Wednesday, 4 March 2026

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:02) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:02): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to build a multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility, at a cost of billions of dollars, which every Kiwi household will pay through his Government’s new proposed gas tax, in light of the 50 percent spike in LNG prices just this week, following the recent drone strikes in the Middle East?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, international commodity prices rise and fall. That’s inevitable. You don’t change your approach or strategy just because of that. What I can say is that banning oil and gas put a chilling effect on this country. The Lake Onslow project, at $17 billion—to be delivered in 2037 at $8,000 a household—and $800 megawatt per hour wholesale electricity prices means that we have a failed energy policy. We have dry-year risk, and, as a result, this has actually been a good move, because it has lowered the forward electricity prices by about $25 since we made that announcement. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just before you start—that is to be the last of the general barrage that is to be heard in the House today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Government assess the risk of a major supply or price disruption before committing New Zealand households to pay for an LNG import facility?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question, because this is about lowering power bills by about $50 for every single household in this country. This is a backup source of energy, so that we don’t end up in the situation that the member and his Government created last time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Government assess, or did it not assess, the risk of a major supply or price disruption?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a natural thing—that LNG prices go up and down as a global commodity price—but, irrespective of that, it is still the right answer to make sure we have a backup option to deliver dry-year risk, so we take the risk premium down—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Name one economist!

SPEAKER: Sorry, Prime Minister. That has to stop. That’s ridiculous, calling out at that level across the House. It doesn’t matter how much you call out; the answer won’t change.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the National Infrastructure Plan released by his Government wrong when it says it isn’t clear that importing LNG would lower average electricity prices?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, no disrespect, but I’m not taking lectures from that member on energy policy. I saw some wonderful comments that we should be more independent and have an independent energy policy. Well, actually, the actions of that member’s Government created an importation of Indonesian coal and didn’t actually create the independent energy policy that we are creating through an “and, and, and” approach of lots of initiatives. As you have seen since the announcement of the LNG facility, on top of the announcement that we will follow the Mixed Ownership Model companies investing in thermal firming energy, we have seen a $25 reduction in forward electricity prices in the futures market, and that’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Mr Speaker, in all of that, like most of what the Prime Minister’s been saying this week, there wasn’t actually an answer. The question was about the National Infrastructure Plan and the fact that it said that LNG would not lower average electricity prices. The Prime Minister didn’t even mention the National Infrastructure Plan.

SPEAKER: That’s right, but, of course, a lot of people across the House were calling out loudly and unhelpfully, which doesn’t make it easy for me to listen to the question. I’ve got a new sound bar in front of me and I have to put up with an awful lot more than I have up until now, but I would suggest that the Prime Minister might consider the question and focus on the answers of future questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was the Frontier Economics report, commissioned by his own Government, wrong when it said that importing LNG solely for the purpose of insuring against dry-year risk didn’t make economic sense?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s not the only thing that this Government is doing. This Government is wanting to deal with dry-year risk because—why?—it adds a risk premium into consumers’ power bills. So, by doing a series of things that actually increase supply and optionality, we end up de-risking the dry-year risk and we end up lowering the risk premium that’s present in power bills, and, on the back of this, we end up lowering power bills for every household by $50, instead of loading them up with $8,000 for a 2037 Lake Onslow at $17 billion.

Hon Chris Bishop: Does the Prime Minister think that energy independence is a good thing, and what have been some decisions that have degraded that independence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I do think energy independence is a good thing and that’s what this Government is delivering. I noticed the member raised that this morning or yesterday, but, again, he caused a situation where we are not energy independent. He ended up banning oil and gas, and, as a result, we import Indonesian coal, and we actually are reliant on others rather than being reliant on ourselves. So I don’t take lectures from that member, because it was an abject failure. The Labour-Greens energy policy was a total failure—he knows it, he’s trying to gaslight his way through it, and we’re not having it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When was the last commercially viable gas find in New Zealand?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’m seeking your advice because, as we’ve discussed much in this term of Parliament, truth and veracity of the facts that are stated in this House are incredibly important. The Prime Minister has consistently made a causal connection between the ban to offshore oil and gas exploration, and the prices of energy, yet all of the data and evidence shows that the average time it takes to go from exploration to production is 16 years. That is, if we did not see that come into effect in 2018 [Interruption]—

SPEAKER: We’re going to listen to the whole point of order again; they’re heard in silence—they are often a lot more brief than the member was offering the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, seeking your guidance.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When we have a situation where the Prime Minister has so consistently asserted a causal connection between the previous Government’s decision to ban offshore oil and gas exploration, to energy prices that were experienced, yet we know, because the data and the evidence which Governments are then provided with shows that the average amount of time it takes to go from fossil fuel exploration to production is 16 years, and if the ban did not come into effect in 2018, new offshore oil and gas would not come online until the 2030s.

SPEAKER: That’s all good. Good. I got the point but I have to say that it’s not a point of order because you are calling attention to a debating matter.

Hon David Seymour: A fresh point of order. Mr Speaker, I just draw your attention—I’m sure you have many longer memories than mine—of the way Speakers have held order in the House by shutting down such ridiculous debating points masquerading as points of order, before a member was able to disrupt the House making them.

SPEAKER: Yes, well, thank you for your advice; I do appreciate the regularity of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrong when he said that importing LNG could leave Kiwis worse off because it would discourage investment in cheaper renewable sources of electricity generation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, he was, because, actually, we have taken a policy in our Government that we table the advice, and then we make some decisions. What we don’t do is create an $800 megawatt per hour cost that ends up shutting down mills, and low and middle income working New Zealanders lose their jobs. That’s exactly what that member did—economic vandal, arsonist, now complaining about the fire that we’re putting out that you created.

SPEAKER: Sorry. Just a minute. You can’t make those sorts of comments at the end of an answer. That’s going beyond a debating point, to actually being a personal insult and it cannot be done.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Point of order. The record is abysmal and you’ve got to understand context.

SPEAKER: That’s now, with all due respect, challenging the Chair and it’s not a wise thing to do, because even Prime Ministers aren’t beyond being removed from the House.

Hon David Seymour: How can something that increases energy supply and brings down household power bills actually increase costs to households, or is that just Labour logic?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the issue that we’re dealing with is that a risk in a dry year—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Keeping in mind that only moments ago that very member was pleading with you to make sure that points of order were valid, surely the same logic must apply to questions. You mustn’t allow a question that is, even in its own wording, having a crack at the Opposition, not setting up the Prime Minister to do so himself.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and I was going to refer to Speaker’s ruling 181/4—I think it is—that would back that as well. So we’ll move on to the next supplementary question from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is he so sure that tying the price of electricity in New Zealand to volatile international LNG markets will leave Kiwis better off, when the Government didn’t even consider any renewable energy alternative options?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the great thing is that we are experiencing a renewables boom in this country and that is because of fast-track consenting, a one-stop shop which that member—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Answer the question!

SPEAKER: No, sorry. The man is trying to answer the question. Please don’t call out with inane comments like that. Have you finished?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, yeah. I’m happy to stop—[Interruption] Well, there’s no point if I’m going to get interrupted all the time!

Finance

Question No. 2

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (14:12) to the Minister of Finance: Are events in the Middle East impacting the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:12): It is a little early to say whether the conflict is having a significant impact on the economy yet. As I said yesterday, there is likely to be an impact, but what that is and how quickly things get back to normal will depend on the nature, severity, and duration of the disruption arising from this conflict. I note that I am being continuously barraged by the Leader of the Opposition. I think New Zealanders take this issue very seriously, and I do too, and I think it is important that I convey these messages to the House, and I think it would be useful if the Leader of the Opposition quit his barrage. Key channels by which events in the Middle East could affect New Zealand are an increase in oil prices, shipping and air disruptions and freight costs, demand for New Zealand exports, and risk aversion in financial markets that affects the New Zealand dollar and global growth. To what extent those channels operate is yet to be seen. The Government is monitoring events closely.

Cameron Brewer: How did markets react overnight?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Brent crude oil ended the day at US$82 a barrel, up from around $72 before the weekend. Global equity markets fell, with the S&P 500 down 0.7 percent and the Nikkei down 3.1 percent. We are observing volatility in these numbers during the course of trading hours. The New Zealand dollar is 0.5c lower against the US dollar compared to yesterday. So there is evidence of a risk of sentiment in the markets, with investors leaning towards safety rather than wanting to take risks in the current environment. However, these market movements have been relatively modest so far. In part, this reflects the fact that it is too soon to tell how prolonged the conflict and any economic disruption will be.

Cameron Brewer: What could the conflict mean for inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In its February Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank forecast annual Consumers Price Index inflation to fall this year towards 2 percent. However, it did note that geopolitical events could put upward pressure on tradables inflation through higher oil prices and a lower New Zealand dollar. Tradables inflation has been driving the recent uptick in inflation but was expected to fall over the coming year. Whether there is any further upward pressure from events in the Middle East conflict depends on how that conflict plays out and for how long, and I hope that the Opposition share with me the seriousness of these issues and the need to take them seriously.

Cameron Brewer: How is New Zealand placed to deal with global volatility?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand is well placed. We have sound fundamentals: a resilient banking sector and a floating exchange rate that helps buffer shocks. This morning, Stats NZ released the latest data on the merchandise terms of trade, which is the ratio of the prices we get for goods we export, compared to the prices we pay for imports. Right now, the terms of trade is at record highs in a series that goes all the way back to 1957. New Zealand’s current account deficit has narrowed considerably. It was 3.5 percent of GDP in the September 2025 quarter compared with 9 percent in December 2022. That makes New Zealand a more resilient country.

Finance

Question No. 3

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:16) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:16): Yes, in the context in which they were given, including my statement yesterday that the member “wishes to return to the monetary policy framework that resulted in New Zealand’s highest period of inflation in recent history”. At a time of heightened global instability, proposing to dilute the Reserve Bank’s focus on inflation is the last thing New Zealand needs.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When can Kiwis “expect to pay less for home-grown food at the checkout” as she has promised them since 2023, given the price of butter is up 78 percent, mince is up 32 percent, and milk is up 22 percent from two years ago?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is difficult to compare what is the case now with what would have been the case under the policy settings of the last Government, but I am confident that the measures this Government has taken have meant that prices have been lower than would otherwise have been the case. In the video the member refers to, there are five things I said a National Government would do. We would stop adding costs to farmers: tick—achieved. We would make sure they had the workers they need: tick—achieved. We would bring Government spending under control: tick—that’s what we’re doing. We would focus the Reserve Bank on fighting inflation: tick—that is what we’ve done. We would let you keep more of what you earn with our plan for tax reduction: tick—we delivered tax relief.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How much has the average weekly grocery bill fallen since her statement on 26 August 2025 that the Government’s next steps would “reduce food prices for Kiwis”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member is being, I think, quite disingenuous. It is clear from my statement and the work that the Government is doing that our plan is about ensuring that prices in the future would be lower than would otherwise be the case. If the member disagrees with me that increasing competition in the grocery sector is a good thing, she should say so. If she disagrees with me that increasing competition would put more downward pressure on prices than would otherwise be the case, she should say so. I stand by this Government’s view that increasing retail competition in the grocery sector could result in a situation in which prices are lower than would otherwise be the case.

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He’s given up on trying to answer them—

SPEAKER: Hang on.

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: Has she seen any reports of economists recommending deflation in an economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would say that across the Parliament, there seems to be quite a lot of confusion about the monetary policy framework and how it works. For example, I did see some quotes from one member of this House today that suggested that if we had lower interest rates and lower unemployment, there would be no effect on inflation. I suggest that member read an economics textbook.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When she told New Zealanders she was on a “mission to deliver better grocery prices for Kiwis”, was that a similar promise to her promise to 21,000 families that they would receive a $250 tax cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That was a commitment which I stand by.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So how many families have actually received a $250 tax cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member knows full well that she is correlating two separate statements. One statement which the Government made very emphatically and which we have delivered on, where we said that we would deliver a tax package which would deliver up to $250 of tax relief for families—delivered. The second statement was around how many families would receive a payment of $150 a fortnight under FamilyBoost. I want to thank the member for joining the National Party in voting for the legislation which we introduced to expand the generosity of that scheme to ensure that thousands more families would receive that level of support.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the reason she gets so defensive when confronted with her own broken promise to reduce food prices because she knows she will never ever deliver on it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I don’t feel defensive. When the other side of the House are having to misconstrue statements and duck away from misrepresentations they have made in this House, they are the ones who are clearly in trouble.

Child Poverty Reduction

Question No. 4

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (14:21) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: What immediate actions is the Minister taking to stop the escalation of the 170,000 tamariki experiencing child poverty and hardship, particularly for Māori, who make up a quarter of this number across Aotearoa?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction) (14:21): Our Government is committed to taking action to reduce child poverty by fixing the basics and building the future for all young New Zealanders. Reducing child material hardship is a priority in our Government’s child and youth strategy. We have made a number of changes to improve the lives of Kiwi families, including increasing the in-work tax credit, lifting the threshold for Working for Families, providing working families with tax relief, and introducing FamilyBoost to make childcare more affordable. Our Government is focused on practical solutions including breaking cycles of welfare dependency, creating more jobs, and improving educational outcomes to help keep children out of poverty in the long term.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will the Minister commit to urgent pre-Budget actions for regions like Te Tai Tokerau where around 9,500 tamariki are living in material hardship, and, if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I accept that there are many families who are doing it tough right now. While it would be nice to have said that we had inherited a set of economic circumstances that made it easier for people and families to get ahead, that is not the case. In Budget 2024, our Government prioritised reducing the number of children in poverty with the measures that I outlined before to lift 17,000 children out of poverty.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that child poverty and hardship do not begin before birth, following reports from Te Tai Tokerau - based midwives that expectant mothers are missing antenatal care because they cannot afford basics such as food and transport?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I thank the member for her question. That is why the second of the three priorities in the child and youth strategy is the first 2,000 days. We know how critical it is for children to do well. I would encourage any families who are challenged to seek assistance from a variety of agencies who can provide assistance during the first 2,000 days.

Tākuta Ferris: What specific supports, if any, has the Minister directed to the combined Tasman, Nelson, Marlborough, and West Coast regions where an estimated 6,200 tamariki are living in material hardship?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I would repeat that the very first Budget that this Government delivered in Budget 2024 was to lift 17,000 children out of poverty, with measures like increasing the in-work tax credit, lifting the threshold for Working for Families, providing working families with tax relief, and introducing FamilyBoost. I accept that there are families and children who are facing incredibly challenging times right now. That is why our Government’s focus is on growing the economy, creating more jobs to enable more families to do well and to reduce the harm and hardship that they currently face.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Minister still maintain that her Government’s current approach is sufficient in addressing child poverty in Waitaha, or Canterbury, when they’ve reported that there are an estimated 21,000 tamariki again living in material hardship?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, yes. That is why we need to have a growing economy so that there are more job opportunities and there are more opportunities for families to get ahead under their own steam. That is how we reduce harm and we reduce hardship—by reducing the number of children who are growing up in benefit-dependent households.

Prime Minister

Question No. 5

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:25) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:25): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister use his power to apply—that is to enact or to enable—automatic extensions to visas of those who are currently in this country impacted by the unfolding conflict in the Middle East, as he assumed was the case in his answer to me in question time yesterday?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is a matter for the Minister of Immigration; I encourage the member to direct her question to her.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why—[Interruption] I thought I was talking to the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what was that comment?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I said that I thought that I was talking to the Prime Minister. Apologies—I’m waiting for silence in the House before I continue my questions, Mr Speaker.

