Tuesday, 3 March 2026

Tuesday, 3 March 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy 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.

Motions

Middle East—Conflict

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:01): I seek leave to move a motion without notice regarding the current conflict in the Middle East.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I move, That this House express its concern at the escalating conflict in the Middle East, that it deplores civilian casualties, and calls on all parties to respect international law, and that it calls for a diplomatic process in the deescalation of activities.

Just three nights ago the United States and Israel commenced military operations against Iran; actions that New Zealand has had no part in, but actions that are designed to prevent Iran from continuing to gravely threaten international peace and security. My first instinct is for those immediately affected: the brave people of Iran who have lived for so long under the yoke of repression, and some of whom are now, all too sadly, the innocent civilian victims of war; those living in the Gulf countries who are now living under fear and intimidation from Iran’s indiscriminate retaliatory attacks; New Zealand families worrying about loved ones living in Iran, or other parts of the region; and Kiwis living in or moving through the region, who now face enormous uncertainty. They are all in my thoughts, as I’m sure they are for everyone in this House.

New Zealand’s perspective on Iran has been consistent for decades and through successive Governments. The country is ruled by an evil regime. One that has directly menaced peace and security. One that has claimed countless lives in Iran and internationally. One that has, for decades, called for the destruction of the United States and Israel. For most of my life, Iran’s proxy groups, whether Hezbollah, Hamas or Houthis, have sowed discord and terrorism across the Middle East and beyond, killing and maiming civilians—destabilising the region. It’s not just Iran’s proxy groups, but the regime itself has destabilised the region. It has been more than two decades since Iran’s nuclear programme was exposed and New Zealand began demanding that Tehran comply with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations—it still has not.

Through diplomacy, Iran has been presented with multiple opportunities to dismantle it’s nuclear programme and end its support for those terrorist proxy groups; it has chosen not to heed those calls. The Iranian regime denies its people the ability to live free from fear of their own Government. It was in 2022 that the New Zealand Government again reset our engagement with Iran, after Mahsa Amini died at the hands of the regime’s police. She was fatally beaten for failing to wear her hijab in accordance with Government regulations. Just as they did then, we’ve seen the people of Iran take to the streets, again, this year, to demand change, only to be met by the ruthless violence and murder of this regime.

Just last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced further measures against 40 members of the Iranian regime implicated in the recent brutal killing of tens of thousands of protesters. So our position as a country has been enduringly clear: we have long supported actions to prevent Iran from undertaking a ballistic missile and nuclear programme that flouts international law, supporting terrorist organisations in the Middle East and further afield, and perpetrating acts of brutal violence, murder, and repression against its own people.

I want to acknowledge that there are different views on the legitimacy of the actions taken by the US and Israel. I respect those views and the vigour with which they have been offered. New Zealand, unlike Iran, is a flourishing democracy, but, surely, there can be no doubt about the importance to all of us of preventing Iran from continuing on its pathway of repression, State-sponsored terrorism, and a well-documented pursuit of nuclear weapons.

If anyone is in any doubt about the heinous nature of this regime, they need only look at its cynical, indiscriminate, and murderous assault on civilians and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf and beyond in just the last three days. It is these circumstances that will be driving the Government’s response in the days ahead.

First, we are focused on our citizens, and with several thousand Kiwis living in the region or traveling through it, our diplomats are doing what they can to support them to stay safe and to move only when it is secure to do so. At home, our police are engaged with affected communities and are more visible in some locations to provide reassurance. Our second line of effort is understanding the impacts to air space and sea lanes in the Middle East, with the consequences it may have for our businesses and our consumers. The final line of effort is diplomacy. New Zealand is far from the Middle East, and I do not overestimate our influence over events there. We are not central to this region or this conflict. None the less, we join with those who call for civilians to be protected and international humanitarian law to be respected amidst the hostilities.

We want this crisis to end as quickly as possible. Escalation by Iran and its proxies through retaliatory attacks across the Gulf and beyond is reprehensible and not the pathway out of this crisis. Instead, we urge a return to diplomacy and, as the Government made clear in its statement on Sunday, respect for international law. Rather than attacking its neighbours, the new Iranian leadership should now focus on a negotiated solution. Thank you.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): I move, That the following words be added “and expresses our concern that these actions are contrary to international law and a violation of the United Nations Charter.”

I want to begin by extending our thoughts to all those across the Middle East who have found their lives turned upside down by this recent military action. To all the New Zealanders who are concerned about loved ones spread throughout the Middle East, we send our thoughts to you as well.

New Zealand is a small country, but we can be a country that leads the world on international matters, not because we are the biggest, not because we are the loudest, not because we have the largest military or the biggest economy, but because as a country we know who we are, we know what our values are, and we have the courage to stick up for the things that we think are important around the world.

New Zealand has stood proudly and independently on the world stage as a voice of peace, as a voice for human rights, and, importantly, as a strong voice and advocate for the principles of international law. That voice is more important now than it ever has been. Small countries like New Zealand rely on international laws for our own security, for own economic prosperity, and for our own freedom. We turn our backs on international law at our own peril.

The US and Israel bombing of Iran is a clear breach of international law. There is no UN mandate for it. There is no evidence that these attacks were a necessary act of self-defence. For the United States to claim that it was a pre-emptive act of self-defence because they were aware that Israel was going to attack Iran and that Iran may launch retaliatory attacks as a result of that shows absolute contempt for international law and for the institutions that are designed to uphold it.

The Iranian Government is a brutal, oppressive, and barbaric regime. It is possible to condemn their repression, to condemn the repression of their regime, and still to be clear that unilateral military escalation is not the answer. In recent months, tens of thousands of Iranians have shown extraordinary courage. They have been taking to the streets, and they have been demanding change at enormous personal risk. They’re fighting for their rights, for the right to shape their own future, but the struggle of the Iranian people cannot be used to excuse military action that breaches international law and risks destabilising the entire region and further beyond. It didn’t work in Iraq, it didn’t work in Afghanistan, and it won’t work in Iran. When is the world going to learn the clear lessons of history? Dropping bombs, creating chaos, and then walking away will not give the Iranian people the future that they deserve. Our response must reflect must reflect our deep empathy for the innocent people who are being caught up in these event, for families losing loved ones, for civilians displaced by fear and destruction, whole populations who are facing huge uncertainty.

Let’s all be very clear as a Parliament: there is never a justification for killing school children! It should never be excused or tolerated by anybody in this House. We should be calling for restraint, for diplomacy, for the Iranian people’s right to determine their own future.

Hon Shane Jones: You never said that about Hamas.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealand has stood up before and we should stand up again now. New Zealand opposed the US invasion of Iraq and history proved that was the correct decision.

We’ve called for a return to the international rules-based order and we are right to do so. When other countries breach the international rules-based order, New Zealand has called them out. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we called that out as a breach of the international rules-based order, and we were right to do that. When Vladimir Putin invades his next country of choice, what moral authority will we have as a country to call on him to obey the international rules-based order if we are not willing to ask the same standard of countries that we have a closer relationship with?

International law applies to everyone, including our friends and allies. No country should place itself above international law. We have a proud history as New Zealand of standing for peace, for the rule of law, for multilateral solutions. On issues of war and peace, we should not be timid; we should be principled. Those are our values as New Zealanders, and it is also in our interests to stand up for those values. War is not inevitable; peace has to be our goal, but to achieve that we must back international law and the international institutions that exist to uphold it. Those laws are under threat now more than ever before, as are those institutions. New Zealand’s interests, and our values and our principles, are served by fighting for that international rules-based system.

SPEAKER (14:13): I didn’t want to interrupt the member at all but there was some degree of commentary during that speech. It’s a very, very serious issue and I’d ask members to restrain as much as possible for interjecting in other persons’ views. The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:13): We support the amendment. Aotearoa must be a force for peace, not a bystander and certainly not a cheerleader for war, for further aggression, for escalation of violence. The Green Party absolutely condemns the United States’ unlawful and aggressive strikes on Iran, and calls on the Government to do the same. To do so would ensure that we uphold our principled and consistent approach over successive Governments, as a leader of the world, to be able to be clear and have moral courage and leadership, that we actually believe in upholding international law because, to allow for countries unilaterally—that is, without speaking to friends and allies—to make a decision willy-nilly to invade another country just because they do not like their leader is to put us and certainly the world in a dangerous and volatile position. This is the entire point of Prime Ministers and Governments upholding international law. And so, at a time when it asks of any Prime Minister to upstand and uphold that law, we are not seeing that right now.

Let us be clear: the Greens have been on the ground, have maintained relationships, have continued to provide platform and voice for the fact that the Iranian Government was no friend of the law and no friend of human rights. The Greens have continuously condemned the brutality, the violence, and the oppression of Iranian freedom activists, who deserve freedom from the oppression of the Iranian Government, as much as they deserve freedom from war and terror inflicted upon them, also, by Israel and the United States. We will continue to be present on the ground and in communities, including with the Iranian diaspora here in Aotearoa, to continue to uphold a Green Party charter value, which is non-violence. That will prevail for us, and we are on record for doing that work.

We are watching the United States make the same mistakes as they made when they invaded Iraq, except with even less of a plan, even less public support, and even less of an attempt by the United States Government to justify it to the international community under international law. I agree with my colleague Mr Hipkins that already, over 550 Iranians have died in the US-Israeli attacks, 165 of which were at a girls’ school in southern Iran, targeted by US-Israeli strikes. We have always been clear that all human lives must be valued, must be humanised. We can never ever dismiss the value of any lives lost.

New Zealand has to stand up for the rules-based international order. The Government is right that for a small State like New Zealand, the rules-based international order is all we have to protect our interests against those of military powers, and yet this Government refuses to take action to uphold that very order that they have professed to agree with when it is violated by the United States and Israel. The Government’s selective responses to crimes committed by the United States and Israel, as opposed to those committed by Russia, China, and Iran, undermine New Zealand’s credibility as a fair player in the international sphere. When Russia illegally invades a sovereign nation, in breach of international law, New Zealand joined efforts to condemn Russia, sanction Russia, and arm Ukraine. And yet when the United States illegally attacks Iran, our Prime Minister stands there in support of the strikes.

Israel and the United States are escalating the unchecked genocide of Palestinians into an all-out war in the Middle East. Their disregard for international law, human rights, and the sanctity of human life, is the greatest threat to peace on this planet.

We also hope that if the bombs stop falling, despite the odds, Iranians and all peoples in the region can live in freedom and democracy, free from the violence of the Iranian State and from the American military. We also urge that the Government take every step right now to ensure the wellbeing of New Zealanders in Iran and of all people impacted by this war, and for families, including a blanket extension on visas, to ensure that people do not have to go through the stressful process of an unwieldy application or, worse, be returned to dangerous war zones and violence. We think, and we know, that this is something that the Government could simply agree to do.

In closing, I emphasise again the duty and the responsibility of the Government and the Prime Minister to maintain our principled and consistent approach to upholding international law and to either come up with the evidence that this was not illegal, or condemn it for being illegal. Thank you.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) (14:20): I rise on behalf of the Prime Minister’s statement and in opposition to the amendment proposed by Chris Hipkins. Nobody should want violence and oppression or war or bombing, but the people of Iran and their neighbours have suffered nearly five decades of it from this evil regime. There will be people who will want to debate what international law means in this context. There will be some who say that it is never important, and that might is always right. There will be others who will say that international law gives unconditional protection to the most murderous dictators, even when they kill tens of thousands of their own people. The truth is that that will probably be a question debated for many decades by experts in universities, but right now—I hate to say—the world is not waiting for New Zealand to cast its judgment on that question.

Some of the arguments that have been made already in this debate demonstrate the total absurdity of people who like to navel gaze and pontificate on a matter they know so little about. People who don’t know what it is that the Americans or the Israelis knew somehow pretend that they know more than people involved in the conflict—and we’ve heard from that. We’ve heard the true absurdity of the position that there is some sort of moral equivalent between the action of the last few days and Putin invading Ukraine. Let me give you a clue. The people of Ukraine united ferociously, fiercely, and bravely around their democratically elected leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and have fought the Russian army of Putin for the last four years as of last Wednesday. The people of Iran were machine-gunned by the tens of thousands for peacefully demonstrating against their Government by their own Government. To somehow gloss over that difference shows a level of ignorance and, frankly, pomposity that I can’t possibly comprehend—even from the Opposition, for whom I normally leave a lot of leeway.

This Government, as we heard from our Prime Minister, is taking a far more practical approach to this conflict. Number one, we are looking after New Zealanders, and particularly those many Iranis who chose to become New Zealanders and have sought safety in New Zealand. They deserve to continue being safe here, and the Government is taking steps to ensure that they are protected, because as we saw only recently, the tentacles of this regime have already stretched as close to our shores as our ally in Australia. Number two, we are looking after New Zealanders in the region of the Middle East. I’ve personally seen on social media people I know well who have been stranded and are sheltering in place, their flights cancelled, and very fearful of what may happen to them. The New Zealand Government is offering support and information so that those people can be safe.

We’re also hoping that there might be an opportunity for people like—sadly, not her—but people like Mahsa Amini to be able to wear their hair however they please and to live their life with the rights that women in every country should have but that have been denied to Irani women for far too long, for far too many generations. We hold hope that the evil that has propagated out from Tehran to the region surrounding them—and that is currently being manifested by missiles to just about every Arab State—will finally cease, and that there will be a lasting peace and a prosperity in the beautiful region of Persia that lives up to its heritage.

So we stand here with hope, but we also stand here with a steely resolve and a close eye on what this means for New Zealand as the possibility of the Strait of Hormuz being closed, disruption in world markets, and a restriction in the supply of energy—because we know what that can mean for New Zealand households. We know our own history, and we know—and I was with Sir Roger Douglas just this morning—that the last time there was a revolution in Iran, it set off, through energy prices, a revolution here in New Zealand. These things can affect us severely, too, and as a Government we do what we always do, which is make careful use of taxpayer money, govern carefully, and make sure that this country is run well so that whatever circumstances we may face in the future as a result of this conflict, New Zealanders will be facing from a position of strength.

With that, I leave my final thoughts with those many, many victims—those from the last few days, but those from the last five decades—of this awful regime. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion—

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to take a call.

SPEAKER: Yeah, no, you’ve got a call.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge those who have lost their lives in this unjust war and illegal bombing in Iran, but the many people who have lost lives through the world going mad with war, and we can see war happening all over the world. Aotearoa must stand for peace. Martin Luther King once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Te Pāti Māori stands firmly opposed to war and military escalation in Iran and across the Middle East. We reject the idea that bombing, invasion, and unilateral military strikes create peace—history shows us the opposite. Military aggression disestablishes regions, costs civilian lives, and deepens intergenerational trauma. Two truths can exist at once: authoritarian regimes can be oppressive, and foreign military intervention driven by geopolitical interests does not liberate ordinary people. It is everyday families who pay the price. There is never an excuse or justification for bombing innocent girls while they are learning at school.

As indigenous peoples, we know what it means when powerful nations justify force in the name of security, order, or freedom. Too often, those words mask economic interest, strategic dominance, and political ego. The legacy is displacement, grief, and long-term instability. Aotearoa must not be silent. I heard one of the speakers say the world is not waiting for what New Zealand thinks. I don’t care. New Zealand is waiting for what New Zealand thinks. What is our moral compass? We cannot allow America or Israel to be the moral judge on humanitarian rights and then align with those regimes that, for a long time, have had some of the poorest humanitarian regimes in history. Aotearoa must not be silent or complicit, Prime Minister. Our foreign policy should be grounded in international law, multilateral diplomacy, and the protection of civilian life.

We call on the New Zealand Government to publicly condemn unilateral military aggression; advocate for immediate de-escalation; stop aligning with the USA and being a proxy for Zionism—being the doorway for their military agenda here in the Pacific. Kick the FBI out; the United States and Israeli ambassadors. Let’s put a pou in the ground. Pull out of AUKUS negotiations—because you can see those countries have been targeted now, and we’ve been saying that for a while. Support diplomatic pathways through the United Nations. Prioritise humanitarian aid and civilian protection. Peace is not naive. Diplomacy is not weakness. International law is not optional. War has never delivered enduring safety for ordinary people. It delivers profit for arms dealers and political theatre for leaders, while families bury their loved ones.

The quote from Martin Luther King goes on to say, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” We also must acknowledge that war affects everyday whānau here in Aotearoa in real and practical ways. I acknowledge the Iranian people who live here, who have made Aotearoa their home, who have run away from those regimes.

When bombs are dropped overseas, we feel it here at the checkout. Global conflict pushes oil prices up; transport costs rise, making kai more expensive and harder to access during a cost of living crisis. We must translate what this means for everyday New Zealanders. We can get caught up in the geopolitical kōrero, and I don’t want to take anything away from those who have lost their lives in these atrocities, but I do want to say that we have to translate what the impacts are for our people here in Aotearoa, because it will have an impact on us—absolutely. The price of oil is not just what you pay for at the gas pumps, but what you pay in almost every item that needs to be brought to you from somewhere else, which is almost everything. These are the trucks in Ohakune transporting carrots to Auckland; these are those Māori organisations; these are all of our farmers that will be affected by these wars.

How do we translate the impact on Aotearoa? Yes, we might be buried deep down in the South of the Pacific, but when we start to align to all of these regimes across the world that are inflicting pain and suffering, what is the impact on our people—what is the impact on our people? We are already in a cost of living crisis. This is going to give the pinch to our people even more. Poverty will be entrenched; it will be intergenerational poverty. There is nothing that this Government or any other Government will be able to do, unless we start looking at cleaner, more efficient energies here in Aotearoa and stop relying on those dirty fossil fuels from overseas. “Drill, baby, drill”—that’s not the call for Aotearoa. “Mining!” is not the call for Aotearoa. The call for Aotearoa is for us to be more self-sufficient. It is to stop the dependence on those fossil fuels. We should be prepared for any of these things as we head into the future.

So my call today, to this Government, is: what are we going to do to ensure that we alleviate the pressure that will impact our families here in Aotearoa—that will impact the Iranians who have made Aotearoa their home? We need that to sink in.

We are all taxpayers here, but giving $3 billion to landlords is not a very good use of taxpayer money. We should be investing that into more sustainable energies here in Aotearoa, because we’re going to be impacted by geopolitical decisions made by other countries around the world and we are going to feel the pinch—absolutely, we are going to feel the pinch.

SPEAKER: Come back to the motion.

RAWIRI WAITITI: We support the addition to the motion made by Chris Hipkins and we absolutely—absolutely—call for peace on this particular issue. We want to ensure that our people understand the impacts that it will have on our people living here in Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (14:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are principles that carry us through the storms of our global history. They form the architecture of our international rules-based order. They aren’t about perfection. They are about anchoring our world toward peace and security, toward evidence-based action, toward multilateralism, toward minimising the mass displacement of people across borders, toward minimising the loss of lives and suffering globally. They anchor us against chaos and they anchor us against the philosophy of might is right.

We have two obligations in respect of the rules-based order. The first is to follow the rules. The second is to hold others accountable to them. New Zealand has, throughout our history, upheld both these obligations, but this week we have seen a Government shrugging its shoulders at the second of those obligations.

I want to acknowledge those directly affected: the people of Iran. Now, there will be many in Iran and in our Iranian community here who, in this moment, will be filled with an impossible mix of emotions: a mix of fear for their family members, relief at the death of many who were responsible for some of the most atrocious violations of human rights, and of hope for what might come next for Iran.

We condemn the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for its breaches of human rights over decades, and we acknowledge that for so many of these people in Iran and our Iranian New Zealanders this will be a complex time. But two things are true: that the Iranian regime have abused the human rights of its people for decades, with some of the worst repression against women and those who took to the streets in courageous defence of their rights; but at the same time, what we’ve seen in the last few days is a breach of international law by the US and Israel.

We need Governments to speak hard truths, especially when international peace and security are at stake, and right now our Government are choosing not to. Let’s be clear, in the absence of evidence that justifies self-defence under the UN Charter, there is a breach of international law. No evidence has been presented, and while our Government has decided it’s not going to ask for any, surely they can’t ignore what is now in the public space. In the last day, we’ve heard the Pentagon telling Congress there was no sign that Iran was going to attack the US first, and no evidence to support the claim that the US attacked Iran in defence. We’ve heard the Senate Intelligence Committee vice chair say he had seen no intelligence that Iran was on the verge of launching any kind of pre-emptive strike against the United States of America.

This action sits outside what is permissible under international law. This Government should call it what it is, which is a breach of international law. I would note for Government members that there is international law that speaks to when action is possible, when there is the breach of a jus cogens, we have an erga omnes obligation to act when there are mass human rights atrocities. That is not what’s been claimed in this instance.

But perhaps the comments from the Prime Minister yesterday give us a signal as to why they haven’t called it what it is. It feels like this is a Government that doesn’t believe a breach of international law matters. The Prime Minister said that any action that stops Iran is a good thing: “any action”, “any action”, “any action”. It’s one of the most definitive statements I’ve heard the Prime Minister make. It’s a hard statement to walk back when you say it three times on repeat with conviction.

We respect international law because the alternative is worse. The alternative is a world where only force dictates outcomes. There are principles that carry us through the storms of our global history. They’re the bones of our international rules-based order. They aren’t about perfection; they’re about anchoring our world and peace and security. To protect them, we must not only abide by them but require that other nation States do the same.

SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the following words be added “and expresses our concern that these actions are contrary to international law and a violation of the United Nations Charter”.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion, “That this House express its concern at the escalating conflict in the Middle East, that it deplores civilian casualties, and calls on all parties to respect international law, and that it calls for a diplomatic process in the deescalation of activities”, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Debates

Iran and Middle East—Status of New Zealanders

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (14:41): Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Marama Davidson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the status of New Zealanders in Iran and the Middle East following the recent attacks. Since the House has just debated the conflict, the application is declined.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:41): Three petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:41):

Petition of Renata Neilson requesting that the House amend criminal laws to ensure that any person convicted of a crime that resulted in the death of a person under the age of 18 receives a full life sentence

petition of MedicAlert Foundation requesting that the House provide funding to enable at-risk health consumers to access the MedicAlert Foundation’s emergency identification and digital health information services

petition of SAFE requesting that the House establish a Commissioner for Animals, which reviews the animal welfare system, reports on animal welfare science, and provides independent oversight and accountability for animal welfare.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER (14:42): Ministers have delivered three papers.

CLERK (14:42):

Government Superannuation Fund, annual report for 2025

Government responses to the

Justice Committee report to the petition of Christine McCarthy

Petitions Committee report on the petition of Christina Gillmore.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:42): Fourteen select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:42):

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

2024-25 annual review of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

2024-25 annual review of the New Zealand Customs Service and Border Executive Board

international treaty examination of the Agreement to Establish the Pacific Resilience Facility

report of the Health Committee on the review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Cancer Control Agency

reports of the Justice Committee on the

2024-25 annual review of the New Zealand Police

Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2024-25 annual review of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Graeme Axford

petition of Jasmine Nathan

petition of Juliana Carvalho

petition of Trixie O’Dea

report of the Primary Production Committee on the review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd.

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the

Carter Trust Amendment Bill

Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The international treaty and review briefings are set down for consideration.

Bills

Commerce (Commerce Commission Reform) Amendment Bill

Electoral (District Boundaries) Amendment Bill

Data and Statistics (Census) Amendment Bill

Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER (14:44): The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of four bills.

CLERK (14:44):

Commerce (Commerce Commission Reform) Amendment Bill, introduction

Electoral (District Boundaries) Amendment Bill, introduction

Data and Statistics (Census) Amendment Bill, introduction

Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Finance

Question No. 1

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (14:44) to the Minister of Finance: Will conflict in the Middle East have an impact on the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:44): New Zealand is a trading nation, and so significant global events do impact on the economy; the question in this case is how big that impact will be. A lot will depend on how long the conflict continues and whether it escalates. Recent history suggests that global conflict tends to cause short-term volatility in markets but that, over time, they settle back close to previous levels.

Dan Bidois: How have markets reacted to the conflict?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To date, financial market reaction has been relatively muted, so far. The price of crude oil has risen this week, but to nothing like the levels seen when Russia invaded Ukraine. When US markets closed at 10 a.m. today, it was up 7 percent on last Friday’s close, at just under US$78 a barrel. That compares with the price of US$128 a barrel on 8 March 2022. Global equity markets have remained stable; the Standard & Poor’s index actually rose fractionally overnight. But the duration and extent of this conflict remains unclear, and Treasury and the Reserve Bank will continue to monitor market developments closely.

Dan Bidois: What could be the impact of the conflict on New Zealand exports?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Middle East is a relatively small market for New Zealand, but one that is growing in importance. Total exports to the region last year were $3.3 billion, representing 3 percent of New Zealand’s total exports. The conflict, which is disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, will undoubtedly present some challenges. However, New Zealand’s exporters have shown themselves to be extremely resilient and adaptable in recent years, and they are taking advantage of the work the Government is doing to open doors by negotiating rules, removing non-tariff barriers, and diversifying markets to build resilience. It is notable that despite the imposition of tariffs on exports to the US last year, exports to the United States actually increased, as did our overall exports.

Dan Bidois: How could the conflict impact on fuel supplies and prices?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Recently introduced regulations require fuel importers to maintain at least 28 days of petrol and 21 days of diesel reserves, with the Government having acted to increase that requirement. The petrol companies have all reported that healthy stock and additional supplies are already in transit, and so domestic fuel shortages are not anticipated in the short or medium term. The impact on price will depend on how long the conflict continues and whether it escalates.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: With oil prices already 7 percent higher and 20 percent of global supply moving through the Strait of Hormuz, does the Minister accept that New Zealand families will be paying higher fuel, food, and, possibly, mortgage costs because of this conflict, and what concrete steps is she taking to shield them?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it is absolutely the case that the price of crude oil by the barrel has an impact on the fuel prices that New Zealanders pay at the pump, and that’s why I will continue to monitor those movements closely. It also of course has an impact on the cost of freight, food, and other factors in the economy; I acknowledge that. The member overestimates my importance and influence. My ability to end the conflict in the Middle East is limited.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:48) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:48): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the New Zealand Government support the US and Israel’s air strikes against Iran?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said yesterday, we have long supported action that stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon that sponsors State terrorism around the world and also brutally represses its people. But these are independent actions by the US and Israel. We are not party to them, we have not had advance warning, and we have not had a subsequent briefing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the New Zealand Government believe the US and Israel’s air strikes against Iran are in accordance with the United Nations Charter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I’ve noted the member’s comments and his remarks today in the House and I’d just say that I’m unsure as to how he would possibly make the assessment that they are illegal or legal, and that is because the member—or any of the members—does not have access to the information. New Zealand cannot jump to conclusions either way, because, actually, at the end of the day, we have not been party to the information or intelligence around these strikes. We can make assumptions about that, but, as Prime Minister, I have to deal with the facts and the evidence that I have before me, and, as a result, that is why it is up to the US and it is up to Israel to assert the legality of these strikes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Secretary-General of the United Nations wrong when he said that the air strikes violated international law and breached core principles of the UN Charter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member has read—as I have, as well—the US has invoked the right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN Charter. It is up for them to provide the legal evidence and the justification for these strikes, but sitting here in New Zealand with people jumping to assumptions based on what they’ve read in media reports, without the knowledge or the information, is not actually what we need to do. We need to be factual and evidence based, and, as a result, we’re not in a position to determine whether they are legal or illegal. That is up to the Americans and the Israelis to assert.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he say that “any actions that stop Iran from getting [nuclear weapons] is a good thing.”, suggesting he’d support any actions, even if they’re contrary to international law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I clarified those remarks this morning.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he repeatedly refuse to condemn the bombing of school children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The bombing of school children, and, actually, any civilian casualties in a war is a total tragedy, and it is terrible what has happened there. But, as you’ve seen, and as I said yesterday, the Americans and the Israelis are commenting on that. This is why we want to see a very quick resolution to this. It’s why we want to see Iran and their leadership resume negotiations very, very quickly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his own statement that “We need to stand up for the international rules based system that has actually served New Zealand incredibly well … When it is under threat, you’ve actually got to call it out, and you’ve got to stand up and make your contribution.”; if so, why won’t he take a position on whether the US’ and Israel’s air strikes are consistent with that international rules-based system, particularly given that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has said they are not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part, absolutely, but as I have just explained to the member, we don’t have the information or intelligence by which these independent actions by the US and Israel were launched, and the member doesn’t, either.

Hon David Seymour: Is it a greater priority for his Government to rush to judgment on a rapidly developing matter on the other side of the world or to carefully manage the New Zealand economy for the benefit of New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think I have a responsibility to say very clearly that it’s very easy to jump to assumptions and make assertions from here but we do not have the information. We are not party to the information or intelligence. These were—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Show some leadership.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the member may interject from the other side, but that is the reality of it. Does that member have the information, as well—does the member have the information?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been hesitant to interrupt the flow because it’s a serious issue that deserves serious scrutiny, but I would just draw your and the House’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 186/6, which is about opinions being “sought that in effect are asking for a legal interpretation,”. There has been quite a bit of backwards and forwards between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the legality and the seeking of legal opinions. The Speaker’s ruling from Speaker Wilson in 2008 was quite clear that “If legal opinions are called for, they will not be permitted.”

