Tuesday, 17 February 2026
Sitting date: 17 February 2026
Tuesday, 17 February 2026
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Start of Sitting Day
Karakia/Prayers
MAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Presentation
Petitions
SPEAKER (14:01): A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
:CLERK (14:01)Petition of Byron Donaldson requesting that the House remove supported living payment benefit reviews for people with lifelong disabilities.
SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.
Papers
SPEAKER (14:01): Ministers have delivered four papers.
:CLERK (14:01)
Government responses to:
the petition of Aaron Livingston
the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Kirsten Murfitt
the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Paul Barton
New Zealand Infrastructure Commission 2026 national infrastructure plan.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select Committee Reports
SPEAKER (14:01): Seven select committee reports have been delivered.
:CLERK (14:01)
Reports of the Health Committee on the:
2024-25 annual reviews of the Cancer Control Agency, Health Research Council, and Blood and Organ Services
2024-25 annual reviews of the Health and Disability Commissioner and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, and on the
petition of Fluoride Free New Zealand
reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of:
Alistair Reese
Benjamin Plows-Kolff
Jenny McArdle, and
Shinichi Yamada.
Bills
English Language Bill
Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill
Introduction
SPEAKER (14:02): The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.
:CLERK (14:02)
English Language Bill, introduction
Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Oral Questions to Ministers
Finance
Question No. 1
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (14:02) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Treasury’s recommended ceiling for New Zealand’s net core Crown debt?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:02): In 2022, the Treasury recommended some fiscal rules to the Government, including a ceiling for net core Crown debt. The idea is to maintain net debt at a prudent level while providing headroom to respond to economic shocks and natural disasters. After thorough analysis and modelling, Treasury’s recommendation was for a net core Crown debt ceiling of 50 percent of GDP. Finance Minister Grant Robertson accepted that recommendation, and so have I. The ceiling is getting close. Net core Crown debt is expected to rise to 46.9 percent in the 2028-29 fiscal year, before beginning to fall. In public forums, Treasury’s secretary, Iain Rennie, has frequently discussed the need to bend the public debt curve down, as is the case in the plans which the Government is forecasting.
Cameron Brewer: What does this debt ceiling mean in practice?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It means that the Government of the day should keep net core Crown debt below 50 percent of GDP in normal circumstances and over the long term. It’s possible, of course, that debt may rise above the ceiling after a significant shock or natural disaster; in that case, the Government should reduce net debt over time to bring it back below the 50 percent mark again as soon as possible. There is, of course, a big difference between experiencing a global financial crisis or a major earthquake, with low debt and lots of headroom, as New Zealand has done over the last decade or two, and the alternative: experiencing those events with debt already over 50 percent of GDP, which would be far more challenging.
Cameron Brewer: How does the debt ceiling relate to the Government’s long-term fiscal objectives for debt?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I said, the Government has acknowledged that 50 percent of GDP should be considered the upper bound for net debt in normal times. But a ceiling is not a target, and debt can rise quickly; it went up more than 20 percent of GDP in just six years under the previous Government. The current Government’s objective is, therefore, to have net debt lower than the ceiling, with a long-term objective to get it to under 40 percent of GDP over time. Lower debt puts New Zealand in a much better position to deal with inevitable challenges, and it also means we’re not spending as much on interest payments.
Cameron Brewer: What does the debt ceiling mean for infrastructure investment?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand has clear infrastructure needs, as set out in the plan released by the Infrastructure Commission today—these include for social infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools. In Budget 2025, for example, the Government made a capital investment of more than $1 billion in hospitals and health facilities, including a major redevelopment of Nelson Hospital. Having a debt ceiling strengthens the focus on borrowing for long-term investment in capital projects that support people in the economy, rather than consumption of day-to-day expenses. It will be at that point when the Government’s books are back in surplus. Of course, the debt target strengthens the focus on prioritising the right projects at the right scale and making sure the system is set up to deliver projects in a timely fashion. For example, the allocation of funds to Middlemore Hospital lauded by Jacinda Ardern in 2017—well, that project’s only commencing now, which is to say writing the cheque and issuing the press release isn’t enough; you actually have to get it delivered.
SPEAKER: Just before I call the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, I’ll just make it clear that there should be rare and reasonable interjections only, and if there are questions, as people appear to be asking, then they should use the supplementary process.
Prime Minister
Question No. 2
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:07) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:07): Yes.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why didn’t the Government consider any renewable energy alternatives to meet New Zealand’s energy security needs, opting instead for a multibillion-dollar gas import facility that all Kiwi households will pay for through his proposed new gas tax?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, as we discussed last week, this is about lowering power bills, and what this means is that every Kiwi will have a lower power bill because of the optionality created about LNG importation. If the member is confused about a tax, it’s called a capital gains tax, it’s called a wealth tax, a trust tax, a death tax, increasing income tax, and corporate tax. We’re not doing that. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: We’ll just wait for the House to settle itself.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is importing expensive gas from overseas a better way to provide energy security for New Zealand than using locally produced energy that would create Kiwi jobs and retain value and investment here in New Zealand?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for their question because he was the single biggest contributor to the energy situation we have in New Zealand. This is a Government that is doing and, and, and.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell the truth!
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We can do multiple things at the same time. We can put aside $200 million to co-invest with people wanting to look for domestic gas. We can send a message to our mixed-ownership model companies if they want thermal or firming energy. We’ll follow our money in that regard. We can also make sure that we create optionality by having an LNG importation facility as a backup supplier. We need it coupled with a strategic coal reserve at the back of Huntly, along with a huge renewables boom that’s taking place in this country.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wonder if you consider it parliamentary for members to yell out “Tell the truth!” while a member is answering a question, implying that they’re not.
SPEAKER: It’s not parliamentary to question the honesty of anyone in the House. All members are taken at their word as honourable members. I didn’t actually hear that comment, but thank you for the timely reminder.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does imposing a new gas tax to pay for a new gas import facility that might never be used, so that New Zealand can import gas that’s more expensive than locally available alternatives, reduce power bills for New Zealand households?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, thanks to Labour, we ended up with an 800 megawatts per hour cost of electricity in 2024. If we put an importation facility in place, that just gives us more optionality. But I just want to reassure the member—and I appreciate his line of questioning—emissions in the September quarter were, in fact, the lowest recorded since 2010, and, of course, that was driven by renewable energy. What drove renewable energy? Fast-track legislation, which he failed to support. In fact, there were weeks where we were at 98 percent renewables, thanks to this Government. We’re on track to meet our emissions budgets; he doesn’t need to worry.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If fast track—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: This calling out from both sides of the House has got to stop. It’s unreasonable and certainly doesn’t give the public the information that the Opposition want them to have.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If fast track has driven an uptake in renewable energy, can he name one single renewable energy generation project that has been completed and brought to market under fast track?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have about 40 percent extra generation of projects listed in our fast-track programme. You’ve already seen nine projects delivered; we’ve probably got another nine delivered before the end of March. I just want to say to the member: with respect to the LNG importation facility, this is a Government—
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, it was a direct supplementary question related to a claim the Prime Minister made about how fast track had brought new renewable energy into the market that was lowering the price. It wasn’t about the LNG import facility; it was very specific about the new projects. He clearly can’t name one, so, surely, that’s the end of the answer.
SPEAKER: Well, I think the Prime Minister might want to consider the question again. So ask the question again, and an answer, if it can be given, will be given in the public interest.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he name one single new electricity generation project that has been approved under fast track and is now producing electricity?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can tell the member is there are about 22 renewable projects that are in fast-track legislation, adding about 30 to 40 percent more generation. We get on and get things done. We don’t take 10 years to build a windfarm—you know, eight years to get it consented and two years to build it; we actually can do things much faster than that. I know the member is very concerned about electricity prices; the good news is we’ve got a renewables boom up and going in this country—it’s absolutely fantastic. We’re creating thermal and firming energy options, and we appreciate his support—not for fast track.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can importing gas guarantee lower bills, when overseas gas is more expensive and tied to volatile global markets?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s less expensive than $800 per megawatt hour, which is what that member left this Government because he failed to manage energy. So I’d just say to him: this is going to deliver about $50 off Kiwis’ power bills—that’s about $1.2 billion worth to the economy—and it’s going to create about 2,000 jobs. It’s all good news.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Turkish company who expressed interest in supplying New Zealand with an LNG import option wrong when they said that the Government’s plan to build an LNG import facility will put upwards pressure on New Zealand gas prices?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said to the member last week—and, again, I appreciate his questioning on energy policy, given how abysmally he ran it—we have a $50 lowering of power bills for New Zealanders. We’re in the middle of a procurement process. The results will be determined at the middle of the year. We’ll then start the construction of the facility and have it available at the back end of 2027, early 2028.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why didn’t the Government consider expanding the roll-out of solar and batteries to provide cheaper, more secure electricity for Kiwi businesses and households, as they’ve done in Australia, when, in the last year alone, 180,000 batteries have been installed?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we’re seeing a renewables boom in this country, and that’s, in part, because we’ve got the regulatory settings right. With fast-track legislation, it’s absolutely fantastic. People are wanting to build renewable projects. We have overseas investors, local capital, all wanting to sign up for solar, geothermal, wind—that’s all good stuff.
SPEAKER: Question No. 2—the Hon—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Not even Nancy liked that one!
SPEAKER: Question No. 2—when the Labour front bench are ready for it. Question No. 2—the Hon Marama Davidson.
Prime Minister
Question No. 3
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:14) 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) (14:14): Yes.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he believe that it is a core responsibility of Government to protect its people and to deal with climate-charged weather events?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, in answer to the first question—absolutely. We’ve got to look after our New Zealanders.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does increasing climate-changing emissions worsen the severity of extreme weather events like we are, once again, seeing across Aotearoa New Zealand this week?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I want to reassure the member, as I said in my answer to the previous question, emissions in the September quarter were, in fact, the lowest recorded since 2010. That, of course, is being driven by a renewable energy boom, which is being facilitated by fast track, which that member failed to support.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Aotearoa New Zealand has a responsibility to play our part in the global effort to reduce emissions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and that’s what we’re doing and that’s why we’re delivering on our emissions reductions budgets.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by the statement of emergency management Minister Mark Mitchell, with regard to the storm people have just experienced, that “there is nothing we can do about the weather”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I would say to the member is that I can tell you if the Greens’ pitch is “Give them another chance and global weather will improve”, that’s just not true.
Hon Marama Davidson: When Ministers in his Government say, “We can’t do anything about the impacts of weather”, is he suggesting that he is powerless to reduce emissions, strengthen resilience, and better prepare communities from climate-charged storms and floods?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, but what this Government doesn’t do is just talk about climate change; we actually put the investments in place and we actually put the actions in place. That’s why you are seeing emissions at the lowest levels since 2010. We’ve put $200 million into stopbanks and flood resilience. We’re building back roads that are twice as resilient to floods, and that’s all a good thing.
Infrastructure
Question No. 4
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (14:16) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s infrastructure?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (14:16): Today, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission released the National Infrastructure Plan. I want to congratulate Raveen, Geoff, and the team at the commission. What is clear is that our system is underperforming. We have real challenges ahead. We spend a lot on infrastructure—around 5.8 percent of GDP annually. That’s one of the highest in the OECD, but we rank toward the bottom for efficiency, and we are fourth-to-last in the OECD for asset management. Many central government agencies do not understand what they own or have a long-term investment plan. The assurance system for new projects is weak and does not give Ministers confidence that we are getting good value for money. New Zealanders and taxpayers deserve better. That’s why the Government welcomes today’s plan.
Katie Nimon: What does the National Infrastructure Plan say?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The plan puts forward 16 recommendations under four key themes. They are planning what we can afford, looking after what we’ve got, prioritising the right projects, and making it easier to build better. On page 16, the plan visualises the national infrastructure pipeline on a map so New Zealanders in the sector can see what projects are coming. It’s broken down by region, funding status, and sector. Sometimes people say what New Zealand needs is an infrastructure pipeline and, it turns out, we actually have one and have had one for many years. The plan also outlines 10 priority actions for the decade ahead. It is good to see that many of the key actions that are decade-long priorities include things that the Government already has under way. We are statutorily compelled to respond to the plan in June 2026, and we will be doing that.
Katie Nimon: Why is a National Infrastructure Plan important?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Creating a 30-year plan for infrastructure is something that many people around the country have said that we need for a long time. The reality is infrastructure is long lived and it spans across Governments of whatever different stripe and many decades. We’ve made a good start, over the last two years, in fixing the basics of our system, but it is really clear from the plan that there is a lot more to do. As part of that, we will be engaging with the Opposition parties around the Government response to the plan. I’ve written to Parliament’s Business Committee today, asking for a special debate to be held, in the regular slot, around the plan that has now come out, and there will be opportunity for future debate as well. We owe it to all New Zealanders to lift our game on infrastructure because it is in all of our interests.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Minister ask Cabinet to revisit its billion-dollar investment that the Government has planned in the LNG import facility when the Infrastructure Commission today was clear that “New renewable generation can lower average prices … and reduces reliance on imported fuels.”, and that this LNG facility will likely not lower household bills?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The LNG facility the Government is in the process of procuring is critical to crowding in future renewable investment generation, because when the lights are low, the rain doesn’t fall, and the sun doesn’t shine and—
Chlöe Swarbrick: You know better than this, Bishop.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the simple reality is we have a highly renewable, vulnerable system. You need the backup of gas or thermal electricity in order to have the highly renewable system that we have, and that is why we are procuring, essentially, an insurance policy to make sure that people who are investing in renewables can make sure that that investment will work as a result of these policies.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think that the Infrastructure Commission has paid sufficient attention to the growing coal use in China?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It would be fair to say that coal use in China is tangentially connected to the Infrastructure Commission report, but I am aware that it is definitely growing.
Katie Nimon: How is the Government tracking against the plan?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are 10 priorities for the decade ahead, and the Government is making good progress. For example, they say that we should implement time-of-use charging and fleet-wide road-user charges, and the Government has passed legislation for both of those things, or is in the process of passing legislation. They say that we should commit to a durable resource management framework, and, of course, as all members know, we have introduced legislation to replace the Resource Management Act. They say that the Government should ensure that housing growth follows transport investment, and, of course, the Parliament has legislated for upzoning around City Rail Link stations in Auckland. I encourage all members to read the top 10 priorities for the year ahead and join the journey of improving New Zealand’s infrastructure.
Finance
Question No. 5
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:21) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement in July 2024 that the “cost of living relief is on its way”; if so, have prices come down since then?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:22): Yes, and it is a curious statement for the member to highlight as it was made two days before personal income tax changes came into effect. I went on to say, “From Wednesday, you will be able to keep more of your hard-earned money to put towards things that are important to you,”. Since then, around 1.9 million New Zealand households have benefited by an average of $60 more a fortnight—cost of living relief that was opposed by that member. To the second part of the question, since 2002, successive Governments have had a target for annual Consumers Price Index inflation of between 1 and 3 percent. I’m not aware of it being the position of any party in Parliament to target negative inflation, or price decreases in real terms. We do now have low and stable inflation after a terrible period in which it stayed out of band for three years under the last Government, which peaked with overall prices rising more than 7 percent a year.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does that mean food prices are cheaper or more expensive?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What it means is that food price inflation has come under a lot more control on this Government’s watch than under the last. For comparison, in September 2023, quarterly food price inflation was 8.8 percent. It is a lot lower now. Also, in June 2023, food price inflation was 12.3 percent. I can quite confidently say it will not hit those numbers again on our watch.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does a 4.6 percent increase in food prices over the last year reflect her promise that cost of living relief is on its way?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, of course I join other members of this House who would like to see food price inflation go even lower still. The point I am making to the member is that food price inflation has been a lot higher in recent times, most markedly under the last Government. On our watch, it’s been lower.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Well, then, has she broken her promise to get food prices under control when staples like mince are 18 percent higher, and bread is 58 percent higher and increasingly out of reach for everyday families?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Ensuring that New Zealanders can meet the cost of their weekly supermarket shop is something this Government is very focused on. That is, in part, why we delivered tax relief—to help people keep up with growing costs—and it is why we have been so keen to support the Reserve Bank in its fight to keep inflation under control, with our key measure there to be keeping our own spending under control. The facts speak for themselves: quarterly food price inflation in December 2022, 10.7 percent; in March 2023, 11.3 percent; in June 2023, 12.3 percent; and in September 2023, 8.8 percent. On our watch, food price inflation is a lot lower than it was under the last Government, and those who are concerned about food price inflation probably need to suggest some clear plans of their own for addressing it, other than telling us the price of mince, which, unfortunately, many New Zealanders are already very aware of.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she been advised, based on her comment in October 2024, that “The era of crushing prices is now over”, given household energy prices are already up nearly 18 percent in two years, and now the Government is adding an additional tax?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the era of crushing price increases in the economy occurred during the three years under the last Government where inflation remained out of target, peaking at 7.3 percent. That era is now over, but we would do well not to take the ending of that era for granted, because those parties who say the solution to every problem is to drive up Government spending and borrowing risk reawakening the inflation beast. On this side of the House, we stand firmly against that.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she been advised, with food prices soaring, whether the Prime Minister can still do his weekly shop for $60?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This follows a trend of recent final supplementary questions from the opposing member in which she gets personal and nasty, and I’m not going to sink to that level.
Justice
Question No. 6
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (14:27) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government committed to fixing the basics in law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:27): The Government is—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Voter suppression!
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —fixing the basics in law and order—I didn’t pick that one up—by continuing to progress a broad range of initiatives to restore real consequences for crime and to place victims back at the heart of the justice system. We’ve reformed the sentencing regime so that those who cause the most harm are imprisoned for longer; given police effective tools to deal with gangs; stopped taxpayer funding for the proliferation of cultural reports; made stalking an illegal and jailable offence; given victims of sexual assault the power to determine if offenders are granted name suppression; restored three strikes; and much more.
Tom Rutherford: How is reforming the Crimes Act fixing the basics in law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: This Government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order, as I’ve said. The Crimes Amendment Bill that is currently before the Justice Committee creates specific offences for assaulting first responders and committing coward punches, as committed, Mr Peters, as committed to in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement. It also gives effect to the new citizens arrest powers and introduces a new shoplifting infringement regime to provide businesses with more protections to stop those who steal from them from getting away with it. Lastly, it strengthens the trafficking and people-smuggling laws to stop criminals using loopholes to target our most vulnerable.
Tom Rutherford: What is next on the Government’s agenda to fix the basics in law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government is considering how to deal more effectively with antisocial and disruptive behaviour that, in many places in New Zealand, is impacting the everyday enjoyment and utilisation of public spaces. No one, whether you’re a retailer or just out there doing your job or living in the CBD, should have to be the subject of the unwelcome behaviours of others in the public. Those who engage in disorderly or threatening behaviour, who seek to intimidate, or to interfere with businesses and others’ peaceful use of the CBD will face consequences. We’ll have more to say about that very shortly.
Tom Rutherford: What measures are in place for the Government to track progress of fixing the basics in law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government set an ambitious target upon coming into office to have 20,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime by 2029, and the good news is that as a nation we are tracking well ahead of that target with 38,000 fewer victims of violent crime today than when we came into office. That’s 38,000 families who haven’t had to go through the trauma of having their loved ones or individually being the victims of violent crime. Of course, there is much more work to do, and that is why we are committed as a Government to restoring law and order in this nation.
Laura McClure: Can he confirm that there has been a significant and sustained reduction in child and youth offending?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, indeed. We had set a target there to reduce the number of serious repeat youth offenders, and that is ahead of budget at the moment thanks to the efforts of our fellow Ministers, the Hon Karen Chhour and also the Hon Nicole McKee, and indeed the entire justice team including the Hon Mark Mitchell and the indomitable Hon Judith Collins. Together as a Government right across the board, we are determined to reduce the number of victims of crime. If you are the victim of an assault from a young person or an old person, it’s the same thing; you are still a victim of assault, and we have to have clear consequences for that.
Oceans and Fisheries
Question No. 7
Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (14:31) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What actions has the Government taken to protect rock pools?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries) (14:31): Consistent with the balanced and proportionately weighted approach I adopt towards marine management, it was with great joy that we’ve announced a two-year ban on the taking of invertebrate and seaweed species on the East Coast, around Hibiscus Coast in northern Auckland. I want to acknowledge the local MPs who, along with Ngāti Manuhiri, advocated for this decision. It will put an end to the over-collection of marine life from the rock pools surrounding the coastline. This temporary closure will take effect from 12 March 2026, and it will be enforceable by fisheries officers. We are also considering a range of other tools in terms of safeguarding rock pools and the intertidal zone, such as infringement notices for those who breach the rules.
Dr David Wilson: Why are you putting this temporary ban in place?
Hon SHANE JONES: Excessive effort. It may not be well known, but we were advised by locals in the Whangaparāoa and Hibiscus Coast area that organised groups of people in that part of Auckland were arriving, including busloads of tourists organised by social media sites largely visited by immigrants, who were acting in a way that has offended the local community. When the busloads arrive, no rock pool can survive something akin to the oriental express.
Dr David Wilson: How will people know about the closures?
Hon SHANE JONES: It's important that we use all tools of education. This is a subject matter that is a very sensitive one but one that has riled people who live next to the coast who feel that the State is not taking account of how our changing demographic character is leading to people going to the coast without understanding host culture. People from Muriwai, Pīhā, and other parts of New Zealand are overwhelming our offices as they seek for us to provide intervention so we can all enjoy the bounty of Tangaroa and our coastal environment together. Now, some things that one says could be awkward, but this is a case where the Matua is well ahead of the Greens.
Dr David Wilson: How will this ban impact aquaculture activities?
Hon SHANE JONES: Aquaculture activity will continue as it is currently undertaken. This is an area that we want to expand as a part of our industrial food growing programme. There are places around the coastline where there are competing interests. But I come back again: a host of Kiwi communities, for some years, have been waiting for politicians to intervene to ensure that the changing demographic character of our population does not destroy the habits, the traditions, and the culture that define us as Kiwis.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen the usual inane approach by opponents during this time, claiming that he has not included kina or sea eggs in his protection, and what’s his response to that?
Hon SHANE JONES: There is an exemption for kina. We are struggling, around the coastline in a host of different locations, to manage the expansion of what is known as kina barren colonisation. Barren, of course, belongs this afternoon with the other side of the House of green complexion.
SPEAKER: I just will point out that you’re not meant to use supplementaries to attack the other side of the House. Now, that, I think, was not a compliment, so just calm that one down.
Energy
Question No. 8
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (14:35) to the Minister for Energy: What analysis, if any, shows that his LNG-levy model is cheaper over 20 years for households than a programme of wind, solar, storage, and demand-side management?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Acting Minister for Energy) (14:36): I’m advised that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) assessed 11 options including renewables, storage, and demand response. The analysis found that a renewables and demand-side approach would not solve the dry-year problem in a timely manner. A direct comparison was therefore not made with the options suggested by the member. The Government concluded that LNG was the best option to ensure energy security and to ensure reduced electricity prices for consumers. This stands in contrast to the previous Government’s proposed $16 billion Lake Onslow project which wouldn’t have delivered electricity until at least 2037. We’re focused on delivering secure, reliable, and affordable energy for Kiwis as quickly as possible.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why did the concept consulting modelling released yesterday only compare LNG and no-LNG options when MBIE’s own analysis shows the illustrative ranking option is likely to have the greatest benefit in terms of downward price pressure?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: The answer to that question is that the analysis found that a renewables and demand-side approach would not solve the dry-year problem in a timely manner and I know while she’s here, harking back to the Lake Onslow project—which wouldn’t actually have solved a problem until 2037—we need energy now. We need fuel now and that is why this Government is so focused on getting an option in place which not only secures the fuel this country needs but also reduces power bills for consumers. That’s what we’re delivering.
SPEAKER: Finish with that.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why do the assessments treat the slower delivery of alternatives as critical weaknesses when compared with LNG when LNG itself is only faster because the Government has chosen to fast track it with bespoke legislation, creating an artificial timing advantage for LNG over the other options?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’m really proud of the Hon Erica Stanford being focused on reading, writing, and particularly maths because, according to maths, 2027 or 2028 comes before 2037, which is her option. Actually, her option is also $16 billion. So we’re not only focused on reducing power bills but getting it done a whole lot faster so we have secure energy at lower prices for consumers. It’s not just about making sure we’ve got the thermal energy that we need—whether that’s coal and gas—it’s also the renewable energies. We’ve got a renewable energy boom under way in this country, and fast track, which the Minister Chris Bishop is very focused on.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a straight question about why one option that the Government considered in a list of 11 has been given a fast-track acceleration in terms of the weighting that Cabinet gave, and I wanted to know why the other 10 options weren’t also credited with that timing acceleration. It was a pretty straight question and the Minister didn’t even address it.
SPEAKER: It’s true, but the Government’s only chosen one option which was in the earlier questions. So why would you ask the Government to comment on things they haven’t done?
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Well, it’s about assessing other answers.
SPEAKER: No, well maybe re-word the question a different way.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why did the Cabinet paper treat “locks in significant new generation”, and “impacts the electricity market” as negatives in its assessment of biomass when building firm, renewable generation like this is exactly what is required to deliver both dry-year security and lower people’s power bills?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: The assessment that was done was focused on what is the option that can assure we can address the dry-year problem in a timely manner. The reality is, it is critically important we do this as quickly as possible, so that we can secure the energy that New Zealanders need—to put downward pressure on prices, to reduce power bills for New Zealanders. But also, we are very focused on making sure we have the energy systems and the resource management systems in place that allow for all types of energy to be produced through fast track, whether that’s wind, whether that’s solar, whether that’s hydro, whether it’s geothermal, whether that’s biomass. You need to have a system which allows for all of those, backed up by thermal generation, which is critically important.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to why he has not taken the questioner, Dr Megan Woods, seriously, or does he not know about her doctorate—when she got that qualification?