Hon Chris Bishop: You’re waiting for silence—how’d that go for you 20 minutes ago?

SPEAKER: Just a minute—calm down.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister accept the Trump administration’s word for the legality of its attack on Iran, stating, “It’s up for them to provide the legal evidence and justification for these strikes.” when Russia made exactly the same argument under Article 51 of the UN Charter when it invaded Ukraine and we, correctly, did not accept that justification?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think it’s a bit disgraceful and embarrassing for the member to compare Ukraine with Iran. But, again, as I said yesterday, it is up for the Israelis and the Americans to give justification for the legality of their strikes. We are not party to the information or intelligence that they have received. It would be wrong of New Zealand, either way, to jump to conclusions. We need fact and evidence to be produced, and that’s what we would reasonably expect.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has he asked for briefings or advice on the use of New Zealand - launched satellites from Rocket Lab, which has the US Space Force as a customer, and whether they are being used to support the US attacks on Iran, and if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can assure the member that all New Zealand intelligence collected or shared is actually in accordance with New Zealand law.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister commit to transparency for all New Zealanders on what biometric information may be shared and what safeguards will be in place before his Government moves to sign us up to the Enhanced Border Security Partnership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our officials are talking to the Americans. They are free to set their own requirements as they need, and, of course, those official conversations are ongoing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why did he call comments on the critical minerals partnership “frothy” and “speculative” in response to our questions in February 2026, when our parliamentary written questions have exposed that he was briefed by his officials on those very negotiations between Aotearoa New Zealand and the USA for this back in November 2025?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve previously said and I’ve said publicly, this is a Government that wants to develop a critical minerals sector. It’s very important that we do. Why is it? Because it’s critical minerals that appear in EVs; it’s critical minerals that appear in solar panels. We’ve got a lot of them, and we want to be independent, and we want to develop that sector. So we have ongoing conversations with a number of parties around the world that want access to critical minerals, as you would reasonably expect, but we have not made any final decisions, and, when we do, the member will find out about it.

Health

Question No. 6

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:29) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with Health New Zealand that “New Zealanders expect that companies involved in healthcare have secure systems and platforms that safeguard their private information”; if so, what steps has he taken to get assurance that all companies involved in healthcare have secure cyber-systems?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:30): Yes. The Government expects all organisations that handle New Zealanders’ health information, including private providers, to meet the highest standards to keep that information safe. Following recent incidents involving private digital health providers, I asked the Director-General of Health and the chief executive of Health New Zealand to write to providers across the sector reminding them of their obligations to meet cyber-security and privacy standards and to safeguard patient information. I’ve also asked the Ministry of Health to undertake a review of the security and resilience of digital systems used across primary care to ensure appropriate protections are in place. More broadly, this Government recognises that cyber-security threats are increasing and we must constantly strengthen our systems and protections. That’s why we invested an additional $9 million in Budget 2024 and a further $10 million in Budget 2025 to strengthen cyber-security capability within Health New Zealand. Across Government, work is also under way to strengthen New Zealand’s overall cyber-security posture. In addition, the Minister of Justice has asked for advice on potential changes to the penalty regime for privacy breaches under the Privacy Act.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What action has he taken, including potentially through the review he mentioned in the answer to the primary question, to ensure that Health New Zealand has assurance that the providers it contracts are meeting Te Whatu Ora’s cyber-security standards set in 2023?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m advised that Health New Zealand contracts for new or updated services, including enforceable expectations in relation to privacy and data-sharing expectations, with references to the Health Information Security Framework as a set of guidelines and controls, the Health Information Governance Guidelines for the safe use and sharing of health information, and enforceable information-sharing agreements meeting the Public Service information sharing standard, underpin all new and renewed data-sharing arrangements that Health New Zealand enters into. Overall, we have inherited a situation which Health New Zealand is now ensuring they’re actively responding to and improving as they go through this process.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has he taken any action to ensure that work on strengthening primary care cyber-security occurs now rather than five years from now, as specified in the digital investment plan he recently published?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, there are a number of actions under way, including the review, which is going to look at what actions need to be done in response to the two high-profile incidents. The Minister of Justice is also looking at reviewing the Privacy Act and the penalty regime, since I believe our penalties in New Zealand are woefully inadequate when it comes to the comparison with other countries and they need to be increased. That is an issue which, again, the previous Government didn’t address—we’re now looking at it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Tracy Watkins, who said, “government oversight … is a basic expectation when the state allows private contractors to hold intimate medical histories of its citizens.”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we have inherited a system, and we are working with the system that the last Government put together when they amalgamated 20 DHBs into Health New Zealand and forgot to actually fix the basics. We’re fixing the basics, we’re increasing the monitoring, and, as I said, we’re now taking a number of actions to ensure improved oversight of our data and digital systems across New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: It was a straight question about where responsibility for these matters lie, and the Minister immediately launched into an attack on the last Government—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: An inaccurate one.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: —an inaccurate attack on the last Government—rather than actually addressing the question that New Zealanders care about, which is: what is he doing?

SPEAKER: Well, the way I heard it, he was talking about a situation that he took over as Minister, which he is able to do under our Standing Orders, and was presumably about to come to the point of the question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the question was in relation to Tracy Watkins’ piece in the papers on the weekend. I agree that there is a need for increased oversight. We have inherited a system where the previous Government amalgamated the district health boards into Health New Zealand. They failed to fix the basics. We are now doing exactly that, and, as I said in all of my previous answers, there are a number of actions being taken by either the Ministry of Health or Health New Zealand to improve the situation when it comes to digital capacity and the protection of patients’ data. Is the system perfect? No. Is there more work to do? Yes. That is across Government that we need to do that, and we’re committed to doing just that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why does he continue to answer questions about cyber-security by placing the blame on private companies or deflecting the blame on to the Opposition when important responsibilities clearly lie with his Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The answer is that obligations sit in a number of places including, under the Privacy Act, on private companies, and, ultimately, the penalty regime in New Zealand is woeful, and it needs to be fixed. That’s one of the areas that we’re actually addressing. It’s all well and good for the former Minister on the other side of the House to sit there and complain, but we inherited a system from her, which we are now fixing.

Finance

Question No. 7

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (14:36) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made regarding KiwiSaver?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:36): Last week, the Government announced we will remove barriers that prevent many farm and other rural workers from using their KiwiSaver accounts to buy their first home. The current settings are not fair to rural communities. We’re making a technical change to the KiwiSaver Act that will enable service tenancy workers to buy a first home while living in employer-provided housing. The changes also build on an existing provision, which already allows farmers to use their KiwiSaver to buy a home, by allowing them to do so through a trust or partnership so long as they live on the farm and exercise majority control and ownership of the commercial entity. This a tweak to the settings to make it fairer for rural New Zealanders. Rural New Zealand spoke, and we listened.

Mike Butterick: Why are these changes necessary?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Under the current rules, Kiwis can withdraw their KiwiSaver to buy a first home if they intend to live in it. However, the current rules ignore the practical realities for workers in rural communities. Many people working in service tenancies are provided housing as part of their employment. These workers have, effectively, been locked out of using their KiwiSaver to purchase a first home elsewhere. Current rules also require a first home to be bought in the buyer’s own name. However, most farms are purchased through companies, partnerships, or trusts, meaning many aspiring farm owners have been unable to use their KiwiSaver even though the rules imply that is possible. These changes address both issues and better reflect the reality of rural and service life.

Mike Butterick: What feedback has she heard from the rural sector about these changes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The feedback’s been great. Federated Farmers have described this as a major win for young farmers and “a huge step forward for the next generation of farmers.” One Wairarapa farmer labelled the announcement “right on point and another example of the Government doing what’s practical for the people.” Joseph, a member of Growing Future Farmers, said, “It gives me good incentive to save and put money aside because there’s an opportunity now, as opposed to before, when there wasn’t.”, while another rural worker simply said, “That’s awesome. I’m going to go hard on my KiwiSaver now.”

Mike Butterick: What do these changes mean for rural New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: These are targeted, practical changes that maintain KiwiSaver’s core purpose while making the scheme fairer for rural communities. They deliver on the Government’s commitment to back rural New Zealand and remove unnecessary barriers. Legislation is expected to be introduced in the middle of this year. This is not a policy born in the mind of a Wellington official; it reflects the commercial reality of modern farm ownership and rural employment and ensures KiwiSaver continues to support New Zealanders into their first homes.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 8

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:39) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Will the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill impact ACC claimants who have survived sexual violence, survived abuse in care, and survived traumatic head injuries; if so, how many?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:39): This bill will ensure that there is equitable treatment across all people who received ACC payments, whether ongoing, weekly, or backdated. Everyone will have their supplementary assistance assessed by the same rules. The bill is confirming the current policy intent, so this will not change the way people are treated from previous practice.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Look, Mr Speaker, I put this question as a primary on notice, specifically asking about three groups of people and whether they were impacted and how many. At no point was this actually addressed or answered. It was put on notice, which is why I’m really confused about the fact that neither of these groups or the amount of people within those groups was even mentioned.

SPEAKER: Do you want to speak to the point of order?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In the legislation that has been introduced and had its second reading in the House, it referred to 37,000 people who had an ACC-related debt established related to supplementary assistance. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does not have the specific reason for each ACC claim, nor should they. It is private information.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept the briefing given to the Social Services and Community Committee by ACC that showed a sample of people affected by this bill that demonstrates that within that sample, the largest group of people affected are sexual violence survivors?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m the Minister for Social Development and Employment. I’m not the Minister for ACC and I wasn’t in the select committee when the ACC appeared this morning.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she not think it’s her responsibility to understand and recognise that the bill she’s shepherding through will put sexual violence survivors into large debts?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I think it might be helpful if I explain to the House the origins of this bill, and it relates to an overpayment where somebody has received a backdated payment from ACC while they have been receiving MSD assistance throughout that time. When the final amount of the backdated payment is known, that may then reflect an overpayment to MSD. That is what this bill is fixing. There is no distinction either on the ACC side or on the MSD side as to what the ACC claim was for, nor should there be.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she support amendments to exclude sexual violence survivors, abuse in care survivors, and people who may be pushed into hardship as a result of these debts?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I accept that there will be a range of reasons why people are claiming ACC, and some of those are incredibly challenging and traumatic, but this bill is simply fixing a situation where there has been an overpayment with MSD with benefit and supplementary allowance payments that are made while someone is waiting on an ACC claim to be settled. There should be no difference in MSD support between someone who is paid weekly ACC versus someone who gets a backdated payment. This is about making it fair and equitable and not treating two separate groups of ACC recipients differently.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why, throughout all her comments on this bill and in the House, has she not mentioned that this bill will create and entrench large debts for survivors of sexual violence and has instead described them as engaging in double dipping?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I refute that. I’ve never used that expression in terms of the recipients or the people affected by this bill. There is no change in terms of what currently happens. There are a range of reasons—ACC payments is one, where it’s backdated, where clients of MSD are overpaid. They have a responsibility to taxpayers to repay that debt, and MSD, when they have conversations about when a debt has been created, they talk to the person about how that debt can be repaid and over what period.

Justice

Question No. 9

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (14:44) to the Minister of Justice: What action is the Government taking to address disorderly behaviour in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:44): The Government has announced that it will be providing police with powers to issue move-on orders to deal with disorderly behaviour in public places. Our main streets and public places have been blighted by disruption and disturbance, leading to our communities becoming places of intimidation and dysfunction. Now, that has been obvious to anybody that’s visited our main streets in recent times. Fixing the basics of law and order means, in this case, reclaiming our public places for the enjoyment of those who live there, work there, and visit. It’s about wanting all New Zealanders to feel safe and secure in our communities.

Carl Bates: How will move-on orders work to address disorderly behaviour in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government has agreed to amend the Summary Offences Act to allow police to issue move-on orders that will require a person to leave a specified area for a specified amount of time and to move on a reasonable distance from the area if they are displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidation behaviours. They will also apply to those who are obstructing and impeding someone entering a business, breaching peace, all forms of begging, and those who are intending to inhabit a public place. We’ve got many tools which we use to help people who are in need, but we need some extra tools to reclaim our streets for the enjoyment of those who live and work there.

Carl Bates: Why is the Government taking action to address disorderly behaviour in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because we want Kiwis to enjoy vibrant, welcoming, and safe town centres. A survey conducted late last year found that 91 percent of operators in Auckland CBD were being negatively affected by rough sleeping and begging, and 81 percent believed the CBD was not in a good state to attract more people and more investment. By giving the police extra tools to move people on who are disorderly, our streets will be safer and cleaner, and those who legitimately need help will continue to have every opportunity to receive it.

SPEAKER: Just to remind people in the House that the constant calling out across the House is well outside what is accepted for interjection.

Carl Bates: What feedback has the Minister seen on addressing disorderly behaviour in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’ve seen a lot of feedback, including this comment from Ian Wright at Queen’s Arcade, who said, “It’s very much about holding people to account, drawing the line in the sand and saying we’ve actually got a right to be here too, the people, the visitors, we want to be safe and secure”. And this one from Will on Facebook, saying: “Fantastic new policy. My 70-year-old mum works in the CBD every day and is terrified”. Well, I can tell Will that help is on its way.

Question No. 8 to Minister

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:47): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to seek your guidance briefly on that last supplementary—

SPEAKER: No, no—no, no. Make your point.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK. The Minister for Social Development and Employment refuted the assertion that she had described people as engaging in “double-dipping”. In quotes on February the 25th, in an article from Stuff, she did just that. I’m at a bit of a loss as to what we are supposed to do when she gives quotes to media outlets saying one thing, and refutes that very same thing in answers to a question.

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve made your point. The only response—I’ll hear from Louise Upston.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:48): Speaking to the point of order, what is reported in the media isn’t always accurate.

SPEAKER: There are remedies—[Interruption] Excuse me, there are remedies available to the member, as the member well knows. But we will now be moving on to the Hon Ginny Andersen with question No. 10.

Police

Question No. 10

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:48) to the Minister of Police: Are there more or fewer individuals on the National Gang List since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (14:49): From the end of 2017 to the end of 2023, the National Gang List grew at an average rate of 1.8 members per day. It has grown since then at an average rate of 1.4 per day. Had the Government that oversaw a rate of 1.8 per day been re-elected, there would be nearly—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s not—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —10,800 gang members.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t—no, no, just stop there. That’s enough of that. Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he fail to keep the Prime Minister’s commitment of fewer gang members than police officers?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, this Government hasn’t failed on the Prime Minister’s commitment to make New Zealand a safer place, and New Zealand is a safer place. We don’t have gang members taking over provincial towns. We don’t have gang members taking over public spaces and public roads. We don’t have gang members intimidating members of the public with their gang patches. All of that has changed under this Government. That was the commitment the Prime Minister made, and we’ve delivered on it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why are gangs better at recruiting members than he is at recruiting police officers? [Holds up graph]

Hon Member: It’s upside down.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the good news is—yeah, I think the graph was upside down; just double-check it. The good news is that our police are doing an outstanding job in recruiting new police officers. We’ve never had such a strong pipeline. We’ve got police officers coming back from Australia and we’ve never had more police officers step up and want to return to the job, and so we’re in a very good space. In relation to gang members, yep, you’re right: there’s three more gang members in New Zealand than there are police officers. But the good news is this: help is on its way. Next Thursday, 59 police officers will graduate, and there’ll be 56 more police officers than gang members.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does gang membership outpacing police officers under his watch fit in with his promise to restore law and order?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Let me give you some of the numbers: in 2025, there were over 100,000 police foot patrols—that is nearly double on 2023. This number here—that wasn’t reported on 1News, but is a very important figure—is there are 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime and there is a 22 percent reduction in serious repeat offenders. Ram raids have also dropped by 85 percent. I think the results that this coalition Government is delivering are outstanding for public safety.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding the people—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait until your own team give you a bit of respect to hear the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding gang members, is it his policy to fund gang members to run drug rehabilitation schemes, as was the case when we came into Government?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, it’s not, and I’ll be interested to see with the coming election whether there are announcements from the Opposition that they intend to fund gang members again.