SPEAKER: That is quite true at the time that the Rt Hon Margaret Wilson was dealing with that. I’m sure she wasn’t dealing with an international crisis of this type, and I think the questions that have been asked were pretty adequately answered by the Prime Minister.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is the Prime Minister doing right now to protect the economy of New Zealand as conflict in the Middle East escalates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the finance Minister has alluded, the effects on the market at this point have been somewhat muted. We are monitoring it very closely, and I can tell you that the finance Minister is doing so and Treasury is doing so. But this is a Government that is very focused on growing the economy, and that work continues because in a world that is increasingly volatile and uncertain, there are two things we can do: one is to build a stronger economy here at home, and the second thing we can do is diversify and deepen our relationships internationally.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will his Government commit to automatically extending visas for people who are in this country right now whose home countries have been affected by this war, as happened in the context of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I understand that we are doing that, and the Minister of Immigration will continue to take advice on that too.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe the bombing of civilians in Iran makes the world safer for ordinary families in Aotearoa, and if so, how?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think the bombing of civilians in Iran or any conflict around the world is an absolute tragedy—an absolute tragedy—and that is why we want to see negotiations resume quickly and that’s why we expect and join with the international community in wanting to see a very quick resolution to this conflict.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will building a closer relationship with Donald Trump, who has bombed at least seven countries this term, make Aotearoa safer?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As Prime Minister of New Zealand, my responsibility is to act in New Zealand’s national interests and to make sure that we are secure and prosperous. That is the work of this Government and what we have been doing over the last two years.

Justice

Question No. 3

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (14:55) to the Minister of Justice: What progress has the Government made towards its violent crime reduction target?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:56): Excellent progress. We’ve seen a significant drop in the number of victims of violent crime since this Government was elected, with the latest New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey showing there were 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime in the year to October 2025 than two years previously. This follows a focus on restoring real consequences for crime and placing victims at the centre of the justice system. There is still much work to do, but Kiwis can be proud of the progress that we’ve made together.

Tom Rutherford: What was the original target that the Government set to reduce the number of victims of violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: When we came into Government in October 2023, there were 185,000 victims of violent crime, and the Government set a target of reducing that figure to 165,000, a reduction of 20,000 victims, by 2029.

Hon Simeon Brown: We didn’t hear that on 1News.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well—and this is in particular for the benefit of viewers of 1News and others who may be interested—the latest figure is that there are 136,000 victims of crime, a reduction of 49,000. That’s 49,000 families that don’t have to go through the pain and suffering of dealing with the victims of violent crime and being the victims and being the families of those victims. That is great progress.

Tom Rutherford: Why is it important that the number of victims of violent crime reduces?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: This Government is committed to restoring the basics in law and order and building a future where New Zealanders feel safe in the community. It’s not just the victims of violent crime who are affected; of course, it is their families and their communities as well. The previous Government, in its wisdom, had a focus on reducing the number of people in prison. We’ve shifted that focus to focusing solely on reducing the number of victims of violent crime. That has been our focus and will always be our focus.

Tom Rutherford: What is next on the Government’s agenda to further reduce the number of victims of violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We’ve made tremendous progress, but there’s still more work to do. Very shortly, we’ll be introducing legislation to strengthen trespass laws in New Zealand, followed by legislation to provide police with the power to deal with antisocial disorderly behaviour in our CBDs, and our Crime Amendment Bill is making its way through the House. I’m proud of the work that the law and order team across Government are doing, which is making a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders. We know right here that there is much more work to do.

Finance

Question No. 4

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:59) to the Minister of Finance: Why did she say Kiwis are being impatient for cost of living relief, when she promised it in July 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:59): Because they, like me, are impatient. We all want a stronger economy sooner and I share their frustration. These are New Zealanders who, as recently as 2022, endured annual price increases of 6.9 percent, 7.3 percent, 7.2 percent, and 7.2 percent in successive quarters. I note that in July 2024, the Government did provide promised cost of living relief through tax changes that benefited around 1.9 million New Zealand households by an average of $60 extra a fortnight in their hand—$60 a fortnight I take the member would want to take back. This, of course, has been joined by other measures including FamilyBoost, scrapping the Auckland fuel and ute tax, extending Working for Families, rates rebates for SuperGold card holders—I could go on. Most importantly, however, since 2023, inflation has come down, markedly. I, too, am impatient for the economy to grow with higher wages and higher employment, and inflation settled within the target band. That takes time, however, and international events, as we have seen, mean the recovery is not necessarily a smooth road.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many of the 21,000 families that she promised would receive a $250 tax cut have actually received it; or are they just being impatient?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If the member wants specific data she should put it in the question on notice. However, it is the case that, in terms of the FamilyBoost tax credit, we made changes to that last year, which I note the member’s party supported—having earlier opposed—which mean that many families have now got more than $150 a fortnight in relief from that policy, which combined with the impact of tax relief, means there are, undoubtedly, families who will have received tax relief through bracket changes, Working for Families changes, and FamilyBoost that amount to that $250. Most importantly, we were always clear that they would receive up to that amount; we never promised that was an average.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are families impatient because she promised to “reduce food prices for Kiwis” and has done nothing to help?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have gone and reviewed documents which the member’s leader referred to in the House. I have written to him about this, because the article the member is referring to now is a paraphrase from a journalist. The video which Mr Hipkins has referred to previously, in which he said that I made the statement that “National would make groceries cheaper”—that statement is not included in that video at any stage. I have provided the full transcript to Mr Hipkins; he has chosen not to correct his statement.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to correct the Minister’s response to my question in relation to the transcript that she was quoting. She was quoting a Chris Hipkins quote from last week; I was actually quoting from a transcript of the Hon Nicola Willis’ press conference on 27 August 2025, where she said, “The purpose of this briefing is to update you on the Government’s next steps to increase grocery competition and reduce food prices for Kiwis.” So the Minister responded to a quote that was not what I was referring to.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, you can see the dilemma when her leader makes statements that are not referenced in fact, and I then have cause to question statements that member makes as well.

SPEAKER: Yep, I can see the dilemma. Ask your next supplementary.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can I ask that one again?

SPEAKER: If you want to ask it again, that’s fine.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are people impatient because she promised, on 27 August 2025, action on “reducing food prices for Kiwis” and she’s done nothing to help?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m with every New Zealander who would like to see groceries cheaper. The question for us is whether or not we can make groceries cheaper than would otherwise be the case. It is the case that when inflation is higher, grocery prices increase more rapidly, and that with inflation under control, they have not risen as fast as could have been the case with a more profligate and higher-spending Government. It is also the case that our Government has taken action to do what we can to support more competition in the grocery sector. Those actions include changes to the fast-track legislation and changes to building consent rules to enable new entrants to compete. The Commerce Commission have reported extensively on the margins which supermarket operators charge for their goods, and those increasing margins, and I join with those New Zealanders who wish to see grocery prices cheaper. I am realistic about the role of Government in that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are people impatient because she promised action on energy prices but she’s introducing a gas tax instead?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There can be no affordability and security of electricity supply in New Zealand unless we, as policy makers, address the very real challenge of what happens to electricity supply on days when there isn’t enough water in the hydro lakes, the sun isn’t shining, and the wind isn’t blowing. If we do not address that challenge, electricity prices will only go up. I note that future pricing for energy on the wholesale market has reflected risk reduction since the Government’s statements on LNG and Genesis Energy.

Ryan Hamilton: What has been the target for inflation over successive Governments?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, since 2002, successive Governments have had a target for the Reserve Bank of annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation of between 1 and 3 percent on average over the medium term. The target, of course, has never been about prices falling across the board but is aimed at low and stable inflation. Of course, the only significant change was between 2019 and 2023, when the Reserve Bank was given an additional objective to support maximum sustainable employment. During that period, I note that annual inflation reached the heights of 7.3 percent and stayed out of target for 33 consecutive months. I understand some people are actively considering bringing back a dual mandate. It shows they are not serious about getting inflation under control.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the only thing Kiwis are actually impatient for is for that Minister to stop feeding them false promises, stop being distracted, and just focus on her actual job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The loudest false promise I have heard in recent times has been from those who out of one side of their mouth say that they care deeply about the cost of living and out the other side of their mouth say that they would change the inflation targeting regime, would introduce new taxes on tenants, and at the same time would remove the Investment Boost tax policy that is the very thing that Treasury says will drive future wage growth. I care deeply about the cost of living, but it is not enough to care; that member needs to come up with serious policies on the cost of living if she wants to be taken seriously.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister impatient to know how Barbara Edmonds thinks she’d ever pay for anything—

SPEAKER: No, no—

Hon David Seymour: —and did the Thomas Coughlan interview help her at all?

SPEAKER: No, no. Greg Fleming.

Ryan Hamilton: Close—Ryan Hamilton, sir.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—my apologies.

Ryan Hamilton: That’s all right.

SPEAKER: It’s a long way back there, yeah.

Ryan Hamilton: He is available, though.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Ryan Hamilton.

Ryan Hamilton: Is annual CPI inflation in New Zealand ever negative?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, annual CPI inflation is almost never negative, which is to say that, overall, prices don’t reduce across the economy on average, and Governments don’t target a drop in the overall price level because that would lead to people reducing spending and investing and jobs would be lost and the economy would suffer. Inflation did turn mildly negative in 1999 when the Asian financial crisis reduced the price of imports. Before that, you have to go back to 1946 to find another example of negative inflation. As I said before, Governments aim for positive, low, stable inflation, and it is tragic when they fail to achieve that, because big price increases do get baked in, as they did under the previous Government.

Question time interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Grocery Prices—Social Media Comments

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (15:09): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct a statement that I made in the House regarding a social media post issued by Nicola Willis.

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

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Speaking in the House recently, I alluded to a Facebook post of Nicola Willis where she was unpacking some groceries. I said in that Facebook post that she had committed to lowering grocery prices—I was mistaken. I should have referred to her press statements of 14 June 2023, 13 July 2023, 12 October 2023, her press conference on 27 August 2025, her Facebook video in September 2025—all of which committed her to lowering grocery prices.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (15:09): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that is a misuse of the correction.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, could I have my point of order heard in silence?

SPEAKER: You can start your point of order again. It will be heard in silence.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The statement which I asked to be corrected was that I had posted a video and, clearly, the video that he has referred to did not make the statement that he claimed. The context for the things that he is quoting is quite different; it is about the goal of grocery reforms, and the goal of those reforms is quite clearly to make groceries cheaper. That is very different from issuing a campaign video promising that under National food prices will drop. That was not a promise I made, and I resent being misrepresented in this House and then having him be cute about the fact that he did that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to quote directly from the press statement that I just mentioned where Nicola Willis said she—

SPEAKER: No, no. No hang on, thank you. That’s enough, you can’t do that.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 5

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (15:11) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen from the Ministry of Social Development on the traffic light system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:11): Today, the Ministry of Social Development released an excellent report which reinforces the success of the Government’s traffic light system. It shows that 90 percent of clients found the traffic light system has been helpful for understanding their obligations. These obligations include attending interviews and seminars, reporting to Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and being available for work. Our Government is committed to fixing the basics and building the future by supporting more New Zealanders off welfare and into work.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What were the key findings of the report?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: MSD also found that nearly 99 percent of clients are fulfilling their obligations, and the number of sanctions has dropped by 10.6 percent between September 2024 and September 2025 quarters. The changes we have made have increased client activity and engagement with MSD. This includes a focus on ensuring jobseeker support clients are meeting their obligations. Our Government will continue to support unemployed New Zealanders into work, and a more proactive welfare system is a really important part of this.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How has the traffic light system helped people understand their obligations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The traffic light system was designed to reset the expectations for those on welfare, so they’re clear about both their rights and responsibilities. It is helping job seekers to understand and navigate their obligations, helping them to be prepared, proactive, and seize work opportunities when they come along. The colour-coded communication tool is useful because it helps clients re-comply quickly. This has been especially helpful for clients with literacy challenges or language barriers. We know economic times continue to be challenging, but we want people to be ready as the jobs come. The traffic light system reinforces that expectation.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What other initiatives is the Government implementing to help people into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The traffic light system is just one part of our wider Welfare that Works programme. Our Government continues to support job seekers into work, with investment into MSD’s front line. We’ve also introduced phone-based case management, supporting 10,000 more people in case management at any time. We’ve also improved the way MSD works with businesses to provide opportunities for job seekers to gain employment. The changes that we have made ensure our welfare system proactively supports those who can work to get off welfare, and we know that work is one of the best ways to lift people out of hardship.

Prime Minister

Question No. 6

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (15:14) 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) (15:14): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of how many people, including children, have been kept or made homeless as a result of his Government’s decisions to tighten access to emergency housing, implement benefit sanctions, and more?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member before, I’m very proud that we’ve made house purchasing more affordable. Rents have come down, I think 6,000 or 7,000 people have come off the social housing wait-list, and, when I last looked, 2,100 children have been moved out of emergency housing into proper, dry homes, and there’s big investment going in and support happening in homeless situations as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister did not address the question, which was whether he is tracking any data on how many people have been made or kept homeless as a result of the Government’s decisions to tighten access to emergency housing.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it would be pretty unreasonable to listen to the data that he’s just given and not conclude that there’s some analysis being done.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Sorry, respectfully, Mr Speaker, that data is unrelated. You can count data with regard—

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, sorry. Through the question, I’m not getting into a discussion with you about the merits of an argument.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister then accept the data that shows that homelessness has increased across the country, doubling in Auckland alone, since his Government made decisions to tighten access to emergency housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member before, our record on housing is much better than that member’s, where homelessness went up 37 percent and a billion dollars was spent. What we see is housing affordability for people who can afford to buy a house; we see rents coming down; we’ve seen 6,000 people come off the social housing wait-list; 2,124 kids come out of squalid motels and into proper homes; we’ve seen rents that are actually stable to falling; and, importantly, at last count, Auckland Council, as I understand, is doing daily counts of rough sleepers—there’s about 30 in the CBD; and the good news is that of the 300 Housing First places that we’ve made available, 203 have been tenanted, and 13 have signed leases. So our action plan to make sure that we can support and deal with homelessness in the Auckland CBD, in particular, is making good progress.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Where does he expect those experiencing homelessness, who have been denied support because of his Government’s decisions to tighten the criteria on emergency housing, as having contributed to their own homelessness, to go, if they end up being issued with his intended move-on orders, other than to the next shop front, the next park, or the next cemetery?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the first part of the question, this is a Government that spends $515 million a year with different agencies and organisations supporting homeless folk; it’s a Government that spends $5 billion a year on total housing support. But, again, with respect to the move-on orders—and as the member would have found in the difficulty of leading homelessness and having a 37 percent increase when they were in Government—I just say every situation is different; they’re complex situations. Our police now have tools around the move-on orders; they also are well aware of the social service agencies and are well connected and will plug people into them as need be. But we trust our police, they’ve developed outstanding operational guidelines on gang patches, and we expect similar here.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table internal guidance circulated amongst Ministry of Social Development staff on the criteria to decline emergency housing applications from members of the public.

SPEAKER: Is that a publicly available document?

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, it’s not.

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

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If he ignored advice and concerns from social service providers and experts that reducing access to emergency housing would result in more homelessness, then went ahead with it anyway and we saw more homelessness, will he, then, take the advice of social service providers and experts that his move-on orders will only exacerbate the problems associated with homelessness?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said to the member, I would put this Government’s record up against the Labour-Greens Government’s record, when there was a 37 percent increase in homelessness and $1 billion being spent on emergency housing. I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made, and I’m proud of the fact that our homeless action plan is starting to pay benefit.

Energy

Question No. 7

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (15:18) to the Minister for Energy: Has he received advice on the impact of high levels of rooftop solar and household batteries on wholesale markets and distribution network costs; if so, what were the recommendations in that advice?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy) (15:19): Yes, I have received advice on the impacts of high levels of rooftop solar and household batteries on wholesale markets and distribution costs. It identified potential benefits to household bills, while also requiring significant investment in the grid. That is why the Government is making a number of regulatory changes to make it easier to install rooftop solar and batteries—this includes removing building consent requirements for installing rooftop solar and batteries, mandating retailers to pay a fair price for electricity sold back into the grid from 1 July, along with a number of other regulatory changes to make it easier and cheaper to install rooftop solar and batteries.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment official advice in the regulatory impact statement on incentivising residential solar generation and sustainable buildings, which said of the changes he has just outlined: “the incentive effect is not clear and [is] expected to be minor.”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It would be fair to acknowledge that we considered a long list of options, including renewables, demand response, and new thermal plant. The challenge that we have as a country is that in a dry year, we do not have sufficient fuel to make power. We need a solution to deal with that problem. The solution we have landed on took into account cost, time to deliver, flexibility, and the spillover effects to the other parts of the economy. That is why we landed on the decision that we have made, and not other options.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice this week on the relative impacts on wholesale electricity prices of importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) compared with increasing the uptake on distributed solar generation; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the reality is—and I’m happy to provide a little bit more context for the member—this Government isn’t intending to import LNG to replace natural gas, or for it to be imported regularly enough to see it set the gas price overall. LNG is simply a backup option to be imported during dry years. The alternative is we have no fuel to make electricity, and that was the policy that we inherited and which drove power prices in 2024 to over $800 per megawatt hour and put New Zealand businesses and New Zealanders out of business.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he think it’s responsible to expose New Zealanders to a volatile gas market where, in the last few hours, European LNG prices have jumped more than 50 percent, with projections of 130 percent spikes to come?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I think is irresponsible is to pursue energy policy which incurs blackouts for New Zealanders because we do not have fuel to make electricity in a dry year. That is a situation which we inherited as a Government. We have taken decisive action to import fuel for those dry years as an insurance policy, and as a result we’ve seen future energy prices in this country—subsequent to our announcements—have a downward trajectory, which is positive.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he or anyone in his office shared advice or costings prepared by his officials on solar options with the National Party and/or anyone involved in writing National Party policy?

Hon SIMON WATTS: We have a range of advice regarding solar and batteries that is under active consideration, and when it is no longer under active consideration, then that will be released.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very direct question, asking whether the Minister, or anyone in his office, had shared any of that advice or costings with the National Party or anyone who was involved in writing National Party policy. It’s a pretty simple question, and it deserves a straight answer.

SPEAKER: Well, you got a straight answer.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, I didn’t.

SPEAKER: Yes, you did. He said that once stuff is outside of active consideration, it would be released—clearly not released before that.

Children

Question No. 8

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:23) to the Minister for Children: What recent reports has she seen regarding youth justice?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (15:23): I have seen the Youth Justice Indicators Summary Report for February 2026, which shows a reduction in youth involved in the justice system. We are seeing fewer young people enter the justice system for the first time. I have also seen a briefing from Oranga Tamariki, with more recent data that shows Government Target 3 for reducing child and youth offending has decreased by 22 percent. This is against a target of 15 percent by 2030. I want to thank Oranga Tamariki staff for the lead they’ve taken in achieving this result, alongside their colleagues at Police and other agencies, to ensure there are timely, coordinated, and proper responses to youth offending.

Todd Stephenson: What is the overall trend for child and youth offending under her leadership?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This is the third consecutive drop from the previous quarters, and shows a consistent downward trend in serious and persistent youth offending by children and young people. The downward trend remains positive and continues to exceed expectations. It is also consistent across the majority of the country, with drops of 20 percent or more in eight of the 12 police districts.

Todd Stephenson: Is the Minister satisfied now that the target has been met ahead of schedule?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely not. Just because we have achieved the target well ahead of expectations doesn’t mean we stop now. Every young person deserves the opportunity to be the best version of themselves. The great thing about collecting this data and reporting on it regularly means that we can see where we need to focus our resources and efforts to continue achieving success. For example, when the data indicates some parts of the country aren’t doing as well as others, Oranga Tamariki is able to respond quickly and work alongside police at a regional level to respond.

Todd Stephenson: What does the Minister put this success down to?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Labour’s fast-track policy.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are a number of initiatives that have contributed to this success, such as the intensive case management teams and the Fast Track youth offending programme, which I acknowledge the previous Government started—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, Minister. There’s only one person answering a question—there are no other discussions going on in the House. Two people are in that discussion; they’ll both be going outside to continue it if they wish to. Please start again, the Hon Karen Chhour.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are a number of initiatives that have contributed to this success, such as intensive case management teams and the Fast Track youth offending programme, which I acknowledge was started by the previous Government. This Government took what was working with the Fast Track programme and increased its funding by $30.6 million in Budget 2024 to continue and expand the programme to 14- to 17-year-olds in Hamilton, Auckland, Rotorua, and Christchurch. This is all the result of a Government that is fixing what matters, investing in these young people and their families, and is also focused on the victims of crime and keeping our community safe.

Economic Growth

Question No. 9

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:27) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by her statement, “for every New Zealander who is unemployed and wishes to have a job: our Government is on your side”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) (15:27): Yes. This Government is on the side of New Zealanders who want to work and get ahead. That is why we have been focused on restoring the economic conditions needed for job creation. That is also why we have supported the fast-tracking of job-rich projects, why we have supported the Investment Boost tax relief, and why we have taken action to reduce red tape and restore confidence across a range of industries from farming through to the film sector through to tourism.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she on the side of the nearly 10,000 Wellingtonians who face 10,000 fewer jobs under her economic plan?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think that the number that the member is referring to relies on an analysis by Craig Renney, the shadow finance spokesperson for the Labour Party.

SPEAKER: No, sorry, start again without the added little bit above; you can’t refer to someone who’s outside the House in that term.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think the member is relying on statistics from a source I consider unreliable.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she on the side of the 39,570 construction workers now on jobseeker support?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am absolutely on the side of those in the construction sector who wish to see more employment. That is why, unlike that member, I supported the fast track bill to ensure that job-rich construction projects can happen sooner so people can have shovels in the ground rather than swapping papers in court; that is why we have been on the side of replacing the Resource Management Act so that more construction can happen in future; that is why we have invested in job-rich public infrastructure projects; and it is why I stand by the Reserve Bank’s mandate which has ensured that not only has inflation come down, but interest rates have dropped considerably, meaning that construction projects that might have stayed on the shelf have been dusted off and are turning into action. That’s where construction jobs come from.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she on the side of the 165,000 New Zealanders who want a job and can’t get one? If so, why did she call them “impatient”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I absolutely stand on the side of anyone who wants to work hard and get ahead, and, as I said in my answer to the primary question, that’s why we as a Government have worked so hard on restoring the economic conditions needed for job creation. I hope the member joins me in welcoming the fact that the latest statistics show that, in the December quarter, 15,000 more New Zealanders were employed. I hope the member also joins me in celebrating today’s news from the tourism sector that thousands more jobs have been created in that sector over the past year alone.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she be on the side of unemployed New Zealanders when she is destroying jobs, pushing people on to Jobseeker, dismissing them as being impatient, and driving them offshore to other countries for a better wage?

SPEAKER: There are many aspects of that question that would make it out of order, but the Minister may respond if she wishes.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Multiple statements in that question were wrong.

Transport

Question No. 10

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (15:31) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about RNZAF Base Ohakea?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (15:31): I have recently confirmed the Government’s move to make RNZAF Base Ōhakea available 24/7 as an alternative runway for wide-body aircraft, resolving a longstanding constraint for airlines, and one which has been a handbrake on New Zealand’s economic growth. Currently, Ōhakea can’t be used as an alternative airport overnight when flights need to divert due to lack of air traffic control after hours. This means wide-body aircraft coming in from overseas must designate an alternative airport, which requires them to carry more fuel and fewer passengers. This has directly resulted in some airlines downgrading their capacity and limiting growth. To fix this, we have approved funding for Airways New Zealand to provide round-the-clock air traffic control services. Opening up Ōhakea 24/7 was one of the key actions within the aviation action plan. I am proud to see it delivered.

Suze Redmayne: What feedback has he seen about how this will support tourism growth?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: The Board of Airline Representatives head Cath O’Brien said the 24/7 capability is a common-sense move from our Government. She said airlines are delighted by the decision, saying, “It gives confidence that our country is open for business and will make a meaningful difference for airlines operating here today and for those considering New Zealand as a destination.” Chief of Air Force Air Vice-Marshal Darryn Webb welcomed the enhancement to the support that the air force and Base Ōhakea already provide to airlines when flights are unable to land at Auckland or Christchurch. I am aware that the local MP thinks the announcement is “awesome”.

Suze Redmayne: What other infrastructure investments has the Government made in aviation?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: In addition to our Ōhakea investment, we are also investing $1.1 million from the regional connectivity package to the first concessionary loan to Golden Bay Air. This loan will ensure that the regional airline can refinance existing aircraft debt and fund essential ongoing major maintenance checks. The targeted relief will support it to maintain flights from Tākaka to Nelson, Karamea, and Wellington, and I’d like to thank Ministers Jones, Willis, and all the other regional development group Ministers for their support for these important regional routes.

Suze Redmayne: What other announcements has he made about aviation?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: More good news in this space: the Ōhakea decision marked the 10th achievement in our aviation action plan, which was launched just under six months ago. Other achievements include assisting flight schools to update and speed up pilot training programmes to better align with the needs of airlines; delivering new advanced aviation rules to provide a sand box for innovation testing and growth; and developing industry-led recommendations to deal with ongoing workforce issues to be progressed by the Aviation Council. Finally, additionally, last year we announced a $3.35 million investment for Whanganui Airport to complete construction of the new sealed parallel taxiway. This will address longstanding safety issues by reducing the need for aircraft to backtrack on the active runway before take-off and after landing. It’s great to be part of a Government that is committed to fixing the basics and building the future of our aviation sector.

Science, Innovation and Technology

Question No. 11

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (15:34) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: How does the Bioeconomy Science Institute cutting 134 jobs, including 86 science roles, less than a year after it was formed fuel economic growth?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology) (15:35): The Bioeconomy Science Institute performs an important role in supporting the growth and development of New Zealand’s biological sector, but it will only be effective if it’s operating on a financially sustainable footing. I’m advised that the Bioeconomy Science Institute carefully assessed every application to ensure the institute retains the capability, expertise, and continuity needed to deliver impactful science and contribute to economic growth. The Bioeconomy Science Institute brought together four Crown Research Institutes with subsequently identified areas of overlap and duplication. I note this has been a voluntary redundancy round and operational decisions about staffing sit with the Bioeconomy Science Institute Board.

Reuben Davidson: Are these job cuts consistent with addressing the long-term underinvestment identified by his Science System Advisory Group?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: These steps are consistent with requiring our science system to be productive, to be efficient, to be sustainable, and to generate real value for New Zealanders.

Reuben Davidson: Does he, then, take responsibility for these job cuts occurring because he has left the science sector underfunded?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: No, I’m encouraged by the last Stats NZ report that actually showed there was more scientists than we had previously and also new opportunities for science through the new emerging technologies: the Institute for Advanced Technology, through artificial intelligence, through quantum, through magnetic materials, through Robinson, and the $42 million by Biodiscovery Platform.

Reuben Davidson: When he cut Callaghan Innovation, ransacked the Marsden Fund, and is now cutting 134 jobs from the new science institute, where can New Zealanders expect the next round of job losses to come from?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I reject that member’s assertions, but, again, I return to the fact that the science system will need to be productive, efficient, financially sustainable, and generate real value for New Zealanders.

Reuben Davidson: Has the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment been proven right when he warned that it is seldom worth such upheavals due to the “loss in productivity and morale”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Considering we’re still progressing through the science reforms, that’s a decision and an analysis to be had at the end of the reforms, but I have high expectations and I’m encouraged by the reforms to date.

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (15:37) 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) (15:37): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think New Zealanders are comfortable with the 12 to 14 percent of our children—roughly the population of Tauranga—living in poverty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No New Zealander wants to see children living in poverty. Again, that is why this Government is doing everything it can to grow the economy.

Hon Marama Davidson: Can he explain to the House what kind of choices whānau in hardship face, such as whether to go visit the doctor or buy fresh veggies, or whether to turn the heating on or buy school supplies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It has no doubt been a very difficult and tough time for many New Zealanders, and that is why, if you care about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you run the economy; you don’t create high inflation and put an economy into recession.

Hon Marama Davidson: Can he explain to the House what kind of choices his Government faces in trying to meet National’s election promise to halve hardship rates by 2028, such as increasing the minimum wage in line with inflation or restricting access to benefits, or supporting better access to public and emergency housing or criminalising homelessness?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the Children’s Commissioner that “Children cannot wait for our economy to improve. Children get one chance at childhood, and we’ve got to act and get this right now.”; and if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s why this Government’s working incredibly hard to control spending so we lower inflation, lower interest rates, get the economy growing, and get people into work.

Hon Marama Davidson: Have any of his Government’s policies or actions contributed to an increase in child material hardship?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, this Government’s actions to control spending and lower inflation is incredibly helpful for Kiwis that have been doing it tough: 3.1 percent inflation is better than 7.3 percent; nine interest rate falls are better than 12 interest rate rises; economic growth in the last quarter of 1.1 percent is better than a shrinking economy. And, certainly, we know we’ve got work to do as we want to see more people come out of unemployment and into work.