SPEAKER: No. No, no—he’s a lot of things, but he’s actually speaking on behalf of another Minister. He’s certainly not going into the tertiary education archives of New Zealand to answer a question like that.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Did he get advice on net new jobs created each year, broken down into construction and ongoing operational roles, of an LNG import terminal in Taranaki, compared with a scenario—
SPEAKER: Sorry, just wait one moment. There’s a whole lot of conversations going on while the member’s asking the question. Please, if you wouldn’t mind starting again.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Certainly. Did he get advice on net new jobs created each year, broken down into construction and ongoing operational roles, of an LNG import terminal in Taranaki, compared with scenarios where the same north of a billion dollars is invested in renewables and biomass-based firming instead; if not, why not?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: We got advice on what would actually keep power prices as low as possible for consumers, and this option will reduce power prices for consumers and is also critically important for industry, which the opposite side of the House were prepared to let crash and burn through high power prices. That is not something that we are prepared to stand by and let happen. In fact, we got modelling which said, yes, that this would protect thousands of regional jobs by having lower, secure power prices for New Zealand households and businesses.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Who is correct: Simon Watts, who said the gas tax will be “more than offset by lower electricity prices”; or the Government’s own infrastructure plan, announced today, that warns it’s not clear importing LNG would lower electricity prices?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Simon Watts is correct.
Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm whether any advice has been taken in terms of job creation, job destruction, and the number of New Zealanders that have been forced out of their industrial workplace as a consequence of the cancellation of the oil and gas industry, and the destruction of Marsden Point?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, analysis was undertaken that if we didn’t choose this option, thousands of jobs in regional New Zealand would be destroyed by high prices across the industries in those communities. On that side of the House, they’re prepared to wait till 2037 to solve the dry-year risk. We’re solving it now.
SPEAKER: No, hang on. OK. I think, so much as there was content in the question that the Minister could answer, the answer, effectively, attacked the Opposition. We’re in a very interesting year and there’s going to be very little tolerance from this point on.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: With the greatest respect—
SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on, I’ll just call you properly. We’ve always got to do things properly here. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, why have we got this position you’re taking that in this House—which is the Westminster system—you cannot refer to the inadequacies of either side of the House, whether it be the Government or the Opposition? That’s all it’s about. I do not think we should be unfairly—how shall I say—diluting the rights and powers of this House because you don’t have the same view the rest of us do.
SPEAKER: That’s partially correct. What I would make clear is that the Government in answering any question can refer to matters or decisions made by a previous Government that related to the question being asked or to the bill being discussed or in a debate. However, Speakers’ ruling 181/3 makes it very clear that the Government cannot use a supplementary question or a question to attack the Opposition. It’s a fine line—I appreciate that, but that’s what I’m trying to walk. It’s actually been the rule for a very, very long time.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but not as long as I’ve been here, right?
SPEAKER: No? Not in the member’s time?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No.
SPEAKER: All right. I’m not responsible for what the member remembers or otherwise.
Prime Minister
Question No. 9
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:46) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:46): Yes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister support the continued existence of the Māori electorates?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is something that we haven’t given consideration to.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that Māori electorates represent a constitutional recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I understand they’ve been a feature of New Zealand’s political system for some time, but I also understand that what Māori voters want and what the Māori public want is a Government that’s on their side actually delivering improved outcomes for them, and that’s what this Government’s doing.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Prime Minister aware that the number of Māori enrolled on the Māori roll has increased by over 13,000 since the 2023 election?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that may well be the case, but the important thing is they have representation with the biggest Māori contingent in Cabinet of any Government in recent times. They have a Government that’s on their side making sure that they are raising immunisation rates for under-twos. They have a Government on their side making sure that their kids are getting off to a great start in education, and particularly around new entrants and phonics.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he rule out supporting a referendum on the Māori electorates so long as he remains Prime Minister?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is not Government policy.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is that a no?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ve just said to the member it’s not Government policy.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Māori seats were worth defending, why is it that the people who preside in the Māori seats have spent less time in Parliament than somebody who has been overseas for 206 days and yet spent more time in Parliament than the Māori Party seats altogether?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is an important question. I think voters on the Māori electorates have been poorly represented in this Parliament.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I would like that particular member to rescind his comment because he cannot prove that that is correct. In fact, the stats show that this member was in the House and spoke more than he did. It is factually incorrect, what he has proposed. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a moment. The only point I would make is that the Prime Minister has no responsibility for Māori Party MPs. We go now to question 10—[Interruption]. Question 10, Chlöe Swarbrick—and no one else is speaking while the question’s asked.
Prime Minister
Question No. 10
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:48) 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) (14:48): Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: When will he respond to our letter from January, in the wake of ongoing devastation from climate-charged weather events, to restart cross-partisan work on climate adaptation with urgency?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I explained to the member last week, it hasn’t stopped.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister completely unaware that his Cabinet made a decision in September of last year to delay all work on climate adaptation cost-sharing until after the election?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as I said before, it hasn’t stopped.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Government prepared to subsidise fossil fuel production and infrastructure, but not prepared to fund community-led resilience measures like the South Dunedin Future and Tairāwhiti transition programme which would protect homes and communities?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s a Government that’s very proud of $200 million of investment from the Regional Infrastructure Fund to support more flood resilience.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister want a managed transition, where Government works actively with communities to find the best solutions to adapt to a changing climate, or does he want to continue with his current plan, where Government makes ad hoc decisions in the wake of tragic climate-charged extreme weather events?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the second leg of that question.
Hon Shane Jones: Does the Prime Minister agree that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on stopbank resilience work is actually a practical demonstration of how we cope with volatile weather, and also that it’s work carried out by the local communities, who look for confidence in the face of adverse weather events?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. I think the point I was making earlier was that this Government that believes in investment and action, not just words and talk.
Economic Growth
Question No. 11
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:51) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by her statement, “I take responsibility for my decisions” in the context of the thousands more New Zealanders out of work under this Government?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) (14:51): Yes, I do. I take responsibility for the steps taken to support sustainable job creation, including stabilising the economy after a period of high inflation, out-of-control spending, and declining confidence. I take responsibility for our Government’s decisions to support job creation, including through fast-track projects, the Investment Boost tax relief policy, and policies to attract investment for New Zealand firms and employers. As the member should know, employment is a lagging indicator, and as long ago as the pre-election fiscal update put out by her former colleague Grant Robertson, Treasury had forecast that more New Zealanders would be unemployed at this point in the economic cycle. The member should also be aware that in the December quarter, most recent statistics show that 15,000 more New Zealanders were employed, suggesting the signs of a growing economy where fewer people will be unemployed in future.
Hon Ginny Andersen: If it is her responsibility to create the conditions for jobs, why are there so many New Zealanders who are still losing their jobs?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would invite the member to go back to the pre-election fiscal update, where Treasury forecast that as a result of the period—an extended period of out-of-control inflation for three years, they forecast, at that point, that the increasing official cash rate increases in interest rates in order to deal with that inflation would lead to a significant and severe economic downturn which would therefore result in jobs being lost. That has transpired. Our Government’s job has been to tidy that situation up. We have restored inflation back to reasonable levels; we have seen interest rates reduce; we are seeing underlying economic activity pick up; and, as ANZ Bank economists have agreed in their recent note, we are seeing the signs consistent with rising job opportunities.
Hon Ginny Andersen: What is her advice to the 165,000 New Zealanders who can’t pay the bills, want a job, and can’t get one—just not to take it personally?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, that would not be my advice. My advice is that for every New Zealander who is unemployed and wishes to have a job: our Government is on your side and is working hard to ensure that there are more job opportunities for you in the future. We are doing that by ensuring we’re managing the economy well; controlling our own spending to take pressure off inflation and inflation rates; and we’re also working to remove the barriers that have stood in the way of those firms, employers, and entrepreneurs who want to get on and create job opportunities. That’s why we’re fast-tracking quarries, housing developments, and new projects. That’s why we have attracted more investment through the Active Investor Plus visa, to invest in new firms and new opportunities. That’s why we support high-quality public sector infrastructure projects. That’s why we’ve taken the Investment Boost tax relief to support more job and wage creation in the future. We’re on your side; we’re working hard, and many, many economists agree with us when they say that the underlying conditions are such that there will be more job opportunities in future.
Hon Ginny Andersen: What does it say about her ability to create the conditions for jobs, when it’s the hardest time in 30 years for Kiwis to find a job?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It says that I came into this role as the Minister of Finance at a very difficult point for New Zealand: when we had had successive years of a Labour Government that drove up spending, drove up inflation, drove up interest rates, and left the joint in a terrible situation. It says that those who wish to go back to a prescription of more spending, borrowing, and taxing need to remember where that landed us last time. Unless that member has actually learnt the lessons of history and is saying that she wouldn’t do that again, I would say to her that there is only one side of the House that is for sustainable job creation. It is this side, and it starts with sensible economic management.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Mike Hoskings of Newstalk ZB, who said—
Hon Chris Bishop: Hoskings? You’re on the show every week! Get it right.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Apologies.
SPEAKER: There is only one person speaking when a question is being asked. I’d ask the National front bench to remember that, and ask the member to start her question again.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Mike Hosking of Newstalk ZB, who said, “the jobs stat for a government relying on economic credibility took a right hook and will be dazed.”; if not, why not?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, what a thing for that member to quote Mike Hosking! I’m sure she’ll appreciate that he certainly had some choice words about her and every single one of her colleagues on that front bench and the mess of a job they did in Government. But, if she wishes to selectively quote him, I would also point out that I did an interview with him on this very subject. He agreed that, yes, the underlying conditions do suggest unemployment will be coming down, but isn’t it a shame that people will always highlight that headline stat. Mike Hosking, toe to toe; your team versus my team? I think we know who’d come out on top.
Hon Willie Jackson: Hosking is a traitor.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I thought she wasn’t going to be nasty.
SPEAKER: The only person who has the floor is the Hon Ginny Andersen.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she seriously expect New Zealanders to call it success when there are 165 people who want a job and can’t get one and the cost of living keeps climbing upwards?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, and I haven’t used that word. What I’d say is that we are making progress, and there is a lot more progress to make.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. This is a great shame, but at a critical time in the asking of that last question—I would have expected you to help that questioner, because she said “165” people. I’m sure she got that wrong, but you let her get away with that, and so the question became pointless.
SPEAKER: That’s true, but, as you know, you take all members at their word. If the problem is 165 people, I guess the Government is not too concerned about that.
Tourism and Hospitality
Question No. 12
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (14:58) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting major events in New Zealand?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality) (14:58): Yesterday, we announced that New Zealand will host its first ever State of Origin match next year, at Eden Park. We’ve also announced changes to Eden Park’s planning restrictions, which will allow New Zealand’s largest stadium to host more major events like the State of Origin. These announcements are a “try-umph” for fans, tourism, and for New Zealand sport, with the event expected to draw thousands of international visitors and deliver a significant economic boost to Auckland. Tourism and major events are a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth, and more world-class events means more visitors, more customers, more jobs, and a greater growing economy.
Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is bringing the State of Origin to New Zealand so significant?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The State of Origin series is one of the fiercest rivalries in global sport, pitting Queensland and New South Wales against each other in a high-intensity three-match contest. Bringing “Origin” over the Ditch for the first time is a milestone moment for rugby league in New Zealand, inspiring young players and helping grow the game nationally. Our Government and Auckland Council have worked together alongside the Australian Rugby League Commission to bring this sporting spectacular to Auckland.
Dr Carlos Cheung: What benefits does she expect to see as a result of this announcement?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The State of Origin is expected to attract over 10,000 of our Aussie neighbours and generate more than 50,000 international visitor nights and inject an estimated $17.4 million into the economy. With a significant Australian audience, this match will showcase Auckland and continue to put New Zealand on the map as a world-class destination for major events. Hosting this event has been made even easier because of the changes to planning restrictions at Eden Park, which means that night-time games will be permitted on any day of the week and can finish later. Strengthening Eden Park’s ability to host major events will mean more jobs, more activity for local businesses, and more opportunities for people to enjoy more events at our largest stadium.
Dr Carlos Cheung: What feedback has she seen on these announcements?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback has been incredibly positive. Former Queensland NRL player Johnathan Thurston said, “Eden Park is an iconic stadium, and to play there is something they will remember for the rest of their lives.” Across the House, this Leader of the Opposition said, “I think more major events will be good for New Zealand, including good for Auckland. I support extending the number of events that take place at Eden Park.” Steve Gillet, the owner of the Kingslander pub and chair of the Kingsland business association, said, “This will make a huge difference for local businesses … Any one of those games can triple turnover … Really impressed with the Government and Auckland Council putting their best foot forward and helping out hospitality at Eden Park and getting it over the line.” New Zealand has an excellent global reputation for delivering events, and I’m looking forward to announcing even more in the coming months.
Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question!
SPEAKER: Supplementary question on this one?
Hon Chris Bishop: Is the Minister backing the Blues or the Maroons?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s going to be a really, really tough one, but I think my colour speaks for itself.
SPEAKER: I don’t want to betray my particular sporting loyalties, but who cares? That concludes oral questions.
Bills
Anzac Day Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 12 February.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:02): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a genuine honour to participate in this debate, and anyone that has been following the debate will see that this is one of those occasions where Parliament comes together and resists the urge, as so often happens in this House, to have pot-shots at each other and takes the opportunity to join together to do what is right. Certainly, the Anzac Day Amendment Bill is what is right. I think many people that have either been following the debate or have become aware of this bill will be quite surprised that what this fixes wasn’t already in place.
Every year, so many New Zealanders go to their local Anzac Day service, assuming that they are commemorating veterans across any war or battle or any posting overseas—essentially, anyone who has served this country—but that isn’t the case. In fact, it hasn’t been for quite some time. To think that the definition of a veteran has, until now, only applied to a certain number of stated conflicts, I think, will come as a surprise to many, and the Labour Party certainly supports this bill in addressing that.
Another thing that not everyone will be aware of is that Parliament’s debating chamber is actually a war memorial. Along the top layer of this House are commemorative wreaths acknowledging the battles that New Zealand took part in in World War I. There’s Gallipoli to the right-hand side of the Speaker’s Chair. It goes all the way around. Messines is acknowledged there, and I want to point that one out because, of course, that is the sister town to Featherston in South Wairarapa, which played a pivotal part in New Zealand’s World War I effort and maintains that relationship with that town now. The next layer is all subsequent conflicts, and it’s quite extraordinary that this House acknowledges two conflicts in particular—Timor-Leste and Afghanistan—with two plaques down the other end of the Chamber, yet those that served in those battles were not officially recognised as veterans. I’m very pleased that that is soon no longer going to be the case.
I want to acknowledge those members who have contributed to the debate who have served this country. Contributing to this debate was clearly an emotional thing for them, and it was a privilege to be in the House to witness their contributions. No one should be overlooked for their service to this country just because they happened to serve in one particular conflict over another. It was also an opportunity for many other members who contributed to this debate to acknowledge the contribution of their family members in conflicts in the past and in serving this country, and it made me reflect on the contribution of my grandfather, Patrick Monaghan, from Eketāhuna, who served in the 25th Battalion in World War II. He never wanted to talk about his time at war, which was not uncommon, but I do think there was an element of shame there because he was prisoner of war for nearly four years—no fault of his own, of course, and that is a horrible thing to go through. I used to go to Anzac Day commemorations with him, and he’d never wear his medals. I’ve been reflecting on that—that we should never be in a situation where people who have served their country feel that they are less worthy than anybody else.
Some of the stories my grandfather would tell me as I was growing up—they were rare occasions because, as I understand it, he never told his own children—are the sort of thing that would cause lifelong trauma to anybody, such as being in an unmarked ship being torpedoed by the Germans, even though it was their own ship, and sitting between two brothers who were both killed while he swam to shore, or witnessing his mate being shot in the back while giving a Jewish woman and her child some food. These are the things that those who serve our country have been through. It is heartbreaking to talk about it, let along having witnessed it yourself, and it is almost unfathomable to think that people who have witnessed similar things in conflicts like Afghanistan have not had the same recognition as those who’ve done it in World War I or World War II or Vietnam, for example.
We, as a country, I think, take great care in acknowledging the contributions of those who have served and who have, basically, fought for the freedoms that we now enjoy. I know that there has been a long and sustained period of advocacy for this to occur. Frankly, I think it has taken far too long—over successive Governments—and I am pleased, and the Labour Party is pleased, that it is happening now. We do recognise that there are still some outstanding issues, which the Minister has pledged to resolve, and we would have liked those to have been included or addressed at the same time as this bill, but we take the Minister on his word that that will be resolved. I also want to acknowledge Greg O’Connor, our spokesperson in this area, who is also a presiding officer, and because of the rules of the House—because he presided over part of this reading of the debate—he was unable to participate in the debate. That’s just the way it goes, but I do want to acknowledge him, because he has, on behalf of our party, been engaging with veterans, been constructive in his engagement with the Minister, and has taken this in exactly the vein it should have been. I want to acknowledge his contributions, given that he was unable to participate in this debate.
To further add to this—it’s a light-hearted example, but I think something that makes the point—is that male members have the option to wear a tie in this place. I don’t like ties, and every opportunity I get, I remove it, but I always wear a tie in this place because it is a war memorial. I think it is, for me, a sign of respect, not only for the fact that this is Parliament and a debating chamber but, when we are here, there is a reason that these plaques are above us. They are to remind us, at every opportunity, not only of the contribution of those that have served but what can happen if certain decisions are made. I wouldn’t personally go to an Anzac Day service without a tie on, so I feel the need to wear a tie here today. But that’s just me; each to their own.
I know every member, and that’s been demonstrated through their contributions to this debate, recognises and appreciates those who serve us in our armed forces—not just those in the past, not just those that we’ve had family connections to, but those that continue to serve today. Those people, those servicepeople, deserve the recognition when they no longer are active service personnel. I hope the anomaly that is in the original bill, through no malice or ill will, that has caused this is something that we reflect on when we are considering future legislation. It might seem like the right thing to do or the logical thing to do or even the idealistic thing to do—that perhaps there might not be conflict of such a scale that warrant that we have veterans, but it could have all been avoided if it just simply said anyone who has served the country, as this bill now does, moving forward. It’s not just relevant to this topic; there are others as well that we should be trying to be as open about as we can, wherever appropriate and possible, so that those who are otherwise exactly the same are not excluded from their due recognition.
So the Labour Party fully supports this bill. We look forward to this being enacted and that those who have served our country get the same recognition as those who have served before them.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (15:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I wanted to start my contribution by acknowledging all those who serve in our New Zealand Defence Force, and those that have served in our Defence Force. I had the honour of serving on the committee that considered this piece of legislation, and I want to thank all members for their constructive efforts as they massage some of the wording through that process to get to a point that I think was more inclusive and more appropriately achieved the intent.
As the previous member mentioned, this might come as a surprise to many people, and indeed, some would say, “Well, does it matter too much about the wording?” We considered that, because I think all of us in this House, and certainly in my electorate of the Waikato, I enjoyed going out and being a part of the Anzac services of the electorate, every year. It’s an important part of the calendar for me. When I see those communities coming out, the Dawn Parades in particular, where people put themselves to some inconvenience to get up at that time of the day, often in cold conditions, often in wet conditions, to come along, and for that brief moment, on that one day of the year, to acknowledge an incredible sacrifice and service by so many people who came before them. I think that is just so fitting and I look forward to seeing communities continue to demonstrate this to those who have served. Indeed, we don’t anticipate the wording in this piece of legislation to significantly impact how communities commemorate Anzac Day.
But in some instances, there will be people now who feel that this piece of legislation does include them, people who previously might not have conducted Anzac Day or who had turned up thinking that it wasn’t for them. But, indeed, we wanted to make sure that the wording was more inclusive, such that it did encompass those in conflicts, obviously more modern conflicts—the 30,000-odd contemporary veterans that we have around this country; we definitely wanted them to be included. But this is also for those that may not have been in the New Zealand Defence Force but they may have deployed alongside the Defence Force in war or warlike conflicts, and that could be police, for example—any number of areas or people who might fit into that category and wanted to make sure that this included them as well.
So, look, across the board, we’ve got this legislation to a good place. Of course, there is another piece of legislation, the Veterans’ Recognition Bill, which gives a more detailed definition of exactly what is covered by the term “veteran”, and those who haven’t served in warlike conflicts being covered under that piece of legislation.
But this one, the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, I think we’ve got to a good place commemorating that contribution of those that have served in war and warlike conflicts, including those who have died.
Also, the other key thing within that was the deaths that may not have happened in war or warlike conflicts but were still in service—in military training, for example, or on other operations. That should also be appropriately recognised. We’ve seen some of those in the media—sadly, those training deaths that have occurred. So it’s important to recognise those too.
Lastly, I just wanted to note that we did include Australia in this legislation because we saw that was quite important. Obviously, that’s the nucleus of the “Anzac” term—Australia and New Zealand, the first three letters. Although we’re not included in Australia’s legislation, we thought it was fitting to ensure that they were part of ours because we thought that was an appropriate recognition of that first landing back in Gallipoli. So I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its ascension into law. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (15:16): I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Today—
SPEAKER: No, hang on. I think there’s a step there before that—the legislative statement.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I don’t have one.
SPEAKER: It’s on my sheet. Can you just correct whether that’s necessary?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I don’t have one.
SPEAKER: OK, that’s fine—my apologies. There appears to be a little bit of an incorrect statement on my sheet. Carry on, sorry.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Today is a great day for New Zealand’s labour market. With this bill, we are delivering on our promise to restore confidence, drive growth, and modernise our employment relations framework for a new era. This bill is about solutions. It tackles four key areas that have been holding our economy back. Let me be clear about what we are fixing and how.
Firstly, this bill provides greater certainty for contracting parties. Contractors play an important role in New Zealand’s economy and society. Businesses and workers have faced uncertainty about who is an employee and who is a contractor, which has prevented workers from accessing flexible contracting opportunities that stifle innovation and growth. This bill introduces a gateway test that creates an exclusion from the definition of employee, consisting of criteria that represent characteristics of clear-cut contracting arrangements. This provides businesses with a clearer and more efficient test to determine whether a worker is a contractor or an employee.
If the worker does not meet the criteria, they can be assessed under the existing common law test. This test gives legal weight to the intention of contracting parties; protects genuine contracting arrangements, including modern platform-based arrangements; and allows businesses and workers to move forward with confidence knowing where they stand.
Secondly, this bill rebalances the personal grievance settings. In recent years, the amount of remedies awarded have increased and remedy reductions for employee misconduct have declined, leaving employers with greater liability even in serious cases. This imbalance is unfair and does not improve workplace conduct. This bill strengthens the consideration of, and accountability for, the employee’s behaviour in the personal grievance process. It does this by removing an employee’s eligibility for all remedies if their behaviour amounts to serious misconduct, and removing eligibility for reinstatement and compensation for hurt and humiliation if they have contributed to the situation that led to that personal grievance.
It also makes the personal grievance process less demanding for employers by requiring the Employment Relations Authority to consider whether the employee obstructed the employer’s process and relaxing the threshold for procedural error.
Thirdly, this bill introduces a remuneration threshold for eligibility to raise an unjustified dismissal personal grievance. Businesses need the confidence to hire and manage high-earning, high-impact employees, but the risk of costly, drawn-out personal grievance claims has made it harder for businesses to properly reward and take risks on talented employees. This is what the remuneration threshold is all about: more high-earning, high-impact jobs for emerging talent to drive our economy forward. The remuneration threshold will be set at $200,000 and be based on a total PAYE income, capturing all forms of remuneration such as bonuses and employee shares. This figure will be adjusted based on upward movements in average wages every year after 2027. Employees will still have the option to contract back into unjustified dismissal protections, if they choose to, and there will be a 12-month transition period for high-earning employees on existing employment agreements.
Lastly, this bill increases freedom of choice and reduces red tape at the start of employment. It does this by revoking what is commonly known as the 30-day rule. This will allow employers that are party to collective employment agreements to hire new employees on bespoke flexible terms for the first 30 days of employment—reducing compliance costs. These terms could include a 90-day trial period, if both parties agree, supporting the Government’s intended expansion of the 90-day trials and making hiring easier.
In conclusion, this bill is a win for New Zealand. It is practical, forward-looking, and delivers real benefits for businesses and workers alike. We are cutting red tape, restoring balance, and setting our labour market and economy up for success. I commend this bill to the House.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (15:22): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This time last year the Government kicked off the political year by launching a new marketing campaign for New Zealand. A marketing campaign in Australia that said, “Everyone must go!” New Zealanders took that literally and they have left to go to Australia. This bill will drive more New Zealanders in that direction because this Government have been engaged in a constant game of “Simon Says” since they became the Government. Look at what they do, not what they say, because when it comes to the cost of living crisis, members opposite, including David Seymour, the Deputy Prime Minister, say the way out of the cost of living crisis is to grow New Zealanders’ wages. And yet, what is the first thing he does after that? Comes to this House and promotes a bill that will drive New Zealand wages downwards. Because that is exactly what this bill will do. At a time when New Zealanders are struggling with the cost of living, when things like bread and mince are no longer household staples but are becoming luxury goods, this Government’s focus is on driving down New Zealand’s wages.
For the last 40-odd years, New Zealand worker protection has been consistently eroded. This Government preached the mantra of trickle-down economics: that if businesses just do better, that workers will be better off; they will get the crumbs from the table of the businesses that are doing better. It is an absolute hoax because those workers don’t get the better end of the deal. They find life continues to get harder for them. The trickle down never happens. A rising economic tide does not lift all boats. We’ve now got 40 years of evidence that clearly demonstrates that is the case. This bill is going to contribute to that problem. It is not going to solve it.
This bill will drive New Zealand workers to Australia. Why? Because confronted with the same dilemma that New Zealand was confronted with, two years ago the Australian Government decided to do the opposite of what the New Zealand Government is doing. The Australian Government decided to provide more protection to those workers who were being forced to become contractors by their employers. It extended minimum wage protection to more of those workers. It extended leave entitlements to more of those workers. It extended unfair dismissal protections to those workers. It extended superannuation obligations to those workers. And this Government, here in New Zealand, is doing the opposite of that. So who are we talking about? It’s not just the Uber drivers. Yes, gig economy workers will be affected by this, and they will be disproportionately affected by this law change, but we’re talking about people who work in areas like transport, construction, cleaning, security, labour hire; these people deserve to be treated well. They deserve to be paid properly. They deserve to have security in their employment; security that this Government is stripping away.