SPEAKER: That’s good—no, wait on—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The one thing I would say is this: in relation to the outstanding results that this Government has delivered around the reduction of victims of serious crime, that is a good thing. We know that we’ve got a lot more work to do, and we’re just getting on with that work. I made a Facebook post the other day in relation to what I thought was pretty unbalanced reporting from TV ONE, and one of the responses was from a man, Kevin Coutts, a legendary retired dog handler from Rotorua. He said, “You can’t reason with stupid, Mark. Also, what does it matter if gang members outnumber police? We’ve fronted up to gang members who have outnumbered us, and always come out on top. Keep up the good work, mate.” Thank you, Cooter. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Ginny Andersen—and no one else.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did he, any member of his office, or any person acting on his behalf make contact with the Television New Zealand board regarding the 1News reporting on the National Gang List that aired last Thursday?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As a result of the 1News reporting last week in relation to what was a really important announcement for the country—and that was to report on the Government’s progress on not only delivering more beat units but also dropping that number around the victims of serious crime—I put up a Facebook post saying that I thought that the reporting was unbalanced. There was a big response to that throughout New Zealand, and, as a result, I received a call from a senior TV ONE person to apologise and say that they realise that they have to operate on a social licence and that they were sorry for that reporting.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that Ginny Andersen asked was quite specific: it was whether he or anyone under his instruction had contacted a board member of Television New Zealand. Now, he referred to a senior member of Television New Zealand; he didn’t indicate whether that was a board member or not—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute—someone’s talking while we’ve got a point of order being taken.

Hon Chris Bishop: Trying to help.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Chris Bishop: I was trying to help.

SPEAKER: Your help in this case is not particularly required. So just quiet—and start your point again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The question was a very simple one. It was around whether he or someone he’d instructed or communicated with on his behalf, I think it was, had contacted a board member of Television New Zealand. He referred to a senior person within Television New Zealand. That doesn’t actually address the question of whether it was a member of the Television New Zealand Board, which is what the question was, and it is material whether or not this was a member of the board.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Speaking to the point of order, I can clear that up and be categorical and say that, no, I did not contact any member at TVNZ, including a board member. I was contacted by a senior member of TVNZ—not board member. I could name them but I won’t. I think it might be out in the public anyway. But they were very clear and very definitive and very apologetic for what had happened, said that they understood that they operate on a social licence, and that was the end of the conversation. Move on.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware that it would be illegal for him or anyone acting on his behalf to direct TVNZ regarding their content?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I just answered, and I’ve been very clear about the fact that I was contacted by a member of TVNZ with an apology, because it appears the only ones in this country that don’t realise that crime is improving is Labour and TVNZ.

Health

Question No. 11

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (14:56) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on the use of AI scribes in emergency departments?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:56): Artificial intelligence (AI) scribe technology is now live in all emergency departments (ED) across New Zealand with the rapid roll out making it available to 1,250 ED doctors and front-line staff complete—250 more than originally announced following a successful pilot last year. This places New Zealand among the fastest health systems in the world to move from pilot to nationwide front-line use in our emergency departments of AI scribes. This is a major milestone in reducing administrative burden and freeing up front-line clinicians to focus more on patients. This is what a decisive, outcomes-focused Government looks like.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What impact has AI scribe technology had on productivity and patient flow in emergency departments?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The early results are encouraging. Doctors using the AI tool during the initial pilot were able to see on average one additional patient per shift due to time saved. That means faster care for patients, shorter waiting times, and reduced pressure on busy clinicians. The Government is focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and that means practical, real-world improvements that translate directly into faster treatment and shorter waits for patients.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has he seen from front-line staff about the nationwide roll-out?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: After just one month of use at Middlemore emergency department, 80 percent of surveyed staff said the AI scribe improved productivity or efficiency and 84 percent said it had a positive impact on their overall experience and wellbeing during shifts. That tells us this technology is not only improving patient flow but also supporting the hard-working clinicians on the front line. By cutting down time on paperwork, we’re freeing up clinicians to focus on what matters most—treating patients.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What further steps is the Government taking to expand the use of this technology?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Following strong interest from clinicians, Health New Zealand’s progressing approval of more than 1,000 additional licences predominantly for use by mental health teams. This Government is committed to delivering modern, digital tools that make a real difference. AI will never replace clinical skill or judgment, but it will increasingly support front-line healthcare staff. That’s why we will continue investing in digital technology that puts patients at the centre of the healthcare system, improving access to care, and delivering better health outcomes for New Zealanders.

Health

Question No. 12

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (14:59) to the Associate Minister of Health: What announcements has she made regarding tobacco and vape sale compliance?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (14:59): The Government has taken effective and practical steps to reduce harm from smoking and vaping, particularly among our young people. Today I announced a major increase in compliance activity which supports the law changes we made last year to ban disposable vapes and increase penalties for sales to under-18-year-olds. Health New Zealand more than doubled store visits and controlled purchase operations, targeting illegal sales to minors in the last year. Compliance is strong with upwards of 90 percent of retailers doing the right thing, but a small group of bad actors are holding us back and we need to stop that, which is why we have seen infringement notices more than double over the last year. The infringement efforts have been boosted with the recruitment of an additional 18 compliance officers, with most of them starting work in the last 12 months.

Andy Foster: How does this sit alongside other efforts to combat youth smoking and vaping?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Last year, the Government passed the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill, which banned disposable vapes, increased penalties for selling to minors, and tightened retail visibility and proximity routes. The great news is that youth smoking rates are very low and vaping rates are declining, and we want to maintain those trends. That is why I’m pleased that, on Monday, we announced the extra funding for Smokefreerockquest and Smokefree Tangata Beats. This programme promotes a smoke-free and vape-free lifestyle and supports wellbeing for our young people. This funding of $550,000 a year is part of a $5.3 million investment towards marketing and quit-smoking campaigns that help toward the Government’s goal to reduce smoking rates and, hopefully, will mobilise the wisdom of our non-smoking young people to guide and encourage the stubborn older smokers who we are trying to reach.

Andy Foster: What next steps is she considering?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve said before, our challenge and focus continues to be getting people to quit smoking. Thankfully, we know our young people aren’t starting; most smokers are now over 40, and we need to reach them to help them quit. There are three areas I want to progress: effectively targeting these smokers with information and support that works—some of that is being done really well, especially by providers working in the Māori and Pacific communities, but we can do more—secondly, mobilising the entire health sector to support the smoke-free goal and providing clear factual information; and, finally, improving the regulatory regime so that it reflects the relative harm of products, has appropriate controls, and is enforceable.

Andy Foster: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Supplementary question—Andy Foster. A concise answer would be good.

Andy Foster: So what will this mean for the regulatory environment?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I am actively working on the regulatory environment with officials. The main considerations are that we have to avoid the pitfalls of introducing a product without regulatory safeguards. The key thing will be to have a regime that is coherent and workable. There is currently a tougher regime for vapes than there is for cigarettes, and we have seen the adverse effects manifest in Australia, where illicit tobacco is the largest part of the market. The wrong settings can and will create unintended outcomes, and we will fix it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it her expectation that enforcement action will be taken when firms that are not specialist vape retailers undertake the home delivery of vapes?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In terms of enforcement action, I am encouraging all activity that is not compliant to be addressed. We welcome complaints to be received by the compliance officers, and they are actively increasing. That is why we have seen a more than doubling of compliance infringement notices, and any non-compliance will be addressed.

Debates

General Debate

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (15:04): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

We meet, members, at a time of heightened global uncertainty. We watch, as New Zealanders, our television screens and watch conflict erupting across the Middle East. These events are not abstract for New Zealanders. We feel deeply for those affected directly, for the loss of life and the feelings of insecurity that are being experienced by people across the Middle East. We feel for those New Zealanders so very far from home and uncertain about how they will return. We also contemplate what all of this means for us here at home. It is clear that the escalating tensions involving Iran place real pressure on global shipping lanes, on energy markets, on fuel prices, and on the trade routes that our exporters rely on. We realise that all of this has potential to flow through to the cost of freight, the price at the pump, and the confidence of businesses the world over in making investment decisions.

It is too soon for us to know what those implications will be for New Zealand, let alone, actually, to know what those implications will be for the world. We note with some gratitude that, so far, the effects on international markets and on oil prices have been more muted than some may have predicted, but we are conscious that many events are yet to unfold, and we know that very much depends on the duration, scale, and intensity of the conflict that follows.

As the Prime Minister has made clear, New Zealand is engaging very closely with like-minded partners—Australia and Canada—and we are very focused on protecting our economic and trade interests. In a world like the one we occupy, resilience is a necessity. Fiscal discipline matters now more than ever, energy security matters now more than ever, and economic credibility matters now more than ever. If I can reflect, I feel more grateful than ever that New Zealand is a few islands at the bottom of the world, surrounded by ocean, and very, very far from the conflict that has broken out. Our children, unlike those in the Middle East, do not fear a missile flying over their school. May that ever remain the case.

When these global risks arise, households don’t ignore their budgets; they look carefully at what is coming in, what’s going out, and how they can buffer against the shocks. New Zealand does deserve a Government that does the same, one that tells the truth about the books, costs its promises properly, sets out a clear, long-term plan, and responds decisively to the challenges that we face. I must point out that what no New Zealander can afford is a Government that responds to every challenge with these phrases: “Not today.”; “We’ll announce that later.”; “No decisions have been made.”; “You’ll have to wait until after the Budget.”

That is the sum total of what we received from the Opposition, and then what we received is a desire to change dramatically some of the underlying fundamentals that provide New Zealand’s economic security—to rip away the inflation-busting mandate of the Reserve Bank and revert to a policy experiment that corresponded with the period of highest inflation in recent history, 33 months out of target; to recklessly remove the Investment Boost tax policy that is credited with bringing forward investment in firms; to reimpose the tax policy that corresponded with a period of rents rising excessively and driving New Zealanders into more hardship; to restore a pay equity scheme with no idea of where the $12.8 billion to fund it would come from; and to say that there is no plan for energy security other than hoping that it rains. I asked this House, “Please, Opposition, take New Zealanders seriously.” We are living in a serious time, and that demands a serious response.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:09): The Karori amateur theatrical society wouldn’t even take that on. That was the worst attempt at acting that I have seen since Christopher Luxon tried to ask a question at question time. This is where they are at, now.

The Prime Minister is a dud, the finance Minister has no credibility, and they are lashing around for relevance. They have only one option, and that is to blame everybody else. That is the guts of that speech. She’s just shitty because she’s got nothing to complain about. That’s all they want to do. They want us to release policy so that they can talk about that instead of defending their appalling record.

They don’t want to talk about unemployment going up. They don’t want to talk about costs going up. They don’t want to talk about rates, insurance, food, all of which have gone up. They don’t want to talk about the fact that the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. That is their record. That is why, whenever they stand up, they never talk about their record. That is why Christopher Luxon is floundering, and that is why Nicola Willis is under pressure. All they want is a distraction.

You saw this, didn’t you, last week when Chris Hipkins delivered his state of the nation speech and made a clear commitment that the next Labour Government, soon to be elected in a few months’ time, will be focused on one thing as its main priority, and that is affordability. The best that they could come up with—this is the best that they could come up with—was that the speech was written by AI. That’s it! Then some journo went and checked it out: no, it wasn’t written by AI, but Nicola Willis’ speech was.

I mean, how thick can you be when you think, “I know, I’ve got a zinger! I’m going to say it’s AI, and I am going to be hilarious!” and then it turns out that, actually, you were the one who used AI to write your speech?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: AI wrote the joke.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah, AI wrote the joke. I mean, they probably should use AI to write their jokes, because they don’t know what a decent joke is. They think they’ve got a zinger. They walk back to their office and high-five the mirror, but that’s the only reaction they get. They are woeful.

Now, what New Zealanders want to hear from this Government is a track record on delivering on the things that matter to them most. We know that the thing that matters to New Zealanders most is the cost of living. Why haven’t they come up with something that they can point to after two years? They don’t do it, do they? Every time that we ask them a very simple question—do you remember, during the election campaign, they promised that families in this country would receive $250 in support? We have been asking Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon every week for two years to show us the numbers of people who have received $250. Do they answer? No, because the answer is zero. It is yet another broken promise.

They ran around in their election campaign promising to reduce food prices. There is a list as long as my arm of examples where Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon promised to reduce food prices, and then when Barb Edmonds asked them to defend themselves and defend their policies, which have had the opposite direction, they have a crack at her personally. That is the modus operandi of this Government: when you back them into a corner, holding them to account on the promises they made and their lack of record in that area, they have a crack at the person asking the question.

The old saying “Play the ball, not the person”, right? All they have is having a crack at people personally. Then, when you turn it around, they cry foul and say, “Oh, they’re having a crack at me.” It’s like that kid at school who used to poke you and poke you and poke you; you’d tell them to bugger off, and then they’d go and cry to the teacher. That is Nicola Willis to a tee, and it is Christopher Luxon as well. This is what happens when you have a Government with no record to stand by and that is not focused on the cost of living.

I’m willing to make a wager, such is my background: I reckon this Government, when they front up at the election campaign and they say, “Look over here, look over there, what about these guys, what about those guys? Don’t look at us, look at them”, New Zealanders will go, “No, you’ve had your chance”, and they’ll give them the flick.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (15:14): Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who’s just resumed his seat, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, said that we should play the ball and not the person, but earlier in his speech, he used a term, and I’m sure you might remember it: “She’s just …”. I just ask: does it help Parliament to normalise that sort of language that normally would be considered unparliamentary? I wonder if the member cares to withdraw it. It’s up to him, but I just think someone ought to consider that, because it brings down the standards for all of us.

SPEAKER: Yeah. That’s a term that’s been used in the House before. It was not directed at the member; it was describing a position. That’s the subtle difference. I’m sorry, I’m caught by history here. For the sake of decorum, it might be a good idea to withdraw it, but that’s up to the member. We’ll go to the Hon David Seymour.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (15:15): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. It is, certainly, a difficult time for the world as we watch an unpredictable conflict unfold on the other side of the planet. It’s been a difficult six years for many New Zealand households that, I would say, began at a time that we’re about to commemorate, actually, for the seventh anniversary: our nation’s tragedy in Christchurch. At these times, it can be easy to politicise and point the finger, but sometimes what we need to do is ask ourselves some really fundamental questions that might tell us where to go and which way to point in times of uncertainty.