SPEAKER: That concludes question time. We’ll take 30 seconds to allow members to go off to the other business that they have to transact this afternoon.

Vote Correction

Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill

SPEAKER (15:40): Members, on 19 February, on the vote on the closure motion relating to the instruction to the Environment Committee on the consideration of the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill, the Green Party vote was incorrectly announced by the Green Party whip as 15 votes against; it should have been recorded as 13. The correct result is Ayes 68, Noes 53.

Bills

English Language Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 19 February.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:41): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If ever we wanted a bill or an example that could demonstrate the weakness of the Prime Minister, this is it. The English Language Bill: a waste of time, a waste of resources, and an example, when the lead Minister himself said that the National Party would not have done this and the only reason they’re doing it is because New Zealand First asked for it—a clear example that the whole time that Christopher Luxon went around the country during the election campaign and told everyone that he was a master negotiator, all he has proved himself to be is a massive blowhard. He talks about himself all the time, about how good he is, about what he’s going to do, and fails at every step. The fact of the matter was that New Zealand First and ACT had nowhere else to go. They were always going to work with National. Instead of proving the thing that he promised New Zealanders he would do and being a good negotiator, his negotiation tactic was “What do you want? You got it.” This is the result.

It turns out that the justification for this bill, according to Winston Peters, is that the English language is under threat. Now, that is a dog whistle if ever I’ve heard one. That is scaremongering. It is cynical politics, and, frankly, we can do without it in this country. The English language is not under threat. All they want to do is secure their rump of the vote that gets triggered by comments like that, that actually believes that nonsense, despite no evidence being provided—no evidence. If the English language was under threat, do you not think that someone that had been in this Parliament for 40 years, speaking English the entire time, would not want to present some evidence to Parliament to justify these claims?

There are two official languages in this country, te reo Māori and Sign Language, and I don’t know either of them, yet every word that I have uttered for the sole existence of my time on this planet, people have understood me. Right throughout school, right throughout university, all my jobs, my entire time here at Parliament, every single word, every single individual word that I have uttered, everyone has understood. But, apparently, that is under threat. Apparently, the status of the English language—derived from England, where it isn’t even an official language—is under threat.

It is nonsense, it isn’t true, and all we are doing is having to put up in a parliamentary sense because Christopher Luxon gave in to this demand from New Zealand First. He could have said no. Christopher Luxon could have said, when they asked for the English Language Bill, “No, we’re not going to do that.” And what would their response have been? “All right. Fair enough. We’ll move on.” They were going to go with them anyway.

Every week since becoming Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon has proven that he’s out of touch and not up to the job. Here we are, at a time where the cost of living is the biggest issue facing this country, where people are out of work, where we have communities ravaged by severe weather, where we have international issues facing this country that are as significant as any that we have seen in living memory, and this is what the Government wants to put through Parliament. I think it’s disgraceful.

This is unnecessary. This is not needed. All this does is to give New Zealand First a platform to try and get re-elected.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (15:45): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ka whakatakoto au i te pire ki te Whare.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.]

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

[The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand subsequently indicated that had a party vote on the first reading been held, it would have cast 15 votes opposed]

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (15:45): The question is, That the English Language Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:46): I move, That the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 to address a decision by the Social Security Appeal Authority on how the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) treats certain ACC payments in relation to a past period, and a decision from the High Court on the effective backdated ACC payments on someone’s beneficiary status. I’d like to acknowledge everyone who submitted on this bill and the Social Services and Community Committee, who have reported back on what they’ve heard. I am pleased to advise that as a result of this consultation, we have made change to this bill.

New Zealand has a targeted welfare system. It provides support to people who have no alternatives, provided they have relied on all other resources available, including financial support from other publicly funded sources. Charging income against the period it best represents has been a longstanding policy in the welfare system to ensure a person’s income is charged accurately against their entitlement. This is important as people can receive income that relates to different periods for many reasons. MSD currently does this by charging income over the period that it best represents, which is generally the period the person earned or became entitled to the income, or, where this is unidentifiable, the period it was received. In doing so, MSD may find that overpayments have occurred and recoverable debt should be established.

As I mentioned earlier, in 2024, the Social Security Appeal Authority found that MSD did not consider all the relevant factors when exercising its discretion to determine the correct period to charge income. This decision impacts the way all income is treated in the welfare system and does not align with the principles of how income is charged in the welfare system. This bill addresses this decision by amending the Social Security Act 2018 so that when calculating a person’s weekly income, including ACC income, MSD must determine the period the income relates to, based on only the extent to which the 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 regard to the period for which it was received, acquired, paid, provided, or supplied. This is an important change to ensure income continues to be charged accurately for the many people who receive income that relates to different periods.

It’s always been the welfare system’s longstanding principle that welfare support is targeted to those in need where those needs have not been met—that is—by other sources such as ACC compensation. MSD does this currently when a person’s income reduces their main benefit to zero by considering the person a non-beneficiary, which would remove their eligibility for some supplementary assistance. If this happens for a past period, MSD may determine that an overpayment has occurred and that a debt be established. For a person who is in this scenario due to a backdated ACC payment, MSD may seek a refund from ACC for any financial assistance that was overpaid for the past period that their ACC payment related to.

As I mentioned, last year, the High Court found that MSD was operating outside of existing legislative authority when reassessing a person’s entitlement to supplementary assistance after they receive a backdated ACC payment for a past period. This decision creates inequities between ACC recipients, based on when they receive their ACC payment relative to their assessment for welfare support. It means that MSD cannot retrospectively consider a person to be a non-beneficiary even if that person received income from ACC that made them not entitled to it.

Being a beneficiary generally means a person is eligible for more or entitled to greater amounts of supplementary assistance when compared to a non-beneficiary. This only relates to people receiving a backdated ACC payment. People who receive weekly ACC compensation would continue to be treated as a non-beneficiary if their weekly compensation exceeded the main benefit limit. 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 for 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 ACC recipients can continue to be treated equitably. There shouldn’t be a difference between those who receive weekly payments and backdated payments, and support must remain targeted to those whose needs have not been met by other sources, including ACC compensation.

The bill acknowledges the important public interest for this longstanding policy to be accurately reflected in the law and to mitigate any flow-on financial and operational impacts. This bill will do so by introducing legislation that has a retrospective effect. I want to reassure members of this House and the public that this bill preserves the law as interpreted by the Social Security Appeal Authority and the High Court for previous or ongoing litigation—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Only in the Social Security Appeal Authority—six cases.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —which maintains the convention that Parliament should generally not interfere with the judicial process for particular cases before the courts.

The member interjecting might want to listen to the next part. As a result of the select committee process, I have proposed a change to this bill. Currently, the savings provision in this bill only captures individuals who have lodged an appeal with the Social Security Appeal Authority or courts prior to the date of introduction. I am now proposing to also capture individuals who have made an application to MSD for a review of decision to the benefits review committee that has not been decided before the date of introduction. This ensures that all individuals who are actively seeking a review of their decision prior to the introduction of the bill will be treated in accordance with the decisions of the appeal authority and High Court. I respect and thank the members of the select committee, who worked diligently to ensure that we were able to improve the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (15:53): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, I acknowledge the Minister and apologise that we haven’t caught up in the last 24 hours as we traverse this bill and appreciate some of the changes that she is talking about. We were also very appreciative of the select committee process last week, though it was still far too short, but at least it gave us an opportunity for us to hear a lot of the people out there. We got, I think, over 850 or 900 submissions that came in. It was an opportunity to hear the different communities and the angst out there. We do appreciate you’ve been working constructively with us and supported the select committee last week.

Labour agrees with the important principle at stake here: to ensure those needing support—the talk, though, about double-dipping is a controversial kōrero and, I think, maybe flipped the bed a bit last week, because we certainly had some exceptional explanations. We do as a party agree to close the loophole. We think we need to close the loophole, and we’re prepared to work with the Government in good faith. We’re happy to work in terms of bipartisanship and shared agreements. However, the submissions last week raised serious concerns that we simply cannot ignore.

The reality is many clients of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) who are waiting for an ACC payment are worse off when they’ve been forced to receive a benefit to supplement their income and then it’s clawed back, leaving the client with what is left; often with nothing; and, in many cases, in debt. It simply isn’t fair that people, who have acted in good faith and have, for whatever reason, got an injury due to no fault of their own, are left in a worse situation when trying to seek support from MSD and ACC.

Many sick and injured Kiwis took welfare payments while their ACC claims were being heard. They’re also some of the poorest and hardest working members of society. Many took those welfare payments because they had no other option while waiting for their ACC claim. They didn’t know at all that they would face a claw-back and took the money in good conscience.

So we must remember—and sometimes people forget about these people; they’re maybe people who people want to forget about—these people are not criminals, yet the feeling that we picked up from some of the submitters is that they’re made to feel like criminals when they’re burdened with debt, and they really should be supported. If we retrospectively pass this law, we will suddenly criminalise many of them who need help, not debt. So for those who can’t pay the claw-back, we believe we should allow MSD clear discretion not to recover payments when that would cause more hardship and further inequity. For those who must get rehab-related supplementary assistance because of the injury they’ve sustained, they should not have to go into debt to recover. For those who have been the victims of abuse in State care, they should be exempt.

That certainly would, I think, placate a lot of our people who made submissions. This is the House that has been unanimous from all sides of the House in terms of people who have endured abuse in State care. So we don’t believe that that should be so hard for us as a House to consider. There’ll be Kiwis who took the welfare while they waited for their ACC claim who can pay that debt, and they should pay it back, but it should not be at the expense of the people who need that support the most and are put in a worse situation when faced with a huge debt.

So we acknowledge the loophole needs to be closed, but there has to be discretion. This is a view that we put forward from our side. I know other Opposition parties have that view too, but myself and my colleague Helen Clark—Helen White—

Tangi Utikere: Former MP.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Former. Helen Clark would have supported it too—but Helen White over here. We were quite adamant in terms of discretion being necessary, because these people took that money, believing they wouldn’t pay it back, and many could be in an economic position that makes that debt claw-back very cruel.

So Labour’s prepared to work with National on this, but it has to be with the wellbeing of people at the centre. For example, how’s a solo mum with three kids who has been paid welfare while waiting on an ACC claim going to pay back this new debt? I think that’s an obvious question for everyone. We don’t want MSD sending—and this is how bad it could get—in debt collectors to hound that woman and to hound that whānau who are just in struggle street—just in struggle street. So we need to be supportive of that whānau. We need to show some humanity here.

Of course, as I’ve said about State care, what about people who’ve been hurt or abused in State care and are filing under sensitive claims? Why make their trauma worse with a new debt? I’m sure there’ll be Kiwis who are wealthy enough to pay the debt back, and they should pay it back, but those too poor to pay require the amendment that I’m talking about. We can’t pass policy that actively hurts people, all because ACC are too slow to process claims.

Labour stands ready to help the Government pass the bill because we acknowledge how important the issue is, but, just in summary, in the last two or three minutes I have, I just want to be clear, after the select committee process, with 850 submissions over 2½ days, serious problems became clear. ACC and the MSD have a deal: ACC deducts the full main benefit paid by MSD from the back-pay, sends that money to MSD, and the injured person gets what’s left. MSD then treats the lump sum as income and moves to recover all payments it has made, not just the main benefits. This means injured people end up paying for themselves for rehab and other support that ACC should have funded from day one. That is just not acceptable. ACC has not been compensating MSD for those extra recovery costs, so the cost is pushed on to the injured person and MSD, not ACC.

Clear evidence to our committee showed that those who are hit hardest are survivors of abuse in care, whose complex claims are often delayed for years, and blue collar and manual workers with gradual process injuries. In terms of the amendment that we are proposing and that we are putting in front of the Minister and that I certainly put forward during our committee process and that, I will say, was, well, maybe not accepted but people understood where we were coming from. Our proposed solution going forward is that we can only continue to support this bill if it is changed so that MSD has clear discretion not to recover supplementary payments where that would be unfair and unequitable. In particular, in hardship and fairness tests, MSD must not seek repayment where the person received payments in good faith and recovery would be unfair or cause hardship.

We’ll support the bill as long as we protect key supports and exclude disability allowance and other rehab-related supplementary assistance from being clawed back. Of course, we want to protect abuse survivors, so we want abuse in care survivors to be excluded from repayment. ACC lawyers have advised that safeguards like these are workable, so we can make this happen if there is goodwill. I will say there’s been some goodwill from the Minister and also goodwill in terms of the committee that worked, I think, well on this over the last week, even though we all have different philosophical positions. We, as Labour, look forward to working constructively with the Minister on amendments on this bill through to the committee stage. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:03): This is such a perfect example of the Government not wanting the public to know that they have been trampling over tens of thousands of people who are living, often, in deep poverty, waiting for their ACC claims to come through, and who have been unlawfully put in debt for decades. It’s really telling that both sides, actually, keep referring to “these people” without often naming what we’re talking about. These are not just “these people” or “double-dippers”, as the Minister often referred to them in her initial remarks in the first reading; these are members of our communities who have endured often incredibly traumatic experiences, survivors of abuse in State care, sexual violence survivors, and survivors of traumatic head injuries who have often had to fight the ACC system that was up against them to get the rehabilitation and the support that they needed.

This bill only came through because Community Law Centres Aotearoa, alongside others, challenged this unlawful practice in the High Court. The High Court agreed with people who fought the system. The High Court actually ruled in favour of them and said, and I quote, “The recipient of the supplementary assistance needed, and was eligible for, that assistance at the time. The ministry’s interpretation could result in the State retrospectively imposing potentially significant debts on persons of limited means”—limited means—”through no fault of their own.”

What we’re talking about here is people who experience poverty while waiting for support for the rehabilitation—which, by the way, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does not provide— and who need assistance, while living in poverty, to literally just make ends meet while they’re waiting for their ACC claims. We’re talking about the accommodation supplement and the disability assistance. Any members who have been at the front lines or lived in poverty or have worked with people in poverty know that people do not access this assistance simply because they want to; they access it because they need it to survive. Ask anyone living on a benefit if they just wanted to get their disability assistance or whether they needed it simply to make ends meet.

Instead of honouring the lived realities of the almost 40,000 people impacted by this bill, we have seen rhetorical flourishes by the Minister that do not reflect the harm that this bill is entrenching. Simply saying that this is legalising existing practice that was found to be unlawful isn’t good enough if we’re not going to recognise that 40,000 people, many who were experiencing material hardship, are completely being sidelined by this process.

When I said at the beginning of my contribution that this was a bill that the Government did not want the public finding out about, it is because it was introduced during urgency and, as a concession, was given a one-week select committee process—two days for members of the public to make submissions, two days to ask survivors of sexual violence to put their thoughts on paper and to contribute to this bill, two days to allow organisations who work at the front lines with people who have been traumatised by the system and our State-care system to contribute meaningfully to this bill. Despite these hurdles, we had hundreds of written submissions, and less than 0.1 percent—only two submissions—were in favour of the bill. What that tells me is that this Government is not wanting to engage in good faith with the public and to have a debate on the merits of this bill. They just want to rush it through and hope that no one notices that they’re actually negatively and retrospectively affecting people living in poverty and survivors, in some cases, of sexual violence.

The select committee process left us, in many ways, none the wiser. Why? At every stage of the way, we were unable to determine who these 37,000-plus people were and the types of claims that they had. If you look at the select committee report, “We don’t know that; we don’t know how many sensitive claimants that are affected as part of this bill.” The select committee process did not give us the tools and the means to ascertain the demographic breakdown of those who we are talking about. We were left with only the information given to us by submitters and legal experts to be able to ascertain that this did, indeed, include sensitive claims and that this did, indeed, include survivors of abuse in State care? You don’t see the Minister referencing either of these groups at any point—groups that this Government and this Parliament has apologised to for the abuse that they have endured and who, now, have significant debts to Government agencies due to unlawful practices.

I want to also note and comment on the amendments being proposed by the Minister that came off as a result of the select committee process. I know that she was commending the work of the select committee process for identifying this, but the Government knew from the get-go, when they decided this bill, that it only allowed for people who had claims in the Social Security Appeal Authority. For the layperson watching this debate, most beneficiaries are never able to clear the hurdles of filing a review of decision and knowing the laws and policies that they’re challenging, potentially waiting for weeks—in the case of the people we’re talking about, often over 100 weeks—to get a hearing. To go through a benefit review committee hearing is often stacked against the person on the benefit, because it’s MSD reviewing its own decisions. Then, to be able to climb the next hurdle of the Social Security Appeal Authority, most people need literal advocates and lawyers to even get to that stage. There were dozens of people who had put a review of a decision that were initially excluded by the bill as written. For the Minister to claim that this is some great concession is a joke, when she knows—and legal experts and survivors have told her—that this bill leaves tens of thousands of people with debts that diminish their ability to make ends meet at a time when they are finally able to access critical rehabilitation to help them deal with the loss of pay that they may have incurred due to sexual violence, due to abuse in State care, due to traumatic head injuries or other types of injuries in their workplace.

It really is beyond belief that the Government, instead of recognising that Labour- and National-led Governments had failed ACC claimants who were living in poverty and needed supplementary assistance, and directed that very same energy to fix the welfare system to one that allowed people to live in pov—to live well; not in poverty!—and, instead, we have this bill that simply legalises a practice that we know, and have been told, makes people’s lives harder.

When I hear politicians talk about double-dipping and how this is about retaining a targeted welfare State, I hear a disconnect between politicians inside these four walls, and our communities living in poverty. What I hear is the complete disregard for the wellbeing of people who have gone through horrendous situations, and what I hear is a Government that would rather save a handful of millions than honour the dignity and the struggles of tens of thousands of people who have fought hard to get their ACC claims to come through.

We’re still not supportive of this bill. The select committee process that we went through was absolutely rushed and did a disservice, in my view, to the many survivors who took their time to write to us. This process should have allowed us to ascertain the types of claims that people were making, this process should have allowed us to hear directly from sexual abuse survivors as to how they felt about this bill, and we were not able to do either of these things.

We deserve a Government that treats legislative scrutiny and the tens of thousands of people who are often living in hardship affected by this bill seriously; not a Government that completely ignores, does not name, but they’re naming the communities affected by this bill, and pretends that this bill is simply about retaining a targeted welfare system, when the Minister well knows that we are living under a Government that is seeing material hardship for children increase, homelessness increase, and rough sleeping increase. Instead, we should be having a Government that fights for everyone to live a life with dignity.

I look forward to engaging constructively, hopefully, with the Minister in the committee of the whole House. History tells me that this is not a Minister that has previously engaged constructively in these debates. But I really hope that she takes the amendments we will be proposing to minimise the harm that this bill posts in our communities seriously. I urge my Labour colleagues to stop supporting this bill, and to stand on the right side of history and vote it down at this second reading. Do not wait for the committee of the whole House stage.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (16:13): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill.

I want to start by conveying my gratitude to the Social Services and Community Committee because, I must say, they have worked really hard with the time constraint that they had. I also want to acknowledge the clerk of the committee, because I know they do a lot of work in the background. I was reading the select committee’s report—because, I must admit that I’m not a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, but I did read their report—and I see that there were more than 800 submissions. So we can’t say that, because of the select committee, it didn’t receive submissions—for submissions, that number looks quite reasonable to me, and I would say that that is reflective of what people would have otherwise said.

I also want to acknowledge that, yes, there are more than 37,000 people who will be affected by this change, but it’s important that we make this change right now, before more people come into this group. We don’t want more and more people being impacted because the policy is not delivering what it intends to deliver.

The integrity of all our policies is so important, and that is why want to make sure that our policies are delivering on their intent. If the intent can be challenged, it is the job of Parliament to fix that, and that is what we are doing. We also want to be fair to taxpayers. We also want to be fair to recipients of these benefits and supplementary assistance. We want to see that ACC and the Ministry of Social Development work alongside, not in isolation. And people should be receiving no more or no less; they should be receiving what they’re entitled to receive, and that is what this bill will do. That is why we support this bill. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (16:15): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. I had the privilege, last week, to sit in these hearings and listen to the hearings of eight oral submissions, we received over 855 submissions in total. What this relates to is those 37,000-odd cases that this High Court judgment has made between 1998 and 2025 is captured. In those hearings, we did hear a number of concerns. I think what I would say in this reading is that there is the opportunity through the committee of the whole House stage to actually look at some of the finer points and to make some changes.

The New Zealand First ACC spokesperson, who sits beside me at the moment, David Wilson, talked about unintended consequences. I think what I did hear through those submissions is that, through the savings provisions, there is an opportunity that this legislation, at the moment, doesn’t affect cases decided or lodged with the appeal authority or the courts, but we could actually look in the committee of the whole House stage of actually widening that out so those who were already engaged in the review process—that would actually gain those people into that. A number of submissions brought up around the benefits review committee, and had already gone to that stage. I think, through the committee of the whole House, that is an option we can actually look at and maybe widen that savings provision. What I would say is the piece of legislation here is to confirm longstanding policy, and that longstanding policy in what we’re trying to do is prevent inequities in the system.

Now, I do take—again, through the submissions around the material hardship and people that will now have to pay something back; I think that was brought forward very strongly in the submissions, but the one thing I do take from the Ministry of Social Development was that they did say they do take individual cases on their merits, and there will be people that will face paybacks. I think the majority of the paybacks were something like under $2,000—what is a sum of money for anyone to pay back—but the rate of that payback will definitely depend on the individual person’s circumstances.

I look forward to the committee of the whole House stage and, as I’ve outlined, those opportunities to look at those subtle changes. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (16:18): The Minister has made clear that the purpose of this bill is to maintain the integrity of a targeted welfare system and to ensure that people do not receive duplicate income replacement. Now, if we translate that into everyday language, and for those I serve, this bill prevents double-dipping. The cheek of it to accuse more than 37,500 people of double-dipping when it could be well proven that this Government is employing double standards.

Be that as it may, there are several issues with this bill. Firstly, it goes beyond that intent and it risks producing serious inequity and unintended harm. But rather than use my five minutes to talk to how terrible this is for Māori, I give rise to the voices of those who took the liberty, the time; who made huge efforts to submit applications on this bill in a very short time frame, and that was 24 hours.

E te Whare, more than 850 submissions were received by the Social Services and Community Committee. To each and every one of you, tēnā rā koutou katoa. The thing is, only two of those submissions actually supported this bill. Some were neutral, some agreed with some of the changes, others did not, but the consistent and most striking feature of all the submissions was the level of concern expressed regarding the retrospective aspect of this bill, which validates what the High Court found was unlawful: the mandatory creation of debts in relation to ACC compensation delays; and the recovery of supplementary support, like the disability allowance, from those who genuinely need, needed, and still need assistance while experiencing ACC delays.

Submitters also said that the bill unfairly punishes clients for an administrative issue. They also expressed disdain that the bill was being rushed under urgency, limiting adequate time for consultation or genuine input from the public. They said reassessing supplementary assistance was unfair. They said the savings provision is too narrow. They also said that the bill will cause greater stress to vulnerable people and put them into financial hardship.

This was the very first select committee entire process that I was fortunate to be a part of. I heard and read many of the 800 submissions, and it was really hard not only to soak in the information, the real lived experiences of each and every one of those people, but to see, before my own very eyes, the stress put on the staff to actually bring to life a bill, a piece of legislation, that has significant impact on everyday ordinary New Zealanders. Putting that through under urgency limits any real robust discussion. As responsible members of Parliament, of this House, that is our duty, and we were cut short of that.

Let it be noted, e te Whare, on the Hansard that Te Pāti Māori and the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau actually did a lot of fighting. We are still fighting very hard for our people. What we did is we lodged several amendments—13, in fact—and not one of them—and I’m not just talking about Te Pāti Māori. Every amendment that was submitted was recognised but not passed. Not one amendment was agreed to nor consented nor passed at that select committee stage. To enter this House again this week and to hear the Minister responsible actually agree to one amendment is hopeful, but she needs to continue on that trajectory and actually listen to the people who did put in their submissions and to the legal experts.

Now, what I want to get to is this: the voices of the people are more important than the voices in this room. We of Te Pāti Māori stand tall and proud for all the voices who go unheard, who are silenced, and that is what this bill is doing. It is not silencing the voices, but it’s not listening to them. Eight hundred and fifty oppose this bill for serious reasons, and we have to do more. We have to do much more and fight much harder. I agree with the Green Party in imploring every single member in this House, right now, to stop this bill at the second reading. Do not allow it to advance to the committee of the whole House, because what it does is it actually does further harm, strengthening hardship for every single whānau across Aotearoa. We do not commend it to the House.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (16:23): Kia ora e te Pīka. I rise today in opposition to this bill, which, at its core, seeks to punish injured Kiwis acting in good faith. This piece of legislation will punish injured ACC claimants that apply for interim supplementary welfare assistance, retrospectively and in the future. For this Government and this Minister to retrospectively turn supplementary assistance for the injured and poor in our community into debt is abhorrent—supplementary assistance for the things like heating in winter, food on your dinner table, and covering your accommodation. It’s just for the bare necessities. It is designed to meet the genuine financial pressures that people face in real time. To grant that assistance, knowing that it will result in debt later down the line, entrenches disparities and future disadvantages for the already disadvantaged in our communities.

Social security is a fundamental and recognised human right that exists to help lift people up when they need it most, not shackle them into debt. Under the current existing law, should a person receive backdated ACC weekly compensation, only the main benefit is reimbursable to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), not the supplementary assistance. Tethering people already living on low incomes to retrospective debt that they sought in good faith and in genuine need is contrary to the entire process of ACC and MSD.

This is a bill that will impact some of our most vulnerable people—people that, through this process, will be retraumatised. Instead of acting in accordance with existing legislation, this Government, through urgency, introduced a bill to amend legislation to align with the way that MSD have been previously operating. Just because MSD were following a policy, that does not mean that that policy was right or just. What we have here, once again, is a Government that rushes through legislation, and it was only for a late change that it actually managed to get to a select committee.

How much time did the public get to make submissions? Two days—just two days. They did over 800 submissions, and we’ve heard only two—only two—of those submissions were in support. Even though this was a rushed process, the community has spoken, and they have spoken loudly: “We oppose this bill.” What I’ve heard, time and time again, is that this is about equity and equality—”We’re going to stop the double-dipping.” This bill is actually not about that.

What this bill is about is the Government looking after their books and trying to make them look good. They’re trying to write off the debts and stop repaying clients to a tune of around $63 million. Obviously, there’s another few million dollars that go with the operational cost of doing that. Although, with this process being so rushed, actually, how accurate are those estimates? I can tell you one thing: when you look at those costs—those costs that are actually for very, very vulnerable people—it is small compared to the tax breaks that this Government gave to the tobacco industry, which was at a cost of $200 to $300 million. When it comes to the most vulnerable in society, you just don’t—sorry, Madam Speaker, the Government just does not seem to give a damn, but when it comes to their rich mates, that’s when they really care.

Let’s be clear: people receiving weekly compensation often have extremely debilitating and significant injuries that affect their ability to work and support themselves and their families. They are often sensitive claimants who are survivors of sexual abuse and abuse in State care. They are not scam artists seeking to bleed the coffers dry while awaiting the decisions from ACC, sometimes for months or years. These people have to rely on the provision of supplementary assistance to survive. We are just retraumatising people that have been through so much hardship. The Green Party opposes this bill, and we urge others to stop this bill. Kia ora.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (16:28): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak, this afternoon, on the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. I’m the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, and I want to thank everyone who engaged in the process, where we heard submissions on this bill—855 interested groups and individuals, and eight oral submissions. Everyone worked hard, and I think we worked well as a committee in assessing this bill, hearing from submitters, looking into some reasonably complex—but, when it boils down to it, a relatively simple issue.

This bill is intended to clarify the longstanding policy and practice that the Ministry of Social Development has. This bill is ensuring that the status quo is maintained, and we note that the bill aligns with the Ministry of Social Development’s current practices and that nothing in the bill differs from how the Ministry of Social Development currently operates and has for a long time.

The background to this is that the High Court delivered a decision in October last year, which said that that longstanding policy and practice was inconsistent with the law itself, so this bill intends to ensure that there’s equality between people who are getting benefits and people who are going through an ACC review process and then get backdated money if they are successful in reviewing that process. The money that they got when they were on a benefit is then taken into account against the money they get from ACC and subtracted from that, and so it’s to ensure that people are equal across time.

Now, there are some things that the committee was concerned about, and I commend the Minister for taking into account those things that the committee raised and for expanding the savings provision—i.e., those people who can take the benefit of the High Court’s decision, effectively—to include those who have made an application to the benefits review committee prior to the introduction of the bill. It’s ensuring that people who began the process of an application can continue with it.

At its heart, this is a relatively straightforward bill, and it is ensuring that the longstanding policy and practice that has been under multiple Governments is maintained. The Government has a duty to fix the situation that the High Court identified last year and to clarify the law so that it aligns with longstanding, intended policy. I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:31): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise again to take a call on the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. It was not long ago since I got the opportunity to speak at the first reading of this bill, but it appears that a lot has happened in that short space of time.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their work on this. As others have alluded to, this was a bill that initially was not envisaged to have a select committee process, and although the select committee process was extremely short—and I acknowledge comments made from others around whether that was sufficient or not—we were very grateful to be able to have the opportunity to hear from those affected, and also from experts working in this field. I do want to thank colleagues who were on that committee for their work over a short space of time and for engaging with the people who decided to submit on this bill.