This Government talks a big game about wanting to grow the economy and improve New Zealanders’ living standards. Grow the economy for who? Not for New Zealanders who are on low and modest incomes. And let’s look at why so many of those very New Zealanders might be leaving New Zealand to cross the ditch. A minimum wage comparison would be a good place to start. In Australia, a dollars-for-dollars minimum wage comparison shows that New Zealand’s minimum wage is now at least $5 an hour behind Australia. If you convert the Australian minimum wage into New Zealand dollars, a Kiwi leaving for Australia to earn the minimum wage over there will be earning more than $5 an hour, in New Zealand dollars, more in Australia than here in New Zealand. And this Government have made that problem worse because, for two years in a row, they increased the minimum wage by less than the rate of inflation. So low-income workers in New Zealand got a real-terms pay cut. They are earning less under this Government than they were earning before this Government took office. We cannot afford to continue with the exodus of talent that we are seeing under this Government, and this bill will make that problem worse because it’s going to drive down New Zealand’s pay. New Zealanders can’t afford to see their pay driven any further down.
Who will benefit from this? Well, big multinational tech companies who are working in the gig economy will benefit from this. Those very same companies that direct all of their revenue through overseas tax havens, so they don’t have to pay tax in New Zealand, they will benefit from this. Those same companies that saw the limited tax they do pay in New Zealand cut by this Government, they will benefit from this bill as they find it easier to turn their workforce into contractors—they will benefit from this. Labour flexibility is basically a term used by this Government to erode worker protections. And we know from 40 years of history, not just in New Zealand but around the world, that when you cut worker protection, you actually cut the overall level of pay for a lot of working people. And working people going backwards is not a good way to grow the economy. In fact, the opposite happens.
I’d encourage members opposite to go back and remind themselves of the words of Henry Ford. When he was asked why he had introduced a 40-hour working week and why he had lifted the wages of the people working in his factory, he said, “Because I want them to be able to buy my cars and I want them to be able to have time to drive them.” Henry Ford understood that if you treat your workers well, it’s good for business because his employees were also his customers. And this Government don’t seem to understand that. The people whose wages they are driving down are the very same consumers they are worried about the consumer sentiment of. So when people are saying that they’re not going out there and spending money, and this Government says that that’s a problem for the economy; they’re not looking at the underlying reason those people don’t want to go and spend money: because they’re not sure whether they’re going to have a job; because they’re not sure whether they’re going to be able to make ends meet. And this Government, instead of dealing with those issues, providing more security, providing better incomes for those New Zealanders, are content instead to simply drive those workers further to despair.
Listening to Brooke van Velden’s speech, it’s hard—it’s really hard—to not reach the conclusion that she doesn’t understand the dynamic that exists between an employer and an employee; that actually the employer goes into that discussion with the power balance tilted in their favour. And yes, I recognise that New Zealand businesses do take risks in taking on employees, but those employees also take on a risk by going to work for those employers and they deserve respect for that as well. Those employees who might be leaving secure employment to go to another job—they deserve security in making that decision, as well. Of course, this Government don’t mind about that at the moment, because they’ve driven unemployment up in order to provide more options for employers who want to drive wages down. That, again, is not a stable or consistent or positive way to grow New Zealand’s economy. It is going to leave us a poorer country. So when they shed their crocodile tears about the number of New Zealanders giving up and leaving, and bearing in mind that the ACT Party said, at the last election, that our greatest export was becoming our talent—an ad that they have subsequently deleted from their Facebook page, because, of course, the numbers on that ad have more than doubled since they actually became the Government—when they said that before the election, I think some New Zealanders believed that they were going to do something about that. Instead, they’ve made it worse. This bill is going to make that even worse.
Eroding protections for New Zealand working people isn’t going to solve our problem. Making New Zealanders work even longer hours isn’t going to solve our problem as a country. New Zealanders already work some of the longest hours in the OECD. Think about that. Talking about the productivity problem doesn’t solve it. Addressing the reasons why New Zealanders are working so hard for so little will solve that problem, and this Government is simply doing the opposite—driving down workers’ wages, making jobs less secure, and leaving New Zealand a worse place than when they found it. That is not the way to grow New Zealand’s economy or to grow the prosperity that New Zealanders deserve. Next time we see more reports of record numbers of New Zealanders giving up and going to Australia because they’re going to be paid more and they’re going to have a higher standard of living, remember this bill, because this bill will make that problem worse.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (15:32): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to talk on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill—a terrible, terrible bill. This is a dark day for Aotearoa and a dark day for the workers, who, I think, have a reasonable expectation that if you put in a hard day’s work, you should get a fair day’s pay. It’s a reasonable expectation that your bosses will treat you fair and that your employers will treat you fair, as well.
But here we have another example of a horrible, rubbish bill coming through this Parliament against the context of a whole lot of rubbish bills—anti-worker bills. We’ve seen it across this parliamentary term, whether it’s the cancelling of pay equity claims, bringing back 90-day trials, getting rid of fair pay agreements. We do understand that it’s actually part of the ACT Party - National Party agreement. Once again, what we have is the National Party members having to swallow another ACT Party rat, and it worries me; it worries me for members on that side, because of the number of rats—ACT Party rats—that the National Party have had to swallow. It’s actually giving me indigestion—giving me absolute indigestion. In fact, it’s giving so many of the workers indigestion, they’re getting on the plane and flying over to Australia in their tens of thousands.
And for those workers who are hoping that the New Zealand First Party might actually help them out, we don’t see any Amendment Papers in the committee of the whole House stage—the opportunity to roll back some of this hardcore neoliberal economic pressure that the ACT Party was putting on the table. I’m not too sure what was happening there. They’re so busy making America great again that they forget to “Make New Zealand First”, I think, as well. But they still have an opportunity to vote this bill down. I see the Hon Mark Patterson—he’s grinning. Maybe he will vote this bill down and do the workers a favour. Possibly not, but we will see. We can only hope that that is one of the calculations that they are making.
This bill is bad in a number of ways. It basically—it actually removes the ability to seek remedies for unjustified and unlawful dismissal, so pretty much wrecking the personal grievance system. We did hear the Minister earlier talking a little bit about that. If you, as an employee, get into a bit of a stoush with your employer—which can happen, because things can get tense—and you are a part of the serious misconduct, even though they might find in your favour, you don’t get any remedy. You don’t get any remedy, and not only that, there’s also a threshold now, as well. So once you get up there, you work hard, you get up there—I think it’s 200k—guess what! No personal grievance system for you. You don’t get to use those tools. Absolutely disgraceful.
The other thing, which we have talked about at length—both in the committee stage and in the second reading, and in the first reading stage, as well—is the victory that the Uber drivers won against the multinational company Uber. Here, we have the small guy taking on the big guy and winning, in every single court right up to the Supreme Court. You would expect that this House would back the workers; that they would back the small guy taking on the multinational corporation. But what we have seen here, with this bill, is another example of the Government backing corporate greed over the public good of supporting the workers.
What will happen with this law—what will happen with this legislation—is that it will give the companies the ability to misclassify their employees as contractors. What that means is your ability to get holiday pay and sick leave, etc., etc.—gone. That’s what that means, as well. They talk about choice and all this kind of waffle, but the point that I think it’s important to note is that there will be a gateway test that will prevent you getting your section 6 rights. So they might say, “Well, actually, you’ll be able to get your section 6 rights.”, but if you’ve got a big gate that you’ve got to jump through, that makes it more and more difficult.
One of the other things that we brought up in the committee of the whole House stage, as well, because this whole thing was geared around the gig economy workers, and what we wanted to ask the Minister—and the answers were lacklustre and neoliberal—was around the impact of this piece of legislation on other sectors, on other workers. Yes, they’re focusing on the gig economy—and if you look at the way that this was drafted, they basically just cut and pasted it from their buddies at Uber—but what about all the other sectors? How does this impact people in other sectors? How does it impact the education sector? How does this impact people in the health sector, where you have particularly integral and crucial roles that would be incredibly problematic if, all of a sudden, they became contractors? These answers were very short coming from the Minister at the committee of the whole House stage, because she was just focused on doing the bidding of the corporations.
The other thing was around the revocation of the 30-day rule, undermining collective bargaining, undermining the collective power of the workers. As the Greens, what we think we should be doing—we should be doing the opposite to what the Minister had proposed. We should actually be having automatic union membership. We should be having default union membership. We should have opt-out union membership, as well. We should be increasing and supporting the workers, because it gives those workplaces stability. It gives those workplaces that collective will for the workers that, actually, there’s a community here, as well. Instead, what we’ve got is the undermining of the collective working power of workers, and workers can see that and they’re getting on the plane in their tens of thousands and going overseas.
So this bill, we absolutely oppose. We oppose it outright. I note, from the way that the discussions that we had with the Minister through the committee of the whole House stage, the possibility of this actually opening up into legal cases, as well, with her Amendment Paper—which took us quite some time to understand, because she dropped it on the Table at the very, very last minute—and just trying to decipher, actually, what that would mean for workers, as well. Were some workers in? Were some workers out? If some are in and some are out, well, what does that mean for potential legal cases and class actions and so on and so forth? Because they haven’t thought this bill through—they have not thought this bill through. They lined up their big corporate friends—their corporate buddies, the boss class—and actually just did what they wanted and didn’t actually really engage properly and effectively with the very strong and solid Amendment Papers from this side of the House trying to blunt, at least a little bit, the incredibly sharp edges off this legislation.
We cannot support this bill. It is, as I was saying earlier, just another example—another example—of poor, anti-worker legislation that has come through the House. Anti-worker legislation—we’ve seen it since the beginning of this particular Parliament, where they’re just rushing the stuff through Parliament. The result of that is that wages are going down; there is a lot of uncertainty out there as well. I also worry about our young people as well—that is another discussion we had at the committee of the whole House stage as well: what about what about our young people? And they show up and they have these conversations—and these are the workers’ rights that they actually have as well. No wonder they are leaving to go overseas. I hope that the other side of the House thinks about that. I hope that that side of the House kind of wonder why they are leaving in their tens of thousands for better work and pay conditions over in Australia. It’s because of bills like this. It’s because of bills which take away—for example—the pay equity claims, bring back 90-day trials, get rid of fair pay agreements, partial strikes as well—and I note that there are a number of works that have been pinged under that piece of legislation, where people are just trying to express their opinion about the working conditions that they’re facing as well.
So I leave my last 40 seconds to give a shout-out to the workers and the unions who have been fighting this every single way—in particular, those Uber drivers who did manage to win it all through the courts. That’s an important example, I think, for this House. A very important example for this House, where these are the people we actually should be backing, not a multinational corporation, not multinational companies, not the big businesses—we actually should be backing the workers, the people who need our help and support. That, in my mind, is what this Parliament should be about. It should be about supporting the workers—people that just want to keep the lights on and put food on the table, because—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (15:42): Here we go again: members of the Opposition creating lines to read between. Unlike the previous two members, I myself have been both an employer and an employee, and I can tell you, from both perspectives, there is nothing I liked more than certainty. Actually, every single piece of legislation mentioned by the previous speaker, Teanau Tuiono, has provided further certainty to a very, very ambiguous piece of legislation, and that is exactly what we have been here to do.
I just want to acknowledge my colleagues in the Education and Workforce Committee, who’ve done great work on this, especially while I was away on leave with my first child. I want to say that I very much commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (15:42): This bill is a commitment through the ACT-National coalition agreement. New Zealand First has always been supportive of flexibility in the labour market. A changing nature of our labour market is undeniable—the gig economy—and we do have to have modern, fit for purpose employment frameworks.
New Zealand First was not on the Education and Workforce Committee, alas, on this bill, but we are a fiercely egalitarian party. We have become more aware of the concerns around this bill, through that process and engagement with unions and worker representatives. We have heard those concerns around, particularly, section 123, amended by clause 5, and new section 123B, inserted by clause 7, around natural justice—whether we have swung that balance too far. There’s no doubt that the Minister could point to areas where the personal grievance provisions had been weaponised and there was a case for tightening those up, but have we swung them too far? New Zealand First will continue to be looking at that.
The second area of contention—for us, anyway—is around the gateway test. At face value, it is a clarification of the status of workers at the point of contract, to enable a modern gig-economy workforce, add to productivity—all those good things that we know we have to do as a country. But we have heard that this could have a significant impact outside of that gig economy, and work its way into the likes of cleaning, the construction industry, beyond where it’s perhaps targeted at being impactful.
New Zealand First will be watching this legislation with an eagle eye. If this does not work as has been sold to us on the tin, we will certainly be watching; we will be continuing to engage with worker representatives and unions. But we are, at the end of the day, faithful to the coalition agreement. It is in our interest to have strong, stable coalition Government, so we will be voting for this bill.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:45): Thank you. First of all, I’d like to mihi to all of the unions and all of the workers that have had to endure the cruelty of this Government and the regime, in the way that it has rained on everything that they stood for: their rights; their ability to be loyal, good, hard-working workers. That’s, effectively, what we’ve got here—the protection of those who don’t respect workers, who don’t respect the relationship that we should have with good workers.
I, too, have been on both sides as an employer and an employee. What stuns me is that as a nation, we’re saying that no matter how hard you work, no matter how loyal you are, no matter how much you commit to your organisation, your rights and your ability—your dignity—to be rewarded and protected have gone out the door. Gone out the door—for those who don’t value what it is to be hard working and don’t value how important it is to have those rights that protect you. That’s what we’re dealing with here. We’re dealing with parties that sit there and protect Atlas and their mates. What we’re not providing isn’t certainty. If you strip this all back, there’s only one reason you don’t want to have a good relationship, and that is because you only hold yourself to a one-night stand.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Speaker does not.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Through the Speaker.
That is what this Government is proposing. You don’t matter to me—to have and endure a good relationship; to grow a relationship with you—you are only expendable and no different to me than a one-night stand. That is what we’re hearing from this Government and the things that it says to provide certainty.
What we’ve got here is a Government that is anti-worker, anti-union, anti-rights. It removes and narrows personal grievance rights. It removes collective protections like the 30-day rule. It signals that union strength is an inconvenience rather than democratic safeguard. It removes every safeguard and respect that has been fought for for years and generations in this nation. And shame that we have a Government that is sitting here and depending on how they can attack collective bargaining, and depending on how they redefine the whole employee’s right of existence, their right to be able to contribute to this nation without fear.
I think that when we have a Government that tells us plainly, “Excuse me, workers, you’re expendable. You are expendable to this nation.”, then we have got, again, a country that says, “But for those that want to be independent contractors—and just because an app says that you’re so, that really matters more than anything else.” No matter, again, how loyal a worker, no matter how good of a worker, no matter how long you show up or how often you show up, you will be treated as replaceable because you are seen as no more, no less, than a one-night stand. And when we have that whole relationship, that whole way that there’s a lack of reciprocity, the whole lack of w’anaungatanga, you don’t extract the value from someone—you don’t extract the value of them, their community, and what they contribute to this nation. That’s such a shameless way to be. Te Pāti Māori absolutely stands with our workers, supports the work of the unions, and believes that dignity at work and the dignity to be a good worker isn’t optional—it’s not something that should be expendable. We shouldn’t modernise our framework just because it makes it easier for those who come in and don’t care, who want to take their boots off, leave their clothes all over the place, and then leave that worker wondering what the heck they are committing to, here in this nation?
We have 75,000 people who have left this nation—a huge amount of rangatahi—because they know how this Government views them. That’s the worst thing about this: it’s not even hidden. If you strip it all back, it’s taking away everyone’s rights. There’s not even an attempt to make it something that doesn’t look as shameless as what they are doing to workers. We can’t support this legislation—it makes it easier to avoid responsibility, it makes it easier to misclassify workers, and it makes it harder, extremely harder, for workers and their families to seek justice. That’s what rights are all about. It’s about having a just nation that respects who it is and what it is that they bring to the table, that they bring to their community, that they contribute. It’s about relationships and those obligations, and this is a Government that has absolutely no care for relationships. It doesn’t care about how it flexes its muscle to make other people’s lives really uncomfortable.
On that note, it is absolutely sad to see a Government that has spent two years, going on three, being anti, anti, anti everything that matters for who we are as a nation. We are absolutely opposed to this bill, and support all of those who are opposed to it as well, and stand with the workers. Kia ora rā.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:50): The people who hold our economy together are not the shareholders, not the CEOs, certainly not the tobacco and fossil fuel CEOs that this Government cosies up to; it is the everyday people, who currently, under this Government, are struggling to make ends meet due to decisions made by the other lot that have resulted in an increased cost of living and diminishing rights for workers. It is the people who live week to week that the Prime Minister would rather label as “bottom feeders”. It is the taxi and Uber migrant workers that many politicians from across the House would rather scapegoat, as part of imported American culture wars. It is everyday union members who are organising in their workplaces to secure better pay and better health and safety conditions and a workplace they can see themselves thriving in.
I’m an eco-socialist because I believe in the dignity of all people, which is clearly something that people on the other side of the House simply do not believe in, by the looks of it. Their words actually do not matter too much; you’ve just got to see their actions. This bill is a great example of how this Government would rather diminish the dignity of working people by creating, effectively, fire-at-will provisions, and by also creating a new class of contractors, basically, which now will more likely become increasingly the norm. The problem with this is that this new class of workers does not have access, effectively, to basic minimum entitlements, such as holiday leave, minimum wage, or sick days.
It is increasingly concerning that members of the other side of the House would rather call the gig economy this amazing thing without recognising that it has led to poor working conditions for many, many people across the country. I recommend that maybe they talk with the Uber drivers who take them to the airport and back, to realise that many of them are struggling to make ends meet, having very few protections—very few protections—from a massive, huge corporation that is raking it in at the time of a cost of living crisis. They should talk to the taxi drivers from the co-op company, who know that they’re having their ability to make ends meet being turfed out, basically, by a massive corporation that does not have the interests of everyday workers at heart.
This is a Government whose actions are now resulting in the fact that workers will not be immediately eligible when they first start a job for a collective agreement that would see them having, effectively, better pay and better conditions—something that many workers have fought long and hard to secure. Effectively, what they’re creating are the conditions for people to experience lower wages, poorer health and safety conditions, and everything that makes a country less prosperous. All for what? To give money in hand-outs to huge companies that are not necessarily the ones who are going to grow our economy. It is everyday people who will do exactly that.
Therefore, what we should have is a Government that puts its energy and time into improving the lives of everyday people across the country. Instead, what do we have this week? We’re debating a bill that makes English the official language of this country. We’ve got a bill that is getting rid of the Ministry for the Environment. I do not see how the legislative agenda of this Government this week does anything to increase the wellbeing of everyday people—
Hon Casey Costello: You don’t understand government.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —and tackle the cost of living crisis. I’ve got a Minister here heckling on the other side who would rather cosy up to tobacco than actually do what is right for the country.
Hon Casey Costello: Point of order.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I said “tobacco”, not “tobacco companies”.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): A point of order is heard in silence.
Hon Casey Costello: Madam Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. There has been no cosying up to the tobacco industry or to tobacco at all, and therefore I ask him to withdraw and apologise.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Well, I have to know, does the member take offence at that comment?
Hon Casey Costello: Yes, I do, Madam Speaker.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I’m happy to withdraw and apologise.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Let the voters know what the actions of this Government have been, and they need to follow the money. They do not need to listen to the interjections of the member opposite, or, in fact, even to my speech. They should just see the Government’s policies to realise that they are indeed cosying up to Uber, for example. They have, in fact, often used the very same lines that the Uber company has put out, to regurgitate in their own speeches their political agenda.
Why is it that the Government is choosing to side with a multinational that takes its profits offshore as opposed to the drivers that support our economy? The Green Party is committed to repealing this piece of legislation should we get back into Government and, instead, focus on a legislative agenda that improves the lives of everyday people, as opposed to what we are seeing, for example, as I mentioned, this week in the House. I cannot see a single piece of legislation that will tangibly do good for the communities that we all serve and supposedly belong to. This is a Government that is for the wealthy few, not for everyday workers, and this bill is proof of that.
Shout-out to all the Uber drivers who fought in the courts to secure a win and who are now having the fruits of their efforts taken away by this Government, who chose to side with a multinational instead of the everyday workers who serve that lot on the other side.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (15:55): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Most fair-minded New Zealanders agree that there should be a personal grievance process for employees of a particular level, in terms of earnings, and the Government has proposed that at $200,000 per annum. Most fair-minded Kiwis also believe that if, as an employee, you contribute in negative ways towards why you have left an organisation, you should be accountable for that. This bill rebalances the requirement to take your contributing employee behaviour into account when you are going through a personal grievance process. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (15:56): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s interesting to listen to those accounts from the other side, because it’s obvious they have no understanding of the impact of their changes on employment law for everyday working people. This is the final act in what can only be described as a shameful chapter in New Zealand’s employment law. This Government has marched into this House over its term, week after week after week, swinging a wrecking ball at workers’ rights—workers’ rights hard won over decades. They have chipped away at fairness for those workers. They have chipped away at the dignity of those workers. This afternoon, with the passing of this Employment Relations Amendment Bill, we see that they’re driving another spike into the heart of the values that those workers hold dear to them every single day.
We heard it called along this journey, and I said this in my second reading speech, “modernisation and efficiency”, but all this bill does is “regression”. It is taking us backwards, pure and simple. It is a step back, not a step forward. It is a deliberate effort to unravel decades of progress, developed by ordinary New Zealanders who work hard and believe that fair work means a fair go. There’s nothing modern about stripping workers of their voice, and there’s nothing efficient about pitting employees against employers in a race to the bottom. We have heard here this afternoon that what this will result in is a drive down of wages. Rest assured, that is what will happen. It will be a drive down of wages. What happens then? We have a workforce that leaves our shores in droves. They can already see it happening, and they are going to Australia in the thousands.
Now, that is the ironic part of this is—that, as we heard from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, Australia has changed their law to modernise, to encompass the gig economy workers, but they’ve done it in a way that ensures there is fairness and dignity for all. They have done it in a way that has protections. When I hear the honourable member from New Zealand First saying, “Oh, well, we do know that there had to be changes in the law”, why didn’t they look at the work that had already happened, that has been done around the world, where they have made these changes? We wouldn’t be in this situation now. If they had done their homework, we could be voting on something that was way more desirable and way more encompassing of the values that we know really promote that fairness and dignity at work.
This bill rips away rights that workers already fought for and already won time and time and time again through the courts—through organising, through generations of advocacy. It doesn’t just strip away those protections, though, it absolutely bulldozes them. It takes the justice that those gig economy workers fought for through the court and proved, case after case, that they were deserving of those rights, and it slams that courtroom door shut in their faces. It’s not just impacting on those gig economy workers, it’s going to be impacting upon a number of contractors in this space. That is what is at real risk here. We have completely upended employment law with the stroke of a pen in this country, and that is what that side of the House do not understand. The so-called gateway test that this Government is so proud of is not a gateway. It’s holding up a sign with a locked gate that says “do not enter”. It’s a deliberate barrier that is being put up for very valuable workers in our country—workers who, as I said, won their rights through the courts and who we should be celebrating and looking at how we can modernise the law to reflect those hard-won victories through the court, not taking it backwards.
Then I hear, “Oh, we should have this personal grievance limit of $200,000. Most people would agree.” No, I’m sorry, most people do not agree; $200,000 is the start of a slippery slope. Everybody deserves employer protections in this country—everybody. This clause is the thin edge of the wedge. If we accept that some people are too senior to deserve rights, how long before that threshold drops? How long before we’re told, “Oh, $150,000.” How long before we’re told $100,000? “Oh, what about $80,000? That makes you fair game for dismissal without justice.” Once fairness becomes conditional, it stops existing altogether. Think about that: once fairness becomes conditional, it stops existing altogether. How can anyone sit there and say, “Well, we’ll have some rights for some workers and no rights for those workers over there”? That is not fairness—no fairness would exist with that.
Carl Bates: That’s just bad logic.
Hon JAN TINETTI: It’s not just workers who should be concerned—and I see the other side laughing over there, and I’ve heard them talking about how they have been employers. Well, guess what! We have been, too, and it’s not just workers who should be worried—it’s employers as well. A country that undermines good, safe employment law doesn’t create confidence; it creates chaos. It breeds mistrust, resentment, and instability in workplaces. Even good employers—the ones who genuinely care about their teams—are let down by this Government’s rewriting of the rules at the whim of ideology. The Government should be ashamed of that, because not only are they letting down employees, they are letting down those good employers who really care about their workplaces. Those people will come back at them. They already are—they’re already upset with the number of workers who are leaving their workplaces in droves.
Let’s remember what’s at stake here. In New Zealand, we’ve always said that if you work hard, you will be treated fairly. That’s one of the cornerstones of who we are in this country, and something that we hold proud. It’s part of our social fabric, our social contract in this country. We’ve always been told our labour has value, our safety has worth, and our dignity is non-negotiable in the workplace. This bill rips the fabric of that social contract—completely rips it—and throws it away.
Labour will vote against this bill because we believe in fairness, in decency, in the fundamental dignity in work. We will always—proudly, unapologetically, and relentlessly—stand with the workers of this country: the drivers, the delivery people, the builders, the carers, the teachers, the cleaners, the people who make this country who we are every single day. They deserve a Government who sees them, and it certainly isn’t this Government. They deserve a Government who values them and protects them, and it certainly isn’t this Government.
This bill is just poor law. It is a betrayal—it is a betrayal of our workers; it is a betrayal of our workplaces. More than that, it is a betrayal of our history and our values, and it is a huge betrayal of our future. I’ve already lost one child to Australia because of what that Government has done; I don’t want to tell future young people in this country that there is no hope for them. This bill tells New Zealanders that their rights are negotiable, their voices are ignorable, and their worth is expendable. Well, Labour rejects that vision of this country; we stand for a future where fairness isn’t a footnote in legislation, it’s the foundation of it. Labour will vote with courage, with conviction, and, yes, with fury against this bill, because this is not the New Zealand we are, and this is not the New Zealand we want to become.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (16:06): I rise to speak in support of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. We have heard a lot of hyperbole from the other side about the attacks on people, and, actually, we’ve heard this all before. We heard this when we ended the war on landlords—and what was the result of that? Rents have gone down, there’s been an increase in rental stock, and we’ve ended up with a better outcome for New Zealanders. Most people realise it is a tight relationship between employer and employee. Our laws have become more complex, making it harder for them to reach a solution that works. We have heard things about these big multinational companies. Well, let’s think about that: 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small to medium enterprises—that is mum and dad employers employing the person down the road who is trying to get ahead, not what the other side is trying to portray. We need labour laws where people can have flexibility and we can get what we need out of both sides. This bill goes some way to addressing that—therefore, I commend it to the House.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:08): Well, a fair go for the Kiwi worker is gone today, with this legislation—out the door. At a time when you would think this Government would have taken a reality check, with unemployment at a 30-year high, with the cost of living going up and Kiwis struggling to be able to afford the basics in their weekly shop, this legislation will make life worse for hard-working Kiwis, not better.