I’ve been thinking about one question, a very simple one: how is wealth created? It may seem like a simple question, it may seem like an obvious question, but the question of how wealth is created tends to divide the political spectrum. On the other side, we get an answer that is simple, appealing, and wrong. Their answer is simply that they can take money off someone else, usually with a new tax, and give it to you. If you listen to the rhetoric of the Green Party, for instance, or Te Pāti Māori especially and often the Labour Party, what they often say is: your problems have been caused by someone else’s success, and if you vote for us, we will take their money off them and give it to you. The problem is they misunderstood the question. If the question was: what is the fastest way to get some money? Then, they’re right; just take it off someone else. Any bank robber knows that. But this problem with socialism—as it’s been said by a very famous person—is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

We, on this side of the House and in the ACT party, know the real answer to how wealth is created, and that is that people come together in a beautiful thing, and it’s called business. It brings together four types of people who each need something that the other has and they trade value for value to get stronger together. You have entrepreneurs with dreams that they want to make a reality, but they can’t do it by themselves. They come together with workers who have their time and talents to give but maybe don’t have the idea or the thing to work with to create a product. Those two come together with investors who have saved and put aside their money carefully, but they want to get a return from having done that. Those three people—entrepreneurs and workers and investors—come together to provide something for customers that those customers couldn’t make for themselves. The beauty of all this is that nobody is forced to be part of any business, but when people come together voluntarily, they innovate, they experiment, they take risks, and they discover new ways of doing things that allow all of us to live happier, healthier, and wealthier lives.

So often we hear that business is some sort of evil—and they include farms in that, and they beat up on them—but the truth is that we actually need that beautiful human cooperation to become wealthier and to find better ways ahead. Business also needs some things from Government. For example, we need to be safe so that our shops won’t be robbed and our things won’t be stolen and we won’t be beaten up going to the shop or walking to work. That’s why I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s seen crime decrease by 22 percent, already, in the two years through the measures that we’ve taken.

We need to get rid of red tape so that people in business don’t spend their time asking for permission and complying and being inspected and told no. That’s why I’m proud we’re making it easier to get money in from overseas with the Overseas Investment Act. Simon Court, here, is helping replace the Resource Management Act with a law that says “yes” more often. We’re removing things like crazy employment laws that say a person who’s in the wrong can nonetheless be compensated on a technicality when they’re fired.

All of these things are designed so that that beautiful cooperation, where people come together off their own volition to do together what they can’t do alone, can continue in a virtuous circle of becoming wealthier so that our country can prosper and face difficult times from a position of strength.

People, as they go into the election this year, should ask themselves a simple question before they vote: do these guys know where wealth comes from, are they trying to take my values, or are they just trying to nick my money? If the other side took that approach, all of us would be a lot wealthier and better off.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy) (15:20): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This country is built on energy. From the mighty hydro dams, the Rankines at Huntly, and the renewables being built at record pace by this Government, every home and business in this country relies on energy, and abundant and affordable energy is the only way that our economy can grow. But that is under threat due to an incoherent policy from the Labour Party. This is the party that in 2018 banned oil and gas exploration, which directly led to the energy crisis we are experiencing now.

Today, like the burglar returning to the scene of the crime, that same Labour Party is championing the same policy. They have not learnt their lessons. Chris Hipkins has had a rather convenient memory lapse. He started to talk about energy independence when he is the very reason we don’t have it. If he really believes in energy independence, he should lean over and have a chat with his spokesperson, the Hon Megan Woods, and tell her to stop talking about banning domestic gas exploration again. Labour have not learnt their lessons.

The legacy of the oil and gas ban was evident two years ago when businesses and households were being hit by power price spikes. Our most efficient gas-fired power plants were running at half capacity while prices surged. The legacy of the last Government can be seen right here, right now, at the back of Huntly, where over a million tonnes of imported coal are sitting there making up for a lack of gas. I’d encourage every member on the other side of the House to go there and take a look, because that’s your energy legacy and that’s our energy future if that lot gets back in.

There’s a lot that has been said in this House about liquefied natural gas (LNG), but it is important to reflect on what people are saying in the real world. For the sake of time, I’ll give you just one example, from John Harbord, the chair of the Major Electricity Users’ Group: “The status quo is a useful alternative to consider. Not doing something to secure future of gas supply would be to roll the dice with New Zealand’s economy. People might debate whether the LNG import terminal is the best option, but the pragmatic reality is we needed to do something and the Government has.” The other side of the House is proposing nothing because they’ve got nothing.

It’s been a volatile time worldwide, with significant uncertainty, yet the future price of electricity has dropped significantly since this Government’s announcement. As of 3 March, the future price of electricity in this country is down by around 10 percent to 15 percent following our announcement. Every dollar of that helps in the back pocket of a Kiwi business or household, and we cannot risk going back. It is completely irrational and outrageous to propose that we do not get gas to be able to make electricity in this country in a dry year.

There is no surprise that if you do nothing, you get nothing, but that is the policy coming from the Labour Party. It is irrational and it is destructive potentially to the New Zealand economy. We saw that destruction play out in reality in 2024. Spot prices of $800 a megawatt hour put Kiwi workers out of business. It ruined Kiwi households and it ruined livelihoods. That is the legacy of a Government that does not have a rational energy policy, does not have a pragmatic understanding of energy—full stop—and we cannot let our economy fall into the hands of those who will roll the dice on our future for the sake of a good political bumper sticker policy. We cannot afford Labour.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (15:25): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I wanted to use this time for the House to spare a moment for Chris Bishop. He’s had a really hard few weeks. We had the Infrastructure Commission report come out and he read the evidence. They said, “Don’t pay money for shiny things. Focus on what you’ve got now.”, and he said, “Oh, maybe we should look at reconsidering the Mt Vic Tunnel project.” And then his colleague Nicola Willis came over the top of his decision making and said, “No, we’re definitely building the tunnel.” Then, the Minister has tried to save face when it comes to housing in our country and tried to plan and zone for more housing in Aotearoa, because, you know, the reality is he’s cancelled and delayed 3,000 Kāinga Ora public homes, he’s gutted the construction industry, and he’s brought back no-cause evictions which will make renting more insecure for the million-plus New Zealanders that rent their homes. And then, he’s had his colleagues in Auckland come over the top of him again and say, “Actually, we want 400,000 fewer houses in Auckland.”, completely putting a stop to his ambitions to build more housing in New Zealand. So he’s actually taken us back when it comes to the amount of housing available in New Zealand.

But the most embarrassing recent blow for the Minister of Housing is that we found out that he has been overruled by his colleague Paul Goldsmith now, who has chosen to completely ignore official advice from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, who told them that they are not on board with the move-on orders. I don’t know what that advice is because the Government doesn’t actually want to share it with us, but I’m going to look into my crystal ball and assume that the advice probably says that housing people is a lot cheaper than throwing people in prison. The advice probably says that homeless people don’t have $2,000 to pay a fine, therefore they will end up in prison. It probably also says that there’s not even room in the prisons to accommodate the growing number of people that this Government has made homeless.

They ignore advice over and over again. The Government doesn’t know how to use their taringas. They continue to ignore advice. They ignored the advice when officials said, “Hey, if you limit access to emergency housing, you’re going to make more people homeless.” But they did it anyway. When the Government said, “Hey, we might delay thousands of public homes.” they ignored the advice that said this will make people homeless. No-cause evictions: “This will make people homeless.” They don’t care because they don’t care about advice.

Again, Goldsmith overruled and put Chris Bishop in an embarrassing barrage of actions by his colleagues, undermining him. I feel sorry for Chris Bishop because what that shows me is that it doesn’t pay to be thoughtful and to reconsider your decisions when you have access to new information when you’re in the National Party.

You’d think that his Associate Minister, Tama Potaka, who’s supposed to be ending homelessness, would actually help him out here, but he’s obviously asleep at the wheel. When I wrote to him about a new report about wāhine Māori experiencing homelessness in Wellington City, Tama Potaka didn’t even have the courtesy to reply to my message.

We can’t keep having these massive pendulum swings where the National Party and its Government make decisions that make people homeless and create crises, and then progressive Governments come in with limited time to try and fix those issues and we keep swinging back and forth. We need cross-party consensus that homelessness is not OK and that the most cost-effective, humane way to deal with it is to house people, not to put people into prison.

But I know that that side of the House doesn’t understand that because you don’t talk to real people. You sit in your Crown limousines and you drive past them. But if you spoke to them, you’d understand. They don’t know that there are pregnant woman rough sleeping right now who want to keep their babies, who will birth their babies on the street. They don’t know that homeless people are the most at-risk people in town—period. They don’t know that women prefer to sleep in town because if they sleep in a park or under a motorway, they will be raped and beaten. They don’t know that every person who is on the street is not necessarily homeless but is in the grips of mental health and drug addiction crises. They don’t know that children sleeping on the streets are often coming straight from State care or are coming straight out of an abusive household.

Maybe they do know that, which is why move-on orders will apply to people as young as 14. How disgusting is that? Talk to people. They’re right there in every single township. Ask them why they’re there and they’ll tell you it’s as a consequence of your decisions.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m feeling a little admonished here, but the Hon Scott Simpson.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) (15:30): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The opening contribution in this general debate today was from the Minister of Finance, who set out, I thought, a very clear picture of the task that was ahead of this coalition Government in terms of maintaining a steady ship, focusing on economic prosperity, and growing a thriving economy for New Zealand and New Zealanders during a time of geopolitical uncertainty and turmoil.

It’s in that theme that I want to make a contribution this afternoon that relates to my portfolios of ACC and also commerce and consumer affairs. Everything that my colleagues on this side of the House, through this coalition Government—everything that we’re trying to do is about trying to make New Zealanders richer. If we are to achieve everything that we want and desire as New Zealanders in a First World country, if we want the schools, the roads, the education system, the police force, the defence force, and everything that we aspire to wanting, we need to grow our economy and we need to have a wealthier economy, so much of the work that I have been doing in the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio has been very focused on that type of work.

I want to just draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is almost one year since this House passed the customer data legislation that creates the opportunity for what has become euphemistically known as open banking, but it goes so much further than just open banking. So that was the piece of legislation that created the framework that allows our customer data information—data that is often tightly held by big commercial entities—to be shared with trusted, accredited third-party providers who can take that information, analyse it, and then give it back to us as consumers in a meaningful, real, tangible way that enables us as consumers to make wiser, better decisions about how we spend our money and where we place our resources.

Now, the first sector of our economy to be given the treatment under this piece of legislation, if I can put it that way, was the banking sector. Those regulations came into effect on 1 December last year. I’m pleased to report to the House that we are, I think, about 90 percent of the way there in terms of getting this framework established. The reason I say 90 percent is because some of our second-tier banks are going to take a little bit longer. They don’t have the same resource and the same technology available as the big banks have. We gave Kiwibank an extra few months to sort their opportunity out as well.

I’m looking forward to the new, exciting, and imaginative fintech solutions that are going to be available to New Zealanders via this open banking customer data legislation framework, but that’s not where it stops. We’ve already indicated as a Government that the next cab off the rank in terms of using this piece of legislation will be in terms of open electricity. I heard the Minister for Energy speaking about some of the challenges that the nation faces in terms of energy sustainability, in terms of providing security for our energy needs as we face a winter coming up and also a potential dry winter in years ahead. So open electricity is the next cab off the rank, and then, frankly, I’m open to bids as to what might next be an appropriate sector of our economy to open up in the same sort of way. This is all about reform that has meaningful implications for New Zealand consumers and that delivers real results to them, so that’s just one part of the work that we’re doing.

In terms of some changes to the Commerce Commission, we’re going to be looking at how their governance structure works—a more traditional governance model. We’re going to be giving the Commerce Commission some ability to look at things like creeping acquisitions and killer acquisitions and we’re going to be able to put into statute for the first time a statutory definition as to what predatory pricing is. Now, predatory pricing has been illegal for years, but we haven’t had a statutory definition.

ACC is a big part of my portfolio work. I will be speaking more fully about ACC’s work, but I’m pleased to say that the first initial results of their turn-around plan are producing positive results and we’ve got to a point where we’re seeing the best results in many years in terms of rehabilitating New Zealanders, getting them back to independence, and that’s got to be good for those people, it’s good for the system, and it’s good for New Zealand. There is a lot of work yet to do, but I’m hopeful and optimistic about the future of ACC. The Minister of Finance gave a great speech and I recommend to members who didn’t hear it to give it a listen.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:36): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I think it’s time we had a talk about the real-life impact of the cost of living, of the high unemployment in New Zealand—not just in the numbers that we hear from the Minister of Finance and Economic Growth but from people in New Zealand about what that means in their day-to-day lives, what that actually means for a family in New Zealand or even in the Wellington region.

The unemployment scene in this region alone: there are 10,000 fewer jobs in the Wellington region due to cuts, due to construction companies, due to liquidations, due to people having their lives and their livelihoods lost at the feet of the decisions that this Government has made that have directly impacted upon them.

When someone has lost their job, the cost of living bites even harder. For one family that I spoke to recently in my area in Wainuiōmata, for some time, the main earner in their family, their father, had lost his job in construction. Not long after, Chris Bishop cancelled a whole lot of Kāinga Ora builds right across the region. He lost his job working in construction and after a period of time waiting to find employment and being unsuccessful, he took up a job in Australia working in construction there. They’ve got two children at high school here and so they did not want to take them out of school, so he now is in a better situation to be working in Australia, sending money home to the Hutt Valley and also coming back every few months when he can afford to, to see his family.

It is families that are divided up and down our country because of the cost of living crisis, because of unemployment, and because wages quite simply cannot pay for food in New Zealand anymore. In my own family, my oldest son has moved to Melbourne to find work there because he cannot find work that pays enough in the Hutt Valley. My brother is a trained school teacher who now has a child, but he lives in China because the wages in China for a primary school teacher are far higher than they are here in New Zealand.

That means that our family is divided. That means my parents don’t get to see their grandchild. That means, like many other families up and down New Zealand, families are divided because New Zealand’s living standards are failing to keep up with the basic needs of Kiwis, and that is unacceptable.

The harsh reality of what has happened under this National Government is 240,000 New Zealanders have left over the past two years—240,000 New Zealanders have left. That is an absolute disgrace in terms of building a country, in terms of keeping our people who are bright, who offer opportunity and hope. They are being sent offshore in record numbers because they are given nothing to hope for here.

What did we see only last week? We had a brand-new institute set up by the Government only a year ago. We saw the newly formed New Zealand Institute for Bioeconomy Science cut 134 jobs. That is including scientists, including some of the very people that are able to develop products such as golden kiwifruit, which now earns our economy billions of dollars. Now those people are being fired by the Government in more Public Service cuts. The very people that offer the opportunity of economic growth and making our economy work smarter, they are the ones being laid off. They are the ones being driven overseas.

Now, this Government has absolutely no solutions to these problems. How do we know this? Because they keep asking us for policy ideas; keep saying, “Oh, what’s your policy ideas, Labour? We’d like to know some because we’ve got none.” Well, I’ll give you a few.

It should be more affordable for New Zealanders to live here. That starts with healthcare; that means that you can go to your local doctor and get a free GP visit. In fact, you can have three a year. If people get their health problems sorted out sooner rather than later, then that might just start to fix our broken hospital system because people who put off that important primary healthcare at their local GP means that it causes bigger problems down the line. So the number one solution, if you’re wanting it, to help New Zealanders with the cost of living right now—what we would like to see is three free GP visits. That will help; that’s real.