I think most people would be surprised at the number of people who were able to realise that this change was coming through and actually make a submission on this bill over that short period of time. There were, I think, well over 850 submissions. That is a significant number of submissions for any select committee to receive on a bill, and certainly for one where there was a short amount of notice.

One of the reasons why, from the Labour Party’s side, we were so keen to have a select committee process was that we could see—and I don’t think there’s much disagreement about having a fair ACC scheme and having a fair welfare scheme and making sure that the interaction between those is fair and just. Certainly, that is one of the reasons that we were told by officials that this was progressing. We were also told that this was to implement a legislative change consistent with practice, and we spoke about that a little bit in the first reading. But I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward as that, because we have to remember that what the High Court did find was that there was injustice in the way that this policy was being implemented.

So we were very interested to marry up the information we’d been given by officials as to the need for this change—and we acknowledge that that was the policy in place—but also to have the opportunity to actually hear from people who were in receipt of Ministry of Social Development (MSD) payments and who were then asked to pay back MSD payments as a result of subsequently receiving ACC payments. I was not on the select committee, but I know my colleagues Willie Jackson and Helen White from our party were, and, obviously, colleagues around the House were, too. They can, obviously, have the opportunity to speak—Willie has spoken, and Helen will be able to reflect on this, too—but the impression that I got was that the submissions were very compelling and raised some concerns around the way that this is being implemented.

As I understand it—and it was the thing that wasn’t 100 percent clear to me when this bill first came to the House—the fact is that it is possible for someone to receive MSD payments and use those for rehabilitation, to use those for taxi trips, or to use those for therapy. Subsequently, if they receive coverage from ACC in terms of income, they’re likely to have maybe a lump sum, and there’s no dispute around there being no double payment or double-dipping for that main benefit payment, which may overlap with compensation. However, the thing that has been made clear through the select committee process is the fact that for those people who have received those payments, if their ACC claim had been accepted at the time, they may have been entitled to an ACC payment that would have covered the money that they may have used their MSD payment for.

Now, it won’t be every single claimant, as I understand it, but there will be a certain number who may be in a worse position, and I note that the Minister for Social Development and Employment said in her speech on this reading that this bill shouldn’t differentiate, but, unfortunately, what we did hear from the people at the select committee is that this bill does differentiate. It puts people who received ACC earlier in a better position, in some instances, than those who received ACC later, and in both those cases, we’re talking about people who have had valid claims received.

We also had a significant amount of input from people who are really expert in this field, and I know that a group of ACC lawyers and advocates have written to the Minister and they’ve made that letter public. That letter has asked the Minister to consider making amendments to this so that, in those circumstances that I’m describing where there is an inequity or unfairness, there is a way for MSD to have some discretion so as to not order that that repayment be made.

There are other details that my colleague Willie Jackson has already gone through in terms of the exact amendment that we’re seeking, but that seems a relatively minor amendment. As we understand it, MSD has the possibility to implement a discretionary amendment like that, and the reason that we have suggested this—and I take the points from colleagues from Te Pāti Māori and the Greens around saying that we shouldn’t have this bill at all—is because the people who know this area best have, from what I can ascertain, advocated that this would be an equitable way of allowing this bill to progress. So we think that that is a reasonable, good-faith, and practical suggestion that acknowledges that situation that I have just outlined, where there could be inequity with someone who received ACC coverage earlier or later.

Additionally, there are people, as I understand it, who are in very vulnerable situations, and I know that the committee was able to hear from some of those people, although perhaps not all of those people were able to share their stories. I have read the select committee’s report and I note that the select committee stated that all of the written submissions are available online, and it encourages those who are interested to read those submissions. Some of those submissions are the stories of people who would have faced hardship, and we can’t say that there is no case that would fit that scenario, because we know that that is what the High Court found, and that was when it was interpreting the law as it currently stands. Whatever the policy intention was, it was not the law that this Parliament passed, and so when we’re looking again to fix that law, I think we need to be mindful of the situations where there could be an inequity.

From our perspective, even though the select committee process was extremely short, it was extremely beneficial in terms of our being able to receive information from people who advocate for those who have issues with the payments they’ve received from MSD and ACC, to hear from those who had been clients of ACC who had received ACC coverage and who had previously received MSD payments, and to be, unfortunately, provided with evidence that some of our concerns regarding this bill may come to pass if it’s not amended.

We will be putting forward that amendment at the committee of the whole House stage. As my colleague has said, we’re happy to be constructive around that and to work with the Minister, and I think that the Minister, in this instance, has been very constructive, very much compared with other pieces of legislation that have gone through this House. But the fact of having the select committee where none was planned—even though it was short—was valuable. I also support the change that she’s said will come through. I imagine that will be a committee stage change as well, where people who have already brought complaints will be exempted from this. I think that’s something that I would support and we will continue to see if we can find a way forward. But we have to say that, you know, we would not be able to support the bill if we are not able to be assured that in situations of inequity, in situations where there would be unfairness as a result of making sure that this payment was paid, that there is absolutely no discretion for the Ministry of Social Development to not order that payment. It may sound a small thing, but for those people who, objectively, will face that inequity unfairness, it will possibly be a life-changing thing for them.

We’ll continue to work constructively on this bill. I thank, again, the Minister, the select committee, and colleagues around the House for their work on it to date, and I’m very hopeful that the bill that this House ends up passing is a better bill than it would have otherwise been if not for the efforts of colleagues around the House and listening to those very articulate and brave and courageous members of the public and their advocates who were able to contribute to the select committee and, hopefully, add value to the final version of this bill.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (16:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just rise to take a short call on the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. This was my first full bill on the Social Services and Community Committee and quite a quite a start, I should say.

The bill amends the Social Security Act to confirm the longstanding policy intent underpinning the Ministry of Social Development’s practice that it has used for some time. I want to thank the select committee for turning this around in a very short time. The one-week report back date meant for some long hours and some significant juggling of people’s schedules in order to do this. But notwithstanding that, the submitters and their stories and their time that they spent delivering to us in this select committee is very much valued and I want to thank them for their time. I think that it is a bill that will hopefully clarify the situation in the future. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:42): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought I’d begin my contribution just by recognising the work of Community Law who brought the case that has sparked some of this discussion and legislative change. It’s not the first time Community Law have embarked on some strategic litigation work, and their funding isn’t necessarily designed to cover it, but it’s certainly an important part of how we grow our understanding of inadequacies in the law and times at which we’ll need to address that. The case that I’m referring to is obviously the one where we had the decision from Justice Grice.

Now, since the bill has had its first reading in the House, I think—I didn’t sit on the select committee, but certainly through media reports—we’ve heard from a number of people who have talked about the hardship that they will face should the bill proceed as is. I recall reading a quote from Victoria Bruce where she talked about it being an absolute shock and that it would be an absolute shock to many who were already suffering emotionally, particularly those who’d been through the abuse in care process of getting redress, to now have to deal with the financial burden on top of that as well.

As my colleague Camilla Belich has explained, because, in part, of that massive wave of submissions who spoke about that hardship, there will be a proposed amendment from Labour in the committee stage of this, which will look at, really, three key areas. One is the hardship and fairness test where the Ministry of Social Development must not seek repayment if the person received it in good faith and it would cause undue hardship, but also looking to protect key supports, including the disability allowance and protecting abuse survivors in particular, as well. So I do hope that Government members will engage in that process robustly, particularly given the number of people who submitted about the need for that change.

There was another change that I reviewed on the papers that came from the New Zealand Law Society who spoke first about the rule of comity: the rule that requires the House to be respectful of court processes and vice versa. They commended the inclusion of new sections 107 and 108, inserted by clause 8, which essentially protects proceedings that are before the appeal authority at present. Now, what the Law Society suggested is that the House may want to extend that to protect cases that are currently before the benefits review committee as well.

Now, I’ve represented clients at the benefits review committee and it struck me at the time that the timeline in terms of getting through that process is quite considerable. To no fault of their own, you may have people who have understood that there’s potentially an issue in the space, have raised that issue, but are essentially waiting either to be heard or for a final decision of the benefits review committee before they then proceed to an appeal or go on to the courts after that.

Along with the areas that colleagues will speak to in the House—and amendments will certainly be proposed—this is certainly an area that I would like discussed as part of the committee of the whole House stage, and whether as a matter of the principle of comity we ought to be extending that somewhat further. This isn’t a new or a novel proposal; it’s something that’s been a very longstanding principle under the rule of law. So, I do believe that, in this case, it potentially warrants an extension into the review process as well. Unfortunately, we don’t quite know how long people are stuck in that review process. It could be a considerable number of weeks. Again, in fairness to them, I would hope that it’s something that we could discuss at committee stage, but for the time being, we do understand that there is a need to discuss these issues in depth at that stage so we will be commending the bill through to committee stage. Thank you.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (16:47): Nōku te māringanui, nōku te whiwhi hoki kia whai wāhi ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Mihi ana ki ngā mema kē, ngā mema atu kua wehewehe i ngā taipitopito o te pire nei. He kōrero poto tēnei nā reira ka tuku au i te pire nei ki te Whare.

[It is my good fortune and my pleasure to contribute to this bill. I thank the members who deliberated the details of this bill. This is but a short address, therefore I commend this bill to the House.]

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:47): Thank you. This was a really interesting piece of legislation that came very urgently to our committee. It was one—I started with a different view from the one I ended up with, and that was thanks to the amazing submitters. I think there were 850 submissions that came in—we couldn’t hear all those submissions—but it was also a real warning about the nature of urgent inquiry because it was great that we had our select committee process at all, which was only a few days, but it was limited in what it could do. As we explored the issues that were coming up with this bill, it was quite difficult for people like the advisers to do their job and look for the best possible solution because we simply didn’t have time and they simply didn’t have time.

So it was very much—I’ve been in this House a long time and I’ve been concerned about urgency, but I’ve never really seen that process when it comes to that squeaky end where the select committee members are genuinely trying to explore solutions and it’s being impeded by the speed of which things are happening. I would also just remind the House that in most situations, that kind of law that’s being pushed through very, very quickly doesn’t get any examination at all. We end up with the wrong result quite often. We’ll end up with unintended consequences if that happened.

Now, I want to turn to the substantive nature of this bill. This was a bill that crossed over into an area I had worked in so I had some knowledge of the kinds of people who might be impacted, because I would have the occasional ACC matter before me as a lawyer. So I was told by the advisers that what we were doing here at the beginning was merely confirming a longstanding practice, but what they didn’t talk about was whether that longstanding practice was unjust or unreasonable. My understanding, as we went through this, I looked at it through the eyes of some of the kinds of people that I have had in my office and have walked through these claims with.

I had one case which were wire-cutters. They had an injury to their arms which was because they were cutting steel wire, and so they would get this common injury but it wouldn’t be accepted as an injury because it was a gradual issue and there would be a question mark over whether that was an injury caused by the cutting of the wire or if it was just caused by the fact that they were older workers doing that—and so it was a question mark over it. It would take a long time; it would have to go through a process to actually eventuate in them getting the benefit of the accident compensation system.

What was described by some of the very learned submitters who do this work much more regularly was that we had to look at one person who would get ACC right at the beginning, because their claim was, perhaps, easier to establish. So he had an accident, it was easy to see; versus my wire cutter, who might, through no fault of their own, be subject to a long process of examination when that claim might be going through a process, and eventually it was upheld as a claim. That claim might take five years.

There was another category that took a long time, and that was our sexual assault victims. Because they’re complex claims, they took a long time to go through the system. As a result, those people were in a situation where they were often actually needing a benefit through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). So they would be on the benefit for some time in that period and they wouldn’t be able to be entitled to a lot of the things that they should have got if they’d been on ACC.

There was a submission from Hazel Armstrong, who does this work, and has done it as long as I have been a lawyer—she’s very good at it—but she’s also on the Ports of Auckland board. She talks about how now when you get somebody at the Ports of Auckland and they have an injury, there’s a gold-plated rehabilitation of them, and because their claim’s accepted, they actually end up recovering much faster and they end up back at work. So they get a lot of on-top additions. What I had understood at the beginning was that there was an issue with double-dipping because somebody who had got a main benefit for the period that they hadn’t been able to get the amount had to pay that back to ACC and that somehow there was a double-dipping if they were given their lumpsum at the end of that ACC, because they had also received MSD entitlements on top of their main benefit.

So what happens, for those listening at home, is the main benefit that is received in that five-year period is offset against the lump sum of 80 percent that, otherwise, ACC would pay out, and ACC transfer that money to MSD, but they weren’t transferring anything else. All the additional benefits that Hazel Armstrong was talking about, all the top-up that came from ACC—the taxis, the cleaning service, all these things that you can have when you’re on ACC because it helps your recovery, those things—they were not getting those things. So ACC, or an accredited employer, was enriched during that period by all that money and they were not ever giving that to MSD to offset the costs that they had to meet at MSD for that client; there wasn’t an exchange going on. But when I asked “Can I find out from ACC what’s going on here?”, it wasn’t possible to do that in the period of time we had.

The good news is that the committee has resolved to see ACC tomorrow morning, and it will do so and it will be able to ask some of those questions. That’s a really important inquiry we need to make, because we need to come up with a just solution.

There’s a risk—this is one risk I want to point out to everyone in this House—that in cases of delay that if ACC or an accredited employer is actually better off because they haven’t had to pay out for that five-year period in a delay, it actually incentivises the delay. We have a lot of good-faith people in this country, but there is a risk that we are creating moral hazard where people are actually going to not want to pay out because they don’t have to, because what MSD actually allows people to get is so minimal in comparison to what ACC get.

Then I just want to move to the last problem. So you have a person who has not received their ACC entitlements—none of those entitlements on top have been received; they’ve only received the amount of a main benefit and something much more inferior, not the same from MSD—going right through that process to that end point, and, suddenly, they get their 80 percent of what they should have received. If they’re an airline pilot, that’s going to be a lot of money; if they’re a minimum wage worker, that’s not going to be a lot of money. They bring it back, they’ve got that, MSD takes out the main benefit, and then what’s been happening is that MSD have been going after them for the money that they have to pay back, for anything else they’re paid, for any other supplement. As a result of that, they can actually be far, far worse off; they can end up having all their money taken away.

So what was suggested here was that there was a solution to this: we should look at some form of waiver. Now, that is something that ACC does; it has a discretion to make sure that what it’s doing isn’t cruel, isn’t unfair on our people who need that level of scrutiny. That is what we were looking at as a solution. A lot of these experts had written to the Minister, and said, “This is what we can do to fix this situation so it’s just not as unfair.”

That is what is the basis of the amendment that Labour will put up on this bill, that what we’ve listened to is those experts say there’s a system over here that works, where we give more discretion, where we allow people to look at those factors and make sure that the person getting the money is not out of pocket—because, remember, this person is actually now paying for all their own rehabilitation out of the money received. It’s perverse. It doesn’t work. So they’re going to have to look at that, and that’s the amendment we’re putting up. It’s a strong amendment. It’s not everything. It doesn’t help the airline pilots, but it does help our most vulnerable workers, it helps our sexual assault complainants, it helps our gradual process injury people, it helps working people in this country. So I ask, very genuinely, for that to be considered by the current Government as a good remedy.

I look forward to a good engagement on this so we can get it right and fair for New Zealanders who work and get hurt at work. Thank you.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (16:58): I rise in support of the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill, in the second reading. I think this bill is very, very clear with what it does. It clarifies the law on the impact of ACC payments on welfare entitlements and ensures the process is fair for everyone. This actually does follow on from a member’s—well, this lump-sum payment from ACC, we need to make sure that it’s fair in the way it’s dealt with, and I actually had a member’s bill that was then taken up by the Government over taxation of lump-sum payments for ACC. We need to make sure that it’s fair and equitable to everybody. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

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 second time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Online Casino Gambling Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (17:00): I present a legislative statement on the Online Casino Gambling Bill.

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

Second Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (17:00): I move, That the Online Casino Gambling Bill be now read a second time.

When the Online Casino Gambling Bill was first introduced to the House, its intent was clear: to regulate online gambling in a way that prioritises harm prevention and minimisation. We want New Zealanders who wish to participate in online casino gambling to be able to do so in a safer, regulated market. That intent has guided this bill from the outset.

I want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for its consideration of the bill and its recommendations, which strengthen that intent. Firstly, I want to thank the committee for the job they’ve done. Their work ensures that the legislation reflects the concerns and priorities of New Zealanders. I also want to thank everyone who took the time to make a submission on the bill. The committee received over 5,000 submissions from individuals and organisations and heard oral evidence on the bill. Many submitters raised concerns about community returns from gambling revenue. It was clear from the submissions that New Zealanders want to see a return to communities from gambling activity. Kiwis want to see profits going back into local sports clubs, community groups, and grassroots organisations.

Cabinet has already agreed to provide for community returns, and the committee supported Cabinet’s agreed recommended amendments to increase the offshore gambling duty to fund community return. Cabinet has also agreed that the Lottery Grants Board will be responsible for distributing the funds from online casino gambling. I’m pleased that the committee’s recommendations align strongly with Government decisions.

Other key themes raised in submissions included that regulating online casinos could normalise gambling and lead to greater harm, as well as concerns about the potential harm from gambling activity and advertising. Currently, New Zealanders gamble on thousands of unregulated, offshore websites, exposing them to harm from unaccountable entities based overseas. This bill is not about normalising gambling; it’s about putting safeguards in place for those people.

I understand that some submitters also expressed concern that specific harm minimisation tools were not written into the legislation itself. This is because those tools will be included in regulations, which can be updated more easily when technology and risks evolve. To address these concerns, the committee has recommended changes that make harm minimisation obligations clear in the legislation. The committee has suggested a range of recommendations that will improve the functioning of the bill overall. These include minor changes to provisions, such as amending definitions, processes for review, and enforcement proceedings.

This bill will allow up to 15 vetted and licensed operators to offer online casino gambling in New Zealand. These operators will be required to meet strict standards for harm minimisation, consumer protection, and advertising. Companies that do not receive a licence will be prohibited from operating or advertising in New Zealand, and they will face penalties for doing so.

Reducing the impact of unlicensed operators and enforcing compliance is key to keeping consumers safe and upholding the integrity of the system. To support this, the bill provides a range of enforcement tools to ensure the regime is effective. The Department of Internal Affairs will be able to issue takedown notices, formal warnings, enforceable undertakings, and apply pecuniary penalties, including fines of up to $5 million and licence cancellations where operators fail to comply. The department is already the regulator for gambling in New Zealand, and I’m confident it is well-positioned to enforce this new system.

This bill is not just about regulation; it is about protecting people. It targets harm and it safeguards consumers. Licensed operators will have to follow strict requirements to ensure they are minimising harm and protecting consumers. Regulations for the bill are currently being developed to ensure that compliance requirements for licensed operators are clearly stated.

In November 2025, Cabinet agreed to the policy for regulations on harm minimisation, consumer protections, advertising, and fees. The regulations ensure a balance, by preventing and minimising harm, while also enabling an attractive, regulated market. The harm prevention and minimisation regulations will be created to limit high-risk behaviours that may occur, including requiring online casinos to prohibit the use of credit cards to pay for online gambling. They will allow players to set limits and breaks in play, and will restrict bonuses and inducements.

Licensed operators will be permitted to advertise, within certain parameters, to channel consumers to regulated platforms. The advertising regulations will require that operators must not target advertisements at those under the age of 25, unless the operator can demonstrate that the advertisement can be precisely targeted at consumers over the age of 18. And operators have to make sure that anyone who has chosen to self-exclude, or those identified by an operator as a problem gambler, are excluded from receiving direct and loyalty programme advertising.

Regulation of the online casino gambling market will be a significant change to the regulatory settings around gambling. The Government considers that it is important to understand the impact of these changes, and Cabinet has noted that there will be a review of the online casino gambling regulatory system within three years of operation to ensure it is minimising harm, providing consumer protections, as well as supporting tax collection.

The Online Casino Gambling Bill is about protecting New Zealanders who choose to gamble online. We need to establish a clear and robust licensing framework, which will ensure that Kiwis can gamble online in a way that is safe, transparent, and accountable. The Online Casino Gambling Bill creates a system that reduces harm and ensures a fair environment. That was the intent from day one, and that’s what this legislation delivers. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (17:07): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Talofa lava. I rise to take a call as the spokesperson leading this kaupapa in the second reading of this bill. Labour agrees with the intent of the bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister’s legislative statement to regulate online casino gambling for New Zealanders, which means this is coming into New Zealand homes.

But Labour does not agree with the Government’s road map and processes, and we are very concerned at the lack of protections for New Zealand consumers across a number of areas. We would argue that the bill does not go far enough to protect New Zealanders and minimise online casino harm, which is coming to every household in terms of availability. This is what we heard through the select committee submissions.

The Minister states that online casino gambling is already well-established in New Zealand. We would argue this is an entirely new system through this bill. The policy intent is to establish a new licensing regime for online casino gambling, and the bill prohibits the conduct and advertisement of unlicensed online casino gambling. However, what that means is that through this system, large multinational companies already in the industry that own and control their own production of goods and services in another country will not necessarily be domiciled in New Zealand. That creates a number of issues, and we heard those issues through the public submissions.

What this bill does is it creates an online licensing system for operators within New Zealand that have previously been prohibited under the Gambling Act 2003 but were widely available. Under the current law, remote, interactive gambling, hosted by operators, is illegal. However, the Gambling Act does not prohibit New Zealanders from accessing offshore gambling websites.

The new bill seeks to amend this gap in legislation by establishing this licensing regime for domestic online casino operators, and we’ve heard that up to 15 licences will be issued within the three-year period. We’ve also heard that the new system will be a three-stage competitive licensing process to determine who may apply for a licence and the amount payable for a licence. That will take place in the regulatory period.

We heard at the select committee, the Governance and Administration Committee—and I do want to acknowledge the 5,000 submitters. We also heard that 3,966 were against the first draft, which proposed no community return at that time. I also want to acknowledge the officials that assisted the select committee through the different process stages and up to this point.

Years ago, the Gambling Act 2003 was created, and it was formed to integrate previous legislation, the Casino Control Act 1990 and the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1977, into a single framework with primary goals: number one, control growth, regulate the expansion of gambling in communities; number two, harm minimisation, prevent and reduce social harm caused by problem gambling; number three, community benefit, to ensure that proceeds from gambling, especially pokies, will benefit the community through grants and funding; and number four—which is really critical—maintain the fairness of games to prevent crime or dishonesty.

We would argue that this Government continues to look for ways through drafted legislation to continue to collect taxes and levies through the economic lens. However, it needs to go further to protect New Zealanders under this new system. We would also argue that the Government has looked beyond its moral compass to protect New Zealanders and the social licence it requires with regards to this bill. We are concerned that it will cause more stress and harm to New Zealand families when the cost of living is affecting Kiwis every day, and it is these individuals who will constantly be exposed to online casino gambling through this bill.

What’s worse—and I just want to highlight this—is that you will not have to leave the comforts of your home to visit, i.e., a land-based casino. You will be able to obtain your device, you will be able to log in, and, in particular, through the different provisions that are provided, you will be able to access from the comforts of your own home. You don’t even have to leave your home to be able to utilise and get in to do online casino gambling, and that’s a worry. You will have access 24/7, seven days per week.

The saturation of advertising is something that we all need to be concerned about, particularly when it’s targeting young New Zealanders. I’ve heard the Minister of Internal Affairs explain the system through regulation that is intended to be provided by the Department of Internal Affairs, but we would continue to argue that there need to be stronger consumer protections to reduce harm minimisation specifically to young New Zealanders.

The Governance and Administration Committee examined the Online Casino Gambling Bill, recommending that this bill be passed through the House. Through the public consultation process, we heard a number of submissions who were extremely concerned that the bill does not go far enough. We are concerned that through the original draft, through public pressure to the Minister, she was then forced to go back to Cabinet to advise that there needs to be community return, because I have outlined that in the original Gambling Act, that was a key provision, and we heard over 3,000 submissions advise that there needed to be community return. You cannot just have new legislation under online gambling within New Zealand introduced to New Zealand that does not benefit many of the communities, as was previously in the Act. Suffice to say that it has been welcomed that the Minister had come back to the select committee, that there would be a community provision return, and that has been reflected.

Labour’s differing view has stated that we continue that although the community return is 4 percent, we would argue that the return needs to be double; that there needs to be a higher figure that is considered by officials. The reason why we say that is because through public submissions, there is no alternative mechanism that has been introduced by the Government in terms of public community groups. Many community groups have to rely on that community funding for their activities. We heard a number of submissions stating what their activities were, and without a community return through this legislation, it will be very difficult for those community groups to carry on. That was consistently heard through the public submissions.

I do want to acknowledge, in particular, one of the submitters, Martin Snedden, who stipulated that it is very important that a review is taken in a few years to review the system in terms of how well it’s gone, what will be the problems in future, and, specifically, consumer protection and the reduction and the tools of harm minimisation.

We are still very concerned that this bill, although the Minister has explained that through the regulations New Zealanders will be protected—again, we continue to argue that it does not go far enough and the review will be important. So we will be proposing some amendments through the committee stage, which is important. We will continue to raise the issues that New Zealanders have raised through the select committee process and still continue to request meetings with select committee members to hear their thoughts and to reinforce those thoughts. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:17): Kia ora e te Pīka. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party. The Green Party supports good, sensible regulation in this space—one that’s focused on harm reduction and risk minimisation—and that is one of the reasons why the Green Party supported it to the Governance and Administration Committee, in the hope that, actually, through that process they’d be able to get better outcomes to this bill. Unfortunately, the minor changes that were managed to be obtained did not actually change the major concerns that we have, and, therefore, we cannot support this bill at this time.

My time on this bill has been a bit briefer, as I came in late and, therefore, was not part of large parts of this process, so I’ve actually taken my time to go over a lot of the information that’s informed our decision. So it’s a good opportunity for me now, with a lot of time in front of me, to actually discuss what I found and what I read. I guess one of the things about the purpose of this bill is to prevent and minimise harm from online casino gambling. When I read the feedback on the regime from other agencies, there’s a few things that leapt out at me. One was from the Ministry of Health. Their response was—and I quote—“However, it seems from paper that very little mention of harm prevention or minimisation is proposed for the bill beyond the purpose, while almost all this detail is delegated to regulations. While we understand the benefit of regulations in a fast-evolving environment, we think that some parameters around harm prevention and minimisation need to be in the bill to anchor to the purpose.”

And Te Whatu Ora: “We welcome the intention to regulate online gambling, but are concerned that the proposed regulations will increase gambling and lead to an increase in gambling harm. First, we’re concerned that the Cabinet paper does not reflect the potential for harm that online gambling presents. The RIS provides evidence and discussion on this, but it is not well reflected in the paper. We encourage you to make this potential for harm more visible, so that legislative proposals can be considered in this context. Specifically, we note that online gambling is particularly harmful as it’s continuous, easily accessible, and easy to hide. The regulatory impact statement (RIS) notes that the number of presentations to gambling harm services with onshore online gambling listed as a main mode of harm has increased by 71 percent since 2019, a 1,500 percent rise in the number of adults gambling with offshore providers between 2010 and 2020, and growth from around 7,000 adults to 105,000 adults.”

We know that online gambling poses a higher risk of addiction by being available 24/7. It allows problem gamblers to hide their gambling by moving it on to a personal device and into their homes. It can lack effective safeguards for age verification of gamblers. A lot of times when we’re on our streets now, we see people on e-scooters, the hireable e-scooters. I know in Ōtautahi Christchurch, where we have e-scooters, they’re limited to 18 years and over to ride them, but the amount of people that are definitely well under 18 years riding them and that’s meant to have some age verification. So I just think we can see the pitfalls and that, really, some of these age verifications just don’t have the safeguards to be effective.

It poses problems with regulations to the online environment, with the remote nature of the gambling environment. Problem gambling rates among those who gamble on the internet are 10 times higher than that of the general population. I just want to read some notes from the regulatory impact statement around the costs: “Gambling harm treatment providers may experience an increase in direct cost due to the increased resourcing requirements. We assume this cost will be offset by collection of the problem gambling levy by licensed operators.” So this is an implicit acknowledgment that there will be increased resources required, which means increased amounts of problem gambling. Also, the cost of problem gambling cannot just be offset by a levy.

It then goes on to say, “The wider public will experience some indirect costs, namely the cost of gambling harm, which we will assume will be partially offset by a problem gambling levy and would be lower than the counterfactual. There may also be a social cost associated with frustration or irritation with gambling advertisements if advertising increases.” This is another weird statement. The wider public bearing the cost of gambling harm is bad, but also assuming that gambling harm is offset by a levy on operators is nonsensical. If that was the case, there would be no gambling harm in Aotearoa because we already have a problem-gambling levy. You cannot offset the societal costs that impact on whānau financial standing, wellbeing, and mental health through a levy from offshore operators.