Record numbers—record numbers—of Kiwis have given up hope and gone overseas, and the main reason for that is that they can get more money in Australia, where they have stronger unions, higher wages, and greater worker protections. This Government’s solution to competing with Australia having higher wages and stronger and better working conditions is to undermine those in New Zealand in a race to the bottom. That’s their solution. It’s much like capping rates when there’s sewage in our oceans—it’s very similar to that solution. This bill undermines the very basis of the employment relationship, and what it will do is it will make life harder, it’ll drive down wages, and it’ll mean that even more New Zealanders go overseas. Around about 70,000 Kiwis have already done that over a 12-month period, and that figure will continue to increase with this legislation coming into force.
You would think that National would have learnt its lessons from the past—but, no, history repeats. We can only look back to the 25 years before the Employment Relations Act, which this bill undoes, and look at the Employment Contracts Act 1991. In the Ruth Richardson era, funnily enough, there was record high unemployment at that time.
What did the Government say that that bill would do? They said it would create more jobs. They said it would create more flexibility in the labour market, much similar to the Minister in her first speech today. It said it would help businesses recover from a recession, and it would provide more certainty. Well, as a supermarket worker who was working when that legislation came into force, I can tell you that I got less. I got paid less, week on week, month on month, year on year, with thousands of other New Zealanders who are struggling to get enough money to pay the bills. The same National Party does the same dirty tricks to workers once over again, 25 years later. They’re promising New Zealanders that this will make things better, when they know in their hearts it will make things worse. It makes the personal grievance system an absolute erosion of that fairness, one of the fundamental basics to be able to take that complaint and undermines that right for Kiwi workers, and they need to know that.
It takes a good look at the contractor status after we’ve had the court judgment for Uber and undermines that by providing a gateway test for determining employment status, and basically deprives workers of the rights they would have as an employee by making them a contractor.
The 30-day rule—that really important rule that’s in place that says in the first 30 days you’re covered by the collective agreement, and then the employee gets to choose whether they go in an individual or a collective—is taken away. And you see that the National MPs on the backbench are having a laugh; they think this is a joke. Well, what they don’t understand is that they are so out of touch with what New Zealanders are going through right now. There are so many working families who can’t get enough work each week. They want to work; there’s 165,000 who can’t get work who want to, and there’s even more who would like to work more hours that don’t have it available to them.
The solution that this Government provides is to drive down wages, is to undermine workers’ rights and make Australia look more attractive than ever before. I don’t know what kind of vision the National Party has for New Zealand; it’s a bleak one. I can’t even envisage what is going to happen to our country if the idea of keeping our country—working people with enough money to be able to pay the bills and live a decent life; that is being ripped out of their very hands in some desperate plea that this will provide more certainty and more opportunity in the workplace. All this does is tip the balance in favour of employers and make life harder for those Kiwis that are struggling day to day just to survive under this National Government.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (16:13): It’s great to rise and speak on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This bill is relatively simple in terms of what it’s aiming to achieve. This is to increase labour market flexibility, reduce compliance costs, and rebalance rights and responsibilities between employers and employees. This is part of the Government’s Going for Growth agenda.
What the other side of the House doesn’t understand is that you need good businesses to provide good employment opportunities for Kiwis. This week, it’s 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small and medium sized businesses, and we need a good balance of rights and responsibilities to them and their employees. I visit hundreds—thousands of them, probably over the last few years—and they care deeply about the employees. You need good employees, (a) for your business success, (b) for a good culture in the in the community, and that people deeply care about their community and deeply care about the employees.
The other side of the House talks doom and gloom. They should have been at Waimumu last week, the Southern Field Days. We saw 15 percent of goods exported from New Zealand come out of Southland, alone. The primary sector is going great guns. It is driving incredible employment opportunities for people and a sense of optimism was extraordinary. They need to get out of this place and actually see what Kiwis are doing to get this economy back on track. This Government is here to back them. We’re backing employers, we’re backing employees, going for growth, fixing the basics, and we’re building the future. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:14): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, this is a very sad day in New Zealand’s Parliament, and I take the points from the other side when they say that we should be more positive about this but, unfortunately, we have to actually look at the legislation which is in front of us, and what this does is erode the rights of the very employees that previous speaker was alleging to support.
This will make employment harder if not unattainable for many workers in New Zealand, alongside all the rights that go with it. We’ve heard about what this bill covers. It makes personal grievances (PGs) harder. It introduces a threshold where people earning over $200,000 have no personal grievance rights. That’s right, none. It also brings in a contribution element to PGs, which, in some ways, is unnecessary because the Employment Relations Authority can already take into account contribution.
What it does is it brings in almost a blanket test where, if you’ve done anything to contribute to your personal grievance at all, then you can receive no remedy at all for the personal grievance that you have raised. This includes, importantly—and this was confirmed at committee stage—claims for discrimination, claims for sexual harassment, claims for racial discrimination. If you in any way could be construed to have contributed to that, then you will not receive anything for that personal grievance. I think that is utterly shameful. I agree with the comments that my colleague Jan Tinetti made about the threshold. This does take away rights from New Zealanders, and I predict that those members opposite, at their constituency clinics, will be shocked when people who are earning over the threshold come to them and say, “Why do I have no rights? Why can I do nothing about the injustice I’ve suffered at work?” And they will have to point to this piece of legislation that they purport to say brings back balance. Well, it doesn’t do that.
We’ve heard from the other side of the House, disagreement about the inequity of power in employment relationships. This is not a new concept made up by the Labour Party; this is in the Employment Relations Act, which has been in force for over 20 years. Object of the Act, Part 3A(2): “acknowledging and addressing the inherent inequality of the power in employment relationships”. That has stood this test of time through Governments of all colours, and yet we hear people denying the object of the primary piece of legislation within this debate.
We also heard about the 30-day rule. I really disagree with this change and I think that it will lead to people being sacked more readily under 90-day clauses. But the thing that I really want to focus on, in the short time that I have left, is the absolutely terrible changes that are being brought in by this alleged gateway test. Now, Jan Tinetti said that “this is not really a gateway and employees are told to keep out”. Well, that is exactly right. This is not a gateway. This is more like a screen door on a submarine. This will mean that anyone who wants to call the person that they engage for work “a contractor” will be able to do so by following this handy road map that the Minister has put within this new piece of legislation. I’m going to go through this, because this is a warning. This test can easily be applied to, almost, any current employment situation in New Zealand, and it will result in fewer people being employees, fewer people receiving holiday pay, fewer people being able to take parental leave, fewer people having sick leave, fewer people being entitled to the minimum wage, fewer people having KiwiSavers. It will result in more unemployment—the very thing that we know we have to address in this country.
I will tell members of this House how that will happen, and, let me tell you, this is not going to be news to the organisations throughout New Zealand who are going to use this test to make sure that the people they engage are contractors and not employees. This is how simple it is: you have to have something written down on a piece of paper—that’s test number one—saying you’re not an employee or you are a contractor. That’s pretty easy to do and I can do that right here. That is the first test;
The second thing is you can theoretically work for someone else if there’s enough time. So, say, if you work a full-time job, your employer says, “Well, you know, in theory, you could work for someone else in your evenings or your weekends.” That’s not particularly hard to do either; no set hours. So there needs to be nothing in your employment contract, or nothing that’s enforced, that says you have to be there at a particular time. But, as we know, the practice might be quite different. It might be that in order to open the shop, you need to actually be there. It might be that in order to get paid, you need to hop in your car. It might be that even though nothing’s set down, that, actually, in practice, the real nature is that there are hours, but the employer can point to the employment contract and say, “Nothing’s written down.”
The fourth thing is you can’t dismiss someone if they refuse to do the work. And this is almost a circular argument, isn’t it? If you did dismiss them, there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re not employees and they don’t have rights to personal grievances. So it really is a circular argument, and you can’t say that you won’t make work available. Well, that’s pretty easy to say and a pretty low bar in my opinion as well.
The fifth thing that you have to do is make sure that they have a reasonable opportunity to get legal advice. Now, we didn’t hear a lot from the Minister around that, what a reasonable opportunity would be, but, in practice, I think that’s probably, OK, if you hand over a piece of paper and you say to the person you’re engaging, “Feel free to get some legal advice on that. But if you want to start work, come back with that signed tomorrow morning”. That’s probably reasonable in the circumstances. It doesn’t say that that legal advice has to be from a lawyer. It doesn’t say that that legal advice has to be from anyone qualified. So people could be signing away their rights without even engaging someone who is qualified to give that advice.
That is the reality of this bill. It is a road map, it is a plan that businesses can follow to mean that they save money through not paying all of those things that I mentioned: holiday pay, parental leave, sick leave, minimum wage, KiwiSaver. They can dismiss their employee without having the risk of a personal grievance against them, and it means that they can do that and save money. The people who will pay are everyday New Zealanders. They are the people who are driving our taxis and our Ubers, who are in our supermarkets, who are doing all of the work that we need in New Zealand to keep this economy going. They will be prevented from accessing the rights that they have lived and learnt to expect as New Zealanders.
This is a move towards fire-at-will. This is a move towards taking away employment rights. This does change the fundamental fabric of employment relationships in New Zealand, and it is not something that should be done lightly. I mentioned in a previous reading that the test that would apply if the gateway test was not in place is a very, very well-respected test used in many other jurisdictions—like, for example, the United Kingdom—that looks at the real nature of the employment relationship. Instead of going through that checklist that I just read to you, it actually asks anyone who’s determining whether there’s an employment relationship to actually look at the real nature of it—“What is this? Is this an employment relationship or is this a genuine contracting situation?”
Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t genuine contracting situations in New Zealand; there are, and, under the current law, they can be clearly distinguished from these type of gateway test scenarios by simply looking at the real nature of the test. But what the Minister has done is she has clouded the water around the real nature test in section 6 and she has put in place a gateway test that allows employers to, essentially, change their workforce from employees into contractors and allow unfettered claims of whatever—discrimination, exploitation, no holiday pay, parental leave, sick leave, minimum wage, anything like that. That is what this bill allows.
It is a step backwards for New Zealand. It will result in wages going down, not up. It will result in more New Zealanders leaving for Australia where they have better work rights and conditions. Members opposite will say that they also have other minerals. Well, they have also made a choice to make sure that they have an industrial relations framework that respects workers’ rights. Let me tell you, if anyone has a friend who’s gone to work in Australia, it is one of the first things they notice, how much super they get, what their entitlements are, the fact that they are treated with respect and dignity at work.
This will not help the cost of living because it will make it easier for people to be sacked for no reason. It will mean that they don’t get the payments that they currently get when they do things like have a baby, when they want to do things like retire with a KiwiSaver. This is a terrible bill, and I cannot recommend that the House support this.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:24): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to stand and speak as the final speaker on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. It’s been quite contrasting listening to one side of the debate and then listening to the other side of the contributions. We just need to cheer up a little bit, I think; we just need to have an actual look at some of the great changes we’re making in this space. You just need to have think about some of the good, positive steps we’re taking with this legislation.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Out of touch.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Ginny Andersen—well, she can screech from the top of her lungs, but she’s on the far side over there, and so don’t need to worry about her.
This is making some really positive changes in the employment relations space, and therefore, I’m going to commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 55.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Public Service Amendment Bill.
Public Service Amendment Bill
Committee of the Whole House
Debate resumed from 11 February.
Part 1 Amendments to Public Service Act 2020, and Schedule
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Public Service Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1, which is clauses 3 to 47—“Amendments to Public Service Act 2020”—and the Schedule. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:27): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to be back in the committee stage; unfortunately, not discussing a bill with more merit. Last time we were here—and I welcome the Minister back who was also in the chair, I think last time we were discussing this; I believe we were discussing around clause 11 and he had just given me an answer to a question that I had on clause 11A, which was that 11A had been repurposed from other parts of the bill. So I did have a follow-up question for the Minister on that before I move on to some other parts in amendments to Part 1, which is the first part of Part 1 that we were discussing. So the question is, given his answer on 11A, what are the additional new powers that this is bringing by reorganising this in such a way? Or is it simply a reorganisation? So that’s my first question.
Then I do have an additional question along the same lines to clause 13, which is repealing the spirit of service. Now, we’ve already ascertained that the spirit of service has not been deleted in its entirety because it is included in clause 11(b), but when I looked following the Minister’s answer on this at the primary piece of legislation, the Public Service Act, the spirit of service section, section 13, is considerably longer and more detailed than what’s included in this bill. So I wanted to ask the Minister the reason for if it is going to be included in clause 11, why was it watered down? What was the reasoning behind changing what was, essentially, like, I think, a three-paragraph description of what the spirit of service means into just one phrase? It did appear to me that it had different obligations in relation to the spirit of service, so I’d be keen to know if there were any workable differences in that.
I also had some questions around clause 14. Now, replacement section 17(1), inserted by clause 14, as the Minister will be aware, changes the responsibilities of the commissioner and changes in relation to the Public Service principles and Public Service values from “may” to “must”. Now, I did look to see whether the Public Service Commissioner had actually published a list of values and principles, and I do believe that there are currently values and principles on the Public Service Commission’s website. It appears that this is something that the Public Service Commissioner is already doing, so I’d be really interested to know the impetus behind making that change. It is just one word, but of course it means a totally different thing. It takes it from a voluntary obligation to a mandatory obligation. Given that the Public Service Commissioner has already published those particular values and principles, and I understand—and maybe the Minister could elaborate on this—has done for some time, why was there was a need to change it from “may” to “must”? Because it currently appears that it is still happening. So that’s something that I would like the Minister’s comments on.
Maybe if he’s not ready to respond, I do have another question around Crown Research Institutes. In clause 15, Crown Research Institutes are replaced in section 19(1). I wanted to know if this was an organisational change within the structure of the bill or, in reference to clause 15, if the guidance on integrity and conduct actually changed the expectations in relation to Crown Research Institutes and their subsidiaries. So those are my initial questions for the Minister, covering quite a few of those clauses in amendments to Part 1.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, just around the first question about new section 11A, the member is correct. It doesn’t do much substantially new, apart from—well, in addition to reordering to place the emphasis on day-to-day functions. The main change, really, is providing now an explicit requirement to follow lawful instructions by the Minister. Now that was always implicit, but we’re making it expressly clear in the legislation.
Other significant changes will include promoting financial stewardship and a better expression, this one suggested this one by the chief executives themselves, for working together, which places more emphasis on inter-department operability. So it is a bit of a reordering, but there is some strengthening and some making clearer requirements on the State sector.
Just on the question around spirit of service, I think, to be clear, we see this is not diminishing the spirit of service. We see this as elevating it into the actual core part of the legislation, which is into the purpose section. There’s no dilution of these obligations. This is actually about expecting the high standards of conduct and ethics from the Public Service. I’ll come back to the member on the last questions about the slight tweak from “may” to “must” because I know there were some amendments during the select committee in that clause; I just want to be clear on that.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:33): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that response. I want to start by looking at new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, and just seeking the Minister’s clarification. Minister, you just mentioned before that one of the new things that’s been implemented as part of new section 11A(1)(b), is “implementing Ministers’ lawful instructions”. Now, to be perfectly honest, I don’t think that anyone in this House will be fooling themselves into thinking that, you know, things that have been done don’t have at least a degree of, I guess, politicality to it. So I wondered, from a Minister’s perspective, noting that section 12(1)(a) has not been repealed in clause 12, how does the implementation of Ministers’ lawful instruction coincide with Public Service principles of being politically neutral? Because in one sense, Ministers’ instructions are political, but then they have to be neutral at the same time. I do think that that particular part—even though the Minister says that it is sort of implied as it is, it might be better off to leave it being implied as opposed to being explicitly spelled out, so as to not create inconsistencies with the legislation between the new section 11A and section 12.
So I would ask if the Minister could consider my colleague Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment. This is dated 11 February 2026 at 3.52.03, which is actually to simply delete new section 11A(1))(b) “implementing Ministers’ lawful instructions”. I think if it’s already an existing practice, I don’t see why, then, we are also spending time on ensuring that it gets spelled out.
My other question to the Minister is around one of my colleague’s other tabled amendments, and this is on 12 February at 10.33.09. This is essentially adding a new part to 11A(1)(i), which is to replace it with “their agency’s responsiveness on matters relating to the collective interests of the public”. I do think that the Minister mentioned before that, you know, in terms of the repeal of section 13, “Spirit of service to community”, which is basically the essence of public service, we should also consider what my colleague Francisco Hernandez has suggested in his tabled amendment, in terms of the collective interest of the public as well. I think if the Minister would consider that it would only strengthen what the Minister said previously about elevating the spirit of the community to the principle section. So those two are my first two questions at this stage, and the two tabled amendments that I mentioned as well, for, I guess the Minister’s reference as well, in case he’s interested. That’s the tabled amendment dated 11 February 2026 at 3.52.03 and 12 February at 10.33.09. This is also a good opportunity to say happy New Year and happy Year of the Horse to the House. I don’t think we got the chance to do that today as well.
新年快乐，祝大家马到成功！
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:37): Thank you, Madam Chair. If we’re in the festive spirit, may I also wish a very happy O-Week to the students at the University of Otago, my alma mater, which I join in with a number of colleagues across the House, including Mr Hernandez, who I’m sure is enjoying a lot of good-spirited debate at the moment.
Look, in response to Dr Xu-Nan’s two questions about the tabled amendments in the name of Mr Hernandez, the first one raises the point that if something’s already implicit, do we need to go so far as to clarify? Look, I understand that point. Sometimes it is sufficient to look at the implied meanings of terms in legislation and practice and convention and consider that sufficient. Other times, members and the Government desire to make it expressly clear, and we think this is important enough to make it expressly clear, so we won’t be supporting the amendment to remove that express clearness.
The second tabled amendment of 12 February at 10.33.09—we don’t support this amendment. We essentially view it as unnecessary because section 11A is specifying those responsibilities that chief executives are directly accountable for to Ministers, and, actually, public servants’ wider duty to act in a spirit of service to the community is already provided for in the primary purpose statement, which we’ve covered off before in a number of exchanges with Ms Belich.
I’ll go to Camilla Belich’s two remaining questions. The first was around why make the change from “may” to “must”? This was actually raised at the select committee as being a desirable change. Many submitters supported it, to basically ensure that there would always be minimum standards and it’s not left up to the discretion of the commissioner of the day. So that’s the reason for that one.
Then, secondly, there was a question around clause 15, amending section 19, which changes the guidance mandate particularly around Crown Research Institutes. Now, what this clause does is it extends the commission’s ability to provide non-binding guidance about integrity and conduct to the State services. But, of course, those Crown Research Institutes, along with tertiary institutes, all have academic freedom and it would be appropriate to exempt them from those requirements in the pursuit of that academic freedom.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (16:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a series of new questions for the Minister in the chair around a few different provisions or amendments in this bill. The first one that I want to sort of go into is the fact that this bill does remove the requirement that the Public Service should reflect the communities that it serves. I do take the point that this area has been traversed before, but I do have some new questions in this space.
I want to draw the committee’s attention to the statements made by Minister Collins previously. Basically, the point that she was making was that we can’t have a high-performing Public Service—is what she said—without the right people in those roles, and the amendments made by this bill are an attempt to put the right people in specific roles within the Public Service. She then went on to say that the bill reaffirmed the principle of merit-based appointments, and so on. The Minister in the chair also just earlier during the committee stage made the point quite assertively that the National Party is committed to merit-based appointments, particularly if you look across the caucus, and so on and so forth.
I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions based on this. Firstly, this is a very tired narrative that merit and diversity are mutually exclusive. I would like to know what evidence and what advice the Minister has received on this point and whether, in fact, that is what he and his colleagues are saying. Are we back to the point in time where we no longer can have people of colour who are based on merit, and I’d like his answer to that particularly enlightened statement made by Melissa Lee, the former Minister for Ethnic Communities, who said that diversity and inclusion are just tick-box exercises that have not led to a more diverse Public Service.
Secondly, I’d like the Minister to give me any evidence of any appointment in the Public Service that was, basically, made previously because of diversity requirements and was not based on merit. I understand that during the select committee stage of this bill, that was a question that was asked and the officials couldn’t provide one single piece of evidence to that effect, and so I’d really like to know whether the Minister can provide the committee with that, by any chance.
The third point that I’d like to make to the Minister, and to ask a question of the Minister with regard to this particular point, is his response to the fact that the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks made very clearly the point that the Public Service must reflect the communities that it serves. That was expressly—there were specific recommendations. From memory, it was Nos 33 and 35 that said that chief executives of Government agencies must significantly increase workforce diversity, particularly in leadership roles, as well, and I would like to ask the Minister what advice he has received on the changes that might have taken place across the Public Service in the last couple of years in that regard. What evidence has he received that the changes made in this amendment bill will not take us back to the point where we have a Public Service that doesn’t reflect the communities it serves?
It’s still not, in my opinion, there yet. We were moving towards that, but that is, in part, what the royal commission pointed to when looking at the events that led to March 15. So are moving backwards in that regard?
I will leave it there for now. I do have a few more questions on the points around political neutrality, but we have traversed that point that is based specifically on the amendment around the long-term insights briefing.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:44): Well, I reject the member’s assertion that merit and diversity aren’t mutually exclusive—I reject that wholeheartedly. I think it’s terrible—terrible—to assume that the only way that people of different ethnicities or genders or sexuality gain their place or can gain their place in the system is by being put there by virtue of a list or a tick-box. I think that that undermines the efforts of many, many tens of thousands of individuals who have worked so very hard from the beginning of their lives to work their way up through a system and achieve their role based on their talent and their merits, and not based on the colour of their skin. I reject that assertion, and I think that everyone else should reject it, too.
Now, I’m not going to get into a back and forth exercise of interfering in the private lives of individuals and whether or not certain appointment are merit-based or not, because I think that that could get us down a very dangerous path of politicisation of what is a very important bill, which is to ensure that the Public Service reflects the make-up of our society, which is a society full of competent, capable, intelligent people. That’s what we expect of our Public Service—competent, capable, intelligent people—and I’m sure that the member would agree that if we appoint competent, capable, and intelligent people, we will get people from across the spectrum. Whether they be old or young, town or country, tertiary-educated, or from the school of hard knocks, I think that everyone, no matter their background, can be appointed to positions of very, very high esteem in our Public Service.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (16:46): Thank you. That was very sad, because, clearly, the Minister didn’t realise that there are competent people who are experienced who are not being appointed to the positions they should be appointed to because of those other reasons, and that was the whole point of this exercise that this Minister has clearly missed.
But anyway, I want to point to a couple of changes that have led to the conversation or the exchange back and forth that we’ve had prior, in the previous part of this committee stage, and that’s around the point of political neutrality. One of the questions I’d like to put to the Minister is this. He said just before that he’s already talked about the change in the purpose statement, but this is a new point towards that. The old purpose statement in the Public Service Act included this point. Basically, it said that “The public service supports constitutional and democratic government, enables both the current Government and successive governments to develop and implement their policies,” and then it goes on to the rest of that purpose statement.
Now, that bit around “both the current Government and successive governments” has been removed through the amendments proposed in this bill, and I would like to ask—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt the member, but can I just get you to reference the clause you’re speaking to.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yeah, sure. It would be in section—
Tim Costley: She doesn’t know—she’s looking it up.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Oh, this little rabbiting from across the Chamber. I’m just trying to read the bill—do you mind? It was the replacement of section 11 in clause 10, basically, that I’m speaking to, and I’m speaking to the changes that are proposed in this amendment bill to that, which remove the “current Government and successive governments” part—so it’s clause 10, “Section 11 replaced (Purpose)”—and I would like to know why.
The second point that I’d like to make and the question I’d like to ask is related to the removal or the reduction in the number of long-term insights briefings (LTIBs), which is a specific change that this amendment bill is proposing to make. That is literally one of the very few tools that step outside of the election cycle to look at what are the big things that are facing New Zealand: what’s coming our way, what should we be mindful of in that regard, and then what are the choices that we have to fix them? That is a tool that allows this Parliament to be future-focused. It provides politically neutral analysis that we can then act on and that Ministers can choose to act on, or not, in order to think ahead, and it really shifts the focus from being just reactive to being a Parliament that is able to plan ahead. That is being removed in a significant way, because it’s being reduced to just one, single long-term insights briefing that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will hold the pen on.
If we were to look at some examples, Treasury did a whole piece of work—a whole briefing—around the future of work, looking at how we plan for workforce transition. The Ministry for the Environment did something similar around climate change, as well.
The Minister made a point in the committee stage previously that this bill does not attempt to change the point that the Public Service should be politically neutral. I would propose to the Minister that the accumulation of these different changes in different parts of the amendment does exactly that because it removes the tools that allow for politically neutral planning and analysis through the changes to the LTIBs. The fact that the purpose statement no longer contains mention of “current Government and successive governments” also points to the fact that political neutrality is being tampered with through this amendment bill, and I would like the Minister to share any evidence that he might have considered along this point when you look at the cumulative changes that are bared or proposed by this amendment bill.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. I again reject the assertion that political neutrality is being tampered with in this bill. If you look at a range of strengthening aspects in this bill, including the stewardship requirements, the requirement in section 12 for the Public Service to maintain their ability to serve successive Government’s by being politically neutral—the expectation that agencies build long-term thinking into their advice. There are a number of ways where political neutrality is strengthened throughout this bill.
In terms of the exact drafting of clause 10, which replaces section 11, implicit in the drafting of clause 11A, is in the present tense, in the active: “The public service supports the Government to develop and implement its policies, deliver high quality and efficient public services, and meet the needs of New Zealanders”. And then you’ve got the spirit of service, supporting constitutional and democratic government. Now, inherent in that, is the requirement to support both the Government of the day and successive Governments, because, of course, a successive Government only comes into existence once it becomes Government and, at that point, it becomes the Government of the day. So having “current and successive Governments” is, essentially—what’s the very fancy phrase you use when something’s redundant? Oh, it’s redundant. I’ll just put it that way. I’ll say it’s redundant—It’s not necessary because the clause itself explains that the requirement is for the Public Service to support the Government of the day, regardless, of course, of whether that Government is a National - New Zealand First - ACT coalition Government, or whether the Government is some sort of unknown and unwanted composition.