We want a more affordable New Zealand but more than anything we want a New Zealand that offers our kids hope. We want our people staying here and building a future here, and that’s, sadly, what National will never deliver.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (15:41): If anyone needed an example of how sensationally idiotic this Government’s actions are, liquified natural gas (LNG) is it. No sooner had the Government made the decision to subsidise further fossil fuel dependence than the US and Israel attacked Iran. US and Israeli war mongering has resulted in the Strait of Hormuz being, effectively, closed; choking in energy exports; and triggering high prices for oil and LNG. European gas futures have surged more than 40 percent; Asian LNG prices are up about 40 percent; oil prices have surged past $79 a barrel and are expected to go past $100 a barrel. Yet Christopher Luxon’s Government is yet to see the writing on the wall with its plan to make us reliant on LNG.

Who is left to pick up the tab? Who is left to pay? It’s regular Kiwi households who, quite frankly, have had enough. Kiwis will not only pay through high electricity bills but also through more extreme weather events. Goodness knows we’ve had enough from this Government! Christopher Luxon seeks to make us hostage to the global price of LNG when Kiwis are already hurting from austerity, businesses and manufacturing are closing, and gentailers are simply going to pass that cost on, because electricity prices rose 12 percent in the last 12 months and are predicted to rise another 5 percent this year before any uptick from LNG. Lines charges are set to go up again from April. We can’t separate this from the cost of living.

Kiwis aren’t so stupid that they’ll believe the Government’s gaslighting on electricity prices when power companies are making record profits, and it doesn’t have to be this way. Kiwis are looking for leadership, not a Government kowtowing to Trump with his climate denialism. The Government’s billion-dollar blunder can still be avoided if Christopher Luxon will admit the mistake and engage with us on solutions.

It was clearly a mistake to prioritise LNG without seriously considering any alternatives. It’s mystifying that the Government rejected official advice on boosting household solar and batteries and still refuses to release 47 official documents detailing the solar advice received. Dalgliesh & Associates were the peer reviewers of the Frontier report. They made it clear that dry-year risk is really a market issue because, here in Aotearoa, we have significant firming resources available right now, today.

Now it’s an opportunity to walk back the LNG decision, when will the Government walk back this decision? When will the Government engage on long-term, durable solutions? We need to say RIP to LNG, and yes to energy security through our abundant renewables and greater energy efficiency. The Government should have given equal weight to assessing other factors that contribute to the dry-year risk premium, such as the market power, the delayed build, and our untapped energy-efficiency potential.

To provide a window for a portfolio of measures and new investments, we can pre-contract Huntly to run, if required, with biomass. The Government can require the current renewables pipeline to be built at pace. These immediate actions would create a window for new investments and to finalise the New Zealand Battery Project work, the portfolio. Government has all the tools at its disposal. Why won’t it use them?

What we’re seeing this week is a Government that cannot plan, cannot prepare, and cannot deliver energy solutions. It cannot condemn an illegal war; it cannot protect households from price gouging; it cannot listen to its own officials on solar; and it cannot see that the billion-dollar bet it has placed on LNG is unravelling before the ink is even dry on the paper.

This Government has a choice: keep doubling down on fossil fuels that are already failing or it can change course. It can invest in solar that its own officials said would work, and back homegrown energy. We should be more resilient, not more exposed. The path to affordable, secure energy is not through a billion-dollar gas terminal linked to the world’s most volatile shipping routes. We need a Government that backs homegrown energy for the people who live here. We need a Government that will act for our people, for Kiwis; not a Government that will act for the corporates. Kia ora.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (15:46): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What did you get up to in the diary?

SUZE REDMAYNE: On Sunday, on a truly stunning Wairarapa day—just for you, Mr McAnulty—at local MP, awesome MP, Mike Butterick’s farm. Nicola Willis made an announcement that we are we are fast tracking changes to KiwiSaver, changes that will literally change lives. Since 2010, Kiwis have been able to withdraw from their KiwiSaver account to help buy their first home, but the current legislation says that it must be their principal place of residence. That last bit—principal place of residence—has locked thousands of people off the property ladder.

Our Government knows what a great motivator it is to be able to buy your first home with your KiwiSaver. We know it encourages and incentivises saving for young people, and we also know how much of a benefit it is in your retirement if you own your own home, in terms of your health, wellbeing, financial security and your social benefits. Sunday’s announcement was about levelling the playing field for thousands of hard-working Kiwis across New Zealand; people in service tenancies who, as part of their employment contract, live where they work: military personnel, doctors, clergy, teachers, police officers. The numbers tell the story: 235 education workers, 240 police, 850 defence staff.

In 2024, a Federated Farmers survey said that about 73 percent of dairy farmers, 66 percent of sheep and beef, and 51 percent of arable had farm workers who lived on their farm. If you extrapolate that out, it is literally thousands of people who have been locked out of the opportunity that their city cousins have.

I want to take you back a few years. The flame was lit for me when Tyrell, our stock manager on the farm, came to us and said he had a problem. He had money in his KiwiSaver account, he was keen to buy his first home but he wasn’t allowed to. I didn’t believe him. I checked with the bank manager. The bank manager said Tyrell was right, and it was a problem for Tyrell and it didn’t seem fair to us.

So I talked about this when I was campaigning in 2023. I put a member’s bill in the ballot in 2024: the KiwiSaver (First Home for Farmland and Service Tenancy Tenants) Amendment Bill. Our rural Nats got behind it too; we’ve got real strength in numbers, National Party MPs in this Parliament. We are all determined to champion rural issues and solve problems, and this was a problem that needed solving.

Karla DeWitt from Te Aroha, Danielle Hoffman from Morrinsville; passionate and vocal advocates for change. We weren’t alone in this pursuit. Mike Osborne in Kimbolton used to ring me regularly, so did Simon Perry in Hunterville. Federated Farmers had it on their wish list. It was number of the 12 policy priorities they had for the 2023 election. I’d especially like to acknowledge Richard McIntyre and Oliver Ibbotson and our local Manawatū/Rangitīkei Chair Ian Strawn for their advocacy and their occasional robust debate on the issue.

Karl Dean, the national dairy chair, was at the announcement on Sunday, which was great, and Wayne Langford led the charge. People across the country have been advocating for these changes to KiwiSaver. I’d like to say a huge thanks to the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, for driving this initiative and for picking it up as a Government bill. Thanks also to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Scott Simpson, and to our coalition partner, too. One other part of the bill that I didn’t mention is that it also allows first-time farm buyers to put their KiwiSaver balance towards the purchase of a farm and a home where they’ll live, but in the name of a commercial entity. As Minister Scott Simpson has said, this change reflects the commercial reality of modern farm ownership.

I stand here incredibly proud to be part of a Government that backs rural and provincial New Zealand—the engine room of New Zealand—that backs hard-working Kiwis to get ahead, and that is relentlessly focused on fixing the basics and building the future. The last word, I think, has to go to Terrell. As Mike Hosking said on his breakfast show last year, this is Terrell’s bill, and so I’m very grateful for the motivation. Thank you.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (15:51): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti brings the light to Aotearoa each and every day, but, boy, does this Government try hard to dim it. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is dealing, as is Aotearoa, with the broken promises of this National-led Government. Do you know what we haven’t heard for a while? “Back on track”, because even the members opposite know that we’re well off the track; in fact, we’re on a fast track backwards.

Let’s take a tour of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to demonstrate exactly how far off the track we are. We will start in the south, at Wainuiōmata, an area where food banks are now struggling—struggling to make ends meet. The very organisations established to serve the communities are struggling to provide. What they have noticed is that the promise of this Government to help the squeezed middle has been an absolute lie. This Government, instead of closing the wealth divide, has actually created a whole new class of pōharatanga—of dependants—a class where people who are working two jobs are struggling to make ends meet and requiring the services of food banks, who are struggling.

Now, where shall we go next? How about Wairoa? In Wairoa, we know it was hammered by Cyclone Gabrielle, as if that was not enough—and no doubt that’ll be debated in the planned infrastructure debate coming up next. Since then, there has been zero aged-care in Te Wairoa. It’s not just the high unemployment driving families apart; when our elderly have to leave their communities and their families, that impact is massive, not just on the whānau and not just on the physical, mental, and spiritual health of the patient but, of course, for the community losing all that intellectual property.

Let’s skip back further, up to Heretaunga, in Ngāti Kahungunu. This Government likes going on about housing and saying how wonderful it was that they moved people out of motels—to where? Housing looks like different things to different people. Some people were very grateful to have a caravan at a camping ground. Well, now the Heretaunga camp has closed, more people are going to be pushed out to goodness knows where. We know they cannot afford the standard rent in this country—so then what? Now, with the move-on law, they’re going to be flushed out and probably sent to prison, where we’re going to end up paying a lot more to keep them. How out of touch can you be to not understand the basic needs of your constituents?

Now, where shall we go? Let’s talk about the East Coast, and, of course, it would be remiss of me not to while we’re talking about the infrastructure bill coming up. The request from the people of Te Araroa, Wharekahikā, Pōtaka—who still live every day with the fragility of State Highway 35—is simply: “Please, do not forget us.” E hika mā! This flood happened on 21 January, and there has been one announcement. They want some hope, some indication that the major arterial line through the East Coast, which services not only the economy but is a major health access solution for our whānau there—please remember them. A good feed of KFC is awesome, whānau, but it ain’t going to fix our roads. We’re going to need a lot more buckets of KFC to fix State Highway 35.

That said, with the limited time I have, I want to end in the Wairarapa, where my team had a wonderful couple of days at the end of last week. We spent time at Pūkaha, a great example of co-governance and partnership, and where we got to hear the phrase “Tino Rangitānetanga!” and witness the blessing of Kurahaupō waka, who had our tipuna Whātonga at the taurapa. Why that sat with me and why it’s so special is that while this Government may waste time debating ridiculous legislation that seeks to undermine the spirit of our communities, you will fail, because the mana sits in each and every community. Tēnā tātou.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (15:56): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can’t help but admire the passion that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel has for her province. I have similar passion for my province, for Taranaki.

Let me tell you a little bit about the history of Taranaki. Did you know that 1865 was when the first oil was found in Taranaki? Down by Port Taranaki, it was and—guess what—today, we still have oil sheens come on to the harbour, on to the water. People think that there’s been a leak off a ship or something like that. It’s not, because it’s coming out of the ground.

That is how significant oil and gas is in Taranaki, but guess what’s happening today? Our economy is diving. We have got unemployment happening—there are actually, prospectively, 3,300 people who are going to be losing their jobs because of the trajectory of oil and gas demise in our province. Our GDP is diving. We have a very proud province, with the fact that we had the second-to-highest GDP per capita in New Zealand for many, many years, behind only this place here—Wellington—with all the politicians and everybody else, and all the others who are down here. The fact is that we’ve been striving very good; that is now diving as a result of the demise of oil and gas.

What’s happened with oil and gas? Well, in 2018, we had a policy announcement from the other Government that actually took away the exploration of oil and gas. They did preserve it on the land of Taranaki, but, I can tell you, the decision knocked the confidence right out of the companies that we need to keep the lights on and keep the energy going here in New Zealand. It was a travesty.

Now, I respect the fact that Governments of the day have the right to be able to create policy, but I do not respect policies that have been derived with no quality process to back it up. It was a fact that when that policy was announced in 2018, no officials and no industry knew anything about it. Wouldn’t you think it would be right to go and talk to the people that know the most about this, and at least talk about what are the potential ramifications of such a policy? Well, that Government did not do it, and it was a travesty. Do you know why it was a travesty? Not because of the energy complications we have to our country at the moment—I’ll talk to that—but also the fact that the world started to look at New Zealand differently.

New Zealand was looked at as being a reliable place to be able to develop policy. We did the right thing: we did a lot of research, and we were very careful about how we developed policy. That was the first time we had a major policy that presented out of the blue. It was the Prime Minister of the day’s nuclear moment, I think she called it. It was incredible, and the demise of that is shown today. Taranaki is wearing the brunt of it, and—guess what—energy-wise, New Zealand is wearing the brunt of it.

Let’s talk about energy. This is about gas, primarily. First of all, let’s understand coal. We’ve got this big stockpile of coal, and the Minister for Energy spoke to it. It’s currently siting at 1.2 million tonnes of coal. Now, you might think “Well, that’s a lot.”, but how much is that? If you think of the big ship that brings coal into this country, that’s 35,000 tonnes. If you think about a truck that’s on the road with an “H” on it, they can carry about 35 tonnes on it, so one shipment is 1,000 trucks to get it there—down to Huntly—for it. That’s one shipment. If you want to get 1.2 million tonnes of it, this is in the realms of about 35 of those shipments, to actually get that. This is an immense mountain of coal—and what is it replacing? It is a firming energy, because we don’t have enough reliable natural gas. It’s a burning fuel that is said to be at least 40 percent cleaner than coal.

Now, when I look at the fact sheet, back in the day, when Labour brought in that particular policy, they said this was for environmental reasons. How can it be environmental reasons when you’re taking away gas and generating electricity, and you’re replacing it with coal? Unbelievable. We need to restore the confidence of finding indigenous natural gas. We’ve had to, as a Government, announce an LNG policy because we’re struggling to regain the confidence in natural gas being found here in New Zealand, and that side of the debating chamber are holding the country to ransom with regards to high electricity prices and a quality, secure energy network. We need to get—I even hear it from the Green member, that we need a long-term energy strategy. I can’t argue with that. But when you’re being dictated to by the Opposition that they won’t allow for oil and gas in the future, that leaves the very question of how strong our network’s going to be. We’ve got to be better than that.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (16:01): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to talk about something important today, and that is medicines. Not structures, not slogans, not press releases—medicines, because when someone is sick, nothing else matters.

I’ve been really lucky to have joined the Hon David Seymour over the last few weeks as Pharmac has made a series of announcements about new treatments for New Zealanders. For those people who need those medicines, it’s not about politics; it’s about hope. When a cancer drug becomes available that wasn’t there before, it’s not a policy win; it’s actually about a family getting more time together—people will be able to spend more time with their loved ones. When a chronic condition gets a treatment funded, that’s not a line in the Budget; that’s about someone being able to get out of bed, go to work, be independent, and contribute to New Zealand. And when a rare disorder finally has a treatment option, that’s not about bureaucracy; it’s actually about a parent, and a person in our society being able to breathe again—being able to relax and actually enjoy their life. That’s what fixing what matters in health looks like.

For too long, our health system’s been drifting; it’s been focused away from patients. Obviously, this week we’ve been discussing refocusing our health system with the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act changes. We’ve become obsessed with structure and ideology, and that’s not what we want in health; we want it to actually be about patients.

So let me be clear: ACT has been clear that the health system needs to deliver quality, timely care to New Zealanders, and that means actually focusing on outcomes. We’re very proud of the changes we’ve made with Pharmac and actually changing that organisation to make sure it’s delivering for New Zealanders who need important medicines. New Zealanders deserve treatments not based on identity or politics or what box they have to tick. Illnesses don’t discriminate; they can hit a family at any time and an individual at any time. Access shouldn’t discriminate, either.

Actually, healthcare is one of the biggest costs to Government. There’s a lot of pressure, obviously, facing our healthcare system, and when some medicines aren’t funded, that means people aren’t actually getting the treatment and can contribute to society in the way they want, and also can’t spend time with their families and loved ones. That actually affects our whole society. People may not be able to work; they may not be able to earn wages, pay taxes. They may not be able to care for their children, their loved ones. It also often means more interaction with the healthcare system—going to hospital, visiting GPs, putting more pressure on our system. So, when we fund treatments, we often relieve pressure on other parts of our health system, which is really, really good.