From what I’ve read from this process, we know there actually has been not the best amount of engagement, especially with iwi. We know when we look at the demographics of who is affected by problem gambling that there’s a lot of communities that are actually affected. In this document that I read, Māori were three times more likely to be at moderate risk of problem gambling than non-Māori and non-Pacific people. Pasifika people were more than two times likely to be moderate risk or problem gamblers than non-Māori and non-Pacific peoples. About 47 percent of young people had gambled in the past year. Men were twice as likely and disabled people—people with long life disabilities—are more likely to be at disproportionately higher risk of developing harmful gambling behaviours.

Then, when you start to read through all the submissions and you’re actually listening to the people that actually are problem gamblers, you could actually see that the Government wasn’t actually taking into account the issues that they were confronted with. I’ll read through a couple of these that I’ve found from the iwi leaders. Pou Tangata chair Rahui Papa: “Let’s be clear that this reform will expose more young people to risk. It is gambling harm by stealth.” They said, “It’s astounding, disappointing, and concerning there has been no initial consultation with communities most likely to be affected by the plans to auction off 15 online casino licences.”

A submission from Mana Mokopuna, the Children’s Commissioner: “Given the statutory mandate of Mana Mokopuna, this submission is focussed on the potential impact of the Bill on the rights, interests, participation, and well-being of mokopuna in Aotearoa New Zealand. In particular, Mana Mokopuna is concerned that the Bill: fails to recognise the heightened risks and harms associated with online casino gambling by seeking only to regulate rather than comprehensively ban online casino gambling in Aotearoa New Zealand; prioritises revenue making from online casino gambling over protecting mokopuna and their whānau and communities from the heightened risks and harms of online casino gambling; reverses the ban on online casino gambling advertising despite the evidence that gambling advertising contributes to the normalisation and social acceptance of gambling, particularly among mokopuna”. These go on and on and on talking about the harm that gambling can cause and the fact that this bill does not actually prevent that harm.

I was reading just recently a media article on a university student who had become addicted to online gambling. In that article, the Deputy Prime Minister says, “We’re talking here about university students who are receiving a huge amount of taxpayer money, on the basis that they are smart and have a future that we should invest in as taxpayers.” It clearly shows that the Deputy Prime Minister does not understand how debilitating an addiction is and that addiction is a mental health issue. I implore the Deputy Prime Minister to show some empathy and try and understand how impactful addiction can be. I think one of the things that we have noticed from this bill is this is not actually about harm prevention; this is about revenue gathering. This is a money-grab that will cause misery. Kia ora.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (17:27): I thought it kind of started OK, and I believe Mr Davidson is well-intentioned but just maybe stuck in ideology. I would encourage him to read something like new clause 75(2A), the new clause we added in the select committee that adds an industry-funded national self-exclusion register. That is a meaningful step that actually makes a difference. I would also encourage him to go back and read the submissions, which were overwhelmingly supportive of regulating an area that was unregulated, that was already causing harm and giving nothing back to this country, to the people of this country.

How do we regulate that? Go and read what Wellington Riding for the Disabled said. Go and read what sports clubs said. Go and read—particularly the one from Dominic Barrington from Wellington Free Ambulance: really helpful and constructive. The biggest thing I heard about was about returns to the community that started at zero percent; now at 4 percent. It’s a bit of the Goldilocks thing. Zero was the porridge that was too cold. Someone had 7 percent to 8 percent, but that porridge was a bit too hot. Where did we land? At 4 percent. Add to that the gaming levy and the levy for problem gambling, and add to that the GST, and it’s actually 29 percent that’s coming to New Zealand. We’re currently at a zero; it is 29 percent.

I held a public meeting with all my local sports clubs and groups and organisations. We had a great turn out at the Waikanae Bowling Club for people that wanted to see this bill go through, that wanted to support but wanted to see money for community. That’s why I have worked hard to improve this at select committee. That’s why I commend this bill to the House now—for those people.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:29): Hello, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and also as another member of the Governance and Administration Committee which considered this bill. Look, the reality is that human beings have always gambled, right? You go right back in history, even the Palaeolithic times, and human beings have gambled. We can read about dice games in Mesopotamia 3,000 years before Christ. And, of course, the Roman soldiers gambled for Christ’s clothing.

But gambling has always been something which has caused problems. There’s always been an element of the addiction there and that’s why in New Zealand, we’ve had longstanding controls and protections, and support for problem gambling foundations and so on in our New Zealand law. The problem here that we’re dealing with is something that’s actually outside of New Zealand. As Mike Davidson just said, you can get it at a click of a button in your home, and it could be anywhere around the world.

What we have at the moment is a completely unregulated environment, and what this bill is about is at least placing some regulations. You might say you want to go further, or you might say you want to go less, but I think the message that we got loud and clear is that we need to have a regulated environment, because all of those examples which you’ve heard from the Green Party are things that are happening right now with no regulations whatsoever. We need some form of regulation in what is currently a wild west system. That is what this bill, in the first instance, is.

The second thing, as we’ve also heard, is that New Zealand has had this longstanding social compact, if you like, saying, “Look, gambling is harmful in some cases,”—quite often it’s harmful—“but, on the other side, we expect that the community will benefit in some way.” That’s the various grant schemes that there are around for community and sporting activities. As introduced, this bill had nothing about that there at all, and that was really a problem, I think, right across the select committee. We had a problem with that, and our submitters certainly did because many of them saw it as a breach of that social contract. We had, as you’ve heard, 4,837 submissions. We heard 148 oral submissions, and the sporting and community organisations were very organised, very constructive, and very articulate about putting their case. Of those 4,837 submissions, 3,966 had their primary focus on that issue of community benefit—3,966. They weren’t, by and large, individuals; they were organisations, up and down the country—big organisations—who make a massive positive difference to our community.

Their real concern was, if we go online—it’s the same argument as you have with bricks and mortar retail against online retail, but I think it’s even more profound here because there’s nothing that you need to go and touch and feel and try on if you’re going to look at clothing—the erosion of class 4 gaming proceeds, which, at the moment, are worth something like $345 million to the community and sporting sector. I know from having been in the situation of giving out grants and carefully thinking about how you can maximise the benefit from those and I also know as a recipient of grants and sporting organisations and conservation organisations and so on how important that money is. It’s absolutely vital to those organisations, to their health, and to their ability to deliver for our community.

The message that we heard was a message that we heard loud and clear, so I think it was really great that the Cabinet also heard that and have made the changes they have to put that 4 percent in there. There’s a community benefit out of that, which we heard would raise something like $10 or $20 million. That seems quite conservative, but I think if the Cabinet hadn’t done that, I suspect that the committee would have done exactly that and said, “You need to put something in there for community benefit because that is a message that has been loud and clear.”

Secondly, I wanted to discuss some changes made through select committee—specifically New Zealand First changes—which I was pleased to be able to encourage the committee to put in there. The first one of them is that the purpose of the bill, as it started, did not include community benefit. Now, because the Cabinet has said there should be some community benefit and they provided for that, the purpose has changed. We’ve added clause 3(e) in, which is to “ensure that money from online casino gambling benefits the community.” That’s a change.

The second one was about the nature of the licensees. We had representations from the likes of the New Zealand Community Trust and some of the other community charitable foundations, who said that, actually, they wanted to join in partnership with some of the overseas entities so that we didn’t just have overseas entities being the ones who got the licences but that they could partner together. The big benefit of that would be that those organisations know the New Zealand community, they’re also going to be, if they get involved in the partnership, much more likely to give a much larger proportion of the proceeds, not just the 4 percent but potentially all that surplus, back to New Zealand organisations. That is a really, really positive thing. So these are the two changes that I encouraged the committee to put up. They’re very much New Zealand First - type amendments because they put New Zealand first and that’s what we do.

Clause 14 now requires licence applicants to disclose their intended contributions to New Zealand, and clause 19 now requires the Secretary of Internal Affairs to consider the scope of the licence applicant’s presence in New Zealand—do they have staff in New Zealand or don’t they?—and also their planned contributions to the community. Both of those are significant changes, which will benefit applicant organisations in New Zealand.

To finish off, because we’ve heard a fair bit about harm here, in the advertising space, I think there is a potential issue, and that potential issue is that you have, potentially, up to 15 organisations who will be advertising their product in New Zealand. Of course, this House has, not that long ago, also decided that we will have more extensive advertising allowed on days which are very special to people—Sundays, Easter, Good Friday, Anzac Day, and Christmas—and it could be quite confronting to have a large number of gambling messages on those days. I hope that’s something which is thought about over time as we monitor the effects of this legislation. But, on the plus side, that advertising also will allow messages which are about the way of safer gambling, rather than the wild west arrangements we’ve got at the moment where, if you’re engaging in online gambling, there are, essentially, no safeguards whatsoever.

We also added some practical means of reducing gambling harm. I’ll pick two. One of those has already been mentioned. That’s the self-exclusion register. Instead of having to say “I want to be self-excluded from that one and then that one and then that one” individually, you can, say if there are 15 of them, do all 15 all at once, and that is a way of reducing harm. We also put in clause 76(d), which is to allow that regulations—and we’ve already heard from the Minister about that—may prohibit accepting payments via credit cards. It’s bad enough to be gambling with money that you can’t really afford; it’s certainly even worse to be gambling with money you don’t even have and that you’re borrowing from someone else, so we got rid of that. We did have some discussion about whether 15 was the right number—more or less etc.—but we didn’t really have compelling evidence in any particular direction.

One other thing which we did say is that it’s important to review this legislation to see how it goes, to see whether the lotteries are doing the job well in terms of distributing the money, to see what the impact is on class 4, to see what the impact is in terms of problem gambling, and to see what impact it has in terms of the community organisations which benefit from gambling. To the Green Party, I don’t think the changes that we’ve made as a select committee are minor. I think they’re quite significant. I think they do make what was probably a somewhat deficient bill considerably better, and I commend this bill to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:36): There is no dispute; Te Pāti Māori agrees regulation is important, and we welcome regulation, but regulation is the only positive thing about this bill. Te Pāti Māori welcomes regulation because gambling online and offline is harmful, and for many whānau Māori, it’s been harming us for far too long.

The problem—and the Minister responsible knows this—is that the proposed rules do not go far enough to protect the people who already carry the hardest burden, and that is whānau Māori, that is Pasifika, that is rangatahi, kaumātua, whaikaha, whaiora, low income communities, and families already struggling to put kai on the table.

Tāmaki Makaurau is arguably ground zero for gambling. Ha! Te Pourewa Teitei - Sky Tower. South Auckland, West Auckland, Central Auckland have some of the highest concentrations of pokie machines and gambling-related harm in this entire country. Thousands of whānau access gambling-harm services every year, and many more never come forward. Māori are up to three times more likely to experience problem gambling than non-Māori. Pasifika peoples are almost four times more likely. Recently, the Salvation Army released its state of the nation report, which highlights that gambling losses increased to $2.79 billion in the last year alone, yet this Government wants to place a 24/7 casino right in every pocket, every phone, every laptop, and every bedroom. What’s worse is that it will be available to 18-year-olds. That makes no sense to me or anybody really, when everyone knows that you have to be at least 20 years of age to enter a casino in person anywhere in Aotearoa. This isn’t progress; it is exploitation and another method of invading our homes and our communities, and of ruining our lives.

Another area of concern is that the self-exclusion register, a basic protection, will not be in place until 2027. I note that the Labour member mentioned that this bill is, effectively, introducing a new system. The concern is that the system will function without its most important safeguard, which is akin to opening a motorway with no speed limits and promising to install brakes later. That is not responsible governance; that is negligence. Who is it really looking after? Who is the system really being built for? Fifteen operators—multinational gambling companies—whose business model relies on addiction. The Minister herself has already admitted that revenue gathering is a key driver, so be honest! This bill is not about protection; it is about taxation of harm. It is about the Crown taking a cut while whānau pay the price.

Like I said before, our communities, our communities are already losing almost $3 billion a year to gambling, and what do communities get? Just $20 million in return. That is less than 1 percent of all their losses, and that is insulting—that is insulting.

Perhaps most offensive of all is that this bill has no mechanism to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—no guaranteed Māori involvement, no co-governance, no recognition of rangatiratanga, no obligation to consult hapū and iwi. The Green Party rightly pointed out that, once again, we have a Government glaringly undermining Te Tiriti and Māori rights as tangata whenua. That is colonial policy making in 2026.

In 2026, the Iwi Chairs Forum—yes, Rahui Papa did say “gambling harm by stealth”. That is what this bill represents. But the Iwi Chairs Forum and Māori health providers have also repeatedly warned this Government against gambling harm, calling for a public health approach, strong regulation, Māori leadership, prevention first—not market expansion, not corporate capture, and not deregulation disguised as reform.

Te Pāti Māori’s position is that money over mana is the opposite of mana motuhake. That’s what we stand for. We are not anti-technology; we are anti-exploitation. We are anti-poverty. We could choose stronger age limits, lower licence numbers, advertising bans, mandatory Māori governance—I could go on, but we’ve only got 30 seconds on the clock, so I’m going to make it count. Right now, this Government is choosing speed and revenue. What that looks like is māmā choosing kai over rent, pāpā hiding debt, rangatahi chasing losses, kaumātua losing savings. This bill tells them, “You are collateral damage.” Te Pāti Māori says, “No, you are not. Your lives matter, your futures matter, and your mokopuna matter.” We do not support this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:41): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to begin by acknowledging that, in this country, countless lives are being ruined by gambling. Online gambling is a particularly aggressive form of harm perpetuated by companies that seek to make profit out of creating misery, hardship, debt, and splitting families apart. The Green Party is very, very conscious that we absolutely need a framework and law that actually puts harm minimisation on top of the agenda.

What I am particularly concerned about when I see this bill is that harm minimisation does not seem to come at the top of the agenda; it seems to be revenue gathering. It’s particularly tragic that we have a Government that is entrenching a system where the revenue gathered from harm caused by these corporations is one of the few lifelines that exists for sporting clubs and community clubs, and community organisations more broadly, as well. This is a broken system that has entrenched the harm that is caused by gambling.

This bill, in my view, does not go far enough in reassuring us that harm minimisation, consumer protection, and advertising restrictions are genuinely on the agenda when they have been left to regulations. Particularly in the context of this Government and the Minister who is in charge of this bill, she has yet to show us that, in her legislative agenda, she has put the wellbeing of ordinary people over profit. You’ve just got to look at some of the other bills that she has ushered through to look at the track record, which leaves me with very little confidence that the secondary legislation that will be, obviously, brought forward by this Government will genuinely put harm minimisation, consumer protection, and advertising restrictions at the forefront and centre.

Particularly concerning are the lack of prohibitions on advertising. This is an area that I do think should absolutely be prohibited, because we know that the advertisement of online gambling ultimately seeks to prey on people who are most likely to engage in gambling; people who have the most to lose from developing a gambling addiction, as well. When we know, particularly, how inequitable the harm of gambling is, what this means is that we leave the door open for predatory practices from these corporations to target some of our most vulnerable groups. The Te Pāti Māori speaker prior to me noted that some of these safeguards come into place quite a lot later down the line, and that is concerning. I also think that the safeguards and some of the changes brought by, well, New Zealand First taking credit for it, are still, nonetheless, not sufficient—they’re not sufficient.

Andy Foster: Yeah, because I actually know what happened. I know exactly what happened.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I’ll take his word for it. But I nonetheless think that the protections that are being brought forward still do not put harm minimisation at the top. Online gambling has been a conversation that has led many of our rangatahi spaces online. There’s particularly been concerns about how people with huge platforms have been co-opted by these online gambling entities to reach to young people in communities that are quite at risk of developing a gambling addiction. This is why we need a stronger framework when it comes to advertising that just outright bans it—because the online gambling entities are literally using people right now who have a huge amount of influence and reach, particularly within communities that are more likely to face material hardship, to actually be actors, and people who are not necessarily wearing the brand of these companies but are nonetheless enticing people to come and engage with online gambling.

This is why we think that primary legislation should have been one of the tools to create a framework to genuinely centre harm minimisation outright. No one is saying that prohibiting gambling is a genuine solution. We have not seen that being the case with other activities that can be addictive; it can cause harm. But any legislation that is genuine about reducing harm, we put that at the forefront—as opposed to revenue gathering, which is what we’ve seen here. This is why the Green Party is not convinced with the select committee changes and will not be voting in support of this bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:46): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Second readings are an opportunity for us to reflect on the process that we undertook at the select committee, and I wanted to put on record my thanks to the many, many people who submitted on the legislation telling us about how improvements could be made to it—particularly those sporting clubs and organisations from across New Zealand, but particularly from my home patch in the Bay of Plenty, who submitted to the legislation and got in touch to say, “We think you’re doing the right thing, but we think there’s room for improvement.” I hope those people know that we listened, we took that feedback on board, and we improved the legislation. My local cricket club that I play for, the Greerton Cricket Club, for example—we heavily rely on the grant fundings that come through from lotteries and from other organisations to pay for our uniforms, to pay for our cricket balls, our stumps and everything else. That’s why they got in touch to say, “Please ensure there is a return to the community.”

I just want to make one final acknowledgement, and that is to the Tauranga City Tridents American Football Club, because they got in touch with me and said, “Tom, you’re our local MP. We would love to meet with you to talk about this legislation.” So I got in touch with them; I met with them; I even put on the pads and tried them out with them at their own training and took it all on board. That was the most valuable thing of this experience, hearing from local sporting organisations to know how this legislation would impact them, to make improvements at the select committee stage like we did, and to get this legislation to a place where it works exactly right. That’s why I commend it to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:48): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To start on a positive note, I’d like to echo the previous speaker’s acknowledgement of all of the people who submitted to the select committee on this bill. We had a huge number of sports groups, specifically, but also community groups, submit, and it was—it was actually really interesting. I know a lot of these sports were actually being played in New Zealand, and the people who submitted were, without exception, community people who just wanted to do something positive in their community. I really commend them for their advocacy.

I’ll say one other thing. I think the committee did work really well on this bill. It’s a slightly unusual situation with this bill, where we didn’t have a representative of the ACT Party, and the Minister who’s putting this forward is from the ACT Party. I think everyone on that committee, on the initial draft—and, obviously, they can speak for themselves, but my impression was that everyone saw that the select committee could add value to this bill, and I think that you’ll see that that is what has happened, in this case.

But I have to say, this entire process and proposal in this bill is a total mess. This is a really serious matter, because, as a colleague just said, gambling is a serious matter.

Gambling leads to harm. Problem gambling can lead to the ending of lives, if not the effective ending of people’s will to live because of how addictive it can be. This bill doesn’t improve, in my view and in the view of the Labour Party, the status quo in relation to the provision of gambling in New Zealand. That is because it does regulate gambling, which sounds like a good idea, and we’ve said that we support that concept, but it allows 15 operators—and these can be overseas operators, so a lot of that revenue that New Zealanders are paying will be taken offshore—to legally advertise online gambling services to New Zealand.

I am so worried about this. It just means—I can’t find where my phone is, but you pick up your phone and it’s there. Gambling is there. It’s in people’s homes. It’s in front of people’s children. We know that there is currently some overseas gambling at the moment and that it’s not regulated. That is a problem, but this bill is not the answer. There are too many providers and there are not enough safeguards to ensure that this isn’t going to perpetuate further harm within our community. I predict that this House will regret the decision to open up and legalise online gambling because of the harm it will create in our community.

That is the harm part. There are allegedly going to be—well, there are going to be regulations around minimisation of harm. We don’t have oversight of that. We can’t see what those are going to be. We don’t know if it’s going to be enough. My fear is with that number of providers, with the fact that we’re not going to have a huge amount of resource—well, not that we know of—put into gambling harm, that this will not be sufficient to stem the tide of addiction that this bill will lead to.

The second thing that is really concerning about this bill—which has been addressed somewhat during the process—is one of the benefits of gambling, I suppose, is the fact that all of the gambling that’s currently legalised in New Zealand returns a significant amount of their profits to the community. Most of our submissions were about how valuable that money is. I don’t think many or any of the community groups actually liked gambling or were supportive of gambling, but they were very grateful that they were able to do their good work in the community with the funds from that.

The original draft of this bill had no community return at all. So when we hear speakers opposite say, “Yes, we heard all of the people saying they supported the bill.”, actually, what they wanted was the community return element. It is good that that has now been brought in, but it’s been brought in in such a messy way that didn’t allow the Governance and Administration Committee or submitters to fully scrutinise whether that was going to be effective. I think it’s a shame that it wasn’t put in the first version of this bill. I think it’s a shame that Cabinet in 2024 decided that there wouldn’t be a community return element. I think that was out of touch. I think community groups around New Zealand should be praised for them getting that change into this bill, not the Government. The Government put this forward without community returns and they have put that back into this bill. So I want to commend Martin Snedden and all of the community groups from around New Zealand for actually standing up and saying, “This isn’t good enough.”

I think they actually need more. I was convinced of the fact that the community groups that are doing so much in the community, even with this, they are still underfunded. They’re getting less funding year on year and it’s not keeping up with the cost of living. That’s maybe a problem for another day, but I don’t think that that will be solved by this bill.

So this is a change. As we’ve set out in our differing view, and my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene has outlined, it’s not the exact change that we want. It means that people are still relying on the Lottery Grants Board. They do good work, but sometimes there are delays. There is a better system, a more effective system that was advocated by Martin Snedden and the group of community groups that actually know how difficult it is to get lotteries funding out. We supported that and it’s a shame that that hasn’t happened.

It is good to have the self-exclusion register in there. We do need to have bigger harm minimisation in place, so that is a positive element of it. But like many things, it really feels like this bill came to the House half-baked and without the proper thought through it, and this is such a serious thing. The thing that worries me most about this bill is once we pass this bill, are we ever going to be able to turn back the floodgates on this online gambling?

This is my plea to anyone listening on the other side of the House: get some advice about what potentially the impact of this bill will be. Is this really what you want for New Zealand? It’s all very well us saying that we’re going to vote against this, but it’s the Government introducing this law, and it is a law that is going to be very, very difficult once corporate contracts are entered into, once these online casino gambling operations have started operating in New Zealand, to actually tell them, “You’re no longer allowed to operate anymore.” The resulting taxation impact that that will have is going to be a very, very difficult thing to turn back.

But there is time for the Government to just take a breath and just look at this bill and just say, “Is this really what we want for our country?” Personally, I think that we could do a lot better and that something so serious such as this should really be something where ideally there’s bipartisan support. There’s security in the fact that we know that harm minimisation is going to be prioritised. I mean, even Business New Zealand—I pulled out a couple of the submissions—said given how the bill currently stands on 15 licences without any requirement for the licensees to have a physical presence in the country, it is difficult to have confidence that its aims and its goals will be fully met.

Business New Zealand is saying that. There are so many submitters that had concerns about this bill, from the community groups in relation to community return, from the organisations that dealt with problem gambling, and I want to acknowledge those organisations as well. They receive very little funding and they do hard work in our community. We listened to a lot of the submitters. I know we had a day in Auckland. Melissa Lee and colleagues and I attended hearings in Auckland where we heard face to face from so many community groups who are doing such difficult work in the community. Really, they were just so concerned about the impact of this bill and the fact that there wasn’t enough funding going into dealing with the harm that it caused.

It is not too late to take a pause on this bill and to make sure that not only the community return stuff is going to work properly and is sufficient—we’ve put in our differing view that we don’t think the percentage is high enough, so that’s something that can be looked at. There haven’t been public submissions on that either, so I think that that’s something that I would really encourage everyone to look at as well. But the biggest thing is, obviously, the effect that it will have on New Zealanders. I’m concerned about how we will stop young people picking up their parents’ phones, their devices, seeing these ads, and getting addicted to online gambling at an even earlier age, knowing that they’re doing something that’s legal and that is sanctioned by this Parliament and that we know will cause them harm.

So I cannot commend this bill to the House. Genuinely, in good faith, I would ask the Government to look at this again and just re-examine whether this is the right step in the right way for New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. Welcome to the Rotary Club of Tawa. The House will resume at 7.30.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is resumed. We’re on the second reading of the Online Casino Gambling Bill, and we’re on call No. 9, which, I believe, is a National Party call.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (19:30): Mr Speaker, thank you so much. I won’t take too much of your time, sir, but I just want to say that this bill responds to a reality that many New Zealanders already live with, and that is that online casino gambling is already well-established in New Zealand and it’s very widespread. It is unregulated, and increasingly accessible, mostly from offshore operators beyond the current legal framework.

I just want to make it very, very clear, so that people who are watching on Parliament TV—you know, when you listen to the Opposition members, it actually makes it sound as though we are introducing this online gambling that never existed, and we’re actually introducing it into New Zealand. It already exists. They don’t pay any taxes. They don’t provide any harm minimisation. They don’t actually do any contribution to the community. So this bill is not encouraging gambling; it establishes a licensing regime for online casino gambling to bring clarity, consistency, and protection to Kiwis in an area where status quo leaves them exposed to harm.

So, by introducing a regulatory system for online gambling in New Zealand, we prioritise harm minimisation, consumer protection, and revenue collection—yes, revenue collection. Through the taxes that we collect, 4 percent of that revenue will go to the community for sporting activities—the arts community, who actually do get funds from class 4 gambling, which is pokies. Pokies actually do contribute to the communities. This bill makes sure that we also collect revenue and contribute to the community. That is the great work of the Governance and Administration Committee.

This bill is about responsibility. It recognises personal choice, while acknowledging the role of Government in setting boundaries that reduce harm and protect the public interest. It’s a pragmatic and proportional response to a fast-evolving digital environment. I commend the bill.

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

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (19:32): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s interesting to talk about the previous speaker, the Hon Melissa Lee, and how it’s about revenue, and revenue gathering. Yes, of course, redistributing it back into the community—yeah, that’s a decent thing, but it’s actually about harm.

The world has changed massively, and, yes, we need to figure it out with this online world and how it operates—and, I guess, what I want to reflect on is a young person that lived with me for a number of years, and the unknown issues that came for him when it came to online gaming and then online gambling and what that looked like. I did not know the gravity of the situation, but, for this young man, it became something that he struggled to control, and things got in the way, and, for him, it was actually something that really ruined his relationship, ruined his family situation, and put things—in terms of his work and his opportunities—at risk.

So we need regulation. On this side of the House, we’re saying “Of course we need to regulate this. Of course we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to make this work.”, because, as I said, the world has changed and we live in an online world now. So we have to find ways and mechanisms to ensure that we protect our people.

Everyone—no matter how young, how old; if you’re rural, if you’re city; wherever you are—needs to be protected, needs to ensure that they get the help and support they need. Our concern—and I know, as our spokesperson earlier, in her contribution, spoke about, was that during the select committee process it was around exploring what was possible, but, also, how we actually get this right so that we don’t create more harm into the future.

I wish that we wouldn’t have to be talking about online casinos or gaming and the harm and the horror that it can create in families and communities, but we have to. We have to be realistic around what this is about. For me, as I think of that young person and what he went through, yes, we have to make sure that we regulate the online casino gambling space, but we also need to lean in and not just think about the revenue it might bring in, the bit of money it might redistribute into our communities—because, as we know, often the money that’s redistributed into our communities is money that is actually spent around harm, around hurt, around communities that are falling apart, and, so often, it’s things like alcohol, like drugs, like gambling. So we need to make sure that we work on this.

We have made it clear, our concerns of what is going on and what we think about this bill and how it opens the door up to offshore online casinos. Without a strong plan, we know that is going to create more harm—whether it be mental health, whether it be financial, whether it be the harm and hurt that is caused when people—because, often, it’s seen as a bit of a silent and an unknown condition in terms of when it comes to addiction. We look at things like drugs and alcohol, and, often, that is quite visible for people to see and it can obviously manifest itself in terms of family harm and in terms of people falling apart in terms of their own lives personally and professionally. But it’s the online space, it’s the gambling, which, often, goes under the radar. You can’t smell, you can’t look in people’s eyes and see what is going on in terms of what is being done to them or what they’re allowing to be done to themselves.

But addiction is real. We know, when it comes to online casino gaming and gambling, that it is actually psychology. It is run by people who know the right bells, who know the right whistles, who know the right stimulation that will keep people there for hours and hours and days and years, and, often, they suffer in silence and take their families, their friends, their work colleagues with them.

So we want to be constructive—want to find a way through. We know that regulation is required. We don’t think this is the way. Of course, when we move into the committee of the whole House, I know we’ll be putting up amendments and trying to find a way through that we can make this a little bit better than it currently is.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (19:37): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree completely with my colleague over here—Melissa Lee—earlier. The online gambling horse has literally bolted out of the stables, and it’s not coming back. That is the world we live in. That is our reality now. It was a market that was completely unregulated. The National Party campaigned on better regulations so that all gambling operators actually play by the same rules.

This bill introduces a regulatory system that prioritises harm minimisation, consumer protection, and, yes, revenue collection. The proposed amendments by the Governance and Administration Committee will ensure that returns will go back to our community, our sports clubs, and the like.