Just in terms of the member’s second point around long-term insights briefings, the essential point to this is that there is the stewardship component required in the bill. There is now the requirement for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to produce one single long-term insights briefing which covers a range of areas. Beforehand, we were requiring every agency to provide one of these every three years. There was a lot of crossover, there was a lot of acting independently, there was a lot of acting in silos, and, I think, a lot of, probably, good effort went into a significant amount of work, which wasn’t being utilised in any sort of effective way. So providing this function through DPMC will mean that the DPMC will engage with key agencies on topics and areas and themes that are of interest to the State sector and the Government of the day. And, of course, should that composition change, then those themes and areas could be adapted and modified to suit the Government of the day.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:53): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I don’t think so.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:53): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I agree with you. I always agree with the Chair, but especially in that instance. I just note for colleagues that we are currently looking at Part 1 that has, I think, five amendments to five different parts and also schedules. And none of the schedules have really—apart from the long-term insights briefing approaches, briefly touched on—been covered. The questions I have now relate to amendments to Part 2. There’s a considerable amount of information to go through before we would get to a closure motion, in my view, anyway.
I do have some questions. I have a quick follow-up question in relation to the answer that the Minister gave in relation to my question on clause 11A—that was the new roles for the Minister—I just wanted him to expand on that a wee bit more because that is actually quite a substantial change in this bill, which is that there is clearly a pathway of responsibility more clearly outlined in this bill around Public Service accountability to Ministers, and I wanted for that rationale to be outlined. I don’t think that was something which was explored in depth at select committee. I would appreciate if the Minister could just follow that up, just because that is quite a significant section in that Part, and that’s probably my last question on 11A.
The next questions that I wanted to ask around amendments to Part 2; Part 2 is not a particularly long part, but it has clauses 17 to 19 and, essentially, these are looking at departmental agencies and reorganisations. This is particularly relevant, at this point in time, because, as the Minister will be aware and the House will be aware, there’s a currently a bill on the Order Paper disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment. I have a question around how that type of reorganisation is affected by these changes or, in fact, if it would be affected by these changes. I understand, because it has a separate Act, that is the reason that there is a bill there, and, obviously, the Government wants to disestablish it, so that is the purpose of that. But would these changes assist in that reorganisation because, as I understand it, and the Minister may like to elaborate on it, the reason that that is being disestablished is because there is a reorganisation within departmental agencies, which is exactly what is considered in the amendments to Part 2, clauses 16, 17, 18, and 19. Well, in fact, it may be, that the proposed reorganisation comes about after the passage of these changes to the Public Service Amendment Act. So I’d like to know, because that is a current proposal, the impact on that potential restructure.
And, of course, we’ve heard from the Minister’s coalition partners that they consider that there should be a single Minister responsible for a single department. I wanted to see how that proposal, related to these types of reorganisations, because it appears that those statements might be in contrast to what is being proposed here in relation to reorganisation of governmental departments. That is quite a big role that is being clarified within this bill because we know that that is something that can, in many times, happen without specific pieces of legislation. And so, obviously, we have the Ministry for the Environment, which is an exception to that. But as I understand it, that is not the case for all departments if there was to be a reorganisation, and it might be that these are just powers vested within the Minister, vested within the Cabinet, that can lead to a situation where we might have, it may be envisaged, or the Minister might like to clarify, that there is a proliferation of mega-ministries with one Minister. That could be something that was in the Minister’s mind when the Minister was drafting this.
Anyway, I think that these provisions are significant. Like I say, I think that they are usually ones that can be undertaken without specific pieces of legislation. I think given current events, it would be good to have the Minister comment on that and also on the likely time frame of whether these particular changes will impact those reorganisations or, in fact, if that reorganisation is likely to be completed before these come into effect. And if so, what would the changes that these clauses, had they been in the law, have made to that reorganisation?
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:58): It’s very difficult to even debate a clause in a bill, which is in a separate part, let alone debate a clause in a separate bill which hasn’t quite received its first reading. So it’s not really clear for me to be able to add any more to what may or may not happen with the bill the member referred to, in so far as to say that there’s nothing in this bill, in these sections or these clauses, at least, which makes it easier or harder to go through that process. These are technical updates that are around—well, particularly this one in clause 17—the setting of a disestablishment date when you’re setting up these boards. It doesn’t affect the creation or disestablishment of Public Service departments.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:59): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I mean, I appreciate the Minister’s saying that that is obviously a different bill before the House, but I’m taking from his answer that, and it’ll be good if he can confirm, that these changes will not impact, from his view or information that he’s received, the reorganisation, at all, of the Ministry for the Environment, and I think—what is it?—Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and transport as well. So if he could just confirm that, maybe in his next contribution, that would be really good.
I did want to just go back, briefly, if I may, just to the comments that were made around diversity and inclusion. Now, this is something which the Minister appeared to brush off and make some relatively egregious allegations about what this side of the House was saying in relation to that.
But this is a clear objective in this bill, to remove the requirement for diversity and inclusion. I think it’s important to clarify for the Hansard that it is not our position on this side of the committee that merit-based appointments exclude diverse applicants or appointments. It is our position that merit-based appointments are completely aligned with a requirement or a desire to see the Public Service represent the community it serves. So we are saying “and” rather than “or”, and we are saying, from the information that we received at select committee and from our own experiences in acknowledging, that it is possible to have diversity and inclusion requirements and to have a Public Service completely appointed on the basis of merit. So that is, fundamentally, the challenge of this bill. It seeks to take away diversity and inclusion, and we see no reason to do that when we only see, in the evidence in select committee, was there were only meritorious appointments on that. So I think it’s important to clarify that at that stage, but I appreciate if the Minister can elucidate that if he wishes.
We also have some questions in relation to “Amendments to Part 3”. Now, earlier in this committee stage, we did talk a wee bit about the role of the Deputy Public Service Commissioner, and the Minister’s response to that was that that was for a delegation. So I think that that is really important to make sure that that is in fact correct and, in fact, it wouldn’t be a form of restructuring to, say, remove costs from the Public Service Commissioner—the fact that we are moving down from commissioners to commissioner. I wanted to ask if there would be, as a result of that, any additional responsibilities or rights or any difference in the appointment process for the Deputy Public Service Commissioner, given that the Minister’s evidence is that that Deputy Public Service Commissioner will be in fact deputising and filling in for the Public Service Commissioner, and the Public Service Commissioner does have additional rights under this particular bill.
So, of course, we have the commissioner’s functions—and I’m looking at clause 21 here, where the section 44(c) replacement is on that point that I was referring to before, and a specific removal in this legislation on the requirement for the Public Service Commissioner to reflect the diversity of the society it serves, and this is important to ensure fair and equitable employment. So I don’t think that particular point has been explored at all. What is the purpose of and why would any Government want to repeal a requirement to ensure that its Public Service has fairer equitable employment? That is, I think, separate from what I would normally consider to be part of a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) clause. So it would be quite helpful if the Minister could clarify—you know, I understand if his points are to remove what is usually seen as a DEI clause, but why? And why also remove fair and equitable employment?
So that is, I think, a really significant question. I have some questions on the table in relation to that and that clarification, so I’d be interested to hear if the Minister wants to comment on that. I won’t take my full call. I’ll see if the Minister wants to respond to that. Of course, I do have some further questions on other clauses that have yet to be covered if the Minister is not yet ready to respond.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m advised, essentially, that the language that the member refers to is essentially already duplicated in section 44 of the Act. That section will continue to reference the good employer requirements in section 73, as something the commissioner will work with public sector leaders on. Those requirements include fair and proper treatment to the impartial selection of people for appointment, an equal opportunities programme, and recognition of the employment requirements of different groups of people. I’m sure we can all agree those are good things to consider.
Just in terms of the member’s question around going from two deputy commissioners to one, I think we laid that out in the last committee of the whole House session. The role of the deputy commissioner is, in essence, to step in for the commissioner when they are unavailable, and we think we can do that sufficiently with one person rather than two, and the deputy commissioner will continue to exercise their functions subject to the commissioner’s control.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:05): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for his answer in relation to that. I just note I have a couple of other questions hopefully he’ll be able to respond to as well. I wanted to move on, if I may. We’ve talked a wee bit about the role of the deputy commissioners, but I wanted to move on to the key positions within the Public Service.
Now, this is new section 55A, inserted by clause 30 of the bill. This is a new clause, and I just wanted to clarify with the Minister. With this particular amendment bill, there are some key parts of the Public Service Amendment Act which have been removed and there are also some parts which have been reorganised. So new section 55A is a really significant—well, it appears to be a new section, but I wanted to ask him, in terms of the purpose of that, whether that was to provide new duties or rights within the Public Service or if this was like some of the other provisions, a reorganisation of the information. It might be that it is both of those, but it also talks about the performance of public servants and the potential of senior leaders.
So I think it’s important to understand the policy rationale for including things like the potential to develop senior leaders in a piece of legislation. Obviously, that’s something that we would like to see within the Public Service. We would like to see our senior leaders develop and thrive, but it is, you know, kind of unusual to have, I suppose, more of those performance metrics listed in a piece of legislation. So I wondered if he would want to comment on that. That’s new section 55A(2).
We also have some other aspects of that section which I would like to ask some questions on, but I might just see if the Minister is ready to answer that.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:07): In terms of what’s the policy rationale for adding in new section 55A, particularly, I guess the member termed it rather unique description of having—you know, you might see them as key performance indicators in there. The rationale behind that is to allow the commissioner to designate those positions and play a role in appointments to those positions where they are critical to the performance of the Public Service or the development of senior leaders.
I think it is a unique legislation, but we’re talking about a unique position. This is a position—the commissioner—which has a lot of influence over the appointment and the employment of our public sector leaders. It’s the Government’s view that it’s important to have that expressly listed in the legislation in terms of assisting the commissioner in that role.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (17:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just still on this clause 30, in relation to new section 55A and key positions in the Public Service, I’m interested if the Minister could explain the decision for using this term “Key positions”. If you just look at a key position, you might think that that would be senior chief executives throughout the Public Service, but in fact it is a level below that, and why that is. If he could give some examples of the types of positions that might meet the criteria that my colleague Camilla Belich was just asking about in subclause (2). That would be useful for us to know—on the Hansard—to have some degree, of how senior we expect these positions to be, noting that they’re not the chief executive, and yet they have to be critical to the performance of the Public Service or of the potential to develop senior leaders. So could it be because of the “or” there that some key positions could be, you know, quite a number of levels down from a chief executive, or is it expected that they’ll always be sort of a level 2 within an organisation, and the type of senior leadership that you’re looking for there is to make them into a chief executive?
But if he could give some examples of roles, I think that would be helpful. Also, my first question was about this term “key positions” and if it might create some confusion, because most observers, I think, reading legislation like this, would suspect that key positions were chief executives of some particularly prominent organisations.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:10): Well, I think one of the important parts to refer to is new section 55A(2)(b) inserted by clause 30 and “potential to develop senior leaders”. Now, it’s very difficult to expose potential senior leaders to those positions if the only key positions are chief executive positions. It’s hard to develop senior leaders without giving them some exposure to roles that are lower or less than or—no, those are terrible words to use—other than chief executives. So the purpose of having the wording in there is that that restates terminology that already exists in the State Sector Act 1988, which is an Act that Tom Rutherford is very familiar with!
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (17:11): Thanks, Madam Chair. I’m really interested in raising a question with the Minister with new section 66A inserted by clause 32, “Public service employees: policy advisory group”. The question I have is it stipulates here that the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) may appoint employees of the policy advisory group on a fixed term. I’m interested, because it’s not clear, how that process will be followed. If they are appointees, what skills do they have to have? Is there any indication of a fixed-term employment and specifically what would be their objectives or outcomes?
Because there was a question raised earlier around diversity, not just in skill set but also members across the community. So if they are employees within the DPMC, I’m quite interested that the Minister could outline that a process is going to be undertaken to get to the objectives, particularly of the policy advice, and specifically it’s not clear as to term but it’s also not clear as to how that could be made up. In terms of those appointments, would they specifically relate to a project that is going to be carried out?
Given it was mentioned earlier around long-term insights briefings, as a member of the committee, we found long-term insights briefings very useful; however, it’s going to be narrowed down to one report, so it’d be helpful to get an indication, in using this provision, what would the process be? How will the appointment process be carried out? And if they are employees, will that have the political neutrality and what are you trying to achieve with the policy advisory groups? That would be really helpful to get an indication and some understanding from the Minister. Thank you.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:13): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, the purpose of clause 32, inserting new section 66A, is it, essentially—the member, basically, outlined all the things it could do. So you’re, essentially, allowing the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to make appointments to policy advisory groups on fixed-term employment agreements, and that does things like enable regular change in those groups to reflect the skills or qualities or expertise needed, depending on what the policy priority of the day might be. It enables changes, in the same way that you might change a board, you might need to reflect different leadership qualities or skills in the make-up of those policy advisory groups. You may want to ensure that the group has a complementary mix of skills in those policy advisory groups. So what the clause does is do this in a targeted approach, which deems appointments to be a valid reasoning for making a fixed-term appointment for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act, which I think is the genesis of where those questions, essentially, come from.
Now, I just wanted to quickly cover off one that I might have skimmed over earlier on, and it was just wrapping up clauses 17 to 19. Just to clarify that all of those clauses are generally administrative in nature and they don’t do anything to, essentially, substantially change the operation of establishing or disestablishing interdepartmental executive boards. All they do is clarify some administrative requirements around date setting and a couple of other things.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister engaging on this. This is new section 66A, inserted by clause 32—one of the key parts of the bill that we have real concerns about. The reason for that is, as I understand it currently, the members of the policy advisory group (PAG), which, for those who are not aware—and I’m certainly no expert in this, but what I know of their work is that they perform a really essential, independent advice role to the Prime Minister. They are public servants and they provide advice which is ongoing and independent to the Prime Minister so the Prime Minister can do their job effectively. So that is my understanding of what the policy advisory group does.
We did look at this a little bit at select committee. To be honest, there wasn’t really a good, justified reason for this. The reason I say that is because, essentially, under the Employment Relations Act, you can only have a fixed-term contract if there is a genuine reason for it to be fixed term. In a somewhat circular manner, in this new section 66A, it provides that it is considered to be a genuine reason simply that you are part of the PAG, and that’s to allow for periodic change of composition of the policy advisory group. So, I suppose, in layman’s terms, it allows for those people who are in the PAG—and this is some repetition here. Some people watching at home might see some similarities between this and the previous Act that we were just discussing. The people who are working for PAG now have fewer employment rights because of this particular change. It, essentially, means they’re all considered to be fixed-term appointments. It could be—as I understand it, and I would ask the Minister to clarify—that the members of the PAG could then be employed on a series of fixed-term agreements.
The worry that we have—and it would be good if the Minister could allay some concern with this, because it is a serious concern—is that instead of providing politically neutral advice that carries on from administration to administration, from Prime Minister to Prime Minister, with expertise and people who have been within the policy advisory group for a period of time, that this will simply allow the Prime Minister to put a new group of people in that might be yes-men. They might just provide the Prime Minister with the type of advice that he wants to receive.
Now, of course, that may be the prerogative of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister may only want to have somewhat more politically appointed people in this role, but we do have, in New Zealand Parliament, relatively clear roles that are political appointees, and they’re usually the ministerial advisers, there are clear boundaries around their type of employment that mean that they are usually the people who provide the political advice. So there is a concern, and it would be really good just to have an explanation for this from the Minister that this may lead to politicisation of PAG and that it may lead to the fact that they have less employment rights. Certainly, anyone getting a mortgage, if you have a fixed-term appointment, you are unlikely to receive the same amount of money to borrow if you’re on a fixed-term contract. So I think these are important issues that I’d like a response from the Minister on.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:18): I think it’s important to clarify from the top that these positions are some of the most sought after positions in the Public Service. They are generally given to very experienced people. Because they are appointments made by the chief executive, they must still be consistent with the principle of merit-based appointments and also being bound by principles of political neutrality and requirements around providing the free and frank advice the same as other public servants. So I think any suggestions around minimisation of political neutrality should be taken in light of the ongoing requirements of the general public sector principles of political neutrality and providing free and frank advice.
Now, the bill doesn’t compel the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to put everyone on fixed-term contracts. What it’s doing is it is clarifying some uncertainty as to whether or not the rotation of members of the policy advisory group in or out based on their experience is a genuine reason to place them on a fixed-term contract. So to avoid any doubt or any uncertainty, this just clarifies that it will be deemed a genuine reason. Those fixed-term roles are now actually quite a common part of the Public Service, so I think there’s nothing particularly unusual about its application, particularly at levels such as this.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:20): Thank you, Mr Chair. Staying on this topic of section 66A, given the Minister’s helpful clarifications there, I think it would be useful for the House if he could describe the difference in his intention between “fixed-term employment agreement” and an “events-based employment agreement”. The justification that he’s given for using these fixed-term employment agreements might be better suited to an events-based agreement, whereby, in the event of a policy direction changing or an event such as an election occurring—that might be what the Minister is alluding to when he’s saying that, you know, by convention, these public servants rotate. There is a need for them to be able to do so; that’s widely acknowledged.
If fixed-term agreements are used here—and the genuine reason that he’s given us is that in this circular arrangement, which Camilla Belich has outlined for the House, it’s just because, by virtue of being a member of the policy advisory group (PAG), there is a genuine reason to rotate them—then that gives, effectively, very, very few employment rights when the end of that fixed term comes up. Wouldn’t it be better if this were tied to the reason that the public servants were engaged in the situation in the first place, rather than allowing for a situation where you would have a wider remit for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to replace a large number of people at the same time, in the event that a policy direction has changed? That’s what we’re asking the Minister to clarify—not, you know, a broad-brush politicisation of the PAG, but the effect of this being that, at any given time, you might have a policy direction that the Prime Minister prefers that would weigh into the decision of the chief executive to keep people on or not. So it would be helpful for him to clarify that.
My second question is: why is this better than governing this institution by convention, which is the alternative? The alternative is longstanding institutional ways of managing the PAG that are managed between departments. He’s still maintaining those functions. The sorts of conventions that I’m talking about here, members, are the sort of convention that, if you are well-established public servant in the Ministry of Social Development space, then you will probably not be advising on the PAG on your department that you’ve just come from; you’ll be advising on something else. The expertise there that you’ve been appointed for is that you are an experienced public servant, not a subject matter expert. The sort of conventions that govern this sort of institution within our democracy in New Zealand are something that we should preserve and protect.
Why is it that this arrangement—where there would be these sort of ongoing fixed-term arrangements, with none of the usual employment protections—would be better than the conventions which exist now, which are essentially agreements between the departments to fund these people to be able to do this important work? Why is it that that convention needs to be overridden with this sort of agreement, which lets the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet appoint who it likes, and then have specific sorts of fixed-term arrangements which allow it to have the maximum amount of flexibility and not have to negotiate with those departments that are letting their people go for this sort of Public Service, which is institutional in its nature? Why wouldn’t it be the case that more negotiation amongst the public sector to make something special like this work, would be better?
Why is it useful for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to have what is—I think—poorly described as a fixed-term employment agreement in the legislation when it’s not actually a fixed-term employment agreement if, by its very nature, it is deemed to be so because of this legislation? It’s a really unusual way to describe it here. It would be better, at least, if we were describing it as “events-based”, and then it would be clear what kind of reasons you would use to override the convention—if you were the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—between having to negotiate with departments, and instead use this mechanism, whereby fixed-term agreements were expiring so you could see people—wouldn’t it be better to maintain the sorts of arrangements that we have, for instance, in other sorts of advice that is meant to span beyond Governments and beyond the politics of the day, to ensure that the kind of public-service advice that the Prime Minister is privy to is long term and is enduring, and exists outside of the ordinary political cycle?
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:25): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to the first part of the member’s contribution: just to be clear to everyone, we’re not talking about events-based contracts where, you know, we are on an events-based contract in a sense of the word, but all of our—I guess, for a Minister’s office, political appointments, but also for MPs—our electoral office staff and our parliamentary staff are all on events-based contracts, whereby a change in event will determine whether or not their employment continues or not. We’re talking about fixed-term appointments.
It’s also, I think, helpful to clarify that the bill doesn’t deem every member or every employee of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), or every member of PAG, to be on a fixed-term agreement. It allows the chief executive the ability to place an employee who is a member of a PAG on a fixed-term agreement by virtue of the—I’m trying to think of the right way to describe this. It is deemed to be a genuine reason to do so. So it’s not the fact that you are on a PAG that means you are automatically on a fixed-term agreement; it provides the ability for the chief executive of the DPMC to do so, and it provides that clarity in the law. Now, why do you want to provide clarity in the law sometimes rather than governing by convention? Well, because sometimes, for the rights and interests of both employer and employee, it is better to have some certainty over the status of an individual under a statute or under the law than to have to try and figure that out through employment relations processes or through the Employment Court. So this is one way of providing some of that certainty.
And just in terms of some of the examples of why you may want to—the member raises the example of people who are appointed to these policy advisory groups because they are experts in and of themselves, rather than being subject matter experts. Now, that is part of the case. People are appointed to ensure a complementary mix of skills. But, also, if you think of the shifting priorities of subsequent Governments. If you think of, say, the environment portfolio six or seven years ago, that was very much focused around the zero carbon bill and the expertise needed in that area, which may not be subject matter expertise, but may be expertise in dealing with international relations and having to interact with a different group of people—as opposed to, perhaps, the current focus, which is resource management reform and a different set of skills that might be required by those members of policy advisory groups. Now, we’re not talking, you know, you have to have them full of Resource Management Act (RMA) lawyers, but the skills you need to have—
Hon Rachel Brooking: What? Why not?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: Because we’ve got plenty of RMA lawyers in the Parliament who are more than capable of providing solicited or unsolicited advice to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on various bits of legislation.
But the point, I think, is that it’s not that you need to be an expert in the RMA to have the relevant skill set, as the member points out, but there may be some things about a group of priorities, which, as they shift over time, mean you need to change the makeup of the policy advisory groups to better suit or better reflect that reality. I gave a couple of examples of where a priority might shift over time, and you might have to shift the composition of the group. But underlining all this, of course, are those longstanding requirements of the public sector, including the chief executive of the DPMC, to abide by all of the rules around appointments under the Public Service Act.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just do note that we have got, sort of, fairly intensified in the first part of Part 1, and we’ll be looking for some progress, particularly if we’re going to be doing five-minute speeches on each part. I’ll just give that indication. Celia Wade-Brown.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (17:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wasn’t at the select committee, so I wasn’t enlightened by all the submissions that my colleagues may have been, but I still have a few questions. It’s really about what “periodic change” might be—how frequent is being thought of? I mean, you say it’s not—the Minister says it’s not an event-based change, but what period are we talking about? Because, presumably, there’s some time for the group to gel, there’s some time for the Prime Minister and the members of this group to see where the expertise lies. So I would like to know about what you mean by “periodic”. Are we talking about as soon as they offer unwelcome policy advice—is that the sort of periodic change that we want?
I would like the Minister to enlarge on his comments that once upon a time we had a lot of climate change expertise and perhaps that’s not needed anymore. Maybe I misheard what he said, but it would be useful to hear that clarified. In clause 66A(b) the legislation talks about a complementary mix of advisory skills. So that might be presumably academic background in anything from land use through to employment or whatever it is, but what about the original purpose that talked about some representativeness from the community in these public advisory groups? What about different backgrounds, different lived experience? Is that relevant or not relevant? Or are you going to have a whole room full of—no, I won’t say—I got into trouble last time I said what I was thinking about saying, so I won’t, but a very similar background, gender, etc.
I mean, for example, we don’t really want a complementary mix where oil expertise is included with coal expertise and gas expertise; that wouldn’t be a very complementary mix in either.
Carl Bates: Why not? It’d be very complementary to the Taranaki region.
CELIA WADE-BROWN: I do hope the members opposite can distinguish between complimentary with an “i” and complementary with an “e”.
So there we go. So those are a few questions that I would like to ask from the perspective of somebody who has not been so closely involved with this bill.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I also didn’t have the pleasure of being intimately involved in this, the committee process, but I’m sure we’ve all been touched by the submissions made on the Public Services Amendment Bill.
Just to the point around what does periodic change mean? How frequent do we mean? What do we anticipate? It’s really one of those things where you can’t predict it. It is difficult to tell. Priorities can change slowly over time, or they can change quickly overnight caused by significant disruptions or significant events. And I think we’ve all seen that over the past, you know, days and weeks about how a country or a Government’s priority might strengthen in its response to circumstances, rather than what might be long lasting lingering policy priorities of one Government or the other.
I think the key thing is the reason behind this clause is to provide that flexibility and capability of the Government of the day to respond to the priorities of the day. And we don’t mean that those priorities will change day by day, but should they change slowly over time and there needs to be a refresh, or should they change immediately and there needs to be some other skills brought in, I think that’s a pretty reasonable thing to do. At a level we were talking about those individuals that are tasked with providing the Prime Minister, the chief decision maker of the country, free and frank, politically neutral, quality, available advice.
I think the member might have made a comment around, you know, getting rid of advisers who provide advice that you don’t particularly like. I think if that was the case, there wouldn’t be a Government filled with any advisers in the history of the country. Because the whole point of the public sector is to provide advice, often advice which Ministers don’t like, but which they have the democratic responsibility to make their judgment call and their decisions based on not only that advice, but a number of other factors that come into it as well.
Just finally, in and around the questions of diversity, I just want to reiterate that diversity is still covered in the section 3 requirements. Those are the requirements of the Public Service Commissioner, but also the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to be a good employer and to follow all those normal principles of natural justice. So I guess whether you’re someone with expertise in the resources and mineral sector and you’re being asked to join a group to provide some insight as to how that might work on an international stage, or whether you are a climate expert providing some sort of insight as to how other countries are responding, I think the fact is that the Government of the day needs the ability to respond with the appropriate amount of flexibility so that the people at the highest level are serving the priorities of the Government of the day.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:35): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I want to acknowledge the engagement of the Minister and also your comments around making progress. I do note that we have made quite a bit of progress in the hour or so that we’ve been in this committee stage moving from “Amendments to Part 2” and now we’re on “Amendments to Part 3”. So we are moving through those sections. And because the Minister’s made some comments on the policy advisory group (PAG) fixed-term contract issue, which, as I said, is one of the major issues of contention that we have with this bill. I just wanted to make a couple of comments on that before I wanted to move on to a new area, which is new section 89A. And so just giving the Minister notice that that will be what I would like to ask a few questions on.