Last night, I was actually lucky enough, along with my Government colleague Nancy Lu from the National Party, to join an online meeting that was in relation to triple-negative breast cancer. For those who know a little bit about breast cancer, if you get a diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer, that is actually very, very serious. There are less treatment options if you have a diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer. We were invited to join this meeting by Catherine Cooke. Some of you across health may have been lobbied by her. Catherine is a very, very ferocious advocate for trying to get another treatment funded in New Zealand for triple-negative breast cancer. We were very lucky to actually hear the stories from some amazing women: Dr Stone, Ellie, Jackie, Imogen, Annette. They were able to talk about their experience with breast cancer and, actually, what having treatments means. So I want to acknowledge Catherine for all her advocacy—and if she does send you an email and does request the meeting, you should take it; learn more about what she’s trying to campaign for.

But, look, I want to say that this Government is committed to more treatments for New Zealanders; we are committed to ensuring Pharmac is fit for purpose; and we are committed to ensuring that we actually have a healthcare system where we invest upfront to actually ensure New Zealanders have the health outcomes, are able to contribute to society, and really be able to raise their families and live the lives they want. That’s what fixing what matters in healthcare means. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House) (16:06): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the continuation of Government orders of the day Nos. 1 to 6.

Motion agreed to.

Debates

Debate on the National Infrastructure Plan

Special Debate

DEPUTY SPEAKER (16:07): We now come, members, to the special debate and the debate on the National Infrastructure Plan, arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (16:07): I move, That this House take note of the National Infrastructure Plan.

The National Infrastructure Plan is a wake-up call for many people in this House and, indeed, I would say, in New Zealand. It came about because the Government was elected on the idea of establishing a 30-year national infrastructure plan for the country. Rather than write that plan ourselves through the Treasury and through other Government agencies, we tasked the independent Infrastructure Commission with coming up with the plan. I think that was very important, and it’s given the plan a degree of credibility and independence that, I think, has been widely welcomed by many members of this House and, indeed, many members of the public.

It’s worth noting that we’ve had national infrastructure plans before—there was one back in 2010, I think, and then there was another one in 2011—but they were, if I can be so bold as to say, largely politically generated documents. This is a plan that actually takes an independent, clear-eyed assessment of the state of our system and what needs to change.

They have made a compelling case for change. We face significant challenges as a country: ageing stock, backlog of maintenance and renewals; an ageing population; and increased exposure to natural hazard events, as members of the House know so well from recent days, weeks, and months. The system we have is underperforming. One common quote or statistic that has been used a lot is that we’re in the top 10 percent in the OECD for spending, but the bottom 10 percent for what we get for our spend. I’ve been shocked since becoming infrastructure Minister at the state of asset management: fourth to last in the OECD for asset management. Central government agencies not following basic rules on basic investment management—agencies who don’t have asset registers, don’t have long-term investment plans, don’t do the basics. What that manifests in is leaky police stations, mouldy military homes, rotting classrooms, and, in 2018, a hospital with raw sewage seeping into the walls.

It became a subject for political debate. I remember, back then, when I was a youthful Opposition MP, the debate was more about what we were going to do about it—which is now being fixed, belatedly—but, actually, we should have been asking the question: how did we get here in the first place? How did this happen? How did we end up with raw sewage? I think it was Middlemore Hospital. Getting our system right is a must; it’s not a nice-to-have. I think, as everyone acknowledges, infrastructure is the enabler of economic growth and productivity, and I don’t think anyone’s going to disagree with that.

We have a proud history of infrastructure delivery in New Zealand. In the 1870s, we built a Fell system to get trains over the Remutaka Ranges, and in the mid-1900s, we built a 9-kilometre tunnel under the Remutakas. In the 1950s, we built the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and we used tolls to recoup the cost of building the bridge. In the 1960s, we built Manapōuri, which generates electricity now for 600—

Camilla Belich: Yeah.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that? Well, it’s the truth, I mean if you’re arguing we didn’t use tolls; we did.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: She said yes.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, you said yes—OK. You’re good.

Shanan Halbert: Already paid for.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, actually that’s the point. It has been paid for; the capital costs have been paid for, but there are ongoing running costs of the network. That’s actually one of the insights of the report, Mr Halbert, which is that once you’ve paid for something, it’s fine, but you have to maintain it, and maintaining things is what we’ve been really bad at. That little vignette from across the House actually demonstrates precisely the problem we’re dealing with. The debate’s not a party-political debate, but it is an interesting insight into the challenges we’ve got as a country.

In the 1965, we built the Cook Strait cable between Benmore and Lower Hutt. We used to be world leaders. Now, we find it difficult to consent solar farms and to build new buildings.

There’s a couple of options that are before the country, actually. One is we can just muddle along and look at the plan and say, “Oh, yep, well, a bunch of experts have given us some interesting things.” That’s kind of been the status quo approach for the last few years. I call it managed mediocrity. Managed decline’s another word for it—it’s kind of where we’re at. Or we can actually face up to it, face the hard truths, and make some tough decisions on tolling, upzoning, planning, and actually get an assurance system in place so we get greater scrutiny of central government and more.

There are a number of recommendations in the report that I think are very important, some of which the Government has work under way on and some of which we need to do more work on. They talk about a sustainable framework for planning. Now, we’ve got Resource Management Act reform under way. The Environment Committee is ploughing through the submissions, and I’ve read some of them as well. Creating a durable framework to make it easier to consent and build and maintain infrastructure is very important. It’s something that I’m personally committed to.

They talk about upzoning around rapid transit stations. It’s very important that, as a country, we’re able to take advantage of these large public investments in things like City Rail Link stations, Eastern Busway, Northwest Busway—that will come over time—and train stations in the Wellington commuter area. That’s something we’ve got important work under way on. It’s, obviously, backwards and forwards in Auckland at the moment, but we’ll get there.

There’s a lot in the report around making better use of what we’ve already got through things like managing demand on our roads. That is word for congestion pricing and time of use pricing. Parliament, last year, passed time of use pricing legislation unanimously, and I was really pleased by that, and I was really pleased to engage with the Opposition around finding a framework that we can all accept. Having a framework is one thing; implementing it is going to be challenging. As I said when we did the committee stage, implementing it is going to get noisy, and it’s going to get rough. My plea for everybody, for all decision makers in Government and Opposition, is that we have a mature approach to this, because making better use of what we’ve got involves things like time of use charging and congestion charging, which will raise efficiency and productivity and help drive growth, but it’s going to require, frankly, a degree of maturity from us all that maybe some of us—all of us, probably—have not displayed in the past.

My plea, also, is that we take an evidence-led approach to this. I will express a degree of frustration at the debate around the second harbour crossing in Auckland. The second harbour crossing in Auckland is going to be a project that’s required at some point in the future. There’s a bit of debate around when it’s required, but it’s going to be required. That will be the biggest infrastructure project ever built in New Zealand history by any order of magnitude. It will be billions and billions of dollars. I’m not going to put a number on it, because we don’t know actually how much it will cost. That’s, again, another insight of the report—that politicians have got to stop making announcements about things they’re going to build without knowing how much they cost. Again, I say that’s something we’ve all got to take seriously. It’s going to be billions. Now, that has to be paid for. There’s a couple of answers as to how—well there’s a number of things in the middle, but there’s kind of two choices. One is users help fund it, which is how the second harbour crossing was built in the first place. The other is that we borrow, or some combination thereof.

The idea that we’d ask the good residents of Napier—where I was the other day, straight after that news came out—to pay higher taxes to fund the debt on the Crown balance sheet, to build a road that they’ll probably never use except maybe once a year when they go up to Auckland for a weekend break. That’s a stiff ask for the people of Napier. It’s a stiff ask for the people of Christchurch. It’s a stiff ask for the people of Wellington. I’m not saying that tolls are the answer to everything. They aren’t, but they’re part of the solution towards moving towards more user-pays things.

Here’s the other insight in the report that I think a lot of people have kind of woken up to in the last two weeks since it’s been published: stuff isn’t free. Ultimately, everything has to be paid for, and there’s a range of different ways to pay for that. Ultimately, there is no magic money tree at the bottom of the garden. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are not magic. PPPs are a procurement tool; they are not a funding tool. Again, there’s some very good information in the report around that.

The process from here: we’re going to see what people think of the report; we’re having the special debate. The Government is statutorily obliged to respond by mid-June. Our intention, as a Government, is to work up a Government response and to engage with the Opposition around that response. My hope is that we could get to some degree of consensus around many of the recommendations. Some of them are really eminently sensible recommendations. We’ve already got work under way around assurance, and, as I said to the Opposition spokesperson in the House a couple of weeks ago, we’re doing some thought there. We will be engaging with the Opposition around that. Then, as we move towards June and July, there will be potentially another opportunity for a second special debate on this as well.

Could I just take 30 more seconds, Madam Speaker, if that’s OK?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll grant it today in the interests of the fact that you’re asking for some sort of joint effort.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I just wanted to close by saying my genuine, strong view is that it’s a bit of an inflection point for the country around infrastructure. That will only be true if we listen to what the experts have been saying to us, actually, frankly, for quite a long time now: don’t overpromise; don’t overbuild; look after what you’ve got; work out the benefit-cost ratios of things and what’s actually value for money; establish a pipeline that most people can get behind, still with a bit of room for political argy-bargy, but a sustainable long-term pipeline; get the planning reform right; make better use of what you’ve got; make use of the infrastructure that’s already there.

You know, if we can agree on those basic principles—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we can agree quickly, because you’re way over your 30 seconds that you just asked for.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —lock and load for the next 20 years, this Parliament will have made a massive contribution to New Zealand’s future. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We now have a split call with Labour.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (16:18): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Labour Party supports the work of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission and commends it on the production of the National Infrastructure Plan. It’s long been clear that infrastructure has not been done well in this country. That’s why, under the previous Labour Government, the Infrastructure Commission was established. That is why we have always lent our support towards the work of this plan. We saw it as a natural progression of the work that we’ve done when in Government, and, frankly, that is what the sector wants to see. The very clear message from the sector—and when I say the sector, I don’t just mean infrastructure; it is every sector, about 17 that are referred to in the plan who are sick and tired of the stop, start, carry on that they have seen in this country for far too long.

I think we’ve actually seen in recent debates in this House—and for about 30-odd seconds the Minister’s contribution there—that we are prone to wading into arguments amongst ourselves when, actually, the sector just wants to see where we can agree, and the National Infrastructure Plan sets a pathway there. We have to be realistic, though; we’re not going to agree on everything. But surely we can make genuine efforts to agree on the settings by which infrastructure is assessed and funded and delivered in this country. If we can make genuine inroads in getting to that point, we will provide a lot of the certainty that the sector is after.

Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we will recognise that there are broadly two reasons why projects get cancelled. We’ve seen it in recent history. They either get cancelled for political reasons, like we saw with the ferries, or they get cancelled because an incoming Government realises that all the promises and announcements that were made by the previous Government haven’t actually been funded, and there’s no plan by which to fund them. Both of those things can be avoided if we do one simple thing, and I don’t propose this as a criticism; I propose this to improve the work that the Infrastructure Commission does. If all Crown infrastructure went through the independent assurance process that the Infrastructure Commission has set up, then we will go a long way to avoiding the cancellation of projects that we have seen in the past.

Now, if we all just take a moment to reflect on our own communities, we all know of a project that was stopped. We all know the disruption that that caused, and we know the human impact on those that have lost jobs, many of whom have had to leave and go to Australia because there wasn’t that certainty for their employer to keep them on or to take on new employees or to upskill the staff that they kept. It is about confidence and about certainty, and one way to assure that is if we get the settings right, then it doesn’t actually matter what is going to happen at an election, because they know that infrastructure projects have been properly assessed and nothing has been promised without an ability to pay for it.

So I agree with the Minister that we need to move away from that, but let’s identify the elephant in the room. There has been $56 billion of transport commitments made by this Government and there is a $30 billion hole in how to pay for it. Minister Bishop has admitted that himself, so this isn’t a political statement. It is a statement of fact. He has now started making speeches publicly acknowledging that and indicating that the promises they’ve made probably won’t be happening on the time frame that they originally said, and good on him for doing that. But that is one step of probably about a dozen that need to be made to avoid that in the future.

We simply cannot have a situation where, for electioneering purposes, many regions in the country are promised a big new infrastructure project without that having a proper independent assessment and without a genuine plan on how to pay for it. If the Government was willing to require all Crown infrastructure, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, to go through the independent assurance processes of the Infrastructure Commission, we can have an informed debate—us as a Parliament—and respective Governments can make informed decisions and we will avoid the stop, start carry-on, because Governments won’t have the political grounds to cancel things or they won’t have inherited decisions that were based on a lack of information, and the sector and those that work in it can have the certainty they’ve been asking for.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:24): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just before I continue the thought trial of the previous speaker, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, I want to just acknowledge my grand-auntie, Auntie Kolokika in Samoa. She turned 100 yesterday—so she is older than lots of the infrastructure in New Zealand. The Prime Minister of Samoa was very gracious to be at her party yesterday, so I just want to say manuia lou aso soifua tinā.

I go back to the infrastructure problem that we have here in New Zealand and why this plan actually will give us hope as a country. That’s what I believe this plan will set out. The problem we have in New Zealand is not how much we spend on infrastructure; it’s the actual fact that we do not get value for money for what we spend and we do not look after our assets properly. Successive Governments have all had a part to play in this, and my genuine hope as the spokesperson on finance for the Labour Party is that we get a bit closer to removing the politics, so that New Zealand can have the infrastructure we deserve.

We know there is a whole big plan, a pipeline of work that’s under way, and this particular plan actually sets out how much is in that pipeline. There are 11,925 projects currently under way by both the Government or local government. This costs $275 billion in planning or delivery. That is the size of the problem that we have at the moment, and 98 percent of that pipeline are smaller projects which are worth less than $100 million. This plan sets that out very, very clearly, and that work in relation to finding out what projects there were in the whole of the country started back in 2020, and it was important that that picture start to be built. So I want to acknowledge the previous Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, who first of all set up the Infrastructure Commission in 2018 and then asked them to, basically, go around the country and figure out how much that New Zealand has under way and what we need to do, because you don’t know how big your problem is until you actually measure it.

Then what happened was, in 2022, the Infrastructure Commission set out a strategy, so that, therefore, gives a sort of a pathway as to what the next steps are. I do want to acknowledge Minister Bishop, who did continue the work, kept the Infrastructure Commission, and that is just as important—the fact that he kept the independent Infrastructure Commission, and, therefore, refined the pipeline, and now we get to this plan.

It’s so important to make sure we set out that history, because, over time, the hope is that the politics is out of this so that we can keep our workers here, because what we’ve seen in the last two years is the loss of 18,000 construction sector roles—and this is not a political statement; this is a fact. This is what happens when you stop, start, review, pause, and cancel projects. That is the result: we lose our most skilled and capable, and, therefore, when the actual infrastructure starts to wind up, supply and demand comes in and we start to pay more, and that is, effectively, again the problem that this plan starts to try and address.