I would just like to take this moment to acknowledge all of our local sports clubs in the Wairarapa, Tararua, and Central Hawke’s Bay, and community groups that actually approached me on this. I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (19:38): I’ve been listening to the debate very carefully, and there’s clearly a disagreement over what the purpose of this bill is. Is it to reduce harm with online gambling, or is it to increase tax revenue? Viewers listening to different speakers could form different views, but I think it’s important, wearing my mental health spokesperson hat, that we look back at the documents and see “What do the documents say about what the real purpose of this bill is?”

The documents are very revealing, in three respects. First, in relation to the timing of the way the two oversight organisations operated—that is, the Ministry of Health, via the Minister of Health; and the Minister of Internal Affairs and the internal affairs agency. Secondly, around what the Budget documents say about the purposes of this. And thirdly, some of the process around how this came to be in terms of where things lie in primary or secondary legislation—so where the emphasis is on harm minimisation versus revenue grabbing—where there are procedural gaps, such as an impact analysis, or why there might be an exemption, but, also, what various people have been saying from the Government side in the media, which do not add up to what the bill actually does.

So this is really prefacing questions that we will be asking in the committee of the whole House stage. But I think anybody listening, if you listen to the detail in these documents, you will see why it is very clear from Labour that this is about a revenue grab and this has nothing to do with minimising online gambling harm. Yes, there is an online gambling harm problem, and this is absolutely not the way to deal with it.

We have already heard that the harm will increase the exposure to advertising of online gambling on peoples’ phones, in peoples’ pockets, and to our young people, who already experience gamification, that is a kind of soft entry into gambling harm through the gaming sector.

But let’s look at what the timing tells us, because—and this is a classic example of where the Government of the day can use what I refer to as the “tyranny of silos” around Government agencies to have the left and the right hand play different parts in a regime that is purported to have one purpose, but actually has another. What we can see very clearly from this is that the harm minimisation strategy that came out of the Ministry of Health came after the decision to allow online gambling and the 15 licences. So any advice that was offered to the Ministers happened in the context of that decision having already been made. If we have a look at the Budget-sensitive document—this was from the Minister for Mental Health and it’s dated 24 September 2024—I quote: “The strategy also acknowledges the growth in online gambling and the Government’s recent decision to regulate online offshore casino gambling through a licensing system expected to take effect in early 2026.” I other words, the development of the draft strategy that was all about harm minimisation could only be about the harm minimisation that had already been allowed by a previous decision.

Now, that meant that the ministry was very limited in the scope of what it could do. It couldn’t say, for example, “Let’s not allow these 15 licences.” or “Let’s find a way of preferring local providers because there could be more oversight.” None of that was available to it very clearly in this Official Information Act document. This official document, which is budget sensitive and which was not released at the time of the decision, shows that that was a fait accompli.

There are also documents that show conflicts in how the levy, which is charged through the ministry, was calculated. Let’s be clear again: this is the tyranny of silos, where the levy that is applied to the so-called “harm minimisation” comes from one agency—i.e., health, but under the Gambling Act 2003—and then the regulation of that sector is made under a different one. In this one, there is official advice where there is a change to what is called the NCGM, which is a non-casino gaming machine. They tried to change the levy rates. Clearly, it says here at point 21: “We do not support the assertion that this change would take better account of harm from online gambling and consider the scale of changes too small to have such an impact.” In other words, there is not enough money to actually address the online gambling harm.

Then we look at what the Minister David Seymour has said when he was speaking about the Online Casino Gambling Bill. He said on Radio New Zealand on 15 February: “It will block overseas gambling websites from being accessible in New Zealand.” In fact, the bill contains no mechanism to block those websites. So the Minister is incorrect when he says that the bill will provide for actual blocking of the websites. The Minister then tries to assert that it will somehow reduce gambling harm, but actually, offshore online casinos will be incentivised to market more widely to New Zealanders. He doesn’t answer questions in that interview about the evidence that shows that increased exposure to online casino gambling harm is associated with higher rates of gambling harm. All he does is try to say, “Caveat emptor—buyer beware.” Some of the arguments we’ve heard tonight: “Gambling’s been around forever. Young people should be smart and not make bad choices.”, when we know, in fact, that this is an addiction problem.

It does, in my mind—and this is a little bit of an aside—raise the question of why we are treating online gambling harm or any form of gambling as a non-conscience matter, when we treat other things like alcohol and drugs through the conscience vote. So the same kind of philosophies and mental processes apply, and the same kind of harms apply, but we don’t treat it the same way.

Then we look at the impact analysis—and it’s really interesting that the same David Seymour, who’s the Minister for Regulation; this bill has been lead by his party—on page 48, there is an impact analysis exemption. Yet we have put into secondary legislation one of the most critical parts of this bill, which is the advertising protocols. The advertising is one of the most significant levers that will be used to cause harm, because the advertising will be exposing our young people, regardless of what the rules say, because if they’ve got a phone in their pocket, unless there are technical blocks, which we have ascertained are not in the bill, then they are going to be exposed. Yet the matter of advertising is pushed down to secondary legislation, rather than in the bill proper.

So it’s really difficult not to see that this is a tax grab from the Government. And it’s pretty cynical, when the Minister introduced the bill with no regard for the impact it would have on community organisations. So that change has been led by the community sector, after a great deal of work and a great deal of advocacy from Martin Snedden and others. But there was just blatant disregard for the impact it would have on the community sector and also on the fact that it is much easier to manage responsibility and accountability that is closer to home. How this Government thinks it is going to manage the offshore licences that will inevitably result from this bill because of the scale of the operators is beyond me and the devil will be in the detail, again pushed into secondary legislation.

I just want to finish with some interesting statistics that have come from the Problem Gambling Foundation group about gambling in Upper Hutt. If we look at where community funding actually comes from, it’s interesting because these figures are probably emblematic of what happens around the country. But in Upper Hutt, basically, most of the revenue comes from problem gamblers—it said that very clearly here. Users lost $25,000 a day into 166 pokie machines in 12 venues. Upper Hutt City lost $10.5 million. Eight of the venues are in the highest deprivation areas of Upper Hutt City. So the majority of pokie losses are coming from the poorest families. That is a story that is happening all over New Zealand. At least if the Government wants to use this to balance its book, it should be honest about its ambition and its intentions, but it’s very clear to us that this is not about harm minimisation; it’s about collecting tax.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (19:48): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka whakatakoto au i te pire ki te Whare.

[I commend the bill to the House.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Governance and Administration Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Online Casino Gambling Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (19:50): on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present the legislative statement on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation 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.

Second Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (19:50): on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to address poor behaviour from road users like fleeing police, illegal street racing, burnouts, disorderly dirt bike gatherings, intimidating vehicle convoys and siren battles, and, of course, doughnuts in places like Hamilton West and East.

Hon Member: Who’s been doing doughnuts?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: These behaviours—people from New Plymouth—are disruptive to communities and can be dangerous for participants, road users, bystanders, and police. When the bill was first read in August last year—and a great year it was—I pointed out that this behaviour is becoming increasingly common. We’d seen the event in Levin where seven people, including two police officers, were injured. These events have continued across the country, particularly in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Taranaki—of course—Banks Peninsula, Bay of Plenty, Wanganui, Lower Hutt, and even down Rotokauri in Hamilton West, and Wairarapa.

Carl Bates: All places we have cars.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There is a clear need—all places where we have cars—for police to have the correct tools and for courts to have the right penalties to deter this outrageous behaviour.

To achieve this, the Government has introduced this bill. It will produce and introduce a presumptive sentence in favour of forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction of vehicles involved in street racing, fleeing police, burnouts, and failing to provide details to help identify offenders. The sentence will also apply to those who are convicted of a new offence for intimidating convoys to penalise those who are driving dangerously and trying to intimidate the public—even those at Wherewhere Road in Moawhango. The bill will give police greater powers to identify drivers who participate in street racing, burnouts, and intimidating convoys. It will also give police greater powers to close off areas where antisocial road events are happening or might happen, to be proactive against these events growing in sophistication. And it will increase the fine for excessive noise from vehicles through speakers and sirens from an infringement fee of $50—rima tekau tāra—to $300. The maximum court fine will increase from $1,000 to $3,000—more than the price of a Crusaders and Chiefs game.

The bill was closely scrutinised and recommended to be passed by the Justice Committee, and I acknowledge and thank the members of the Justice Committee for the time they spent considering the bill and hearing submissions—all powers to them. I also thank the committee chair and the rest of the Justice Committee for their swiftness, their pace, as they reported back two months earlier than scheduled. This means that we can pass the bill as soon as possible to address antisocial road use in our local communities and even near the proposed Woodend Bypass. This endorsement reaffirms that the bill is addressing one of the priorities for this Government: stopping antisocial behaviour happening on our roads.

Public submissions on this bill were thorough and highlighted the disruptiveness of antisocial road use. Local councils, community groups, businesses, individuals spoke to the Justice Committee and described the different types of harm these activities are causing. Submitters spoke to the Justice Committee about how street racing and burnouts had created disruption and distress for them, keeping them awake at nights and scaring their children, interfering with their sleep, their ability to come and go from their homes and streets, and making them feel generally unsafe. Submitters also gave examples of the kinds of behaviours occurring at these events, such as the destruction of property, excessive alcohol consumption, and intimidating behaviour. These submissions have reaffirmed why the bill is necessary to address the harm communities and whānau are facing.

Submitters supported stronger deterrence and emphasised the importance of ensuring that penalties are balanced and proportionate and the intention of this bill is clear: it will strengthen consequences for antisocial road users but will also preserve and introduce safeguards to ensure consequences remain proportionate. Appeal rights are available. New exemptions are included if taking away a vehicle used for offending would be manifestly unjust or create extreme hardship to the offender or cause undue hardship to other persons.

Some submissions raised concerns about protecting civil liberties and suggested that increased police powers could unintentionally affect lawful groups and events like the Super Blues down in Wanganui. To be clear and address these concerns, I emphasise that new police powers to close and restrict areas are narrow. They only apply to illegal, antisocial events. I want to be clear that this bill does not target legitimate car enthusiasts and legal car meets, like that big—

Carl Bates: Street Drags in Wanganui on Saturday.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That’s right. Our focus is on antisocial behaviour that is illegal. Importantly, we can be assured that many of the concerns raised during the submissions process were already addressed in the original drafting of this bill. A small number of minor amendments have been made to the bill by the Justice Committee in order to ensure clarity and workability.

Other changes to align this bill with the current law allow an appropriate judicial discretion to ensure sentencing outcomes are appropriate. The intention of this bill is to deter antisocial road use, no matter whether or not you’re in Tīnui or Rākaihautū.

Rima Nakhle: Or Takanini.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Or Takanini. By making sure police have the powers necessary to address this kind of disruptive behaviour, and by introducing stronger sentences for offenders, we will make our communities safer for everyone and, of course, have better work stories. Given the Justice Committee’s endorsement, the minimal changes required, and the safeguards set out in this bill, we can be confident that this bill will attend and deliver on its intended purpose. Thank you. I commend this bill to this House. Kia ora.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:56): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure, on behalf of the Labour Party, to take a call on this bill. This is, I guess, described as an omnibus bill because it seeks to amend a number of pieces of legislation—three—and one set of regulations: the Land Transport Act, the Sentencing Act, the Policing Act, and the regulations that relate to offences and penalties under the Land Transport Act. It does so because it touches on a range of different things. This is not just about addressing what is antisocial road user behaviour in one sense—perhaps in a vehicle—but it relates also to the powers and opportunities that the police may have alongside those that might be in areas as well.

One of the interesting factors that has sort of occupied the mind of the Justice Committee, that did look at this particular bill, was the fact that when you’re looking at the type of behaviours that emanate from this antisocial sort of road use, fundamentally, it’s talking about the issues—and the Minister has touched on some of them—when it concerns those that might flee the police or attempt to flee from the police; the illegal street racing, which is a terrible situation for any community to have to deal with, and members on this side of the House certainly sympathise with the disturbance that many community members have to face when they do have to experience, even if not in their own street, in the immediate or distant surrounds around the illegal street racing. It also extends to include dirt bike gatherings—this is from the select committee’s report directly itself—and then introducing this new offence of frightening or intimidating convoys, which I’ll talk about in a moment, and the issue around noise.

So this is a bill that touches on a range of different aspects when it comes to daily life. Many actually might think that some of these behaviours only happen in the twilight hours—well, they don’t. If we think about the opportunities that exist 24/7, many of these circumstances, whether they’re intimidating or frightening convoys or something similar, do happen 24 hours around the clock.

The Labour Party does support, very clearly, safer communities and safer streets, and we also support giving the police the tools to be able to provide and support safe communities for Aotearoa New Zealand. Now, the dangerous behaviours that go with antisocial driving behaviours—they do cause real harm. They have the potential to cause perceived and actual harm to those who are part of these gatherings, en masse and individually, but also the harm that’s caused through the disturbance and neighbourhood destruction that exists as well. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill this evening because it is the right thing to do.

You know, the select committee process that this bill went through was a little bit different, because it went to the Justice Committee but it was introduced by the transport Minister. I’m not a member of that committee, the Justice Committee, but I do want to acknowledge all of those who worked on it, and in particular my colleagues the Hon Ginny Andersen, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, and Vanushi Walters, who from our team were able to tease out some of these issues. I think the bill has come back to this House in a better and improved space than when the select committee did get it.

I want to acknowledge the officials—as we often do at this point—who were able to provide the advice. I note that one of the police officers that was involved in the select committee process was retired Inspector Ross Grantham, who, up until recently, served as the Manawatū and Palmerston North area commander, and so I want to acknowledge the work that he did as part of this, as well.

While we are supporting this bill, there are still some concerns that I do want to express on behalf of Labour around the workability of what is in front of us. While the Minister has himself touched on some of the changes that this bill does present and provide, there are still some workability challenges that we can see, based on our track record of other areas in this particular space.

The bill itself does create, as I’ve said, this new offence of “frightening or intimidating convoy”. Now, I think that many of us can reflect on the fact that maybe members have been approached by constituents and others who have expressed real concerns about being intimidated or frightened by convoys of two or more vehicles. This bill will deliver the fact that that will, effectively, be an offence.

It also delivers increased penalty provisions for excessive noise that might be generated from a vehicle. Now, that causes huge disturbance at all times of the day, particularly in the evening hours. I hear from my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford that in West Auckland, the nature of the sort of music that is beaming out from these vehicles often—

Simon Court: Céline Dion.

TANGI UTIKERE: —is Céline Dion. Now, that perhaps should be an aggravating feature of that form of offending in some people’s minds. [Interruption] Oh, my colleague Ingrid Leary might disagree about that. But the thing is this: it doesn’t matter if it’s a particular type of music or if it’s a siren; the fact that it causes disturbance to the community is something that needs to be tackled, and this bill will deliver on that.

The bill does also compel a registered owner of a motor vehicle to be required to provide information that would identify who is responsible for driving that motor vehicle when it relates to a specified offence, and those specified offences are contained in the bill. They are illegal street racing, sustained loss of traction—you know, where the wheels constantly turn around—and, of course, that new frightening and intimidating convoy offence, and if someone fails to provide that information without good reason, then the outcome could be that that vehicle is impounded for a 28-day period. The reason why we are supporting this bill is because there needs to be an opportunity to send a very firm message that the nature of this community disturbance and this destruction in neighbourhoods, physical and otherwise, is something that simply cannot be tolerated, and that is the view that we do have on this side of the House.

One of the changes that this bill does provide is it gives the police more powers to, effectively, clear or close an accessible area. Now, I know that in my own community, and we’ve heard of this through the Horowhenua as well, there are circumstances where the police would love the opportunity to be able to move people on for community safety reasons, but they don’t have the power or the tools to be able to do that in a circumstance such as where there is a mass group of people who are very, very sophisticated in terms of the organisation or arrangement of these meets that might come together—not the ones that are tickety-boo, but the other ones—and this would give the police the opportunity to, basically, shut an area that’s accessible and require people to vacate or move on. If someone failed to do that, the provision in the bill is that they would receive an infringement notice if there were not able to do that. I note that the select committee has identified a few changes to make it a little bit more user-friendly, which I think is very, very helpful indeed.

One of the issues that I think should be brought to the House’s attention is the workability of this, because there is a provision in this bill that would require in relation to a motor vehicle that would be utilised in a serious offence, such as an aggravating failure to stop, street racing, the sustained loss of traction, or, indeed, those convoy offences, to have the court order, the forfeiture, and/or the destruction of a vehicle. Now, we all know that this is not something that’s unfamiliar to the Parliament.

There have been photographs in recent memory of “Crusher” Collins, with the eyebrow, standing on top of a vehicle that has been crushed. Perhaps it’s not the vehicle or the eyebrow as to why that’s ingrained in people’s memory, but Judith Collins indicated that when that law was brought in, there would be more than 10 vehicles a year that would actually be crushed. Now, when we look at the reality around how many were actually crushed, you only need one hand, excluding the thumb, and you’d have one spare finger, to come up with the number of vehicles that actually went through this process. On the one hand, the police might have the tools, but if this is something that is not workable, then the real risk is that the community will think that there is going to be this mass level of crushing going on and the forfeiture of vehicles, but it’s going to be very easy for people to plead hardship and get out of it.

We would like to see the police have these tools to be able to deliver on this real community concern that exists, not just, as the Minister has said, in the Waikato or elsewhere, but all around the country. All around the country, members will have experiences of the disruption and disturbance that these types of antisocial road-user traits and behaviours do cause for their communities. So whilst we support this bill at its second reading tonight, we still express some concerns that the “Crusher” Collins effect, as an example, may actually not deliver the outcomes that this House may desire.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (20:06): Tēnā koe, kia orana, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. In my electorate of Rongotai, I often work with the local community police, and I’m aware that there’s a really awesome part of Rongotai called Mātai Moana, which is up at the old Mount Crawford prison site. It was recently announced, finally, that the land adjacent to that is to become a regional park, and a lot of my constituents in Miramar were very, very concerned about boy racer behaviour and gatherings of people being extremely loud and disruptive in an area that is predominantly residential and quiet, with a beautiful expanse of nature there. I spoke with the police there about how they worked together with Land Information New Zealand, who, basically, had responsibility for the Mount Crawford prison site. They were able to put some cameras up there and through a reasonable amount of surveillance, they were able to use the existing law to impound a number of vehicles that were illegal, and it, effectively, stopped the behaviour that was happening.

Of course, this was able to happen under the law as it exists now, and so our feeling in the Green Party—and I wasn’t on the Justice Committee that heard this, but I did look through the departmental report and one of my colleagues, of course, was on the committee to hear the submissions. Ultimately, this is another example from this Government of legislation that is trying to send a message or a signal about cracking down on the bad guys, punching down on the annoying people—you know, like the homeless people, who have been forced into homelessness on the streets of Auckland and Wellington. Just punch down on those people and give the police more powers to move them on to where—we don’t know—which is going to sweep them under the rug.

This is another example: like we’re taking up the time of the House to deal with something when, one, there’s no evidence that there is an existing that couldn’t be solved under the current legislation, but perhaps with additional resourcing. It’s true that this coalition Government is somewhat defunding the police and community police and the police definitely don’t have the resources they need to enforce the existing law, and so we end up in this situation, where we’re creating more law and giving more powers, but without the resources necessary to actually enforce them. I mean, I’m sure the members weren’t listening to the beginning of my speech, which was all about how the police have effectively used their powers in order to stop antisocial behaviour that was bothering the community.

Firstly, the question is: is the legislation necessary to address problems, or do we already have the legislation? Secondly, the issue is that there’s no evidence to believe that these powers will be effective for the bill’s stated purposes—and that was in the regulatory impact statement. So if you read the regulatory impact statement, it says that there’s no reason to believe that these powers will be effective for the bill’s stated purposes, it does not meet quality standards, and all evidence is of low certainty. So there we go.

There we have it: a Government that’s constantly putting forward legislation to signal power and punishing the bad guys but, actually, isn’t resourcing the Public Service to actually do the things it needs to do to address the problem. Secondly, it’s bringing in a whole bunch of other legislation and policy that actively makes social cohesion worse by increasing poverty and homelessness and by increasing inequality. All of those things make social cohesion worse. I know it’s a little bit hard for the members opposite to follow complex chains of events and—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Because they’re all slogans—no action.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: They’re a little bit slow. Yeah, it’s just sad. It’s just sad to me to watch the country face the challenges that it’s facing and have so few effective policies brought forward by the Government of the day to actually address the issue.

The bill will also impose costs of up to $32.357 million on the Crown, with no indication of how these costs will be met. It’s a relatively poor use of funding, considering the low certainty of any benefits arising from the policy. Of course, like so many other things that are happening under this current Government, it’s quite likely that it’s going to disproportionately affect people on low incomes, people of Māori background. The structural imbalance and institutional racism that we know exists will continue to be exacerbated.

I just have all these members shaking their heads and looking frustrated, but the members opposite are not engaging with reality—not engaging with reality in the least.

Tom Rutherford: Have you lived in Levin?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’ve been to Levin. The point is that I hear boy racers around my house. The issue isn’t that. The issue is we don’t need to change the law to address this behaviour.

Tom Rutherford: Yes, we do.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, we don’t. I’ve got evidence of it in my own electorate. Changing the law doesn’t help unless you’re providing the resources to the police to enforce the existing laws.

Here’s another point: trying to focus on punitive measures is not going to stop dumb behaviour, because the people engaging in the behaviour in the first place aren’t thinking about the consequences of what they’re doing.

Tom Rutherford: Well, maybe they should.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, that is an interesting point. Should people think about the consequences of what they’re doing? Yes, they should. But if we have lots of evidence that they’re not doing that, why would you focus on increasing infringements or other punitive responses like sentencing if we know that the people engaging in the behaviour are not thinking about that? You actually have to deal with reality and work with effective policies that are going to address the problem.

I think the real issue here is that the Government is full of simplistic people who want to take a populist approach that is focusing on the concept of good and bad people, rather than understanding the complex reasons that underlie the behaviour and addressing that behaviour in a constructive way. We have a lot of evidence, if you go overseas, of countries that are addressing antisocial behaviour in much more effective ways. They have lower recidivism rates, they spend less money on prisons, and their courts aren’t as clogged up. We could choose to do all of that. It is a political choice, and that is what the Green Party would prefer to take. In my electorate, I can say that I’ve worked constructively with police who have addressed precisely this type of antisocial behaviour and haven’t needed expanded powers. We’re extremely concerned about other steps that the Government is taking to punch down on people in difficult circumstances rather than addressing the issues that are leading to the fact that the people are in those difficult circumstances.

It would be great if it could be less politicised in here. It would be great if people were more open to actually listening to the evidence. If we look at the submissions, there was not wholehearted support for this legislation as proposed. They were, actually, slightly more in opposition than in full agreement with the legislation as proposed. We’ve seen time and time again since this coalition has come into power that they don’t listen to the expert evidence, and they don’t listen to the people who come and take the time to submit to select committee. It’s all about appeasing vested interests and taking a populist approach in which they scapegoat certain groups of people as being responsible for the problems in our society, rather than understanding that those people are not necessarily the cause of the problems in the society; they are the victims of an unfair, unjust system. It’s not any individual’s fault, but it’s the result of historic injustice in this country, and there is the ability for us to address this in a much more effective way.

I also think it’s interesting how there’s all this vice signalling about crushing boy racer cars while, at the same time, vice signalling about how motor vehicles are the answer to all of our problems, and that people should be using the Investment Boost to buy bigger, more dangerous cars that are actually probably more likely to kill people accidentally than any people who would be injured or killed from this type of gathering of young people.

Again, I think that this legislation is not needed to address the legitimate concerns that the community might have and that we already have police powers to address these issues. There is a lack of resourcing to enforce the law that we currently have, and if we focused on a fairer society, we would have less of these problems.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (20:16): The ACT Party will be supporting this bill at the second reading. I just want to reflect on some of the reasons for this Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. We have seen, time and time again, groups of people terrifying residents, not just in small towns but in cities like Auckland with dirt-bike gangs, groups of young people taking over intersections and intimidating people otherwise going about their business.

I also want to acknowledge the concerns raised by the previous member, Julie Anne Genter, about some of the practical issues of enforcement that have led us to this place to actually having to introduce new legislation to beef up police powers and to give them additional powers to get people to move on who won’t leave a place where groups of people are congregating with vehicles in an antisocial way. It strengthens penalties against excessive noise. Now, I live in Te Atatū Peninsula, along with the Hon Phil Twyford, where we are regularly exposed to people playing, at 120 decibels, Céline Dion in the middle of the night, doing loops of our blocks—isn’t that right, Mr Twyford?

Hon Phil Twyford: Yes, it is.

SIMON COURT: —with fire sirens stolen from schools and council buildings and cable tied to their front bumpers, blasting us with a song that once used to put the wind beneath my wings but now causes me to go into an antisocial meltdown at 3 a.m. in the morning, so I agree that new laws to deal with making excessive noise are important.

Some of the other things this bill does include requiring vehicle owners to provide information about an antisocial driver. In many cases, the vehicle owner can say, “I don’t know who was driving my vehicle.”, when it’s quite likely that they do know. What this legislation does is it aligns with the requirement to provide this information around antisocial vehicle use in the same way that if a vehicle is photographed by a speed camera or identified by an officer as having committed an offence but that vehicle is not apprehended or stopped at the time, then the vehicle owner is required to identify who the driver was. This legislation aligns very closely with existing legislation.

There’s also a new intimidating convoy offence, because New Zealanders are absolutely sick of being forced off the road by convoys of people acting in an antisocial way who are exhibiting absolutely no respect for the road rules and who are occupying lanes, forcing people off the road, and just creating a sense of lawlessness in our communities that New Zealanders voted this coalition Government, with ACT in it, to fix. That is why ACT supports this bill. It is truly fixing what matters for communities.

There’s a couple of other things I want to bring up—a couple of other things. I’m going to admit now to a sustained loss of traction. I am one of those people who, in the past, might have enjoyed dropping the clutch a little bit too early, with a little too much accelerator. Fortunately, I grew up learning to drive manual, and that was one of the skills that we were expected to know: how to use a clutch. Sometimes, if you dropped it too fast, you gave it too much ollie, you spun your tires. Now, that’s actually part of the New Zealand culture.

I don’t know if anyone’s ever been to V8 Supercars. I don’t know if anyone ever saw Shane van Gisbergen win V8 Supercars. I was there at Pukekohe the last time they raced at Pukekohe. You see something phenomenal when a driver knows how to control a vehicle like that on the track. But after every race win, what do the drivers do? They line up those tires and they demonstrate to all the punters exactly what happens when you drop the clutch too fast and you give it too much ollie—sometimes in third gear.

Tom Rutherford: Julie Anne did it in Rongotai when she won it on her bike.

SIMON COURT: Apparently you can do it on an e-bike, but I’m not entirely sure, Mr Rutherford, whether that e-bike would even be legal in New Zealand, but maybe that’s a matter for the Minister for Regulation, maybe we need to free the e-bikes.

Now Shane van Gisbergen’s gone to NASCAR, and he is winning race after race on the street circuits. Now the American public—those great people; that great nation—get to see how a Kiwi drops the clutch and burns rubber. They thought they were good at it, but it’s something that Kiwis excel at.

Now, here’s my point: it’s all very well to ban people behaving in an antisocial way with vehicles on the streets, but my boys grew up in West Auckland, I live there now, and I could tell you there’s a whole cohort of young people who are begging for somewhere where they can go and enjoy all of these, what you might call, “antisocial behaviours” in a safe and controlled environment.

Andy Foster: Who’s going to provide that?

SIMON COURT: Some of the things they’ve asked me: “Why isn’t there a track where we can go?” “Why isn’t there a skid pad in West Auckland?”

The member Andy Foster asked a question, “Who’s going to provide that?” Well, my question is exactly that. I agree, because once you start thinking about who’s going to provide the land, who’s going to fence it off, who’s going to charge them for tickets, who’s going to do traffic control, how many people are going to need to wear orange safety vests and say “Stand back everyone”—you kill it. But somewhere in the middle, there should be an opportunity for young people who want to do what they see Shane van Gisbergen doing after a NASCAR race, and he used to race in V8s in New Zealand, that’s not on the streets, to have that outlet and opportunity.

While the ACT Party supports this legislation, I think, as a Parliament, we need to be open-minded to the idea that, actually, young people in New Zealand—and maybe a few older ones—need to have the opportunity to experience what sustained loss of traction is like in a controlled environment where you can manage the risks of noise, you can manage the risk to spectators, and everyone can have a really good time, a safe time, a clean time, maybe a bit of tire dust, maybe a bit of soot, but go home safe.

ACT supports this bill. I want to make it clear to the House that there’s a whole cohort of Kiwis out there who like to have fun with cars, and we should remember that as part of New Zealand culture, and we should make sure that in our pursuit of the bad guys—the people who are behaving in an unacceptable way, causing harm, running people over, fleeing the cops—we don’t lose sight that, actually, there’s a whole lot of good people out there who actually enjoy this stuff as well and they just want somewhere safe to do it. ACT supports this bill. I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (20:24): I really enjoyed listening to at least the last two speeches there. I thought that Simon Court was certainly losing traction over this piece of legislation. I wasn’t quite sure whether he was supporting it or not, other than he actually said that he was. I thought that was the first time I’ve heard ACT advocating for somebody to spend money. I said, “Well, who’s going to pay for that sort of thing?”, and I imagine it would probably be likely to be a council in this situation, and God knows what that does to aspirations to core services or rates caps! Anyway, back to the bill.