I wanted to know with the PAG—and appreciate the Minister’s clarification that it’s not a compulsory fixed-term contract—what advice has he received on if there is a genuine reason for policy reasons to have a fixed-term contract that the existing law would not allow that to be stipulated in the Policy Advisory Committee’s contracts to therefore facilitate a fixed-term contract? Because even though he says it’s not compulsory, it does kind of imply that most of the agreements will be of a fixed-term nature there as well.
Additionally, the Minister made some comments around events-based employment. I’m sure the Minister’s aware that the collective agreement now for any employees employed by Parliamentary Service who are not affected to the extent that their job no longer exists after an event, that that is continuous. And so there has actually been a change to make that more consistent with general employment law. And so that’s perhaps not the best example to use.
The other thing that I wanted to know is I think we’re all in agreement that these are highly sought after important roles and we want to acknowledge the service that that particular part of the Public Service provides. But has there been any, as part of the consultation with PAG and those engaged, thought to the desirability of those roles considering that someone may be leaving a department? It may only be a fixed-term engagement. There may be no guarantee that they’re able to be seconded into that. I did ask about secondment at select committee and I was told that that was not the usual way that people move into PAG, which perhaps could deal with some of the continuous employments. Anyway, that is a big issue and Mr Chair, I’m sure you understand that’s why we’ve asked a considerable number of questions on it.
I did want to move to a new section that hasn’t been discussed yet at this committee stage and that’s the new part in relation to 89A which talks about the application of collective employment agreements following reorganisations. So I’ll ask those questions now. You made a comment about five-minute calls, Mr Chair; I’m happy to sit down if the Minister’s ready to answer those questions and then take a another call.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): And that will be taken into account of in allocation of spots. So that’s what we encourage.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:38): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll reiterate the advice just from before. That’s that there is uncertainty whether the question of genuine reason can be used for the purposes of—I think that’s outlined—periodic change and ensuring the group compromises complementary mix of advisory skills. I can’t go much further than saying that there is uncertainty as to whether or not that would be a genuine reason. The only way, I guess, to test that would be in the instance where there was some sort of legal challenge. We want to avoid that. So we’re going to provide that certainty through legislation, which I think is the right and proper process for Parliament to follow when it’s wanting to produce clarity and certainty in the law. It is, of course, our job as legislators to make the law as readable and clear as possible.
Just on the questions around—I think I discerned—that’s not the word to use—distilled from the member’s questions at the end, essentially a question around why use fixed-term appointments and why not use or utilise some secondments from Public Service departments.
I mean, it is an option. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet can do that, but the challenge is twofold: (1) it doesn’t necessarily guarantee that they can get the people that they need or the skills that they’re particularly looking for. Secondly, and understandably, I would think that agencies are very protective and guarded about their very highly skilled and experienced staff and want to hold on to them as much as they can because, then, of course, they’ve got to backfill those roles and these are often people who are highly experienced and in roles of leadership themselves. So the flow-on effect is that you have to then fill those up.
I guess there are probably some residual questions around if you’re still employed at an agency, particularly when you’re talking about at a prime ministerial level, can you truly give that free and frank and independent advice which may be against the interests of your agency if you’re still employed by or colleagues of the people that that advice might affect. So that might be one reason why secondments don’t work as much as they do.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:40): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister in the chair for his engagement on that issue, which I think is appropriate, given the significance of it. I did want to ask about, as I foreshadowed before, new section 89A, inserted by clause 37. This is in relation to collective employment agreements following reorganisations. Now, we have touched on reorganisations in a different clause, because, as I mentioned, there are a number of reorganisations that are scheduled to take place within the Public Service. So this is a particularly relevant clause to be discussing. But, interestingly, I was speaking to someone who did a PhD on public sector reorganisations and I think there’s been something like over 400 out of the 60 agencies over a three-year period. So reorganisations are very common in the Public Service. I might have got that exact fact wrong, but, anyway, the point remains that reorganisations in the Public Service are regular and happen often. So the treatment of employees following reorganisations is of importance and anything that changes the rights that employees may have following reorganisations are important as well.
Now, this particular section is quite interesting, because it seeks to limit which employees are bound by a particular collective agreement. I wondered if the Minister would mind for the committee, just explaining how that’s going to work in terms of if someone is employed by one collective employment agreement and then they move to another agency, is it that they can take preferential clauses from that collective agreement into their new role, or is it that they are only able to be covered by, I think, the collective employment agreement?
This is an interesting question because the Minister may be aware, in other countries like the European Union, when transfers of employment happen where, essentially, people are doing the same role but they’re transferred to a different employer, for, essentially, every employee within the European Union, they will take their terms and conditions of employment with them. So that will be a transfer of undertaking situation where the employment conditions will continue. So a question as to whether that is the intention of this clause.
Another important thing to note is in our Employment Relations Act, we have for vulnerable workers, a situation where employment conditions transfer to the new employer when they are engaged with the new employer. So there’s an important question, I think, on the interaction—I think it’s Part 6. I do have—
Arena Williams: Part 6AA.
CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, Part 6. Thank you, Arena Williams. I would like to know the interaction between that section and this. Because, of course, we do have directly employed vulnerable people that we consider to be vulnerable workers within that who are transferred. So I want to know the interaction between new section 89A and that Part 6AA of the Employment Relations Act. I think that’s a really important question.
The other thing is: to what extent is this taking away rights that people would otherwise have prior to the introduction of this bill? This is obviously new section 89A. As we have traversed before, that doesn’t necessarily mean every obligation within the section is new; however, it appears that it does provide new responsibilities and duties and different rights to employees. So there are some further questions that I have around redundancy payments and other things associated with the application of a collective agreement. But this is quite an important thing, I think, for clarity, generally for employees who are covered by this, which collective agreement will take precedence, and also, for those vulnerable workers, that intersection between their existing rights to transfer within the Employment Relations Act.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:45): I didn’t want to interrupt the member’s flow state, but I will just clarify that what this clause is doing is it’s lifting and shifting existing provisions from Schedule 8 into what is going to be Part 3. So nothing in the law is changing; it’s just shifting it from that schedule into here. If we turn to clause 47(3), then we’ll see: “In Schedule 8, repeal clauses 7 to 11 and the cross-headings above clauses 7 and 8.” And then, clause 37, essentially, reinserts those old clauses from Schedule 8 into the main body of the bill itself. So that’s all it does.
But to clarify for the record: the effect is what the current law says, which is that the same collective applies to any employee after reorganisation, whether or not they have moved or not. So it just maintains the status quo.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Camilla Belich, I did indicate, but shorter questions would indicate more interactions.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:46): A very short question. Thank you to the Minister for that and appreciate that this is a particular feature of this bill, where there has been a lot of lifting and shifting as well. You’ll note from the comments at select committee the key areas that we’ve objected to, but good to have clarity on that. I wanted to ask around the restriction to redundancy payments in new section 89C, inserted by clause 37, if that’s also simply a lift and shift from the current schedule, or if there are any additional duties or rights or entitlements that would be affected by this particular section?
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:47): Thank you, Mr Chair. A quick question—and thank you for your guidance, Mr Chair—about whether, in new section 66A(1) and (2), inserted by clause 32, the Minister is introducing a new power. I’ve had a look through the old legislation. Could he explain to me whether the power for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to appoint employees is, in fact, new? The question is about whether, under the status quo, which is conventional, appointments through the Public Service, mean that you couldn’t have an adviser on this who is classified as a Public Service adviser under new section 66A(1) who was not already a public servant. My question is about whether that phrase brings this into line with the ministerial advisory groups, which you can appoint someone who is not a public servant to be an adviser who is classified as a public servant. So could you appoint someone from the private sector to this board and is that a new power because of the phrase “Cabinet may appoint employees”?
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:48): Sorry, Mr Chair. I’ll just go to Camilla Belich’s question. I took the liberty of checking the Public Service Act Schedule 8 myself and can confirm that the old section 9, which is what the member is referring to in terms of new section 89C, inserted by clause 37, is a word for word replication. So it is a lift and shift. I’ll come to that other question shortly.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:48): I want to ask about new section 94A, inserted by clause 38, which is about the reporting of serious misconduct. The first question I’ve got is it isn’t just serious misconduct; it’s “misconduct”. I’d like the Minister to talk about why misconduct is included there. I can understand that we’ve had worries about serious misconduct, but misconduct is a huge amount of perhaps trivial matters. There’s a real spectrum of misconduct. I’d like to get the logic there. Again, I wasn’t on the select committee and I can see that this is only senior Public Service employees, but I have no idea how many of those there might be. I think that might be very relevant, because what we have here is an obligation to notify on investigations and report. It may be that it is identifiable in a way that it wouldn’t be if there were a lot in terms of that report.
So if there is only a cluster of these, it’s going to be easily linked in the reporting stage to not only someone who is found guilty of serious misconduct but also someone who is not, and also anyone involved in that situation who might be the victim of it. So it may act in a way that is unintended in terms of chilling, especially if somebody knows if they make a complaint and it’s investigated, it is then going to be published on the internet. So my question is about new section 94B(4), inserted by clause 38. There’s a publication there. To what extent is that information going to be published?
I also note that under that section, each agency’s got to give a report to the commissioner on outcomes of all investigations into alleged serious misconduct and misconduct of employees, and they are concluded within a framework, so we’ve got a much wider group. So depending on the question from the first section where you’ve got your key employees, your senior employees, you’ve also got a broader group, as I understand it, and there will be reporting done on that.
So the first one is about advice and oversight, but the second one is on reporting within a financial year. What I would like to know, actually, in both instances here is about when an investigation is commenced, because if somebody’s made a complaint, then it’s not an investigation as yet. If the matter is dealt with without an investigation, is that included at all? So often what we would find, and we have found in some public situations, is there wasn’t an investigation; there was simply a complaint made and then that was brushed away. Is that going to be caught in this, if in fact it never makes it to an investigation?
So while we have a definition of senior Public Service employee, we don’t seem to have a definition of investigation, and those take a number of forms. They can be formal or informal. I wanted to know whether it had been considered something which we would look at the complaints rather than the investigations of those.
I was also concerned in the same clause about the issue over when the reporting occurred. So you will see at new section 94B(2), inserted by clause 38, that each agency must give a report to the commissioner on the outcome of all investigations into alleged misconduct or serious misconduct by employees or agencies that have ceased or are concluded by the end of the financial year. What I would like to know is what if they’re not? Quite often, we would have investigations when I was involved in employment law that lasted a very long time. I suspect one of the examples of that would be—it probably isn’t quite the Public Service, but the Clint Rickards investigation where there was a right to silence.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Camilla Belich—oh, sorry. The honourable Minister. I’ll override it.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:54): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a couple of answers to a couple of questions from both Helen White and the “Human Wikipedia” Arena Williams. Ms Williams asked a question around—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Do you consider that an insult, Ms Williams?
Arena Williams: Loved it—loved it.
Hon JAMES MEAGER: No, it’s very much a compliment.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That’s all right. I was just checking.
Hon JAMES MEAGER: Fellow regulations review diehards—you couldn’t get two nerdier people in one place, I think. The question was around new section 66A, inserted by clause 32, I think it was, and the question was around whether or not you can employ people who are not in the public sector to take on these roles under this new bill. There’s no change to that. You can already employ people from outside the public sector to those positions, and it has been like that for quite a while, so there’s no change to the chief executive’s powers in that instance.
Now, just from Helen White’s contribution, I think there were three threads I picked up there. The first one was why the inclusion of misconduct or serious misconduct. Essentially, that allows some reporting or some observation and monitoring of broad trends across the public sector as well as emerging issues, so it’s to get a general sense of trends in that area.
The second question was around what happens when you’re reporting on this data. You may run the risk because the implication is that this is senior leadership and it’s a small group of people that you could identify them based on the numbers in a similar way where we don’t report small numbers of polling booths. The reporting is not just senior leadership; it’s across the public sector, so that will mitigate the small sample size issue in the first instance. The second instance is that the commissioner will ensure steps are taken to anonymise and aggregate data, essentially to the point where I think if there were privacy implications, you wouldn’t report or would sort of provide an asterisked report around that particular part of it.
Then I think the third question was what is the threshold for reporting on investigations and could this be or should this be extended to maybe the receipt of a complaint? There are probably merits to all approaches. I’m advised by the officials that the threshold of what counts for an investigation will be the subject of the commissioner’s guidance on the format of the report and what to include or exclude. I guess it would have to meet a certain threshold because you could run the risk of over-emphasising a trend based on complaints and taking every complaint seriously. That might disguise some deeper issues of misconduct or serious misconduct, so we’d expect there to be some substantial level of threshold for an investigation, but that will be determined by the commissioner based on the guidance.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the meal break. The Chair will resume at 7.30.
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, when we broke for the dinner break, the House was in committee for further consideration of the Public Service Amendment Bill.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (19:30): I move, That the committee report progress and sit again presently.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Public Service Amendment Bill and reports that is has made progress on the bill and asks to sit again presently. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The bill is set down for further consideration in committee presently.
Business of the House
Urgency
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) (19:31): I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction, first reading, and referral to select committee of the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill.
This necessity for this legislation is due to a High Court decision that conflicts with longstanding policy intent. It is important that we ensure the law is promptly clarified in line with that policy intent and reduce the likelihood of additional cases being lodged in the scope of the bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill
Introduction
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono) (19:32): I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.
:CLERK (19:32)Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill, introduction.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The bill is set down for first reading immediately.
Debate interrupted.
Vote Correction
Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:32): Point of order—point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sorry, I seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the previous third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be no objection.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I would seek leave of the House to correct the Green Party vote on the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill from 15 to 14.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): OK, it’s been recorded.
Bills
Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill
Legislative Statement
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:33): I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
First Reading
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (19:33): I move, That the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported by 26 September 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just for your clarification, did you say September or February?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sorry, 26 February.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Bingo.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: My apologies—26 February 2026.
The bill addresses judgments that the High Court has made that conflict with longstanding policy intent for how ACC compensation, and income more broadly, is treated in the welfare system. While these judgments highlight inconsistencies between legislation and longstanding policy, they do not reflect the principles of a targeted welfare system that provides assistance based on need, and they create inequities across ACC recipients in the welfare system. The financial and operational impacts of this High Court judgment are significant and Cabinet has agreed to amend legislation to confirm the longstanding policy intent that underpins the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) approach to charging income, including income from ACC.
I acknowledge that retrospective legislation is not standard. However, Parliament is entitled to amend legislation in light of judicial decisions and I consider it in the public interest for policy intent to be accurately reflected in the law. To be clear: the bill confirms longstanding policy intent and operational practice; it does not create new policy or change MSD’s treatment of clients in any way.
The first key change aligns legislation with longstanding policy and practice that income is charged against the period it best represents, to ensure MSD charges a person’s income accurately against their entitlement. Longstanding policy intends for MSD to charge income over a certain period, which is generally the period the person earned or became entitled to that income. When charging income for a past period, MSD may find that overpayments occurred and recoverable debt should be established.
Charging income against the period it best represents has been a longstanding policy in the way income is treated in the welfare system. This core feature enables MSD to charge a person’s income accurately against their entitlement by aligning it with the period it relates to. This is important as people can receive income that relates to different periods, for many reasons. For example, a person may receive a large interest payment that reflects the past year of investment. In this case, charging the payment as a single lump sum when the person received the payments may not accurately reflect the period the interest best represents.
In 2024, the Social Security Appeal Authority found MSD did not consider all of the relevant factors when exercising its discretion to determine the correct period to charge income. The bill addresses the Social Security Appeal Authority decision by amending the Social Security Act 2018, so when calculating a person’s weekly income—including ACC income—MSD must determine the period the income relates to based only on the extent to which a person earned or became entitled to it in that period. If this is not possible, MSD must determine the appropriate period to charge that income, having a regard to the period for which it was received, acquired, paid, provided, or supplied.
The key thing here is this change upholds a policy that’s always been in place to allocate income against the period it best represents so that a person’s income can continue to be charged accurately against their entitlement.
The second key change relates to the treatment of a person as a non-beneficiary when their ACC compensation payment reduces their benefit entitlement to zero for the past period. Currently, if a person’s main benefit reduced to zero because of their income, longstanding policy intends for MSD to consider the person a non-beneficiary, which of course makes sense and which may affect their entitlement to supplementary assistance. For example, non-beneficiaries are not entitled to the winter energy payment and are subject to income abatement for the accommodation supplement. This is unlike people with main beneficiary status who have a greater need for supplementary assistance due to their comparatively lower income.
Assistance must be targeted to those who need it most in our welfare system. This policy reflects the principle ensuring people receive financial assistance relative to their income levels and are only receiving one form of income support for one need.
In October 2025, the High Court found that MSD is operating outside of existing legislative authority when reassessing a person’s entitlement to supplementary assistance after they receive a backdated ACC payment from a past period. This bill addresses the High Court decision by amending the Social Security Act 2018 so that when a person receives a backdated ACC payment, MSD must review specified supplementary assistance granted for that past period and treat the person as a non-beneficiary if their specified benefit reduced to zero. MSD may make changes to the person’s entitlement as part of this review.
This is an important amendment to ensure that when assessing a person’s entitlement to supplementary assistance, MSD maintains equitable treatment between people receiving ACC payments at the time they earn it compared to payments earned for a past period—i.e., a backdating.
This bill introduces an amendment that has retrospective effect, to ensure the policy intent is maintained for both past and prospective cases. Retrospective legislation isn’t standard; however, it is an important public interest for this longstanding policy intent to be accurately reflected in the law and to mitigate any flow-on financial and operational impacts.
This bill introduces a savings provision to ensure the key changes do not interfere with previous or ongoing litigation, reflecting the strong convention that parliamentary legislation should not generally interfere with specific cases that are before the courts.
There are some time constraints in passing this legislation so that we do uphold longstanding policy and practice to ensure that income is charged accurately against a person’s entitlement, that ACC recipients continue to be treated equitably, and to mitigate the fiscal impacts to the Crown and operational impacts to MSD. Can I put my gratitude to the House on record for the engagement I’ve had with parties opposite in the interests of getting this bill progressed. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (19:41): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I first of all thank the Minister for looking at what should happen in terms of this bill over the next week or so, but very appreciative, and it’s good sometimes that we can come up with bipartisan approach.
Minister, thank you for agreeing to a select committee process, which I think will be beneficial for everyone, given this kaupapa. It’s an initiative that—obviously when the courts are involved it becomes very, very serious and everyone’s looking at us. I suppose this type of process, if it had been rushed through, would not have been fair to many, many people, particularly beneficiaries. The debate deserves more in terms of opportunity and the select committee process will give us that opportunity.
In terms of this kōrero, we certainly traversed it very closely as a caucus, and we believe that the court’s ruling misinterprets the basic Social Security Act’s longstanding policy intent that underpins the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) approach to changing income, including income from ACC. The more you earn, the less support you get. That’s a fundamental rule when spending dollars on welfare. This legal ruling does create a double-dipping process that isn’t in the best interests of everyone, and it’s a decision that, when we looked at it, we thought that if we were in Government, we would be looking seriously at it also. Double-dipping between MSD and ACC would undermine people’s faith in the system, which is something we all need to avoid. So we’re very pleased with this outcome so we can traverse that and have people come forward, giving their views.
The financial and operational impact of these judgments are significant. Implementing them would carry significant costs for the welfare system through writing off or refunding debts, hiring a large number of staff needed to do this work, and dealing with the downstream impact on service levels. These are costs that have the added trouble of being seen to benefit some while benefiting others. The safeguard that Labour has insisted on is that people won’t get anything less than what they were and are entitled to, based on their situation. Labour is wanting to be constructive over this, but we just don’t want to run this through. We did not want to run this whole thing, this whole kaupapa through urgency over a few hours, and so we’re pleased that the Minister has made some concessions here.
Labour stands with those ACC claimants who took this case to court and we respect their courage, but the view is that the way forward is not double-dipping in terms of the system. We’ll endeavour to ensure that obviously there’s a change of Government, so those on welfare and ACC can see hope on benefits that ensure that they can thrive and not just survive. We need a welfare system that can focus on people’s welfare, not just the cost to the State but to enable that everyone has to see the system as fair. If we allow this High Court ruling to stand, as much as it upsets people in terms of interfering in court decisions, it can quickly create bigger inequalities. The solution is not about double-dipping; the solutions are about treating people equitably and fairly, and also we have to look at our benefits system.
We agree that this High Court ruling would make things more unequal, and we want to keep faith in the system but we also need to talk about lifting benefits as a solution here. The bill restores consistency across benefits and protects the sustainability of ACC and the welfare spending. Why there is some quite a bit of support from our side is that it prevents inequities between recipients. The reality is that we need to go much further in supporting our beneficiaries on ACC, but we can’t do that by creating more inequality. We look forward to the select committee process over the next couple of weeks. Kia ora.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (19:46): Can I just begin by acknowledging Community Law Centres Aotearoa, who actually, for the first time ever, acted as an intervener in the High Court case and won.
I think, putting aside this issue and discourse that I’ve heard about inequities and double-dipping, let’s make it really clear: we’re talking about people who’ve had an accident, had an ACC claim in the system, and due to their circumstances had to go on a benefit in order to make ends meet. We’re talking about people whose rents or mortgage payments would have been so high comparable to the benefit that they would have needed things like the accommodation supplement. We’re talking about people who would have been struggling to pay their bills during winter and would have received the winter energy payment, which would have benefited them. They’re people who’ve, as I said, suffered an accident and were having to navigate a complex, often broken ACC system to get the cover that they need.
I know for a fact, having worked with community law centres and on the ground before being an MP, that these claims can take months, sometimes even years, in some cases. I want to acknowledge community law centres across the country who advocate for people to be able to get their legal entitlements from ACC and Work and Income. It’s been a pleasure to have worked with the Waitematā Community Law Centre for several years and who hosted us at Auckland Action Against Poverty there where we got to see the mahi that they do. So a huge acknowledgment for what they do.
Well, the Green Party finds itself in a tricky situation because we do not support this bill. I think, on principle, this is not necessarily about addressing double-dipping. Basically, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) recoups the costs from ACC once somebody gets their ACC claim. That’s the common practice. The High Court case was more about the supplementary assistance that they would have been receiving at the time. I think, painting ACC claimants as though they would have been well-off universally—I think it’s just wrong. We’re talking about people who would have potentially had a hard time while on a main benefit waiting for the claim.
I think the solution here isn’t so much to, once the High Court finds that MSD had, effectively, been acting unlawfully, then go and say, “OK, well, we’ll just change the law so that it complies with the policy we’ve been unlawfully applying for quite a few years.” I think the solution here is for the Government to have a hard look at how they process ACC claims, about looking at the complexity of the systems, both welfare and ACC, that we’ve burdened people with, which makes those claims take ages, but also that people find themselves not being able to navigate those applications in the first place.
I still find myself in the community with people not necessarily knowing what they’re entitled to from ACC or from the welfare system altogether. Community law centres were right when they described the High Court case and how the debts that currently were being burdened unlawfully on people—which the Government is about to basically legalise—could put people into duress and hardship because of the way that they either get taken as a lump sum away from their payment from ACC or as, basically, a reduction in their weekly income.
I do not think that saying that this is about addressing inequities or double-dipping is necessarily correct, and I think we’re addressing the wrong systemic issues here. I’m concerned that when I don’t see a legislative agenda from the Government addressing the core issues that welfare recipients or ACC claimants face, all that this does is take away a potential lifeline that could have been unlocked for people who would have been in hardship. Potentially, even giving people who are well off the ability to pay it back could have been an option, or even just maybe setting an income threshold where if somebody does have the assets—in the same way we do in the welfare system—they would have had to pay that back. But I don’t think many people would be accessing the benefit or, for example, the accommodation supplement if they were super - well off—that’s just not the case. We’re talking about people who often, as Community Law mentioned, were put into debts that increased hardship.
The Green Party isn’t supporting this bill. I think it’s between a rock and a hard place to kind of say that having a select committee process is better than just having the bill go through under urgency, and I want to acknowledge that. We deserve a proper select committee process none the less, but we look forward to adequately scrutinising this bill as much as we can during the select committee process that has been afforded it.
Finally, I just wanted to acknowledge everyone who has suffered from an injury or an accident, or who is disabled, and who is trying to navigate a system that does not allow them to live with dignity. Ultimately, the Green Party is going to keep fighting for livable incomes and systemic solutions that actually serve our community, as opposed to simply legalising something that the Government has been wrongfully doing for decades.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (19:51): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. ACT will be supporting this legislation. I think it’s important to just again reiterate that New Zealand does look after its most vulnerable, whether that’s people who have had an accident in the workplace or who find themselves needing help from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) by being on a main benefit. This will not change.
As the Minister outlined, there is no new policy in this bill that’s going through the House tonight and will then go to a select committee for a truncated period. There is no new policy. What MSD had been doing was longstanding practice under successive Governments. Again, as the Minister has said, it really was trying to make sure that the charging of income, including from ACC, was done in the period it best represented. We just need to get on with making sure that the policy, which has been clear for decades, is properly legally enforceable, and we will be commending this to the House. Thank you.
Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (19:52): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, as our ACC spokesperson, in support of the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. We think it ticks a number of boxes for us. It’s a pragmatic response to something that just is out of whack with what we’re trying to deal with here. It’s improving fairness and equality before the law, and so we’re very pleased with that.
We understand that the Minister has got some pretty pressing things in terms of dealing with retrospectivity and time constraints with the legal process that’s under way, so that where we’re judging things like how income relates to welfare entitlement and that assistance is relevant to income level, it should be relatively easy, but there may be some unintended consequences in here that we don’t know about, as maybe suggested by the Opposition. We would hope to believe that we look forward to the select committee process, which will cover off any of those unintended consequences and lead us, as a House, to be unanimous behind this bill. We support this bill and commend it to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): It looks as though our colleagues are not here, and so the next call, I understand, is a National Party call.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (19:54): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution on the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill in support of this bill. This bill will amend the Social Security Act to confirm a longstanding policy intent underpinning the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) practice relating to backdated Accident Compensation Corporation payments and charging income against past periods. This follows a High Court decision of 14 October 2025 that found that the MSD was not operating in accordance with current legislative provisions relating to charging backdated ACC payments against past periods.