The plan builds on the vision that the Infrastructure Commission hope to have delivered on from their initial strategy back in 2022. The number one thing I heard when I was the spokesperson on infrastructure for a bit in 2024 was that the sector was screaming out for the politics to be taken out. They were screaming out. They screamed out so much. They wrote to the Prime Minister in May 2024 asking him to please talk to the Opposition, find a bipartisan way to do this, because we are losing our most skilled workers, and, when they say “skilled”, it wasn’t just the people who were digging the holes or holding the lollipop signs. New Zealand was losing our best engineers. We were losing our best architects. It didn’t help that sometimes they’ve cancelled projects and we lost some of our best geoseismic engineers. But this plan gives me hope and it’s on all of us in this House to work as closely as possible to deliver it.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Anzac Day Amendment Bill—Correction

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (16:29): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sorry. Madam Speaker, there needs to a description as to what the explanation is for. Could we get a description as to what the explanation is for?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: OK. Yeah, sure; sorry. I wish to correct a statement that I made during the second reading of the Anzac commemoration bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So there was no objection to that request? OK; thank you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker, During that address, I stated that civilians served in Bong Son; I should have said Quy Nhơn. I’d like to shout out to Peter Stitt for pointing it out to me. Thank you.

Debates

Debate on National Infrastructure Plan

Special Debate

Debate resumed.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (16:29): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I really welcome this debate, I welcome the National Infrastructure Plan that has been delivered to Parliament, and I, absolutely, welcome and congratulate Minister Chris Bishop on the work that he has done and the wero he has put out to all of us to work together to have a more sensible and informed plan for long-term infrastructure.

Ironically, I think if you went back to when I first come into Parliament in 2011, one of the reasons I talked about for getting involved in politics was the conviction that we could do so much better on infrastructure. Our buildings could be warmer and dryer, we could be using more renewable electricity, we could have better public transport, and it would benefit literally everyone in the country to do those things, but it required changes in policy and funding and it required some political leadership in order to achieve that.

I’m sure many New Zealanders have had the experience of going overseas and staying in houses and finding that, actually, it’s possible to be in a house that doesn’t cost a fortune to run, and yet it is warm and dry; or perhaps of going to a city overseas of the same size as towns and cities in New Zealand and finding really excellent, affordable public transport, or, potentially, even going to places where bikes are a normal way to get around, and where 30 or 40 percent of trips in a city might be by bike and all the kids are still walking and biking to school. The thing about taking this smarter approach to infrastructure is that it’s better fiscally for New Zealand, it’s better economically for New Zealand, it’s better for our environment and our climate, and it’s better for our people, and so I absolutely think it’s something that we should be able to find a way to agree, across the House, on how to do that.

I do think that what’s laid out in the National Infrastructure Plan gives us some really important information that we have to take seriously, and also some recommendations on long-term system shifts. The No. 1 recommendation is to lift hospital investment because we have an aging population and we haven’t kept up with hospital investment for some decades.

The second one is completing catch-up on renewals in the water sector and restoring affordability. I’m aware that the Wellington region, and particularly my electorate, is facing the end of life for some of our waste-water treatment plants and it has a significant need for renewal of assets. One of the challenges that I think we need to address is funding. Yes, it’s possible that user charges could pay for some of it, but that might actually be quite difficult in the short term, and local government simply hasn’t had the share of Government revenue that’s needed to be able to invest in infrastructure. Thirty-three percent of our GDP is central government taxation, and only 4 percent is local government, and local government is responsible for a lot of really important infrastructure. I think there’s a role for central government to ensure that local government has the revenue sources it needs or devolved funding for some of these important infrastructure upgrades that are needed.

The third recommendation is implementing time of use charging and fleet-wide road user charges. I think that is really important, and it will change some of the prioritisation and sequencing of some of the projects that the Government currently has—I mean, I’d highly recommend that everyone looks at this.

Just bringing it back, and speaking for the Green Party, I’d say that everyone in New Zealand wants long-term thinking and wants the system to be better. We need to meet the challenge of climate change, we have to reduce emissions, we have to adapt to the storms that are already going to come, and there are ways to create sustainable systems that actually reduce costs for New Zealanders while also reducing pollution and emissions and also improving the environment in which we live in a way that protects us from future storms. But it requires change to how we have done things, and what I have found is that there is a certain path dependency. There’s always a constituency for the status quo, and so it’s very easy for politicians to campaign against changes. I think that we all need to recognise where some changes are going to benefit all of us or most of us, and then we all have a role to play in showing that political leadership and helping explain what the long-term benefits of those changes will be.

The other reality is that there’s a certain political economy around new projects and megaprojects, and that is very well referenced in this report. It says that we have “more megaprojects in planning than the country can realistically fund or deliver, [so] providers need to prioritise low-cost, incremental upgrades over waiting for expensive, fully formed solutions. This is especially important in health and transport, where megaprojects threaten to crowd out other priorities like essential maintenance and renewals.”

Something that I think we all need to recognise is that it’s a lot sexier to campaign on a new project, but, actually, everybody’s lives and cost of living can be improved by smaller improvements that are harder to point to, but are necessary. I’ve seen someone reference recently that nobody really welcomes or notices a bridge that didn’t fail, and so you tend not to have politicians campaigning on maintenance and renewals. This report is saying that we have to use what we have better and we have to focus on maintaining and renewing, and I would say that the power to do this is in the Government’s hands—it’s in this Government’s hands.

The power to make the changes recommended in this report sits with this coalition Government right now, and we welcome the opportunity for the Minister to come to us and have a negotiation around what is going to be paired back and what we could do instead. Just to put it in context, there’s $56 billion worth of State highway projects that were campaigned on by the National Party who assumed it would only be $17 billion. Now, we know it could be $22 billion to have a fully grade-separated, four-laned road from Warkworth to Whangārei, and just the first stage of that is probably $4 billion. That project hasn’t been submitted to the infrastructure priorities list for assessment, and, as I understand it, the Government is intending to sign a public-private partnership for the first stage of that project before the next election.

Clearly, the information around the cost of the project has substantially changed since the party signed up to the coalition agreement promising it. If we want to take seriously the recommendations in this report and the idea that we should have a cross-party approach to long-term infrastructure, then the Government should come to the Opposition parties and we should talk about what we could do instead, and not sign future Governments up to a project that probably isn’t the best use of money to get the outcomes that everybody wants.

What else could we do with $22 billion? Well, four City Rail Links—I mean, the biggest, most complicated project that’s going to double the capacity and transform Auckland; four of those—seven fully equipped Dunedin Hospitals, seven Cook Strait ferry terminals, 150 years of Te Huia train services, or 169 times the entire walking and cycling budget across the entire country in the 2024 Government policy statement. But this is probably the most important: we could drastically lower, or potentially eliminate, the cost of power to 700,000 dwellings in Auckland and Northland by having the Government fully fund a $30,000 seven-kilowatt solar and battery system. Now, that would cost the same as the new road to Northland, which will only save 10 or 15 minutes on journeys sometime 20 years in the future, if we could even pay for it.

Just think about 700,000 dwellings having free power, moving us off gas, and moving us off fossil fuels. It would actually be so much better for productivity and the cost of living than the project that is planned, and that is the simple fact of it. Probably even the Government’s own voters, the voters that voted for these parties, would say, “This is actually a more sensible investment that would get us wins in a very short period of time.” I mean, probably in the time that we would just be starting the construction, or maybe finishing—we could definitely do this in less time than constructing even the first stage of that project.

We have some very clear choices before us. I welcome Minister Bishop’s work on this and his leadership, and I say that the power to make this change that Aotearoa New Zealand needs is in this coalition Government’s hands right now. Those members can be responsible, they can show political leadership, and they can do what the country wants.

[XXX 4 March 2026 audio]

SIMON COURT (ACT) (16:40): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I just want to offer a perspective as a civil engineer of nearly 25 years. I have worked under bridges, replacing bridge bearings. I have worked on seawalls and other structures that are not glamorous but where, if we don’t do the maintenance, things will fall into the sea or bridges will fall down. I understand this. I’ve been out in all weathers, at all times of the day, when other people are on their holidays, with teams of people who are dedicated to maintaining New Zealand. That is why I’m really heartened by what we see in this report, and I must thank the Infrastructure Commission, led by Geoff Cooper, and Minister Chris Bishop for their leadership in delivering this plan to the House.

This plan forces Parliament and forces all those in the infrastructure system to confront a pretty basic reality, and I think Julie Anne Genter from the Green Party laid it out. We are facing a series of choices and trade-offs. For each decision we make, there’s an opportunity cost, for each decision we don’t make, there’s an opportunity cost, and when New Zealand is in a massive infrastructure deficit—there’s a list of 12,000 projects, worth $275 billion. Let’s be honest: that’s a wish-list right now. If everything is a priority, it turns out that nothing is a priority, and that’s why this plan really matters. Before anyone turns up to cut a ribbon or, with a shiny new shovel, to turn a sod, we’ve got to answer two simple questions: what absolutely must we build, and what must we maintain at all cost? New Zealand has been very poor as a nation when it comes to answering those questions.

The first opportunity cost is between projects themselves. We’ve heard all kinds of projects floated already in this debate, but I just want to come back to this Northland road. I drove up to Northland last week. I went to the Northland Field Days in Dargaville. I was shocked by the condition of the road—State Highway 1—with almost no passing lanes. Crawling behind trucks and slow vehicles at 65 to 70 kilometres an hour, even where it was 100 kilometres an hour. There were potholes, the seal was broken, and that was State Highway 1. Then we left the main highway and headed up towards Dargaville, and driving out of this ghetto-like highway, suddenly we came into this incredible intersection, with guard rails and extra-wide sections, paint everywhere, signs everywhere, and I thought, “What is this miracle in the middle of Northland, the middle of nowhere?” That’s an example of the previous Government’s “road to zero” approach to designing roads. They must have spent millions and millions of dollars on what’s basically an intersection, when all it really needed was a bit of chip seal and refreshing of the paint and signs. It shows you that if we don’t have our priorities right, we’re going to waste money on things that have very little value.

One more example—it really guts me—is Auckland light rail. I mean, what city in the world wouldn’t want a decent light rail from their CBD to the airport? Well, in 2017, the previous Government promised trains to Mount Albert station by 2021, and by 2023, when they got turfed out, they’d spent $200 million on a stack of reports that said, “Actually, it’s going to cost about $30 billion, and it’s going to take decades.” Well, that’s not how you deliver infrastructure—that’s political theatre—and this infrastructure plan points out very clearly that that is no longer acceptable. New Zealanders don’t accept it.

We must be driven by value for money and national priorities. We know that healthcare, infrastructure, and defence, of course, right now must be a priority. Water and wastewater, and, of course, transport—because if we connect people in more remote parts of New Zealand and in more rural parts of New Zealand through better highways, they can get to jobs, and families have education choices they don’t otherwise do when the journey is unsafe and takes hours longer. That needs to be our priority.

Of course, on maintenance, the Infrastructure Commission points out, rightly, that we must spend as much as 60c of every future infrastructure dollar on maintenance, and that’s because unless we can maintain the assets we’ve already got, we will end up with leaking schools; decrepit, rundown hospitals; and bridges and infrastructure that are simply not suited to the needs of our modern New Zealand. That’s where, as I’ve mentioned, asset management is not glamorous: being under a bridge at night, trying to jack out bearings, while you’re covered in dust and wearing earmuffs and PPE for hours and hours at a time. It’s the crews that do that, it’s the councils and the public agencies that do that, and it’s the lines companies and the private sector that do that, who are the backbone of New Zealand.

There’s also an opportunity cost when it comes to regulation, because, while New Zealand sits at the top of the OECD practically for what we spend on infrastructure, we’re near the bottom when it comes to bang for buck. The infrastructure plan estimates that we spend about $1.3 billion a year just on consenting under the existing Resource Management Act (RMA), which adds somewhere around 5 to 6 percent to the cost of projects. That’s money lost to delay. It’s lost to duplication. It’s simply following a process that does not serve New Zealanders well, and it certainly doesn’t help us protect the environment in those very special and unique places where we need to invest more in protecting it.

The RMA is a 30-year-old law. It’s going to be gone this year. We’re going to replace it with new legislation based on property rights and protecting the environment where it matters, because, if we do want infrastructure, housing, energy, and better services to deliver for our future, we must make it easier to build. That’s a coalition commitment that ACT is proud to have driven. I’m very proud to be working with Minister Bishop in his role as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, as his Parliamentary Under-secretary, to deliver that for New Zealand, and we will deliver that in just a few months’ time.

We also need to get more from the infrastructure we’ve got. The commission’s report makes that clear. We need to think about smarter tools: time-of-use pricing, time-of-use charging. Of course it’s controversial. People want to know they’re actually going to be able to get somewhere at a faster pace if they’re going to pay the money.

We also think that beyond roads, we need to incorporate things like water meters and volumetric pricing in all of our infrastructure charging, because if there’s no connection between how much water you can use and what it costs you as a household or business, of course you’ll keep using it till you either run out of water or the system collapses. Some councils, like Kāpiti Coast District Council and Auckland Council, through Watercare, recognised this decades ago. In some parts of New Zealand, a water meter still sounds like a bad disease, but I promise you, you’ve got to take your medicine.

We need better ways to fund infrastructure. Minister Bishop and I are sponsoring the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. It’s currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It’s intended to make it easier for councils and investors to use off-balance-sheet private capital to fund infrastructure on the basis that the people who benefit from it, property owners and others, will pay a levy, which pays back the debt over time. It means infrastructure can be built sooner and funded more fairly than through general taxation and rates. The coalition agreement between ACT and National also includes a commitment for long-term city and regional deals, and enabling tools such as public-private partnerships is a smarter way to procure certain types of infrastructure.

Funding is still a massive problem, and speakers so far have highlighted that. That is why ACT would support capital recycling by using our lazy balance sheet to take capital from assets that the Government doesn’t need to own—and I’ll come back to the things we must do versus the things that are nice to have—and to recycle that capital into the ones we desperately do, whether that is in defence, housing, hospitals, or other vital infrastructure. Asset recycling is common. It’s done by businesses, it’s done by councils, and central government needs to get on to it. ACT supports it.

In conclusion, New Zealand’s infrastructure woes were not caused by engineers; they were caused by bad planning systems, weak funding tools, and Governments more interested in announcements than delivery. The National Infrastructure Plan resets expectations. ACT looks forward to working with parties across the House to make sure we deliver a better outcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: New Zealand First have indicated this is a split call.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:50): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this excellent report. I really want to thank the Infrastructure Commission for all the work and all the other organisations that have contributed their data and information to it.

I want to start right at the beginning, where they really inspire us with what we have done in the past. They say that “New Zealand has delivered world-class infrastructure before. With tremendous innovation, hard work and skill, our ancestors knitted the country together with networks of roads, railway lines, tunnels, and bridges. Tapping into the power of the earth, they built pioneering hydro and geothermal power schemes and created a single national grid—connecting the two islands with what was then the longest high voltage link in the world.” This was pioneering innovation, pioneering infrastructure, can-do creativity, and something that we should all be proud of. They’re holding a mirror up to all of us, not just in this House, but all New Zealanders and saying that, somewhere along the line, we’ve lost that can-do innovation and creativity and we’ve become a country that says no too often.