New Zealand First has always resolutely supported looking after our law abiding citizens against behaviour which is anything but law abiding. We don’t stand for the convenience of those people who want to behave in a way which is intimidating, which is frightening, and which disrupts the peace and welfare of their fellow citizens.

This bill, very simply, is a common-sense bill. It gives the Police powers—we’ve heard some discussion about that already—to intervene meaningfully, and it makes it easier for them to do that without some of the hiccups that there are in current legislation against—intervene against dangerous and intimidating street racers, convoys, etc. That also includes the ability to proactively close off an area if the police think there is going to be a major gathering in that situation to try and nip it in the bud.

For too long, many communities have been terrorised—I use the word “terrorised”—by intimidating convoys, street racers, and burnouts. This legislation is an embodiment. It’s one of many embodiments of New Zealand First’s founding pillars. It’s one of our founding pillars—pillar three: protecting the community and the country. Our 2023 manifesto explicitly called for the confiscation of property of those who flout our, in this case, transport laws. Of course, we had this as a coalition agreement, committing Government to restoring law and order.

Look, we don’t want anybody committing crime. We’ve heard from some of the Opposition parties that we need to think about dealing with the causes of crime, and we’d agree with that as well. But there’s no compulsion. I mean, Julie Anne Genter—she said some remarkable things there. She said that this was about another piece of punching down. She said this was about people being judged for their race or for their social standing. No, in neither case is that the case. What this is is about judging the behaviour. If you don’t do the behaviour, you don’t get punished. It’s not about what your colour is. It’s not about what your social standing is. It’s about the behaviour. Simple as that. So I thought Julie Anne Genter’s comments there were quite remarkable.

She also made some comments around how it’s not going to stop dumb behaviour. Well, the reality is—and, in fact, we heard this today in question time—that we are how many less victims of violent crime because this Government has got tough on crime? There are 49,000 less incidents of violent crime. So actually doing something seriously about criminal behaviour—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Cooking the books is not the same thing as reducing crime.

ANDY FOSTER: —is making New Zealanders safer, and New Zealanders, by and large, welcome that; it’s one of the areas they do see the Government performing well at.

I hear the calls from the Green Party there, complaining about what I’m saying. But this is the party which has had its police spokesperson say “Defund da Police.” I mean, how is that going to help achieve law and order and keep law abiding citizens safe? That is what this legislation is all about.

Also, just on Julie Anne Genter’s speech, I thought it was quite remarkable. It was the first time I’ve ever heard a Green MP, essentially, campaigning on saving the car—on saving the car. She doesn’t want cars to be crushed, because they’re really, really important. I think that was a great place for the Green Party to go, and I think maybe she was losing traction as well.

So this is a common-sense bill. It’s about keeping our promises. It’s about looking after the safety and security and wellbeing of our law abiding communities. It is not about looking after those who want to terrorise. It’s not about looking after those who to break the peace. I think that this is a common-sense bill. I commend it to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:29): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m assuming this is a split call. So as we’ve heard from our previous member—the Hon Julie Anne Genter—the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. But I think it’s important to lay out what was said in the Justice Committee and by the submitters and also by the officials, in terms of what this bill actually does and where this bill really comes from.

As a number of members have already said, this bill is, essentially, an omnibus bill that addresses multiple areas, particularly amending the Land Transport Act to create a new frightening or intimidating convoy offence; replacing the six-month impound provisions with 28-day periods; broadening the existing power to compel a registered person to immediately provide information—I will come to that in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications—and also, in terms of changes to the Sentencing Act, a new presumption requiring a court to order the vehicle be either forfeited or forfeited and destroyed on a first-offence basis—I’ll come back to that as well—as well as applying to offenders who fail to immediately provide information to identify the driver believed to have committed a certain offence.

I think, as a starting point, we do need to address the policy problem. What is the problem that this bill is aiming to address? We hear a lot of things about boy racers, about people who are loud and, potentially, obnoxious in areas, and I would like to say that, yes, we have talked about, in this House, the importance of the quiet enjoyment of one’s own home and about being safe in our communities, but a lot of those kinds of things also need to be based on solid empirical evidence. However, what we are seeing in terms of the regulatory impact statement is that there were limited policy options for consideration around this bill and there was limited evidential data on the frequency and trends of intimidating convoys, or use of common assumptions.

Putting it in plain terms, the people who have said that this is a bill that is addressing behaviours, etc., are, essentially, saying it on the basis of anecdotal evidence, and there is actually nothing that substantiates what they are saying. There is no evidence to suggest other than what we’re seeing from the Government in terms of a populist approach and hot takes.

Francisco Hernandez: Vibes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Not even good vibes. Also, most importantly, there’s a lack of consultation with stakeholders and the public.

I would like to pull up something in the Mana Mokopuna—Children’s Commissioner submission, which opposes this bill. I quote paragraph 18 here: “These proposals potentially infringe the rights of mokopuna, who are not directly engaging in antisocial road use, to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 15 of the Children’s Convention. As [also] noted in the New Zealand Bill of Rights … if an individual is assembling peacefully the right protects them even if others are not assembling peacefully and for the Police to limit this right it must be justified.”, which we’re also not seeing in this bill. This bill is so riddled with gaps and legal issues that what we’re going to be seeing, for a Government that wants to ensure that we have a smoother process in the courts, is it clogging up our court system even further with ambiguity created by this legislation.

There are other things I mentioned previously in terms of this. Submitters have also said that the idea of vehicles being forfeited and destroyed on a first-offence basis is outrageously severe and disproportionate to the offence that we’re seeing here. It’s important to know that, out of all of these, what we’re seeing from this Government is that if you are poor or if you are marginalised, all you’re going to get from this Government are sticks. You are only going to get sticks, but if you are landlords, if you’re corporations, and if you’re tobacco companies, you’re going to get carrots. This is what we’re seeing in this bill and also, in general, in the Government’s policy schemes. What we’re seeing is a Government that is full of slogans, that is full of hot takes, and that is full of one-word phrases that they are trying to bamboozle the public with. The Greens will not stand for that.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (20:34): I’ve listened to two contributions now from the Green Party, and it’s been really clear to us sitting on this side of the House that when you look at communities like Lyttelton Harbour, where my colleague Vanessa Weenink is the MP for Banks Peninsula, and you listen to the residents who presented to the select committee, the Green Party backs those that are participating in the burnouts and creating the noise and damage to the communities, and they prefer them over the impacted communities and residents. That is the really clear point that both Lawrence Xu-Nan and Julie Anne Genter made in their contributions. They have preferences for those that are creating the harm in the communities rather than the residents and the communities that are impacted.

Think about the communities in Levin, who, on a weekly basis, were experiencing these meets taking place. The Green Party have just said, “That’s OK. We support that. We think that’s good. Actually, more of it is better for the community.”—shameful, shameful from a political party in 2026 to support that kind of legislation and that position. It is shameful that they can’t actually see the impact that this has had on New Zealanders across the country, who are fed up with it, who want something to actually take place and to change. We are doing something about it, and we are holding those people who create and cause that havoc to account. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (20:35): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. That was a bit shouty, wasn’t it?

Hon Peeni Henare: He dropped the clutch!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That’s right, Peeni Henare! That was a bit of a burnout. But don’t worry; life will go on, as Simon Court would say. I loved his Céline Dion references: “the power of love”, not from the ACT Party.

When you hear from the Labour Party, you’re going to get a sensible voice. We’re cautiously in support of this bill, but I think, rather than shouting and just talking about burnouts in Levin, with a screech that’s just about as loud, let’s talk about—we accept and we understand. I’m the MP for Christchurch Central, and whilst it’s not actually a problem to a huge degree right now, there have been times when so-called boy racers—which is pretty gendered actually. The young women who love their souped up cars would be offended by that. People who like their modified vehicles would drive around Bealey Avenue and various other parts of the inner city, and it would be disruptive. We know that those vehicles are already in breach of many Land Transport Act rules, but it appears that this document, this bill and the policy underlying it, has said there’s not quite the equipment there to stop that going on. That’s why we’re going to support this bill.

We want to express a little bit of caution about it. We’re not huge advocates of crushing cars. This has been said before: the National Party loves crushing cars—and crushing women’s dreams and pay equity. They’re just good at crushing stuff. I think we do need to recognise—and the Justice Committee generally works pretty well together, well chaired by Andrew Bayly, I must say, who it appears is not going to stand in Hunua at the next election, but I understand he may be standing for West Coast - Tasman—

Hon Matt Doocey: Christchurch Central!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Ha, ha! He wouldn’t stand for the Christchurch Central seat, Matt Doocey, because it’s a safe Labour seat. It’s part of the “People’s Republic of Christchurch”.

In terms of crushing cars—and members from rural electorates like Matt Doocey would know—just taking someone’s car off them because they’ve done a burnout could be wildly disproportionate. This is the problem in a lot of the criminal justice area, where a punishment which sounds like a good idea at the time can impose a huge burden on someone, disproportionate to the wrongdoing given their personal circumstances. Maybe you’ve got a milker on a farm who might live in Rangiora and work in Oxford—a 30 or 40 kilometre drive. If you crush that car, you’ve crushed his job, you’ve crushed that person’s income, and so on and so forth. It’s entirely appropriate, rather than having a mandatory crushing scheme, that when the question arises, you can raise with a judge and say, “Well, look, that would be a terrible thing.” It’s worth saying that not only would it be a disproportionate punishment and have outsized consequences for, say, me, who can still walk to work and grab an Uber whenever I want to, but it would also put that person in jeopardy. If they lose their job, what will happen to them in the future? Will they become disenchanted with the life they lead, not re-enter the workforce, and so on? So that’s the kind of thing we’re thinking about—and that’s good. The select committee looked at that and agreed with that.

Then we also looked at just some of the workability of the bill. Of course, the police are given a power to close off public places, roads and what have you, but it is a relatively significant power to close a stretch of Bealey Avenue or Queen Street or K’ Road or any other street in the country because they hear about the likelihood of some kind of meet-up of the modified car fraternity—I’m not going to call them boy racers. There was a test in there that said, “because they believe there’ll be substantial damage or destruction”. One of the problems in the law is when you get these relatively vague words such as “substantial” introduced. So, if you get someone who’s going to do only one or two burnouts, you can’t close the road, but if you get somebody who’s going to do 10 burnouts, maybe you can. So that kind of discretion or that kind of vagueness is not really what we want in something like this. We actually suggested—and interestingly, whilst the Green Party opposed this bill, the amendments were all agreed unanimously and that was agreed as well.

But I’ll get on to one of my bugbears, which is electronic service of infringement notices. This cropped up in the Gangs Act and various other places where if there is a notice to be given to someone, historically or traditionally, you’d have to serve it on a piece of paper. That person would hold that piece of paper, maybe stuff it in their pocket or in their jacket or whatever, but when they sort of came to and came to their senses, they’d at least have something to look at. Now, under a lot of the more recent legislation, this is done by sending a notice by email, but not just by email, by email to the last-known email address. And that email address may or may not be valid, but even if it’s valid, there’s very little guarantee that it’s actually going to be an email address which is still used, because I’m sure members around the House will think, “Oh, yeah, I’ve got an email address that’s from, you know, 1990. I haven’t checked that for years.” It may well still be a valid email address.

Tom Rutherford: 1990?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, I was an early adopter, Tom Rutherford.

Hon Member: Very modern.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah. You might not have been born then; I was on the internet at Massey University in 1992. But this is a problem, right? This is a problem.

One of the concerns I have about this bill and about the kind of shift towards electronic service of not just legal documents but documents which actually have a criminal law aspect to them, is that electronic service is not verifiable. If you hand someone a piece of paper and say, “This is a ticket. You’re going to be charged. If you don’t like it, you’ve got to turn up to court and argue your case.”; then you can say, “I know they got it. They might not have read it, but I pressed it into their hand.” Whereas if you send an email, you press enter and off it goes into the ether and there is no verification whatsoever that it’s been read. I am concerned about that, and one of the reasons I’m concerned about that is because we know that some people—you know, they might engage in some stupid behaviour and do a few burnouts, but they’re not a bad person, and if they’re given their ticket, they would pay their fine. The challenge is if the infringement notice goes to the wrong email address, then the fine turns into a fine plus court costs. They might not even know that they’ve got to pay it, and then they have an unpaid fine, and then there’s a warrant for their arrest, and then they get put in the cells overnight, and look at where it’s leading: exactly the place we don’t want it to lead. So, really, electronic infringement notices have huge pitfalls. I’m not saying don’t use them, but as the select committee report notes, there are pitfalls which have not been worked through. If we’re going to go down that road—and I get that we’re in a modern society—we need to work through the pitfalls of using electronic communications for not just legal notices but legal notices which have a criminal aspect to them.

So, look, I get it. We totally sympathise with New Zealanders who don’t want their lives disrupted by antisocial road users, but let’s make sure we get this right because we want it to stick and we want it to have the social licence which is appropriate to it. Kia ora.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (20:45): If you listened to the Opposition over the course of the last few minutes and you get told that you can’t use this term “boy racer”, you’d think from some of their speeches that they want us to talk about these drivers as safe drivers or reasonable drivers or considerate drivers—or, you know, probably even legal drivers, with some of the language that’s been coming out of the Greens.

We said to New Zealanders that we were going to deal with antisocial road users—with boy racers that go out at 2 o’clock in the morning, get loud, do burnouts, drive down the roads that they shouldn’t—and ensure that police have the power to deal with them. This is what this bill does. It ensures there’s clear sentencing to enable police to go and say, “This is illegal and you’re going to get your car crushed as a result. You’re going to get it taken off you.” And frankly, so you should. I commend the bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (20:47): Thank you, Madam Speaker. And yeah, I join with my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in cautious support of the bill at this stage, but looking forward to a truly robust discussion at committee stage, because, as Dr Webb has pointed out, there are several things that we need to look at in detail in this bill to ensure that it’s fair, and making law is about fairness, as well. I think it was quite revealing—the last speaker’s comments about “dealing with” as opposed to ensuring that we have law that is fit for purpose, that is fair, and that is just; that is our obligation.

But I am supporting this bill because, having sat through the Justice Committee hearings, there were a number of times when I was quite surprised myself at some of the comments and some of the experiences that submitters spoke to, including some community leaders who talked about people congregating in cars with a decibel machine, themselves measuring their own sound to always make sure they were under what was an infringement, but still playing things rather loudly.

There are clearly some issues that do need to be addressed. We acknowledge that. I’ve also sat in a community patrol car in Massey at one stage and did the evening patrols with them, and it was very clear to me that there are some issues that do need to be addressed. But we are a House of lawmaking and it isn’t about dealing with or dealing to; it is about getting things right and the ensuring that we’re fair.

So I did just want to speak to one issue that I’ve raised at select committee, which I’m looking forward to discussing in the House. It’s an interesting issue about rights, but also the question of privilege and being able to not have to say something to a police officer that may incriminate you, essentially. Now, the interesting thing about this is the existing Land Transport Act already has provisions that require people to provide information to police officers in relation to who was driving a car. This bill splits that into two new provisions: one under replacement section 118, inserted by clause 20, which requires that if certain offences are committed, the person in the car, when they’re asked by the enforcement officer, must tell them who the driver is; under replacement section 118A, a similar power, but the individual asked must tell the police within 14 days who the driver was.

So the question here is: does this breach a right, does this breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Now, the section 7 report was extremely helpful here. It, essentially, said that the right to self-incrimination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was not breached because, to engage the right, you need to be arrested or detained or charged with an offence, then you can refuse to say something. Now, the catch here—and this was acknowledged when we went through the select committee process—is: if you have an individual whose been charged with a separate offence, who are being questioned about the separate offence, and you then invoke this provision, they could potentially be caught and they could potentially be being asked to reveal that they are the driver, and, if they don’t reveal that information, they could be fined for it, or, potentially, even serve a term of imprisonment. So that is a gap.

We do also have the terms of the Evidence Act which assert a right to non - self-incrimination. But, interestingly, we have case law that the Land Transport Act overrides the Evidence Act provisions. So the question that we need to think about at committee stage is: do we want to write in something that allows people the right not to have to name the driver, if they are, in fact, the driver? Now, speaking to colleagues about this, some said “Well, that would make it quite obvious to the police who the driver was.”, which is fair enough; however, the police would still need to prove it, and also the individual concerned wouldn’t be liable for the potential $10,000 to $20,000 that they would have to pay for breaching and refusing to say anything.

Again, colleagues, across the House, it’s our responsibility to take our job seriously and to ensure that the legislation is fair. So I do hope that this is an issue that we can discuss robustly when we get to the committee of the whole House stage.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (20:52): This bill is simple. It creates tough legal measures to deter such vehicle-related behaviours like illegal street racing, intimidating vehicle convoys, siren battles, and fleeing police. In my days in Auckland, there were a few areas in Auckland that were particularly susceptible.

Hon Simeon Brown: Not Pakuranga.

DAN BIDOIS: Well, East Tāmaki there, Mr Brown, was one place; Wiri, and out in Wairau Valley, as well. With this bill, there will be new powers to call the police to deter such activity. This is all part of our Government’s plan to restore consequences for breaking the law, and to keep our communities safe. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (20:53): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always a privilege to stand and speak in this House. Yeah, it has been really interesting listening, as someone who didn’t sit on the Justice Committee, to sit and listen to the debates from all sides of the House. I can understand, I can hear different opinions, different views and values. But what I want to reflect on in my contribution, in reflecting on this piece of legislation, is that the Government was elected, they talk a big game about being tough on crime, but we really need to think about being tough on the causes of crime. I guess this is a bit of legislation that—

Rima Nakhle: Tell that to the victims.

GLEN BENNETT: —is a—why are you heckling, when I was encouraging you? I was being supportive for a moment, and I’m being heckled, but that’s OK, because they weren’t probably listening.

But what I was going to say is that we need to be tough on the causes of crime and understanding. So, yeah, we can put laws in place—and, as has been said by previous speakers on this side, you know, “Crusher” Collins, and other kinds of symbolism of legislation—but it’s got to be practical, it’s got to be enforceable. There’s got to be ways to deter people from getting into these spaces—and also just the unintended consequences of it.

Now, I’m going to put myself out there and make a statement in this House, which, hopefully, no one else will talk about, other than those of us in the room. But I’m not sure if anyone has actually had their car impounded before. I have. It’s not a good thing. It’s not a pleasant experience. Now, there is a backstory. I wasn’t driving the car; it was one of my foster boys. So it was impounded for 28 days—28 days. There was also a cost to have that car taken out of the impound once the 28 days were completed, which he had to raise and pay me off over a number of months. I know that I have choices and options, so I can’t fully relate, but the inconvenience of not having a vehicle for 28 days is massive.

I look around the community that I have been part of for many, many years, and, so often, you see people who, rightly, lose their licence; who, rightly, are arrested for crimes that they willingly did; but the implications and the unintended consequences that come with that—and examples of young people that I’ve worked with over the years who have lost their jobs because they made a foolish decision on a Saturday night, they did a stupid wheel spin in front of a cop because they didn’t realise it was a mufti cop, got their car impounded, or whatever’s happened, and it’s escalated from there, and then, of course, haven’t been able to get themselves to work, or had a mate drive them to work for the first week, and then they got a bit sick of getting up early, so then it snowballed into them losing their job, being back in a situation where they are sitting on social welfare. Yes, as I said, these are choices that people make, but these are actually consequences that can often unravel people who are in a position when they are struggling.

I look in New Plymouth and around Taranaki, and we’ve got a couple of key places—Lake Mangamahoe. When I was the local MP there, it was often a point of contact with constituents. It’s just out of town and it’s a nice big area where they can do wheel spins, lose traction, that type of thing. It was a menace to the locals. I would meet with them regularly, and we would try to work with the—

Cameron Brewer: Taranaki hardcore!

GLEN BENNETT: Yeah, I’m not hardcore at all, thank you. It was awful for the residents, as others have talked about, because at midnight or 1 o’clock or 2 o’clock on a Sunday morning, the last thing you want is a bunch of young people drinking and the noises that go with that. But there are tools that the police do have. And again, it was around how do they actually educate and work with some of those young people—because they were mainly young people—around showing them other ways and alternatives. Actually, from that, what was created was a small burnout space and a festival that would take place once in a while with the consent and support of the police, out of the way of the public, but where they’re able to let out that kind of that steam and that useful enthusiasm or whatever it is. And it actually worked to help take away some of the angst from the community. So that’s what I mean, we need to be looking at ways and means to actually support our communities and people finding solutions for themselves.

I lived in Wellington in the 1990s and a lot of you people would probably go to and fro from the airport—Kent and Cambridge Terrace—and again, the council did something really simple. Because there was Kent Terrace and Cambridge Terrace, they kind of run parallel to each other, and the boy racers—I remember in the 1990s—would just go up and do loops and spin around. There were these kind of turning bays where they’d be able to do that. But then of course, what did they do? Just something really simple like closed off the turning bays; the fact that now they’re not able to use those spaces.

So I think there’s a few simple things we need to be thinking about, but I think we need to reflect. My colleague the Hon Duncan Webb also made it clear just about some of those unintended consequences of the means of communicating a fine with a person who’s had it, and we need to consider that. But I think that being punitive and just punishing people doesn’t achieve—it’s a sugar hit for now, but it’s actually something we need to be reflecting on: how do we actually fix it for the long term?

Now, as I look through the piece of legislation and was trying to understand a bit about what it is, again, I feel like we are supporting it and we’re going to—I was glad to see that the select committee had worked on it and had brought it back to the House in better shape than it than it left this House after the first reading. And I hope that in the committee of the whole House stage, there’s going to be some good opportunities to put amendments up and to ensure that this piece of legislation is a bit better than it is now.

The other thing I want to mention is, as I said, around myself and my experiences understanding the police being able to impound a vehicle for 28 days. There’s also the police allowing the courts to prohibit offenders from acquiring a vehicle for up to 12 months. Again, in the cities, potentially that’s OK, but when it comes to rural areas, like Taranaki, when it comes to rural areas like the West Coast of the South Island, when it comes to rural areas like Coromandel, there are no options. Again, of course you can say to a person, “Well, don’t do the crime, and you’ll be fine”, but actually sometimes there are those lapses of judgment or those moments when people don’t think, and it actually goes against them, and it’s hard to see. I know that, for a number of our farm workers, often those are the ones who suffer from this.

As I’ve said, we’ve tried to be constructive. As I listened to Tangi Utikere, our transport spokesperson, I was glad to hear him reflect on what we could be doing to ensure that legislation isn’t just about presenting to the electorate and showing them, “Look, we’ve got this document”, and it looks like we’re really tough on crime, but actually saying, “We’re going to do something to ensure that, as people grow up, as they get their licence, they’ll actually be taught things like defensive driving and what it actually means when you impact on other people.” No one wants to have a boy racer up and down their street—I get it. No one wants to be woken up at 3 o’clock in the morning by a convoy of—I was going to say mobility scooters, but I don’t know if they’d be out that late at night!

That was the other thing I was looking at; it was the convoys. I was thinking, “What actually is a convoy?” What are the vehicles? It could be some mobility scooters. It could be motorbikes. Again, it is an issue that does face many communities, and I just hope that this isn’t just a blunt tool that is virtue signalling to voters that we’re tough on crime. I hope, when it comes out at the end of the process, that maybe there are some actual tools and some tangible things for people to be able to do.

My final thought is my concern for the police. Of course, we know we don’t have enough—we know we don’t have enough. We know that what was promised at the election hasn’t been delivered, and so the expectation on our police force to have yet more laws that they have to enforce with less staff—because that was made very clear, around the 500 front-line police officers which haven’t been delivered. The concern around throwing another chunk of legislation at police that they have to enforce: that’s more paperwork, that’s more they have to do with less resources, and we need to really consider our front-line police when they’re doing this.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Question No. 2 to Minister

Amended Answer to Oral Question

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (21:03): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave during oral question No. 2 earlier today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answers to oral question No. 2 earlier today, I was asked by Chlöe Swarbrick whether the Government would automatically commit to extending visas for people who are in this country right now whose home countries have been affected by this war, as happened in the context of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

To be perfectly clear, Immigration New Zealand has a well-established process for international conflicts and will facilitate and take a pragmatic approach to visa renewal when people are unable to return home. This was not an automatic process in the context of the invasion of Ukraine, and decisions will continue to be taken on individual visas. Iranian nationals who are concerned about their visa status should contact Immigration New Zealand. This also applies to those people whose travel is disrupted and whose visas are close to expiring. Thank you.

Bills

Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (21:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It really is a pleasure to rise in support of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, but I’ll tell you what, it wasn’t a pleasure for that submitter who was crying while she was recounting the almost daily situation she has to endure with these reckless drivers that don’t give a hoot about what she and her family are going through.

To hear one of the Green Party members say that all this is based on an anecdotal evidence—God forbid we actually listen to our constituents, who talk to us and cry about what they’re dealing with! No, we’ve got to listen to the elitist academics, if it’s up to the Greens. I’m looking forward to how much relief this will give our neighbours in our electorates. It’s not just virtue signalling; it’s actually listening to them. I commend this bill to the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (21:05): This is a really sensible approach. I don’t know if anyone else has had a house where they’ve had 200 cars go past or create convoys or build up or block traffic and are involved with alcohol and drugs. It can be quite intimidating for the public. This is a very pragmatic, practical bill, and we’re very pleased to commend it to the next stage.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (21:07): I move, That the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is about ensuring we have a healthcare system that puts patients at its centre. New Zealanders deserve a health system they can trust, one that delivers timely healthcare and puts patients first. Our Government is committed to one healthcare system for all New Zealanders and one that delivers healthcare in a timely and quality manner.

This bill is a key part of our Government’s health delivery plan. It backs my key priorities for Health New Zealand, focusing on the basics, achieving clear targets, and investing in infrastructure, so we’re fixing the basics and building the future. Currently, the Pae Ora Act is focused on bureaucracy rather than patients, with principles and plans causing confusion rather than clarity. This is why we’re adding a new purpose to the Act to ensure that patients get timely access to the healthcare services they need.

This Government is focused on delivery, but we need to also be clear that you cannot manage what you don’t measure. That’s why this bill is putting health targets into law, health targets that the previous Government removed. For our Government, reinstating health targets is about delivering good healthcare and restoring trust, ensuring patients can see progress and know that there is delivery against them. This Government is doing just that.

I want to acknowledge and thank the Health Committee, chaired by Sam Uffindell, for its careful consideration of the bill, and I’d also like to thank the many patients, organisations, and individuals who took the time to submit. This bill will legislate health targets in six areas to support our focus on delivery for patients. All health entities, including Health New Zealand, will be required to give effect to them.

There was strong support across many submissions, including from public healthcare professionals, for the reintroduction of targets—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: That is rubbish.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, what was rubbish was when they removed health targets. Let’s talk about what happened when the Opposition removed health targets. Childhood immunisation rates plummeted. Back in 2017, under National, 92.4 percent of children were immunised by 24 months. By 2023, those numbers had dropped significantly, to just 77.1 percent—a terrible outcome left behind by the previous Government, an outcome which they still refuse to accept and acknowledge that they delivered. That went backwards even further for Māori children.

Our latest quarterly results show 82.6 percent of children are now fully immunised by age two, up from 75.7 percent the previous year. That target had the biggest annual gain across all health targets and proves that by ensuring that you have targets in place, that you measure against them, it actually ensures the system delivers for patients. That is one of the key targets and key focus areas of this Government.

We’re also seeing progress in our emergency departments, where wait times ballooned under the previous Government to levels that were simply unacceptable. The number of patients admitted, treated, or discharged within six hours when the previous Government came to office was 89.2 percent. It was 67.5 percent when they left office. Again, that is the facts, and that is what they’re trying to say—that is what they’re trying to defend. The latest quarterly results, again, show patients are spending less time in emergency departments after years of decline.

We are turning around the mess left behind by the previous Government in our healthcare system. In elective surgeries, wait-lists ballooned over the years that they were in charge, with 97.3 percent of patients being treated within four months in 2017, falling to 62.1 percent in 2023 when we came back to office—again, showing that outcomes went backwards under the previous Government. Again, we’re starting to see progress, with the latest quarterly data showing that since January last year, the total wait-list reduced by around 8,000 patients. That is a significant reduction, but we know there is still significantly more work required to ensure all New Zealanders are getting timely access to elective surgeries that they need.

If you don’t measure it, how can you manage it? The previous Government were prepared to stop measuring it, and guess what? They stopped managing it, and New Zealanders paid the price. Wait-lists ballooned, children weren’t being immunised, our emergency departments became overflowing—we are now fixing the mess left behind and we are taking up the challenge which we need, which is ensuring all New Zealanders get the care that they need. I do acknowledge there are long wait-lists. We are making progress, and it’s good to see the work that is being delivered by our front line.