I look forward to the select committee examining this bill and reporting it back to the House, and we’ll no doubt have more to say in the future on that. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (19:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to have an opportunity to take a call on this bill. I think this is a tricky bill for the House in the sense that there are a few aspects of it which deal with very vulnerable people. These are people who have been injured and who are, obviously, on such low incomes before their ACC is approved that they are entitled to supplementary support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
Looking through those things, that’s things like the winter energy payment, it’s the accommodation supplement, it’s disability support payments, and some transitional payments, and so these are payments that, obviously, people need at the time. They’re not payments that are probably enriching people, at all; they’re just payments so that they can live their lives, and it is regretful that we have an ACC system which means that the difficulty in obtaining coverage when you should be entitled to it sometimes can mean a significant delay. We are looking at a situation where people will be finally receiving ACC, but, of course, will then have, possibly, a debt, and I understand from officials that either it can be a debt or be taken off their ACC in terms of treating it in this way.
This is something that we looked at as a caucus in detail, as has already been said. I think a thing that was really key for us was that this was something where, obviously, we’re aware of the judgment, but in the addressing of it, we were concerned there might be some people who would be adversely affected by this, especially in terms of potential claimants who haven’t put claims in, who would be excluded from the savings clause—which we do support.
The savings clause is, I think, very appropriate for those people who did work with Community Law and who did take that case, and so they will be able to not be impacted by this bill—and also other people that have filed proceedings. So we’re very supportive of that savings clause, but, of course, other people will be impacted by this, and it was helpful to think that, well, would this mean that there would be people who would receive so little from ACC but who would, potentially, go into debt because of the nature of their MSD payment compared with ACC—and I’m not aware of any of those people. But I think what’s really helpful about the agreement to have a select committee process now is that that gives people the opportunity, if those people are in that situation, for that to be raised and possibly addressed at the select committee process.
Yeah, I think this bill is tricky. There is an element of retrospectivity in it for the people who are not covered by the savings clause. I understand the policy rationale for that, and comments have been made about this by the Minister and by the Hon Willie Jackson around having consistency. I think that probably for MSD, it was maybe a surprise to have had this judgment, which went against the policy intent. I understand all of that, but I think that it’s really great—even though it is going to be a shorter select committee process—for us to be able to just take a breath and make sure that what’s intended from this bill and what we’ve been told will occur is consistent with the feedback that we receive from the public.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to have a shortened select committee process on this, and I do encourage those people who might be affected—Community Law are the people who work with beneficiaries and ACC. If they can—even if they just make an oral submission or put one line in and talk to the committee—please try and engage with the committee.
I think that the intention here is to try and come up with a workable solution to make sure that there’s fairness within the system. As Ricardo Menéndez March has said, we need to remember that these are not people who have asked to be in this situation. They haven’t asked to be injured and they haven’t asked to be so poor as to require MSD support; these are vulnerable people in a difficult situation. It is a tough thing to put people in debt like that. I think I can speak for other colleagues to say that anything that makes these people’s lives more difficult is something that we don’t do intentionally, and we’ll take a breath and we’re going to go through a select committee process.
We will be supporting this bill. I know that colleagues on the Social Services and Community Committee will do their best to try and make sure that this is gone through in detail, and I just want to thank everyone around the House for their engagement on this. I hope that those affected by this can use the select committee process to raise any issues that may not have been addressed in this first reading debate so that we can progress, and, hopefully, the law that we come up with is going to meet everyone’s concerns and we can have a just system. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) (20:00): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. This bill sets right an inequality arising from the situation where welfare entitlement and ACC payments coincide. In one situation, they’re paid at the same time; in the other situation, ACC entitlements are paid ahead and followed by the welfare entitlement, which leads to the possibility that the second set of payments appear to have benefited the recipients more. That inequality is sought to be corrected, and the ability of the system to flow more freely and more effectively. I commend this bill to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (20:01): Mr Speaker, thank you. I, too, found this a really tricky bill. It’s just come to us, and I am on the Social Services and Community Committee and I look forward to a week of select committee, I think, that we’ve got coming, where we might be able to hear from some people who will be able to tell us their stories and we’ll get a context for this—and, hopefully, we’ll end up with a better confidence in this and perhaps even a better law, because select committees have been known to come up with some good amendments, when required.
I wanted to just talk to what the bill’s about at the beginning, because this is a bill where—ACC has always been an incredibly important part of New Zealand’s society, and when you have an accident, you’re going to get 80 percent of your earnings. It’s a wonderful system. But there are situations where that hasn’t happened, because your ACC claim has been declined. I’ve had clients like that where I’ve taken their case through, and they are often in a really difficult situation—they don’t have much money, because they’ve gone from being on a good income to being on no income at all. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) steps up and it offers assistance at that point, and it’s offered a main benefit and, where necessary, it’s offered other benefits—supplementary benefits like the accommodation supplement and the winter energy payment. When months, and sometimes even years, later, there has been a decision to grant accident compensation, because there, in fact, has been an accident or an injury, then the person has paid that back and the main benefit has been paid back automatically by arrangement. So that’s come out of the payment, the lump sum, that has come from ACC. In this situation, there has been a recovery of the money that is the extra—the supplementary money that’s come in from MSD.
Now, some people will be on really good incomes. I’ve had airline pilots on ACC, etc. They, actually, will have a lot more money, and we would find it very hard to see them as vulnerable in the situation where they’re being asked to pay back those amounts, because they’ve got a big lump sum through ACC. But there’ll be lots of people who have—much at a lower, lower income, and it will be much harder for them to come and pay that money back that is being clawed back. It’s that group, where the Government has clawed back the money, that the case actually turns on—it turns on those people. We have a situation where what the Government proposes to do is retroactive. It is stopping those claims now for people who have had money taken away unless they put in a claim right now, as I understand it.
So it is one that I take seriously. I think that it is a vulnerable group involved, and I do think that we have a due diligence here to take this to a select committee. Yes, there may be issues where this is something that’s valid, etc., but we should take it to the select committee and hear from the people most impacted. I encourage people, like community law and the people who’ve made claims, to tell us their stories in that select committee process, if they can, so that we have the full story. They are not necessarily going to miss out, because of the savings clause, but they’re probably the most likely to be aware of the consequences and to be able to tell us the story of how this impacts on New Zealanders.
I think it’s really great that we’re going for this short period rather than going through this legislation tonight. I will be on that select committee, eyes open, very interested in the most vulnerable who will be impacted by this—appreciating that it’s a pragmatic piece of law, in many ways, but I will be making sure that we do our job, as the Opposition, to actually improve the law, if necessary, and to listen to the people impacted. Thank you for bringing this to the House and for taking it to select committee. I look forward to doing my work over the next few weeks. Thank you.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (20:06): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise in support of this bill in its first reading, the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. It is in its first reading, as we said, and as I listen to most of the speeches across the House tonight, starting with the Hon Louise Upston, in a nutshell, what we’re trying to do here is ensure fairness for everyone. That’s the purpose of this kaupapa that we’re beginning tonight.
Indeed, as we’ve heard, the bill aims to amend the Social Security Act 2018. What we’re trying to do here—as we heard from the Minister and other speakers—is, in essence, confirm longstanding policy intent underpinning the Ministry of Social Development practice relating to, if we were to summarise, two situations: backdated Accident Compensation Corporation payments, and charging income against past periods. The reason why we find ourselves in this situation is because of a High Court decision on 14 October last year, which held that MSD was actually not operating in accordance with current legislative provisions—and so on and so forth, as we heard, and it was extended, the reasoning, by the Minister in the first speech of this reading.
So, as I said, we find ourselves in these situations. The bill, as in other times when we have found ourselves in these situations, aims to clarify the law in this situation on the impact of ACC payments on welfare entitlement and ensure the process, as I said, is fair for everyone. Under the current situation, as interpreted by the courts, those who receive lump-sum payments are, in a way, treated more generously than others, and so, again, we want to make sure that there is fairness for everyone. We look forward to select committee. I commend this bill to the House.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (20:08): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. You know, this Government has a nerve to talk about personal responsibility, benefit dependency, and to talk about fairness, when it is punishing the injured; it is punishing the poor; it is punishing whaikaha, the disabled; and it is punishing Māori—once again. That’s what this bill is promising if it passes in its current form today or without adequate time, full debate, and transparent consultation. Allowing the bill to go to select committee for one week deserves no praise whatsoever, but a huge eye roll and a “Whoop-dee-doo!”—because, if anything, it proves incompetence and inspires zero confidence in the current Government.
The bill overturns High Court findings—just as the member before me said—that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) acted unlawfully. I mean, the nerve of the Minister and its Government to put itself, once again, above the law; above legal rulings handed direct from High Court judges across the country that it applies retrospectively, validating past decisions and creating—guess what!—new debts. It’s creating new debts.
Māori are disproportionately affected due to the higher ACC claim rates, lower incomes, and systemic delays. The Minister may report that her bill prevents double payment, but be honest. If this bill is only about preventing double payment, why does it allow MSD to retrospectively reassess supplementary assistance that has nothing to do with weekly compensation? Can the Minister explain how validating past unlawful MSD decisions prevents double payment? Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Social Development already has mechanisms to prevent double payment, and, if so, why is retrospective legislation needed? What evidence does the Minister have that existing systems for preventing double payments were insufficient with regard to our whaikaha whānau, who have received no love under this Minister or her Government. Whaikaha, our disabled peoples who will be directly affected by these changes—how does clawing back disability allowances, which is not a wage replacement payment, prevent double payment?
On Māori equity and Te Tiriti, how does the Minister reconcile the claim of preventing double payment with the disproportionate impact this bill will have on Māori, who are overrepresented, as I said before, in both ACC claims and benefit receipt? On ACC delays and system failures, how does the Minister justify penalising people for ACC delays when those delays are caused by ACC and not the claimants? On retrospective lawmaking, why does preventing double payment require overriding High Court and appeal authority decisions that found MSD’s practice lawful?
I mean, make it make sense, please. Where is Te Tiriti in the bill? Where is partnership? Where is protection? Where is equity? It’s nowhere. There is not one line. There is not one safeguard and not one whakaaro for tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti, tangata moana, or any of the hard-working Māori, New Zealanders, Kiwis. Let’s face it, we all know who the majority of this bill will impact—it’s not just Māori; it’s also injured workers, it’s also our whaikaha, it’s solo parents, it’s low-income wage earners, it’s the rural labourers. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, it’s the builders, it’s the scaffolders, it’s the city labourers, it’s the factory workers, it’s the cleaners, it’s the couriers, it’s the forklift drivers, and it’s the security guards. There are so many people across our country. The increasingly brown engine room—over 40 percent of Māori workers are in physically demanding jobs. That is who this is going to impact.
Te Pāti Māori and myself, as MP for Tāmaki Makaurau, have spent more than 10 hours today deliberating on what impacts we can make to ensure that our whānau are protected going into the discussions with select committee. We have created amendments and we intend to put them through this House and to have them deliberated by the House in all fairness. That is what we asked for: fairness and to prioritise tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti who are continuously pushed to the margins by this Government and its Minister. We oppose this bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 20
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Referral to Select Committee
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono) (20:14): The question is, That the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
Instruction to Select Committee
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (20:15): I move, That the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 26 February 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
I have said, in my comments earlier, that it is really important that the longstanding policy intent of how ACC compensation—and income, more broadly—is treated in the welfare system is consistent. It is important that the law is promptly clarified. It doesn’t change any policy. There is nothing new in this policy; it is simply making sure that there is equity in the system, that it is fair, and that if someone, for example, receives ACC on a weekly basis as opposed to it being backdated, they might then be ineligible for some of the supplementary assistance. That is, it’s a very narrow scope and that’s the intention of what we’re fixing here.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:16): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. Speaking on this referral motion, I think that, sure, one week is better than having it just go through urgency and having no opportunity to have the officials in front of us. But I do agree with the member from Te Pāti Māori Oriini Kaipara, who bluntly put it that this is no great reprieve for those of us who are concerned about the impacts of this bill. The fact is one week does not adequately allow us to unpack the reality. While members of the Government may speak of this issue as though it’s just continuing existing practice, the fact is a High Court ruling found this existing practice unlawful.
One of the things that I’m particularly concerned about the referral motion—which, again, while it will allow us to have a bit of select committee engagement, I don’t believe the time frame allows us to honour the contributions, from other members of the House, about the need to listen to communities affected. I don’t think one week actually allows people who may have made or are making ACC claims to be adequately heard. People who have suffered accidents will not be adequately heard in a one-week period. I’m concerned about the fact that, despite the ability to scrutinise this piece of legislation outside of the debating chamber, we will not actually be centring the voices of those most affected.
I’m also concerned about the level of analysis that has been already produced by the Government in relationship to this bill. The Government noted that a regulatory impact statement was not required for this bill, so we don’t have that piece of information to further analyse who’s more likely to be impacted in this one-week period that the referral motion speaks to. The one-week period also, therefore, does not allow us to, for example, understand the make-up of people affected by this: what main benefit would they have been on, what is the full breakdown of the supplementary assistance they would be receiving, and, moving forward, what are the demographics that we’re looking at? I just simply don’t think a one-week period will allow us to go into the level of detail that such a significant challenge of ongoing policy—by Community Law Centres Aotearoa, which was validated by the High Court—will allow us to have.
On the referral motion, I just want to reiterate the fact that this does deserve adequate scrutiny. Sure, I don’t think I would put it as generously as the first speaker from the Labour Party—that this is a graceful concession from the Government—but it is a concession we’re happy to try and work with in the best interest of having some scrutiny in the select committee stage. I highly encourage that if there is the opportunity to hear from the public at the select committee, accommodations are made to ensure that we do it in as accessible a way as possible. I certainly do look forward to listening—in the one-week period we’re going to have!—from Community Law Centres Aotearoa, who, as I’ve said, are breaking ground in the type of work that they do. Ultimately, I think there are people who—whether people like myself in my previous advocacy work on the ground, or even the Community Law Centre and the amazing work they do—they would have not reached; one week just simply does not cut it.
So, again, for us in the Greens, an ideal process, an ideal referral motion, would have allowed for adequate scrutiny of this bill, as opposed to just a one-week process. This is actually even shorter than I’ve seen other referral motions from other bills that have been touted as needing a certain level of urgency or prompt action from the Government. Despite our disagreements on it, I am concerned about the kind of way in which we say, “Well, it’s not technically going through all stages of urgency”, but then it is also not necessarily actually adding adequate scrutiny to the legislative process.
In terms of the referral motion, again, and the one-week period, I’m also hoping that the Government uses the time wisely. I know the Minister is also the Leader of the House, so, I think, making sure that the process allows us to take—well, it’s recess week next week, actually, so we’ll have recess week to make sure we use the most of it. I guess there’s that, but even then, in a recess week, I hope that we can all use as much time as possible from it—acknowledging MPs will have to give up constituency meetings and other engagements to adequately scrutinise this bill. Also, we are asking the public, if they are given the chance to submit, to, effectively, upheave their whole lives or plans for the next seven days or the next week to be able to participate in this process.
Particularly noting that if an accident would have prevented your ability to, say, type, write, or even speak, we are talking a very short period in which people could try to find an accessible way to contribute to this bill, should the select committee actually afford public submissions. I’ve got a bad feeling that perhaps the one-week period will mostly be used to engage with officials. That is part of our concern about the one-week period, because I just simply can’t think of a realistic way, other than by invitation, for example, from Community Law Centres Aotearoa, that we will be able to actually engage with the public on it.
Even then, in the one-week period, what I’m particularly concerned around is that, if there are complex questions that arise from members of the Opposition, particularly the two parties that are against it, it does sometimes take time for officials to come back with adequate information in relationship to our questions. For example, if I were to ask, within the one-week period, “Hey, can you, please, give me a breakdown of the types of benefits that people would have been on while waiting for their ACC claims?”, I don’t know if the officials will have that readily available for us in a one-week period. These are the kinds of important questions that a longer scrutiny period would have allowed us to ask, which I’m now afraid we will not be able to adequately scrutinise.
I appreciate being able to have at least the officials in front of us for some period, and I hope there is a good-faith engagement from the Social Services and Community Committee around accommodating complex questions that may require officials to go back and do some analysis and further impact on equity issues. We’ve heard in the previous debate about how this was about equity, but then we have yet to see an analysis showing us how we are actually achieving equity as part of this process. Without a regulatory impact statement, this one-week referral motion goes back to being quite concerning.
Again, I think having the two hypothetical options of having this introduced in urgency and then potentially having gone through all of the stages in urgency, versus just one week, does not sit fully comfortably with us. I highly doubt that anything will come out of select committee that will allow us to feel differently in our opinion from a one-week scrutiny of it. I think, if the goal was to have full support from the House on the bill and the merits of the bill, better analysis should have been done than what this referral motion actually allows us to.
There are other components, for example, that I have yet to see, such as whether a child impact assessment has been prepared. For example, this is something we could have asked the select committee process. I, again, doubt the one-week period will allow us to produce a child impact assessment, noting that, for example, some of recipients who would have received a benefit may have had children, and the wellbeing of those children, with the debt that has accrued as a result of existing policy practice, would have been affected. The referral motion, going back to it, does not necessarily allow us to go to that level.
Another thing that I think we could have also been allowed to do is to hear from other organisations who may not have been super deep into the High Court ruling but who do advocacy around ACC claims and who could have helped us understand the actual length which the ACC claims have and, for example, some of the hardships that people may go through while they’re on the main benefit. It’s not just about double-dipping, as people have said; it’s also about, for example, the fact that people may have gotten into debt with a loan company while being on a benefit. Those are the impacts of having been on below poverty-level incomes while you’re waiting for your claims to come. I don’t think other stakeholders or organisations may be given enough time to produce a good enough submission for an issue that I actually do think is really complex. I’m assuming that, should the Government have honoured the High Court ruling, quite a few resources would have had to go into honouring it. This is the other thing that I’m worried that we may not fully understand from the one-week referral motion: what would have been the costs to the Government should the High Court ruling have been honoured?
While we accept the ability to have some level of scrutiny at the select committee, I also hope, Mr Speaker, that yourself and your presiding officer team, into the next set of the debate, can recognise the fact that most of the analysis and scrutiny of this bill will none the less still be held at the committee of the whole House stage, because I highly doubt we’ll have the adequate amount of time in a one-week period to scrutinise the bill and to come back to the committee of the whole House well prepared. Thank you.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just rise on behalf of colleagues to take a single call on behalf of the Labour Party in relation to the referral motion. There’s a TV programme, I think, on one of the networks at the moment called Nobody Wants This. I think this is a situation no one wants to be in. I don’t believe that the Government wants to be passing this legislation, and certainly we don’t want people who are vulnerable, who’ve been injured, to be in a situation where they maybe thought they were in a situation of not having to repay their debt then to be repaying a debt. It’s not a bill that I think anyone wants to be debating, necessarily.
I agree with the one-week select committee period. That is, obviously, a very short time, but I suppose, at the same time, I can’t think of the number of times I’ve asked Government Ministers for bills in urgency to go to select committee. To have the Government agree to that, I think should be mentioned and acknowledged, because obviously a lot of work goes into these programmes. I don’t want to overegg it, because I do agree that it’s a short time, but I do think that at least having the select committee process will allow us to just look at the impact of the bill and make sure that it’s achieving what we would like it to achieve. I think members of the public may not be aware that often when these bills—especially when they relate to legal cases—come up, we don’t have a lot of time to assess whether there are pros and cons around them or to do our job as thoroughly as we’d want to as legislators. I do agree that it is a short time, but it’s certainly a lot longer than the non-existent select committee that we may have had. In all these things, it’s about the balance of what we can try and achieve.
I would thank the select committee in advance for their work. I know that this is a short turn-round period. I know that they will do their work diligently. Something that I would suggest to them is, if there are organisations like Community Law or other organisations, they could be proactively invited to submit. They could be given the reassurance that they don’t need to provide a full written submission in order to be heard. I think there is often a misconception when people write to select committees—that they feel they have to write an essay in order to have their say. The reality is, I think most members would agree, mostly the things we remember are the stories people tell us at select committee. If people have a story to tell and they wish to speak to the committee, I would encourage them to contact the clerk and to find a time to either do a written or oral submission in the way that suits them, because, really, that should be our focus, especially with a group of people that we’re talking about who will probably be surprised that they maybe need to do a select committee submission.
There are other reasons why a select committee process is beneficial. I know there has been a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet done on this. I don’t think it’s on the Table. I haven’t had time to click through to the vet to read it. I think the fact that we have a select committee process will allow us to, and analyse that properly. I would imagine that having a select committee process will probably—I don’t know if it covers the select committee, urgency or whatever, but I’m sure, if anything, it will be more favourably looked at than maybe when it was originally drafted.
I also would hope that both ACC and Ministry of Social Development (MSD) officials could make themselves available to that select committee. That is because obviously this is an interrelationship between two types of payments. ACC is a special type of payment and it is paid for by levies, so there is an entitlement to that; and, obviously, MSD payments are supported by taxpayers. We have to make sure that we understand the interaction between those two payments, as well.
We are supportive of the referral motion because we want the opportunity for New Zealanders to be able to have their say in select committee. We totally accept the criticisms of those in the House in terms of the length of it, but I suppose we’re pleased to have at least that opportunity to hear from people, to be able to understand. I’m sure that that’s what will happen—that we will be able to more fully understand the bill as it has been explained to us and drafted. We are grateful to the Minister for at least having this one week and also for making the information available to us to inform our decision. That doesn’t always happen, so it’s good to be able to do that.
We will endeavour to participate in the select committee in good faith. Thanks to those colleagues who will be doing that hard work. I hope that people are able to feel heard in some way through this process, in a situation, as I started with, which is not a situation that anyone wants to be in. Fixing a law that’s inconsistent with policy is always difficult, and it sometimes happens in Government. We understand that. It’s not the thing that we want to be legislating on, but we understand why it’s been brought to the House and we are pleased to be able to support it to select committee stage.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:32): I move, That the motion be amended to delete “195” and “meetings outside the Wellington area during sittings”.
The reason for me to move that motion is twofold. The first thing is—as both of my colleagues Ricardo Menéndez March and Camilla Belich have addressed—I would like to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, and potentially for the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, what is the expectation for a one-week select committee. This is really important because, if we’re going to be doing this in one week, what are the resources that will be given to the select committee to be able to conduct the work most effectively? Otherwise it’s just one week for one week’s sake.
The reason I say that is, with one week being 26 February, we are already a bit short on time, and that requires the report to be drafted as well. For those who are interested and are watching: normally a select committee stage is six months—or four months at a minimum. Anything less than four months will require a referral motion and any subsequent referral motion debate on that particular motion. Four months is pretty pressed for time, even at the best of times, but with one week, you are asking one week for the select committee to open submissions; for the select committee to hear from submitters; and for the select committee to be able to draft a report, amend the report, amend any changes that need to be done to the legislation as an amended version from select committee, and report back to the House. All of that needs to be done within one week.
I guess the question to the Minister, should the Minister like to respond, is: what is the Minister hoping—and the chair of the select committee, possibly—to achieve within one week? Hence, one of the first reasons for me to put in an amendment motion is the ability for the Minister to actually respond to some of the queries that both myself and my colleagues Ricardo Menéndez March and Camilla Belich have asked of the Minister. That, I think, is quite an elegant way for the Minister to be able to respond. As we all know, in terms of a referral motion debate, you only get one shot at it and the Minister has already used her slot. With this amendment, she’s able to respond should she wish to.
Now, going back in terms of the deadline as well, one of the things that we know is, for example, the select committee will take place tomorrow—the Social Services and Community Committee is a Wednesday committee, so it would be sitting tomorrow. However, as we know from Standing Order 210(2), for select committees, you must have the agenda be available at 2 p.m. on the previous day. Considering that we’re already at Tuesday evening at 8.30 p.m., unless the committee agrees to it by leave of the committee, you can’t alter the agenda to add new items, including hearing on this bill in tomorrow’s select committee, which means that if the select committee doesn’t give leave for that, they can’t hear it tomorrow. I doubt we’ll be able to hear it on Thursday, because a lot of the people will also be in Thursday select committees. That leaves Friday—and I guess that’s one of the reasons why we have the exemption to Standing Order 193, which allows meetings on Fridays, which does make sense; that can be something that is done—and then obviously next week.
However, considering that it is possibly unlikely the select committee will hear it tomorrow or the select committee will be hearing it on Thursday, I’m curious to know why the Minister chose to exempt Standing Order 195, which has meetings outside the Wellington area during sittings. That brings me to my amendment on why I think that should be deleted. Standing Order 195 states that the committee “may meet outside the Wellington area during the sitting of the House only with agreement of the Business Committee.”, but during the sitting of the House, unless we are sitting this Friday—which we aren’t aware of—it won’t happen tomorrow or Wednesday; unless, again, something’s going to be happening next week. That’s also a possibility. That’s something that I didn’t consider. Then, it could happen next Tuesday or Wednesday—true.
Then the next question is whether the other Standing Orders that are exempted from this also make sense when it comes to Standing Order 196, “Meetings within Wellington area on sitting days”. That potentially also could happen: the select committee could ask submitters to come in either tomorrow afternoon or Thursday afternoon. Those two are also possibilities.
I guess my point is that there are a lot of unanswered questions in terms of what is the expectation of a one-week select committee. True, I agree with both of the previous members that one week is better than no weeks—that at least, at the minimum, you are able to ask officials some questions—but would officials be able to give us the response within one week, as my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March said?
Something like this with the one-week select committee—this is not insignificant as a bill. The Minister may say that we’re actually not making changes, we’re just codifying existing practice, but existing practice is not the same thing as existing legislation, which is what the High Court has ruled. In this particular case, not only are we seeing a bill being introduced that has a retrospective effect—which is usually a legislative no-no, and I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot later on from the Regulations Review Committee on the fact that they’re introducing a retrospective element during a sort of pseudo urgency, I guess, with a one-week select committee period—but it also doesn’t allow those submissions and that sort of advice to be teased out. I am interested to know what is expected to be done within one week. Again, this is a reasonably complex bill because it doesn’t cover just simply social services—social development or the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—but it also covers ACC. It would be good to see if there’s an opportunity to actually bring in both departments, in terms of the financial impact, because that’s one of the reasons why we are looking at the retrospective aspect of this particular bill.
How many people are actually affected by this? We know that there’s a High Court ruling on this, but what’s the exact number? What is the extent of the budgetary impact or financial impact to MSD? If we’re going to be doing a one-week select committee, why bother, then, introducing a retrospective element? You could also have it for a four-month normal select committee period or even a one-month select committee period and still have a retrospective element. A bill of this nature and urgency should be introduced, as good legislative practice, where it’s trying to stop something that is about to happen rather than retrospectively changing something that has already happened, including a High Court ruling.
