of service point that the Minister was making, because it has been—the Minister, I’m sure, will agree—reworded in a way that is not as expansive as in the current Act. Although it does still include the spirit of service, it does not include it in such fulsome way as in the primary piece of legislation. The question that I have related to the role of leadership within the Public Service is around new section 11A. If you look at the current Act, we’ve got a purpose clause, and, as far as I’m aware, this is a new section that defines the responsibilities of chief executives and departmental agencies. It has a relatively fulsome explanation of what those responsibilities are.

The question that I have for the Minister in relation to new section 11A, inserted by clause 11—and this is something that comes up in our role as politicians—is: how does this interact with the ministerial responsibility that Ministers have for these departments? We see in this particular section the interrelationship in relation to giving advice and implementing lawful instructions, and I don’t think anyone would object to that when it comes to chief executives. I think the proper way—or my understanding, at least, of the way that responsibility is allocated within the Public Service is we have these chief executives who are responsible for their departments. But in the end, the Minister is responsible, and that is something that has been longstanding and is in fact one of the pillars of our democracy in terms of the way that we hold Ministers accountable in this House for their responsibility for their departments.

This is a new section 11A, or at least it’s proposed in a novel way in terms of this Public Service Amendment Bill. I think that does deserve some comment by the Minister because this is something—many of the changes within this bill are significant, but—

Hon James Meager: Can you repeat that? Sorry.

CAMILLA BELICH: The question that I have is 11A, which is a new section within this bill—why are we putting this in, and how does this interact with ministerial responsibility? It goes through in detail the responsibilities of chief executives and what they are responsible for, but it doesn’t, in my view—apart from stating that advice should be given to the Ministers, and that the chief executive should follow Ministers’ lawful instructions—go that step further into the responsibility of the Minister. Now, I would assume that this particular section is not changing anything in relation to ministerial responsibility; it’s simply setting out in greater detail chief executives’ responsibilities, but I’d appreciate some assurance from the Minister given that this is a very longstanding convention in terms of the overall responsibility for departments and agencies, and in fact how we maintain that democratic responsibility for the delivery of public services.

Some quite specific questions around that, and, obviously, there’ll be further questions in areas that we’ve got a very differing view to this bill, but those are important for upholding our democracy—to have on record the reasoning and exactly where responsibility does lie within the Public Service, following these changes.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s probably a lot in that last one, so I’ll try and get through it. I just wanted to touch on another couple points. Just to clarify the question from Mr Hernandez—and he does have his tabled amendment, which he mentioned, about replacing “public service” with “public sector”—the reason that, apart from it not quite solving his landfill data issue, is that we generally view it as unnecessary and inappropriate because the public sector actually includes entities such as Crown entities and local government, which are subject to different statutory frameworks that have different accountability mechanisms in relation to the Minister.

By redefining “public service” as including the whole public sector, you then start running into issues with how the accountability frameworks work in other statutes. For example, Crown entities. You’ve got three or four different types of Crown entities, and the relationship that Ministers have with Crown entities will differ; their relationship is generally with the chair, through letters of expectation or direct from Government policy or whatever it might be, depending on the agency or the entity. That’s different to a Government department, where this is more of a direct relationship, which I think new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, goes on to point out.

Just before I do touch on 11A, I was going to raise Camilla Belich’s question around the reduction of deputy public service commissioners from two to one. There’s a question about whether or not it limits the capability of the commission to deliver on functions and oversight—and it doesn’t. The purpose of a deputy commissioner is essentially to act in the place of the commissioner when they are unable to, and to carry out any delegated functions. It’s our view that you only need one deputy commissioner to do that, so that’s the reason behind that change.

Now for the question around 11A: what’s it doing; why is it in there; and how does it interact with Minister’s responsibilities? I’ll answer the last part first, in terms of if there should be anything in there which outlines more clearly about what Minister’s responsibilities are. I think our view would be that when it comes to the operation of Cabinet and Ministers, that’s probably something that’s more appropriate, under our constitutional make up, to be governed by the Cabinet Manual and in internal political processes. Section 11A is not actually an entirely new section, much of it’s been shifted from existing sections, but it actually applies to the obligations on chief executives supporting Ministers and discharging their stewardship obligations. The purpose of it is to more clarify what the roles and responsibilities of chief executives are, rather than trying to start defining in statute what the—perhaps constitutional—roles and responsibilities of Ministers are, which I think, for very good reasons, are probably kept more in the political sphere rather than the legislative sphere.

Now, I’m sure there’ll probably be more on this quite large clause at some other point, but I think that probably covers off the initial part of those questions there.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Anzac Day Amendment Bill

Public Service Amendment Bill

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (12:56): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Anzac Day Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Public Service Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.