The bill also addresses hospital infrastructure, and there are several examples across New Zealand where infrastructure projects identified and funded by the previous Government suffered from poor management and significant delays. I’ll give you an example of the new Dunedin hospital, where they spent six years talking about it. We signed a contract for it in the middle of last year. It’s now under construction—six years of talk under the previous Government. Let’s talk about the Middlemore Hospital recladding: announced funding in 2018; we started construction of it last year, because they failed to manage it under their watch.

This bill embeds infrastructure as a core objective and function of Health New Zealand and establishes a dedicated infrastructure committee—again, something that they forgot about when they were in Government. There was widespread support across many submissions for this approach. I want to acknowledge the improvements made by the Health Committee in this area.

Another key change is removing ambiguous and unclear parts of the legislation that have created layers of uncertainty. The health sector principles are a laundry list of ambiguous and overlapping requirements. They’re being repealed in favour of a system based on clear and focused targets for patients. The previous Government’s health charter is also being repealed. The charter created unclear priorities and had a complete lack of focus on patients. In fact, it mentioned patients zero times but mentioned the unions 11 times.

Our focus is on patients. Our focus is on reducing wait times and wait-lists for patients. Our focus is on delivery. The Opposition’s focus is on unions. Well, on this side of the House, we’re on the side of patients, and that is what the system is designed to deliver.

The bill is also strengthening the role of both the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee and the iwi-Māori partnership boards. The bill clarifies that iwi-Māori partnership boards will provide advice on local needs and priorities to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, whose role is being enhanced. It provides advice to both the Minister and the board of Health New Zealand, ensuring Māori health voices are at both a local and national level, with clear pathways, and for their input into decision making.

The bill also clarifies that existing obligations to uphold the public service principles of political neutrality and follow the public service code of conduct apply to those working in Health New Zealand. These obligations have applied to Health New Zealand since it was created; however, this clarifies those and makes them clear.

I want to thank the Health Committee again, and particularly the chair, Sam Uffindell, for its diligent work in considering the submissions and the changes made to this bill.

I want to finish by saying very clearly that on this side of the House, we’re on the side of patients, we’re on the side of delivery, and we’re on the side of making sure that the legislation is clear as to what Health New Zealand is to deliver. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so just a reminder for all members in the House—and it happens on both sides at various times—when you all shout at once, nobody can hear a single word anybody’s saying, so it’s not very effective. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (21:16): An alternative view is that we save the poor people at home from hearing what may not be, well, useful contributions—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The unfortunate thing is the people at home can only hear the person with the microphone, mostly, so it’s of no benefit.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I also want to start by thanking my colleagues on the Health Committee. It was a good opportunity to hear from people concerned about healthcare, whether they are from the community or hospital sector, contribute to this important piece of legislation.

This legislation is one of the architectural pieces for our health system. Unlike the Minister of Health, I do not think it is a problem that it focuses on structures, because our health system does have to have some legislation that governs its structures. But what is a problem is some of the changes in this bill that I think are largely tokenistic and are designed for a political purpose and do not actually take our health system forward. That is why Labour opposes the bill.

That very fact was reflected in the Minister’s own comments tonight, but before going on to that, let’s just start with even the title of the bill. Even the title of the bill is an exercise in symbolism. It’s an exercise of telling Māori to get to the back of the line because this Government wants to prioritise English and put it first. I didn’t have time, when I was Minister of Health, to waste my breath with such foolish, empty gestures. Yet this Government has decided that these sorts of political tactics are going to be what they put into the bill to determine our health system’s architecture.

I also think that the contribution made here about targets is also a political performance more than it is an actual policy change. The first reason I disagree with the putting of targets into this legislation is the Minister in his earlier remarks pointed out that they reflect his Government’s priorities. Well, as a Parliament, we should pass bills that, yes, determine the structure of our health system, but it is not appropriate that a single Government attempts to legislate its priorities. We have this type of legislation, say, in transport, a very similar system, where a Crown entity is responsible for the delivery of a public good or public service, but there we accept that Governments will change and that they will have different priorities. Legislating targets means that other Governments can’t have different decisions without changing legislation about that, and I think that’s inappropriate and it takes long-term certainty away from the health system.

Why does that matter? I think targets are appropriate. As was pointed out in this House, to the detriment of my colleague Andrew Little, our last Government did have health targets. We had a COVID vaccine immunisation target, for instance, and we used that. We had contact tracing targets that I developed. We are not opposed to targets, but we are opposed to the way they are used in this bill.

I think there could be much more meaningful targets in this bill. The targets here are outputs, not health outcomes; they’re how fast you move through a process as a patient. That matters, but there are other more important things. I have to recognise that the Government has invested a lot in cancer medicine. They’ve invested a lot, but not chosen to measure cancer medicine survival. Why not? Why wouldn’t you do that? Wouldn’t you want to know that the $600 million budgeted for this is going towards improving people’s cancer survival? It seems to me that these targets are unbalanced, so why should they be legislated for? Codifying them in this way is not appropriate. We issue a Government policy statement on health; that would be the appropriate vehicle for them.

There’s nothing in this bill to actually help achieve the targets other than performatively saying, “We’ve put them in a bill”, as, I believe, the Minister actually kind of said. There’s nothing in here to help the nurses look after the patients in the emergency department. Just this day it was reported that the emergency department scheduled to be built in 2027 in Wellington is now not even starting until 2029.

There’s nothing in this bill that would help you see patients for their first specialist appointments earlier. In fact, we’re still not recruiting enough doctors to the health service, and sending graduate nurses overseas. That is why I think this is an exercise in political performance. It’s the ability to say, “Hey, look, we’ve put something into law” while not actually delivering any extra resources for the health system. And what does this do? Well, it is basically a “get out of jail free” card for ministerial accountability. “Oh, well, I’ve done my job; I’ve put it in a law”, the Minister can say. “I have high expectations”—he loves that. He loves the “I have expectations” performance, but not actually giving health entities the resources they actually need to deliver. That would be a very helpful bill for the Minister of Health to bring to this House; a bill that appropriated enough money to hire the nurses, enough money to build the hospitals, and actually started building the hospitals that we need. But that’s not what’s in this bill.

A number of concerns about the introduction of targets were heard from submitters; I didn’t hear much support at all from patient groups for the targets. We heard concerns, instead, about the ability to game the numbers, narrowing care to what’s being measured, ignoring equity and prevention, and locking future Governments in. All of those were very, very valid.

A number of other changes to the architecture of the health system that this bill does—and is, I think, to the detriment of New Zealand’s health system—is it repeals the health sector principles. It removes the obligations of all of the decision makers to understand the Treaty of Waitangi and mātauranga Māori. It strips power away from iwi-Māori partnership boards. As the Minister said in his remarks, iwi-Māori partnership boards do not have the ability to monitor and they cannot hold their local health services to account any more; they are just relegated to an advisory role.

I ask members on the other side: what are they so scared of? If a local health service—a funded health service—has to turn up to an iwi board and explain what they are doing and why they’re not achieving particular outcomes for Māori, that’s what accountability to the community is. Why are you scared of that? It is a shift away from partnership in the provision of health services and it sidelines Māori leadership.

I also want to talk about some of the other changes that are in there. It has taken away some of the provisions for patient voice. It has meant that Public Service principles of independence and neutrality are relegated, and it has also made changes to scrap the audit requirements for the New Zealand Health Plan and changes to how the strategies are treated. Those strategies had extensive involvement from up and down the country with tens of thousands of community submissions on them. You cannot engage the community every day on the health system they want, but, in 2022 and 2023, we did an extensive consultation on them. The Government has decided it doesn’t want to listen to that.

I’ll tell you some of the things that stood out in that consultation: the ones that are very memorable to me are women’s health issues. There was a lot of feedback on that. I can tell you that women up and down the country have the experience of not being heard in our health system. They feel like when they complain of pain, they get brushed off, they’re not listened to. There are frequent stories of coming back three or four times before you’re taken seriously. For conditions that end up being endometriosis or ovarian cancer or in some cases surgical mesh problems, these are routine experiences. We captured that through the strategy and directed Health New Zealand to act on it.

Now the Minister has put all of that work—and it wasn’t just women’s health, it was rural, Māori, Pacific, people with disabilities as well—to the side and said, “There are five outputs that I want faster”, and that’s what the whole system boils down to. We are losing a lot when we pass this bill and that is why I cannot commend it.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (21:26): Tēnā koe e te Pika. E tū ana ahau hei māngai mō Te Rōpū Kākāriki mō tēnei pire mō te pae ora healthy futures.

[Greetings Mr. Speaker. I stand as the spokesperson of the Greens pertaining to this bill, pae ora healthy futures.]

I want to really reflect on how “Pae Ora” is not just a name, it has a whakapapa, it has a legacy, and it captures the vision of Tā Meihana Durie who offered the kaupapa of pae ora healthy futures to our health system. I wish to acknowledge our Ministers of the time, those who pīkau-ed the vision of Tā Meihana, my tungāne Peeni and others within the Labour team that ushered the kaupapa through. Because the name of Te Aka Whai Ora, the name of Te Whatu Ora, and the name of Pae Ora come with a legacy which is based in a holistic worldview of te ao Māori—and the way with which we had the opportunity, as Aotearoa New Zealand, to adopt a kaupapa that took a holistic approach to the health system.

It was only just at the beginning. It was only just at the beginning before this Government came through. And look at it: we’re repealing and we’re repealing and we are repealing. That’s the bitter disappointment that we hear in the community and we heard in submissions in the select committee, because by turning our back on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and on the gift of pae ora healthy futures that Tā Meihana offered to us, we are now relegating that vision, that koha, the intention both as claimants, as the kaimahi that contributed to the many strategies—now it is merely something of a footnote in terms of the journey of where we’re going now, because we’re focused on targets, the targets that have been set that are meant to measure the progress of the health system. But these targets are so narrow that we heard very clearly from kaimahi within the system their worry about the gaming of the system and the fact that it’s narrowing the focus away from health equity and about closing those gaps to now focusing on the numbers, focusing on the stats, and focusing on reporting.

So that’s a part of the disappointment that we heard within submissions from community, from kaimahi, from providers, and those who have been brave enough to come forth and bring their voice. Now, there’s a legacy that we’re seeing across this coalition Government: their footprint is huge across Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it’s like stamping—stamping—all over Te Tiriti. It’s a big takahē. Pae ora healthy futures has got a big takahē, a big cross across Te Tiriti o Waitangi and providing the space whereby we could have a system underpinned and embedding a Te Tiriti approach in the way in which we would provide healthy futures for all Aotearoa. Because what is good for Māori is good for everyone.

The intention of pae ora healthy futures was underpinned by a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry. Wai 2575 clearly, explicitly, spoke to the systemic racism that our people have suffered. And the way that we had a Government listen to the findings of that Waitangi Tribunal report—the Waitangi Tribunal report set out a pathway to remedy these issues, and there was an intention to do so.

It was an intention to do so and structurally we saw change come forward. But unfortunately, as we see now, we are focused on target and we’ve got widgets and we’ve got charts and we’re plotting our way across these targets, now, which narrow the focus of the workforce to worry about that instead of the broader lens in terms of the patient, the whanau, the community, and the wellbeing of the katoa, the whole person.

That’s part of the issue that we’re seeing: the erosion of the intention of Pae Ora Healthy Future that provided a structure of iwi-Māori partnership boards, localities, local voice coming into localities, then feeding it back up through their plans to iwi-Māori partnership boards, who will then look across the system and then provide advice for that strategic commissioning. Āe, it wasn’t the full commissioning—got it—but the strategic commissioning whereby we could see services being delivered in community, not just hospital services, but out across community and opening up the pathway for us to work together as a whole system.

That’s been eroded because now we have iwi-Māori partnership boards who are in the back seat. They were in the driver’s seat alongside Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Whatu Ora, and they were, they were helping to steer the waka and the HMAC or that Hauora Māori Advisory Committee was there for the Minister, but iwi-Māori partnership boards were there for us all to work alongside local government, our health providers, the whole sector to bring that voice forward and look at the entire system and what does it look like in each door rohe.

So it was quite exciting, and as someone coming from the iwi space, I was looking forward to what we could do together. But now we’re really narrow; now we’re very much more narrow. That’s been part of what we heard by submitters who came forth from iwi-Māori partnership boards and said, “You know what a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity to mahi tahi [work together] with iwi Māori, at the tēpu together, driving for better health outcomes for all New Zealanders.”

That’s part of the issue that we see here: the narrowing of the focus of this legislation and the removal of voice, the removal of the voice of Māori, but also the voice of our kaimahi when we think about the repeal of Te Mauri o Rongo, that New Zealand Health Charter that was developed alongside kaimahi, it was developed alongside organisations and entities, and put forward the opportunity for us again—once again, as the health sector—to look at healthy workforce, how safe workforce in the sector, in community, and in the hospitals, all mahi tahi [working together]. It was a reflection of a time where there was some cohesion and some mahi tahi. Mahi tahi is something that we’re missing right now, and that mahi tahi—we are now in a space where we are protecting our patch. Many of our providers and our kaimahi have said, because of the environment that’s been created in a time of repeal after repeal, that they now just focus on what’s in front of them. That’s the missed opportunity, once again, where we have narrowed the focus of the health system away from that opportunity of collaboration, away from their innovation, and the way with which iwi, community, local government, all of the Crown sector coming together to look at the system as a whole, now gone because we have a system which is focused again on targets.

So Te Mauri o Rongo: gone. You know, what’s that about? Why are we turning our back on the workforce? Why are we not listening to kaimahi who clearly articulated what their needs were and what a health and safety system could look like, so everybody can work to their full and best effect in the health system, supporting patients, whanau, and community.

Now, not forgetting also about the political neutrality of our what this legislation will do, and there were submissions worried and concerned around the chilling effect—the makariri, that hukapapa—that will come upon the health system and our kaimahi who will have to zip their lips, that will not be able to korero, not be able to bring forth the genuine, authentic voice of what’s happening in the sector because they now have to neutralise themselves and they can no longer be the advocates that they need to be if they’re in Te Whatu Ora, if they’re in local community organisations, or even in our hospitals, because they have to be neutral. That’s disappointing.

I’d like to acknowledge also Te Pāti Māori, who attempted a broad range of amendments in the process, and their intention was to try and give effect to Te Tiriti and bring back some of the things that we were losing. Every amendment was grounded in a view of hauora Māori and trying to uplift Te Tiriti o Waitangi and looking for practical steps in their amendments to provide health equity. But, again, this approach of trying to mahi tahi was rejected by members of the coalition Government. Here on the Opposition, we all worked together and we supported these amendments but of course it was rejected by those who sit across from us.

Now, e te iwi hauora, ngā kaimahi, ngā whānau, ngā āpiha, ki roto i tēnei pūnaha hauora nei, rahi rawa atu, pūtea nui, ngā kaimahi tokomaha, tokomano, kei a koutou tonu te mana, ā, koia tētahi mea nui kua kite nei au kua tūkino i tō koutou reo. Kua takahi, kua raweke i tō koutou reo i ēnei mahi o ināianei. Koia nei te wero mō mātou ki te āpitihana ki te kawe haere i ngā wawata a Tā Meihana Durie, a ngā kaimahi, a tō tātou iwi Māori ā muri ake nei. Kia ora.

[To the health sector, the staff, the families, the officers who work within the health system, to the myriads, the vast funds, the many workers, the thousands, who still hold the power, and that is an important thing that I have seen, that your voices have been destroyed. They have trampled and violated your voices by their actions. This is our challenge as the Opposition, to convey the aspirations of Sir Mason Durie, of the staff, and the Māori people, into the future. Thank you.]

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (21:36): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill because this bill is about whether New Zealanders can see a doctor when they need one. It really is incredible because while the Government is working to fix a health system that was left in a mess by the previous lot, Kiwis are waiting too long for GPs and we’re under no illusion about the scale of the job that needs fixing. We cannot be waiting so long for specialists. They cannot be sitting in emergency departments for hours, and that is the reality that’s being faced now.

I have a quite a bit of respect for Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s contributions in the Health Committee and what she gave in her contribution tonight. But, really, I cannot believe what the Greens are saying. They are more interested in cultural box ticking than clinical outcomes. This is not a repeal bill; it is an amendment bill. It’s in the title. They are focused on how many Māori words are in legislation and how many times legislation mentions Te Tiriti, but they are not focused on what really matters, which this Government is, and that’s patient outcomes.

Patients don’t lie awake at night in their hospital beds worrying about the arrangement of words—what comes first: Pae Ora or Healthy Futures. They worry about whether their mum can get a hip replacement, whether their dad’s heart condition is going to be picked up in time, and whether the care that their children need when seeing a specialist can be done before things get worse.

That is what this bill is about: putting patient outcomes first. Because New Zealanders deserve better than what the previous Government gave them. They certainly deserve better than the irrelevant filler that the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and the Labour Party jointly signed in their alternate view in their commentary for this bill.

This bill makes sure Health New Zealand has a clear job to deliver effective, timely, and value-for-money healthcare, not ideology, and duplicative and more bureaucracy. It reinforces accountability with measurable targets and ensures infrastructure planning is a core responsibility. It strips out the clutter that has slowed down decision making and buried front-line staff in paperwork instead of caring for people. That is the part that the Opposition can’t stand, because it marks the end of six years where ideology was baked into the health system.

We scrapped the Māori Health Authority because dividing people by race delivered no measurable improvements on outcomes. Now we are continuing the job of restoring the health system that serves everybody. One of the most important changes this bill makes is a renewed focus on healthcare infrastructure, because for too long infrastructure planning has been treated as secondary or even tertiary. This bill makes sure that Health New Zealand has a clear objective to provide and plan for quality, financially sustainable infrastructure.

The Health Committee made changes that defines infrastructure clearly in this legislation, including buildings, facilities, and land used for delivering health services. It removes any doubt about what Health New Zealand is responsible for, because if we don’t get infrastructure right in healthcare, nothing else works. We end up in situations, as the Minister spoke about, like Dunedin Hospital, where infrastructure blowouts mean that things cannot get built. This is about making sure the system is prepared for the future and has the physical capacity to deliver care. It’s necessary and it’s long overdue.

Another important change is clarifying that Health New Zealand is bound by the same political neutrality obligations as the wider Public Service, and the committee made changes to ensure that the new sections align with the Public Service Act. This bill makes it explicit that Health New Zealand as a Crown agent must uphold the Public Service principles under the Public Service Act 2020. Again, there has been a big fuss made about it, but, really, what we are making sure of is that healthcare is focused on patients and not pushing political worldviews.

Healthcare is one of the top concerns for New Zealand and Kiwi families. People are still doing it tough, and turning around a system like this takes time. Kiwis are being left on waiting lists, worried about the future. They don’t want more reports and they don’t want organisational diagrams that go up from the bottom and back down and spread around. What they want is to see a doctor. They want to have their surgery booked. They want treatment. They want a system that works, and that is what ACT is focused on: delivering and fixing what matters.

As a Government, we have pushed for practical outcomes, we have ensured more access to medicine, we have opened the door to more private sector capacity, and we are backing the healthcare system, because at the end of the day, it is that simple: we need a health system that delivers healthcare. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (21:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in the second reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. This is a really vital piece of legislation that puts common sense and clinical need back at the heart of our health system. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Simeon Brown. He mentioned that this legislation is to ensure that we have a health system that New Zealanders can trust. I’d like to suggest that the previous Government were obsessed with aimless restructuring, ideological co-governance models that basically prioritised the bureaucracy over the health of New Zealanders. This bill will change that, because it is a fundamental shift towards accountability and delivery.

There are a couple of areas where I think it is really important to note that this bill introduces mandatory health targets for critical areas. Some mention cancer care, emergency department wait times. We believe, in New Zealand First, that what gets measured should actually get done, and it’s important that things get done. Section 36, inserted by clause 22, has been amended to require that the Government policy statement includes mandatory health targets for the publicly funded sector, and that new section 36A, inserted by clause 23, lists the specific areas where targets must be set, including cancer management, immunisation, and also primary care access, which is really important.

In her contribution this evening, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall said that targets are a political performance. I totally disagree with that. In fact, you tell that to any patient who is waiting endlessly for a hip replacement, for cancer care treatment, for a knee replacement. They do not believe it is political performance; they believe that they should have the timely access to the healthcare that they need. So targets, in fact, are a better approach than the health sector principles and charter. Targets will provide clear direction to Health New Zealand and to the rest of the health sector to make it directly accountable for delivering results in those specific areas of performance.

Infrastructure also is really important in terms of making sure that the permanent infrastructure that is overseen by Health New Zealand actually gets built, actually gets looked after, actually gets upgraded. This bill will also mandate that a permanent infrastructure committee will manage our hospitals, the physical asset, sustainably, and ensure that we get value for money for our taxpayer.

It is quite important, actually, that the chair of Health New Zealand and the chair of the infrastructure committee can sit on each other’s committees. So that’s a really good line of sight to make sure that Health New Zealand knows what’s happening inside the Infrastructure Committee, and the Infrastructure Committee can actually be there inside Health New Zealand as well. They won’t have voting powers, but they will be able to be accountable, to make sure the Infrastructure keeps moving forward.

So section 4, inserted by clause 6, is amended to insert a specific definition of “infrastructure” that includes all of the physical assets, buildings, and the land owned or controlled by Health New Zealand. Section 13, inserted by clause 13, is updated to include an objective for Health New Zealand to provide and plan for cost-effective and financially sustainable infrastructure.

The Health Committee, well chaired by Sam Uffindell—we received 1,787 submissions. We heard oral evidence from 97 submitters. Some key recommendations also came from those submissions that we received. One of the things that I particularly like about the way the committee works is that we do have members from across the House who can make some valuable input into the committee whenever we’re considering various bills or petitions or whatever, so I’d like to acknowledge all members for their contribution.

Our party has always campaigned on the basis that policy making should be based on need and not race, and I therefore commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (21:46): Tēnā rā koe e te Pika, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei .

[Greetings Mr. Speaker, greetings to all in the House. I stand to voice the position of Te Pāti Māori this evening.]

I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. This bill is not a reform; it is detrimental to the overall healthcare system, and specifically to Māori health. This bill is the last promise of Te Tiriti within our healthcare system. Within this amendment bill, there are clauses that strip away Te Tiriti. Clause 8 deletes the requirement that the Minister, the ministry, and health entities be guided by principles aimed at improving Hauora Māori. Clause 12 removes the requirement that the Health New Zealand board collectively understands Te Tiriti and tikanga Māori. Clause 6 removes the duty to maintain systems capable of understanding mātauranga Māori, kaupapa Māori services, and cultural safety. Clause 33 strips equity and Te Tiriti expertise from public health advisory structures. That is not tidying up legislation; that is dismantling accountability.

I would like to address this bill in a broader context, through the perspective of our experience within the healthcare system and challenging the healthcare system from the Māori worldview—through history, models, structures, problems, and solutions. In 2019, at Tūrangawaewae Marae, my grandfather and grandmother had put decades of work into Wai claims Wai 1315 and Wai 2575. In 2019, while I was still at high school, I, alongside my kura, Te Wharekura o Rākaumanga, was able to present these Wai claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. It’s not until you come to places where you work that you realise the sacrifice and the hard work that your elders do for you. So we’ve had a lot of experience through our whānau in the healthcare system. We’re changing it to a lifestyle. My nan—my grandmother—and Nana Tutata were the first ever Māori community health workers, in 1983 at Waahi Paa Marae.

Te Puea—that came from the vision of Te Puea Hērangi, the Māori princess, with her work during the influenza pandemic at the time and her vision of establishing a Māori hospital. Now, these are all structures and models that stem from the vision of Te Aka Whai Ora.

The late king, Kiingi Tuheitia, and his stance in the COVID response—these were all responses to the invasion of Governor Grey in Waikato. These are all linked to this bill, because it is the overall perspective of how Māori health works in a communal way rather than a privatisation way.

Now, Governor Grey said, at the time, that he had never seen such fertile, healthy land, all healthy children other than here in the Waikato. Now, how do we get from healthiest in the world to leading world statistics for poor health and poor land?

Now, when we look at the overall health structures within the legislation of Māori health, we look at the overall structure of Māori Health Authority being the whare. Now that was stripped away from this coalition Government in the first 100 days. Now, when we look at the partnership and connection through iwi-Māori partnership boards—that was stripped away. When we look at the solutions, which was te pae ora at the time, now changed to Healthy Futures, that was the long work of models and structures pioneered by Māui Pōmare, Sir Mason Durie, and Tureiti Moxon. And when we look at the foundations of Te Tiriti through law and the all-round workforce of understaffed healthcare workforce and understaffed resource, we then see the daily realities of Māori and non-Māori going to the local GP, the local emergency services, who are at least waiting three weeks to be seen.

Now, these are all around the structure of the Māori Health Authority partnerships of connections through the iwi-Māori partnership boards, solutions and models of te pae ora legislation, also addressing inequities through the world-leading smokefree legislation and mental health legislation and foundations of stripping Te Tiriti. The bigger picture here is this is taking away our way of communal and collective responses to health and replacing it with the individualistic and privatisation of our healthcare.

Nearly a—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Thank you.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (21:52): Kia ora e te Pīka. I rise this evening to tautoko the wise words of my parliamentary colleague Hūhana Lyndon, who has been leading the Green’s charge in opposition to this bill, and, of course, to voice my own thoughts in opposition to the bill.

This bill will do nothing but result in poorer outcomes for Māori health specifically and for the health sector in general. Not satisfied enough with the outright removal of the Māori Health Authority, now this Government seeks to actively dismantle mechanisms designed and put in place to improve Māori health outcomes. This bill will water down the role of iwi-Māori partnership boards by removing Health New Zealand’s requirement to work directly with them. It seeks to strip out the legal requirement it has for a dedicated hauora Māori strategy and to remove the safeguard that requires health boards to have expertise in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. These changes will, effectively, weaken Māori equity commitments, making them harder to measure and, therefore, enforce. If passed, this bill will undermine Māori leadership and will move the focus away from prevention and long-term wellbeing and closer to towards short-term targets.

This Act, as it stands, embeds the principle of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and was developed following the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal’s Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry Wai 2575. It was enshrined in legislation to recognise the systematic inequities and to ensure the prioritisation of resources where it was needed most. There is no logic and no rationale to rush through these changes to existing legislations that will do nothing but make things worse. The amendments to Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act will weaken the role of Māori and decisions on hauora health services to service their communities.

The amendments to clarify that Te Whatu Ora are to engage in contract services to a private health sector is not the direction health should be going in in Aotearoa. Aotearoa needs a dual publicly owned health system where kāwanatanga responsible for upholding public free and universal health system, including free dental care, and tino rangatiratanga sphere with Māori having full determination and ownership for hauora services to meet the needs of their communities.

The Waitangi Tribunal Inquiry Wai 2575 Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry found consistent failures of the Crown to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to address Māori health inequities. This issue is urgent and requires specific interventions. The health services led by Māori initiatives, which have been and continue to be successful. The changes to the Pae Ora Act go against implementing the recommendations from the inquiry and undo progress towards meeting them. Without the health sector principles and dedicated focus on equity, Te Whatu Ora will not fulfil obligations to Māori outlined in Te Tiriti.

The amendments to the Pae Ora Act will undermine the requirement for Te Whatu Ora to procure these services as they remove the statutory requirements to address health inequities between Māori and non-Māori. The amendments also remove the requirement for all employees at Te Whatu Ora to be aware of their responsibilities under Te Tiriti and to be aware of the importance of culturally safe care. The removal of the focus and target on equity through the health sector principles will also impact Pasifika, takatāpui, and whaikaha communities.

This legislation will lead to breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as it removes the shift towards tino rangatiratanga over health services by weakening the role of iwi-Māori partnership boards by an active decision-making on service provisions for their communities. Removing requirements for knowledge of tikanga Māori and Te Tiriti on the Te Whatu Ora board undermines the shift towards a partnership approach to health between Crown and Māori. This contravenes article 2. If the removal of the requirement for mātauranga and knowledge of Te Tiriti or health equity and the culturally safe care are—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (21:57): Thank you very much. Look, this bill is a vast improvement. It significantly strengthens the health system and puts the focus where it should be: on the patients. It gives Health New Zealand a much clearer purpose: to make sure patients get effective and timely healthcare. Health targets are being brought back and written into law. No more vague aspirations; clear, identifiable and measurable targets for our health system. Governance is getting a serious update.

The bill clears out some of the ideology within the current law. There are 21 so-called principles that the health system is supposed to be guided by. We are making sure they are focused on the targets; focused on the patient. The patient doesn’t feature once in the health charter. We are making sure that our health system is focused directly at the patient so that all New Zealanders, no matter who you are or where you’re from, can get timely and efficient healthcare. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

English Language Bill

Recording of Party Position

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:58): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Point of order. I would like it recorded in the Hansard that the Green Party would have voted 15 against the first reading of the English Language Bill if a party vote had been held.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just ask is that a leave—can I just please just take some advice from a clerk? OK, so I’ve clarified: it’s a point of order. It will be recorded in the Hansard. Thank you. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.

This early draft is automatically published - it is not yet complete and reviewed.