There are a lot of these unanswered questions around this bill and around the whole process. I know that there have been other instances that we’ve seen in the past—I think the ACC amendment bill, as part of the 2024 Budget debate, is another example of plugging a gap between what is accepted or understood as existing practice versus what is specified in the law. There is a retrospective element in that, as well. With that, we were actually given opportunities to tease that out a little bit further.
I won’t dwell on it, but I think all of those are important questions. I will be interested to hear if the Minister is willing to respond to both my amendments but, also, some of the questions that we posed. But, again, I fundamentally think a question both in terms of the select committee but, also, the Minister, is: what are we hoping to achieve within one week?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): OK. Just to note to members, as well, that when members are putting amendments, that those must be written down, OK?
The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended to delete “195” and “meetings outside Wellington area during sittings”.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was that the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 26 February 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196 be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Public Service Amendment Bill.
Public Service Amendment Bill
Committee of the Whole House
Part 1 Amendments to Public Service Act 2020, and Schedule
Debate resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Public Service Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 47—“Amendments to Public Service Act 2020”—and the Schedule. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (20:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. When we left off just before the break, we were discussing clause 38, and there were some questions around notifications and issues of misconduct. I think it’d be good to clarify, because the member, Helen White, went through quite a few questions and we probably jumped back and forth between two different issues. I thought it’d be good to clarify the difference between new section 94A and new section 94B.
Section 94A is to do with notifications of investigations into senior leaders to the Public Service Commissioner. It’s a requirement for chief executives or board chiefs to notify the commissioner of investigations into misconduct or serious misconduct of senior Public Service leaders, but that is not part of the public reporting of those notifications. That’s a separate issue—which is when we get to new section 94B, which is reporting on outcomes of investigations into misconduct across the wider public sector.
New section 94B does make it a requirement for agencies to provide anonymised reports to the commissioner on the outcomes of investigations into misconduct or serious misconduct of Public Service employees ceased or concluded in the previous financial year. I raise that because there may have been some confusion about what happens if there is a report or a complaint of misconduct by a senior Public Service leader to the commissioner, and the small pool of people who could possibly have complained could be identified by the fact that that complaint was notified. So I’m just trying to create that distinction between the process for notifying the commissioner that there has been a complaint made against a senior Public Service leader, and the wider requirement now for agencies to provide anonymised reports into outcomes of investigations into misconduct or serious misconduct across the Public Service. I just thought it would be good to tidy that up before we move on.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:45): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, for his comments in relation to clause 38. One of the overall themes of this bill—which we’ve touched on a wee bit already, but it also comes through in a number of different clauses—is the role of the Public Service Commissioner. It has been a changed role in recent times, in terms of the responsibility that the Public Service Commissioner has.
I just did want to ask, around that particular clause, if the Public Service Commissioner—if this is kind of part of—which I know the Minister—not the Minister in the chair, but the Minister for the Public Service—has spoken to the more expansive role that the Public Service Commissioner will be taking within the Public Service. That particular clause is one that does really highlight the additional roles that the Public Service Commissioner does have.
I think, now—I’ve got a question on clause 39, but I think a more related one, so I might just jump to clause 41 and then jump back to clause 39.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK.
CAMILLA BELICH: In clause 41, this also talks about the role of chief executives. This is another big change that’s happened in this bill, is that the appointments for chief executives have changed and the way that chief executives have to reapply for their role has changed. We did have some concerns around public sector neutrality; we’ve touched on the policy advisory group point, which was one of our key points in relation to public sector neutrality, but also the appointment points. But this particular—clause 39 is a really big one that I want to talk about, which is the pay equity provisions.
But I think more linked to the Minister’s previous comments is just a question around the immunity that is in clause 41, inserted new section 104(1A). It appears to state that the public sector chief executives “acting in any capacity”. What I want to know is that—that kind of just struck me when I was preparing for this committee stage; it’s not something I recall discussing in select committee. But I wanted to ask the Minister whether that’s one of the things that have been, kind of, cut and pasted from existing provisions, or if that, in fact, is a new provision that gives chief executives what seems quite a large amount of immunity: “any capacity under this Act or any other Act or otherwise”—or otherwise. If I was the chief executive and I was charged with something, I would be interested to see that provision.
I’m sure that there's a logical explanation for having that in there. I would be very interested to know what that was, especially if it is an existing provision. What mischief, I suppose—to use a legal term—is this particular provision wanting to protect? Obviously, I understand 100 percent immunity for chief executives of the Public Service when they are performing their role as chief executives in the Public Service. But why does this, new section 104(1A) as inserted by clause 41, seem to extend to any Public Service chief executive acting in any capacity under the sector or any other or otherwise? It might be that this is already existing, but I thought that was an interesting point and I wondered if the Minister could elaborate on that.
As I said, I do have a number of questions around pay equity, but I might just see if the Minister is available to comment on those questions first.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (20:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member will know, because she has a lot of expertise and experience in this area, around immunity provisions for public servants generally. This is a technical amendment to those existing provisions, which provide immunity for public servants who are carrying out their functions and duties in good faith. It provides an immunity from civil proceedings. The intention of this change is to clarify that the immunity applies both to the Public Service Commissioner as well as other Public Service chief executives. And also that it applies to chief executives when they are exercising both their general administrative functions but also specific functions under the Act. So it just provides a general cover and clarification that it does actually apply to both the commissioner and also other chief executives when they are exercising those functions as well as the wider Public Service.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Camilla Belich, you indicated that you had some further questions.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:50): Yeah, I did. Thank you to the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager. It would be great to just have some clarity around if there’s been specific advice on the necessity of having that as such a wide clause. It just seems a bit odd. I don’t know, it could be—maybe it’s not odd, but I’d appreciate if the Minister could look into that because it does seem quite wide.
I do have some questions around the repeal in clause 39. This is the repeal, and I do have it here—yeah, it is the repeal of the pay equity provisions. In clause 97(2)(e) of the principal Act it repeals “(e) pay equity and workforce diversity and inclusiveness;”. This is something that we oppose very strongly and there’s a few reasons for that.
In my second reading speech, I talked a wee bit about the history that the Public Service has is a leader of pay equity. Since 1960—at least 1960—the Public Service has served as a leader in terms of not only workforce equality, but also in pay equity. I note, and I have read the—there’s some extensive advice that’s been released in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) around the reasoning behind that, and I wanted the Minister to speak to this because I think it is really significant.
The reasoning, as I understand it from what is listed in the RIS, is a move away from not wanting the public sector to have any additional responsibilities that are in addition to the Equal Pay Act 1972. Now I think that’s something that we on this side of the Chamber oppose, but I wanted to know for what reason would the Public Service Minister want the Public Service to shy away from being the best-practice organisation in relation to pay equity and in relation to workforce diversity and inclusiveness. And we’ve touched briefly on the requirements to remove the workforce diversity and inclusion requirements in relation to other clauses. This is also additionally disappointing when married with the changes that the Government has made to the Equal Pay Act to cancel pay equity claims, and I think reflects—well, I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts if it reflects an overall Government intention to move away from taking action on pay equity and being a leader in this field.
The other thing that the regulatory impact statement says around the requirement to remove pay equity—well around the decision to remove pay equity from this bill is that it is possible for the bill to have a workforce policy statement which includes pay equity provisions or includes our requirements in relation to diversity and inclusion. I wanted to ask the Minister as to what active steps have been taken to ensure that those workforce policy documents include commitments to pay equity and include commitments to workforce diversity and inclusiveness, which has clearly been set out. I think this RIS is not a new RIS; it’s been around for quite a while. I would imagine that there would be some steps that have been taken because of the imminent removal of the pay equity provisions to have these included as it is stated in the RIS in the workforce diversity provisions.
A few questions on that. It is a really big issue. It is one of the issues that did lead to us not supporting this bill because we feel so strongly that the public sector should be a leader in pay equity. It should be a leader in terms of workforce diversity; it should be showing the rest of New Zealand how a workforce can be equitable and perform. And so we are very disappointed about that and I want to have the Minister respond to some of those very genuine concerns around this quite significant change, especially given the history that the Public Service has had with pay equity.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (20:55): I can reassure the member that the public sector is and will remain a leader in the pay equity space. I refer to—well, the existence of pay equity legislation, but also, of course, the Equal Pay Act, both of which bind—the Equal Pay Act binds the Crown; I’ll double check, but I assume the pay equity Act binds the Crown as well. But regardless, both of those Acts require the public sector to act in accordance with them and the principles contained within them. Indeed, sections 81 to 84 of the principal Act also demonstrate the Public Service’s commitment to pay equity claims by providing for the commissioner’s responsibility for and their role in such claims. Now, the particular clause that the member’s referring to, clause 39, what this does is this clause—what are we doing? We’re repealing section 97(2)(e)—97(2)(e) is the operative section, which lists the indicative matters in that section which may be considered without limitation.
The purpose behind this amendment is to provide more flexibility to the development of that workforce policy statement to include all matters that the Government seems relevant in terms of workforce policy development. It doesn’t want to set a default list or set some sort of hierarchy. We just want to indicate that it’s entirely open to the Government of the day to include that content in the workforce policy statement, if they so choose. Indeed, the current Government workforce policy statement expresses the expectation that the public sector will build a diverse and inclusive workforce that can develop policies and deliver services that are effective and responsive to all those who need and use them. While this bill is focused on ensuring a stronger legislative framework to drive stronger public sector performance, I can reassure the member there are no current plans to amend the existing workforce policy in this respect.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. Before I take this next call, I will say that we have traversed a lot of Part 1. I was actually here last week on this piece of legislation and we’ve had a couple of Chairs sitting in the Chair since, so I’m looking for very precise questions—which I know the member is capable of. Thank you.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:58): Thank you, Madam Chair, and also just a signal to you, Madam Chair, that I intend to just ask one question around the amendment to Part 3, and I’ve got a couple of questions—maybe I can have a back and forth with the Minister—on Part 4 before moving on to subsequent sections.
So we’re looking at clause 37, “New sections 89A to 89 E”. We’re going to start with that one.
I just have one question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, which is: considering when we’re looking at 89A, which talks about chief executives or boards, as the Minister would undoubtedly know, that school boards are considered under that category, but in a situation where a school board is either disestablished due to conversion from a State or State-integrated to a charter school, how would—for example, 89C in terms of redundancy payment—work for those who are no longer working in a department or interdepartmental venture in those sort of cases? Noting that school boards are still considered an active part in 89A, because should school boards not be included, we would see a similar line as what we see in clause 38, new section 94B(1), where the school board has been specifically excluded? If school boards are included, how would it work in terms of its interactions with the provisions in the Education and Training Act regarding charter schools and regarding conversion?
That’s my first question to the Minister. I’m hearing that the Minister is getting some advice around that.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s going to answer it straight off.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (20:59): Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologise, the member may have missed the exchange with Camilla Belich earlier, but clause 37 is a lift and shift from Schedule 8, from memory. It just replicates clauses 7 to—oh, how’s my memory; 7 to 11 in Schedule 8.
Hey, there you go: clause 47(3) of the bill points to the repealing of clauses 7 to 11 in Schedule 8, and what clause 37 does is it repeats those clauses but puts them in the body of the bill, so there’s no change to the existing law. However the existing law would apply to entities under this arrangement would be what would apply after this bill passes. Nothing changes in that sense.
Just to the member’s second point, around school boards, school boards are Crown entities, so they wouldn’t be captured by the Public Service Act.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. On the amendment to Part 4, I want to speak to the diversity inclusion part. The first question to the Minister: has the Minister, as part of compiling this bill, received any feedback from the Ministry for Ethnic Communities or the Ministry for Pacific Peoples around the removal of diversity and inclusiveness in the workforce policy intent? I’m just checking.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (21:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. My series of questions are also related to clause 39, the repeal of 97(2)(e), but focusing on the workplace diversity and inclusion aspects of it.
I did ask the Minister a couple of questions previously during this committee stage, in terms of the evidence or the problem definition: what is this trying to fix and where is the evidence that appointments are being made not based on merit? I didn’t get any response there. In fact, what I got from the Minister, and I’ve just checked the Hansard, was basically his claim that I said the only way that people of different ethnicities or genders or sexuality can gain their place in the system is by being put there by virtue of a list or a tick-box. I find that very offensive, because that is not what I said, and I want to set the record straight there.
The Minister then went on to say that the Government’s expectation is that the Public Service will be made up of individuals who are competent, capable, and intelligent people, and “if we appoint competent, capable, intelligent people, we will get people from across the spectrum.” I have a number of questions for the Minister based on this. I will just preface that, though, with the point that the Disabled Persons Assembly has made. This is not just about ethnicity quotas, as the Minister seemed to interpret my question to be. The Disabled Persons Assembly, for example, has said that these changes will make it harder for disabled job applicants to overcome discriminatory barriers when seeking employment within the public sector. The Parents of Vision Impaired (NZ) has said that it moves towards marginalising disabled communities in decision-making processes. This hasn’t come from nowhere; there’s been a whole programme of change since 2017.
I asked the Minister for some evidence that things have changed for the better as a result of changes made in 2017 and these particular sections of the Public Service Act 2020 that he’s proposing to repeal, but he couldn’t give me any. I will share that, for Asians, for example, workforce participation went up from 3.3 percent in 2000 to 9.4 percent in 2017—a very, very short change or a very slow improvement in 17 years—and then went up to 13.4 percent in 2020, in just three years, so there is the evidence that it is working.
Now, the questions that I have for the Minister, and I do echo the question by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: what was the advice, if any, that was provided on this by population agencies like the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, or—I will add to that—Whaikaha, the Ministry of Disabled People? I’d also like to know what advice the Minister has received on the impact that these changes will have on workforce diversity in the Public Service. I do have a few more questions to come, too, Minister, but perhaps we could start with these.
I will also put this in the context of the royal commission of inquiry, where the commission found, specifically, the need for the Public Service to improve workforce diversity to ensure that they can actually be responsive towards all communities in New Zealand and build trust with those communities. That was a specific point in a few of the royal commission’s recommendations. We see, globally, trust in institutions declining. What advice has the Minister received on the impact of these changes when it comes to increasing or decreasing trust from these specific communities who are being impacted by this change?
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (21:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll avoid going back and relitigating—you know, the member’s desire to try and hunt down particular individuals appointed to positions who particular individual members of Parliament might think not to be suitable for the job. I don’t think that’s a helpful way of talking about our public sector leaders, but I will address the point around the impact on the disabled community. I’ll draw the member’s attention to section 73 of the principal Act. Section 73 requires public sector employers to operate employment policies that recognise the employment requirements of people with disabilities. That is an obligation for the public sector to undertake and does not change with this bill.
In terms of the question around advice received on whether or not we anticipate a change in, I guess, what is the demographic make-up, I would assume not. I think that goes back to the point we made earlier, which is that we expect the public sector to be made up of highly competent, intelligent, capable people. Those people exist across all facets of life, and if we are hiring those people then I would expect—whether that comes from an ethnic minority or a particular gender minority or any other kind of demographic; you might want to split it—that those people are able to be identified, because they exist in those communities in abundance. We don’t think that this will have a significant change—or any change, really—from the removal of the list of matters in section 97, which clause 39 removes, because we are, of course, talking about the Government Workforce Policy Statement. I outlined to Camilla Belich, before, the reasons why we think this is the right thing to do.
I’ll just note that the advice in front of me does say that over the last decade, including prior to the changes made in the 2020 Act, we have seen significant positive upward trends in ethnic and gender and minority representation across the board. I suspect it has more to do with our society’s desire to see a workforce which is representative of New Zealand. For us, that means a workforce which represents the talents, skills, and competency across all parts of society. We expect that to continue. Whether you are from Timaru or Takapuna or Te Atatū or Tauranga or Hamilton, we expect competent people to be appointed to these positions.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Camilla Belich, and I have to say, since I’ve been in—
Todd Stephenson: Oh, Madam Chair!
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I don’t accept complaints from whoever said that. I’m going to take a call from Camilla Belich. I’m hearing a lot of repetition, having been here at the beginning. Unfortunately, as we change people in the House from one week to the next, we get a bit repetitive, but I know that Camilla Belich has been here right from the start and has a methodical way of working through this, so I just want to see if there’s any final questions that you have.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:09): Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate that. I do have some new questions that we haven’t covered, and I’ll just go through the areas that they are.
I think we’ve moved on to the schedules now, which have not been covered to date. There are a couple of questions I have for the Minister around the schedules, and then I do think it is important that we at least cover the long-term insights briefings, which are further along in the schedules, around Schedule 6. That would be my request: to be able to just ask these questions and to cover those long-term insights briefings, because that is one of the major changes in this bill. I have, as Madam Chair has noted, been here from the start and we haven’t been able to yet reach that point in the legislation to cover it.
My initial questions are around the cost recovery in clause 43, and that’s an amendment to Schedule 3. Essentially, as I understand it, the commissioner is able to undertake certain inquiries and investigations into the public sector, and also recover costs from them. There doesn’t seem to be a limit on that listed here, and so I want to know, as the Minister is aware—and we’ve traversed that there are a few lift and shift provisions here. I just wanted to check: is this a lift and shift provision, and even regardless of whether it’s new or a lift and shift provision, I ask whether there is any ability for agencies to agree or monitor the cost of inquiries which the commissioner can do into that department. As members will know, sometimes these can be quite expensive and, for smaller agencies, it might be important to be able to have an idea of the costs. I appreciate it that colleagues from the other side are always keen to make sure that departments are living within their means, and this provision doesn’t have that much detail on it.
The other question that I had is about where there’s a whole power here in new clause 5A in Schedule 3, in clause 43, and it’s also referred to in new clause 4(2A) in Schedule 3, also in clause 43, that looks towards performance improvement reviews. The thing that I wanted to know is: is the Public Service Commissioner being given any additional resources—so it’s kind of the opposite of my last question. There are quite a few powers that they have to be able to conduct performance reviews of agencies. I think that’s an appropriate role for the Public Service Commissioner to have, but are there any additional resources going to be provided to the Public Service Commissioner to allow that to occur?
In the schedule that we haven’t covered yet, there are quite substantial powers that the Public Service Commissioner has, and probably the third point I’d make on this before moving on is that it has quite a significant role in relation to either identification of specific vendors, where it may provide guidance to existing Public Service agencies. I wanted to know the mischief of that, as well. Obviously, there will be particular vendors that they will want to provide guidance for, and they perhaps want a consistency of approach in the public sector in relation to specific vendors, but I do think that that is important.
I do have questions in relation to the long-term insights briefing, but I’ll just see if the Minister would like those questions now or if he is able to address the initial questions.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (21:13): Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of questions around powers for investigations and inquiries. The first one was whether this is a lift and shift or a new power. It’s kind of somewhere in the middle; it codifies existing practice, which, I’m advised, is relatively well accepted, so it just provides some legislative framework for that practice, including the cost recovery around that.
The second question is around the actual undertaking of investigations, and this goes to clause 43(7). The Public Service Commissioner already conducts a number of these investigations within baseline. This just provides a clearer mandate for those investigations and perhaps a bit more specificity on them.
Just to round out the question from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan that I didn’t get to before, he asked a question around whether or not the Ministry for Ethnic Communities and Ministry for Pacific Peoples and others had provided feedback. Yes, the feedback was taken into account when drafting the legislation, and that is noted in the regulatory impact statement.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:14): Thank you, Madam Chair. I did, as noted before, have some questions around the long-term insights briefings. Essentially, what this bill is doing, as I understand it, and this is in relation to Schedule 6. At the moment, I think we have about 34 long-term insights briefings which are created, and one of the functions is that Parliament actually has a better idea of being able to scrutinise the different agencies on what they intend to do long term.
Now, this takes it right back to one single long-term insights briefing, which is a significant change. We heard at select committee that the long-term insights briefing would be able to look across a number of different portfolios; it’s meant to be created by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). We did have a number of submissions on this at select committee, and the submissions were generally in favour of, if I recall correctly, keeping the long-term insights briefings, because of how valuable they were to certain members of the community. In fact, there was a submission given by the Clerk of the House that indicated that, in his view, the long-term insights briefings as they are currently collated and put forward to the House actually do assist the House in scrutinising. What I wanted to know from the Minister is: what checks and balances will there be in place to ensure that the single now long-term insights briefing from DPMC truly does reflect the type of content that we were getting from the 34 different long-term insights briefings?
Additionally, I put some amendments on the Table—I’m sure my colleague Francisco Hernandez may have as well—around whether there is perhaps a better balance that we could strike in relation to going from, I think, 34 down to one. I’ve listed some for potential agencies in my amendment to be covered by long-term insights briefings. I think this is quite a significant change in terms of how we think about issues long term. I wondered what other direction could be given to agencies to allow that long-term thinking to occur. We do often find with agencies, when we’re looking at the Estimates and we’re looking at the annual reviews, that we’re looking very much in the short term. There is a need, and it should be noted that the infrastructure plan that the Minister’s Government announced did look towards some of this long-term decision making that I understand the report indicates is incumbent upon New Zealand to make.
One of the things that submitters were concerned about is how this will actually work—in terms of such a significant reduction in the long-term insights briefings—and what, really, we can expect the guidance to be to the public sector to make sure they are considering the long-term challenges that face New Zealand, in the absence of a requirement to provide a long-term insights briefing. Of course, I think this is something that parliamentarians in select committees should also note. We can open briefings into any issue that we want. That, I think, might be something the Minister wants to comment on as well, in terms of making sure that Parliament actually has that long-term view. I think submitters—and I agree with them—are right to think that we are losing some long-term strategic focus by the loss of these long-term insights briefings.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (21:18): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member Camilla Belich, without wanting to get too much into legal parlance or court phrase, asked and answered her own question around views on long-term insights briefing. Essentially, just to go to the amendments, I understand the desire to try and meet a balance between 34 and one large one which covers multiple areas and multiple topics, whether it’s 20 or 19 or 10; there’s probably no one, magic number. I guess the idea behind this is to try and reduce as much as possible the duplication and the repeated resource and try and sharpen the focus on those long-term insights briefings to fit with the priorities of the Government of the day, which is why this would come through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in conjunction with all these other departments. While I acknowledge the amendments, we won’t be supporting them.
To the question around stewardship and taking long-term views and what guarantees we can have that the public sector will continue to look at the long-term impacts of Government policy, we had this discussion, I think, right at the top of the debate when we started the committee stage; we had quite a lengthy discussion around long-termism and active citizenship and some of the ways that Governments can take long-term views. Members across the House can agree on the long-term priorities or projects or 30-year infrastructure plans or whatever it might be that we ended up agreeing on. I pointed to some provisions around requirements for the public sector to take that stewardship role and that long-term role which is already existing in the Act. That should provide some reassurance that those long-term views are taken.
Just, finally, around the value of these long-term insight briefings to select committees, I would agree that there is some value in some of those briefings, particularly when select committees use them well and incorporate them into their scrutiny plans. But, as the member said, select committees have quite a wide-ranging range of powers to initiate their own briefings and inquiries and request documents and information from departments, and so if there is a desire from select committees to have that information available to fit with the priorities of their scrutiny plan, then I’m sure the Parliament would encourage select committees to take those steps.
I think one thing that would be good for select committees to consider, perhaps as we wrap up this section and as they look to wrap up their work programme for the year, is that we report on our scrutiny activities as select committees, but perhaps before the Parliament rises, select committees consider setting out some guidance for future select committees about how they may want to manage or adopt or adapt a future scrutiny plan.
I recall that when we came into this Parliament, scrutiny plans were quite new, and we were kind of making them up on the fly and we had no guidance or sort of templates from previous select committees. I think that would be a good thing to do—for one select committee to leave a bit of a legacy for the next one to carry on the focus of that particular scrutiny plan, with the ability to change it.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (21:21): 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 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5(1)(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to replace clause 5(1)(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 10 to replace the Purpose in new section 11 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 10 replacing new section 11(a) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 10, new section 11(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 10 replacing new section 11(b) to include reference to “a spirit of service to people and planet” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 10 replacing new section 11(b) to include reference to “serves with a spirit of service” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 replacing new section 11A(1)(a) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 deleting new section 11A(1)(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 replacing new section 11A(1)(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 replacing new section 11A(1)(c) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 replacing new section 11A(1)(f) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 replacing new section 11A(1)(g) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 replacing new section 11A(1)(i) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 replacing new section 11A(1)(j) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 11 inserting new section 11A(1)(k) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 12 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 insert new clause 12A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’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 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing clause 14(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment inserting clause 17(3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 21 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing clause 21 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to replace clause 21, section 44(c) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 27 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to delete clause 29 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 30 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 30 replacing new section 55A(1) to include a reference to “receiving the approval” of the chief executive be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 30 replacing new section 55A(1) to specify that key positions must be “part of the senior or executive leadership team” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 30 replacing new section 55A(2)(a) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 30 deleting new section 55A(2)(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 30 replacing new section 55A(2)(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 30, new section 55A to insert new subsection (2A) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 30 replacing new section 55A(6) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 30, new section 55A to insert new subsection (6A) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 31, replacing “Deputy Commissioner” with “Deputy Commissioners” is out of order as being a direct negation of the question.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 31 inserting section 59(c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 32 replacing new section 66A(3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 32 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 32 replacing new section 66A(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 55A to insert new subsection (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 34 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 deleting clauses 34(2) and 39 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment replacing clause 34(1) and (2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez's tabled amendment deleting clause 35 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 35, inserting section 75 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 37 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 37, inserting new section 89F be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 38, new section 98B to insert new subsection (6) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 39 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 43(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing clause 43(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 43(7) replacing new clause 5A(3) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 43(7) replacing new clause 5C(3)(a) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 43(7) replacing new clause 5C(3)(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 45(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 45(1), deleting new paragraph (c)(ii) in clause 2(4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 45(1), replacing new paragraph (c)(ii) in clause 2(4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 45, replacing clause 8(1) and inserting new clause 8(1A) in Schedule 6 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 delete clause 45, subclauses (1) to (6) and (8) and (9) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 45(8) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 46 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 delete clauses 46(4) and (6) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 46(4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing clause 46(4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti 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 Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 46(11) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te 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 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress. In doing that, I would like to welcome Tom Rutherford back to the House, after an amazing wedding in the most trying of circumstances in the Bay of Plenty. Welcome back, Tom. Congratulations.
Progress to be reported.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has further 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) (22:22): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.