They point out that we talk about an infrastructure deficit, but that infrastructure deficit is not because of how much we spend—we’ve already heard that—it’s because of how we spend that money. We should be seeking, they tell us, the highest value for money. There are trade-offs there—we know that. There are four key themes they talk about. The first is planning what we can afford. The biggest area they point out as a problem area is transport. We cannot promise everything. When we go to the next election campaign, we cannot be out there promising masses and masses of capital expenditure, because we know that we cannot deliver it and we know we cannot afford it. To the Minister’s credit, he is now sort of backing that back and saying it’s going to take quite a long time to deliver some of those things. What we should be promising is only those things that we’ll assess, decide whether they’re a good idea or not, and then think that we’ll put money into a budget, rather than say we’ll promise it upfront. Otherwise, the thing we know is we’ll also get the price spectacularly wrong.

There have been some comments about probably what will be the biggest project in the country by a mile, and that’s the second Auckland harbour crossing. Now, if we were thinking about doing that, there is one other way you could help to try and fund that, and that is to say, “Well, we will start levying development contributions on properties around that area, which will benefit from it.” That is one thing you could think about doing. That will be long-term planning.

They recommend, in the transport area, greater use of benefit-cost ratios and possibly a Commerce Commission - like process. I would also say that you need to consider the economic benefit that can be generated by any of these projects. The one I particularly think of—seeing it’s come up several times—is the Northland road. That Northland road is not only about capacity, but it is about economic opportunity for development of the Marsden Point area, the Northport development, the horticulture development. We had the Northland Inc coming to this House last year, talking about a $60 billion economy which is currently an $11 billion economy, I think—the poorest part of the country. That would really lift it. Potentially, those are the kind of things that we need to look at—what does infrastructure deliver for our country? Because it’s not about infrastructure; it’s about what it delivers and helps us to do.

The second thing they talked about—and we’ve already heard about—is looking after what we’ve got much better. The 60c in the dollar idea. Local government often gets pinged for this. They really hold the mirror up to central government. Some of our biggest agencies are the worst offenders, and we need to get better. The idea of legislating that central government agencies must have asset management plans and be transparent about how they’re delivering on that—I say “amen” to that. That probably means we need to change some of our budget processes so that we don’t think of capital projects as operating items each year but as long-term things which we look for.

The next area they focus on is choosing the right projects—yep, that’s an obvious thing to do. Making it easier to build: the consenting process has come up in debate already. I’ll pick one in particular, and it is worth something like $800 million a year to our economy, and that is the Stella Passage development—the extra wharf capacity at the Port of Tauranga. That is our biggest export port—second biggest import port. At the moment, it has been frustrated by the consent process. It’s something like six years, and that is costing this country a fortune. We need to fix those things.

Then we’ve got reconsenting. That’s absolute madness. We’re trying to run an economy with a ball and chain wrapped around our feet. And we have put that ball and chain in place. We need to get rid of those things. Of course, on this side of the House, we supported fast-track. The other side of the House often complains about people leaving the country because there aren’t jobs because our economy isn’t performing well enough. These are the kind of things we need to do to fix that. Madam Speaker, I commend that part to you.

Then we’ve also been mocked about traffic management and doing work on traffic management, but the Infrastructure Commission’s report notes—in terms of delivering electricity; and I know that’s true for other infrastructure as well—the cost of that has tripled in terms of traffic management over the last five or six years. So there’s a long, long way to go. There’s a lot more I’d like to say, but we’ve got a split call here. I really do think this is a great report, it’s a mirror for all of us, and we need to do much, much better, and to take the politics out of infrastructure planning and delivery.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (16:55): I really enjoyed the ex-mayor of Wellington advising Auckland and Northland!

Andy Foster: Positive!

Dr DAVID WILSON: Ha, ha! It’s very good. I heard from the Green Party about how we need to come together as a Parliament to look at the Infrastructure Commission and the future planning for our infrastructure, and I wholeheartedly agree. It’s just too important for the nation and we need to get this right. The outcome of which, if we can do it, is an integrated, multi-modal logistics and transport system. We need the integrated, multi-modal system so that we can provide resilience and security in the long term. This is one of the things I wanted to bring up today and focus a little more on: resilience and security. Because, at the moment, we’ve all noticed, there is a war. The Strait of Hormuz, where a lot of our trade goes—we’re a trading nation; it’s what’s supported us for 200 years. Recently, we had a trade surplus—hallelujah! And we’re increasing our exports, but we are severely at risk if some of those supply chains are interrupted.

We need to ensure that our own internal resilience is absolutely supported through a multi-modal approach. For example, Marsden Point, which, when first built—actually, there was a guy called Dave Culham, who started up a company called Culham Engineering, which now employs over 1,000 people and helped build the Sky Tower in Auckland. That came out of him being one of the people that was an engineer at Marsden Point. Now, it’s a real shame that we lost resilience through Marsden Point being closed down. It would have given us an option. However, what they’ve done since is they’ve used solar to produce hydrogen, so they can use dense energy for our trucks. This has also happened in Southland. In a recent visit to Southland, they’re doing exactly the same thing. That means that you can get dense energy to trucks because, I’m sorry, electricity will just not do it. The batteries are too heavy, they run out, they’re in trouble.

So we need to think really laterally about this stuff—so how we actually maintain our resilience. Think about food security. Food gets trucked all around New Zealand on diesel. We’ll run out of diesel, if they block the Strait of Hormuz, in about 20 days. How are we going to move the trucks? This stuff is so vital to our security long term, it’s ridiculous. We need to come back and understand what all these things mean.

Just on the Harbour Bridge, I was really interested to hear the Minister talk about the Harbour Bridge—another person from Wellington telling Auckland how to manage their Harbour Bridge second crossing. When my wife and I were in Germany—and excuse me for using really bad German language—running into a lovely lady in the middle of the Black Forest. We walked into this cafe—this is 30 years ago—and she said, “Und vere are you from?” And we said, “Well, we’re from New Zealand.” And she said, “Where in New Zealand?” And we said, “Auckland.” And she said, “Ah, ah. My husband, he built your Harbour Bridge. He wanted to build four lanes, but they only let him build two.” Ha, ha! So this long-term planning is actually quite important for us, isn’t it? We need to make sure that we get this stuff right.

So, back to KiwiRail. Rail is so vitally important. I visited Port Otago just recently. They’re all thinking about an inland logistics hub. That will be supported by rail. KiwiRail—I went there as a member of the Provincial Growth Fund advisory board in 2019 and it didn’t look good at Hillside. Investment. You go back to Hillside now, they’ve right-sized, they’re producing wagons. They’re up to wagon number 900 out of 1,350—all new. We’ve got Spanish rail coming. That’s an example of how you can utilise integrated, multi-modal transport across New Zealand, which gives us long-term resilience, which is what I hope we all would like.

So yes, Infrastructure Commission, big tick. Planning what we can afford, looking after what we’ve got, and prioritising into the future—that’s absolutely crucial. So, yes, I agree with the previous people that have said we need to take some of the politics out of this. Make sure we have a good, prioritised plan for the whole of New Zealand into the future, so that we are actually spending money on things we all agree need to be prioritised. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (17:00): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s actually a privilege for me to stand and speak to this particular issue and to hear all the other the speakers in the House today. Ngā mihi nui to the National Infrastructure Plan. I just want to acknowledge all the kōrero today because I think it is important that we that we as a House look at how we improve infrastructure here in Aotearoa.

I’ve heard a lot about the fiscal implications and the impacts of improving infrastructure here in Aotearoa, but I haven’t really heard about the why, and the why is ensuring that we make mokopuna decisions. If you take the fiscal part out of it and actually have what is the reason for ensuring that we have A-class infrastructure here in Aotearoa, it is because we want it to be here, we want it to last, and we want it to benefit all of our mokopuna. So if we make those decisions, I think we will be on the right track. If we’re not making them for any other reason than that, I think that this House could tread well in regard to the reasons why we need better infrastructure.

I just wanted to read a quote from the infrastructure plan brief. It goes like this: “We don’t get enough for our infrastructure dollar. The quality of our infrastructure lags relative to what we spend on it. High-level comparisons suggest we get relatively poor ‘bang for buck’ for our spend, meaning fewer kilometres of road, rail or pipe per dollar than many other countries.”

“We need to fix the leaks, not just keep buying bigger mops”—that was by Helmut Modlik, Tumu Whakarae in Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira, and what he’s actually talking about, in actual fact, is the relationship I think Māori have in regards to infrastructure here in Aotearoa. What we’ve seen over this last term is the degradation of any relationship that Māori have with the Government, and even local government. It has an impact on local government also in regards to infrastructure.

One of those is definitely the changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA). I’ll grab my tuahine’s one here, nō Te Tairāwhiti. Both she and I know the impacts of very little and a lack of infrastructure there on State Highway 35. We’ve felt the impacts of that in the last storm at Punaruku, in Te Araroa, in Wharekāhika, in Hicks Bay, and right along down the coast and in many other instances.

Once upon a time on the coast—eh, e te tuahine Cush—we used to talk about Bola. That was always the conversation around the tables on the coast—it was always Cyclone Bola. Well, Cyclone Bola seems like it’s hitting every year, and we’re seeing huge impacts on the infrastructure on State Highway 35. The ability for us to be able to move in and out, the ability to be able to fix the bridges, to fix roads, to fix slash—that doesn’t just impact the infrastructure on the land but it also impacts the infrastructure in the sea and our ability to collect kai when it comes to food sovereignty and our ability to be able to live off the land and live off the sea, which many of our people have been doing for many, many years. We’ve had attempts for people to build walking tracks—and I’ll mention Ngā Ara Tipuna—along the coast. Again, for our people there in Te Tairāwhiti, that was met with quite rigorous opposition because they were left out of any of the planning and any of the discussions.

So the RMA is important for Māori communities because not only does it allow us to have those discussions but it also allows us to protect wāhi tapu and Māori-owned land. I don’t want to go down the co-governance kōrero, but this is why having a relationship is important. I saw in the report where it talks about “Ki a koe tētahi kīwai, ki a au tētahi kīwai.” What that talks about is that you have one handle of the kete; I have the other handle of the kete. That talks about ensuring—I don’t want to say co-governance but partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I think it’s vitally important as we move into the next phase of infrastructure here in Aotearoa. Yes, we need pipes that will last, we need sustainable transport and solutions—absolutely—and we need to build climate resilience in our communities.

Let’s take what happened at Moa Point, for example. It was an infrastructure failure. That environmental disaster was a consequence of consecutive Governments failing to make mokopuna decisions, and this is what I am saying. We need to be making mokopuna decisions as we move through this particular phase of infrastructure here in Aotearoa.

I just want to talk about the Waiariki for a little bit, while I have the opportunity. There are bloody orange cones everywhere and there have been for a while—far too many. But it’s not about the far too many road cones. They’ve been there for far too long and that’s the issue. That’s the issue—they’ve been there for far too long—and that tells me that there has been quite weak planning in regards to access from one part of the electorate to the other.

I go to Auckland—I don’t like going there often, but I go to Auckland because I’m not very happy with the traffic there. What we’ve got is a growing population, but we’ve got a very ageing infrastructure—we’ve got a very ageing infrastructure. Look, however you’re going to get your second harbour bridge, those are probably things that need to happen in regards to infrastructure in Auckland.

Absolutely, rail—you know, when you go overseas and you go to some of those other countries, you’ve got electric trains, you’ve got bullet trains that go from one province to the other very quickly, and so have we explored all options in regards to trains and transport? Have we looked at better options in terms of the blue highway, in terms of the moana, that is environmentally safe because it makes people—and I can talk about Ngāti Porou and Te Whānau-ā-Apanui. They are very nervous when they talk about ports and barges and things like that down in our particular area, because we actually still have unlimited and undisturbed access to our moana. It’s not like we haven’t had that relationship with our moana. We have an absolute relationship with our moana.

So when people propose ports and barges on the coast, we need to make sure that the research and that all the due diligence has been done to ensure that we’re able to, because that’s nothing new to the coast. We’ve had schooners going up and down the coast. We actually had small ports in our small areas—Awanui and Ōmaiao, Tuparoa, and even in Hicks Bay itself, and in Uawa also—but that doesn’t thin the fact that that Māori and Māori communities need to be part of the discussion and the Tiriti o Waitangi needs to be at the forefront of infrastructure here in Aotearoa.

The way that this Parliament and this House works through that is going to be vitally important to moving forward because infrastructure in regards to rural New Zealand—and I heard somebody talk about rural New Zealand and the reasons why many of the legislative changes have been made to help and to assist with the developments in rural New Zealand need to also include rural Māori here in Aotearoa. I do talk about my end of the country: Te Whānau-ā-Apanui and Ngāti Porou. Te Whānau-ā-Apanui still own 90 percent of their whenua, and we’re talking about over 100 kilometres of coastline. We’re talking about the Raukūmara Ranges, and one side of the Raukūmara Range is in Te Whānau-ā-Apanui; the other side is in Ngāti Porou. So these are some of the things.

I think that if we’re going to make decisions as a House, bipartisan decision-making in terms of infrastructure is important, but what’s vitally important for Te Pāti Māori is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi must also play a pivotal part in regards to infrastructure here in Aotearoa. Māori land owners must be part of that conversation. Māori organisations and Māori businesses also need to be part of that conversation.

If this report talks about “Ki a koe tētahi kīwai, ki a au tētahi kīwai.”, we must be both holding the handle of that kete to ensure that we make the best mokopuna decisions when it comes to infrastructure here in Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (17:09): The National Infrastructure Plan doesn’t sugarcoat it. We face some serious challenges ahead in relation to infrastructure, and this report, I think, sets the basis for some honest conversations for our infrastructure needs as a country.

I want to focus on what, I think, are three takeaways that I took from this report. First is that we need to establish political consensus on the core infrastructure needs for our nation. Now, we know that population predictions are pretty accurate. We know where the growth is occurring in New Zealand over the next 30 to 40 years; where there needs to be schools, hospitals, and then connecting roads. We should get to a point where 80 percent of our infrastructure needs, we can agree on as a country. The rest of the 20 percent of needs—OK, the other side will want more cycleways; we’ll want more roads. But the core infrastructure needs of this country should be bipartisan. As the report outlined, there’s lots of projects, but not a lot of funding for those projects.

So we need to, I think, get consensus. If you look around the world, at countries far more developed than us, far wealthier than us, it’s because of being able to get political consensus on the big stuff that matters on infrastructure. As has been raised, household budgets are going to be constrained, central governments’ budgets are going to be constrained, and local governments’ budgets are also going to be constrained. We just don’t have enough money in the kitty to fund the pipeline. So getting consensus is, I think, the big takeaway. We do have a great time to demonstrate that with the second harbour crossing, and I do want to shout out to the opposite side for being willing to engage with the Minister of Transport to make sure that this is a bipartisan initiative.

The second area or takeaway is about having a rational conversation around prioritising sequencing and the sizing of the pipeline and projects. The report says, “Think slow, act fast.” If we take that literally, it means, “Take the time to understand and prioritise the projects that are most important.” Actually, this is where I do agree with Hon Julie Anne Genter around—I know, agreement across the House does happen—about benefit-cost ratios and about understanding what are the actual benefits and costs of projects, and ensuring that we can prioritise accordingly. The report talks about, “Hey, there’s lots of small stuff that we can—low-hanging fruit that we can do in terms of asset maintenance. It doesn’t cost a lot of money, but actually makes a big difference.” Let’s get that started, as well. We do need to have rational conversations around how we fund infrastructure. The need for funding is huge and, as the Minister outlined, the second harbour crossing, whether it’s a bridge or a tunnel, it’s going to be multibillions of dollars and we need to fund it somehow. So let’s have that discussion around who and when we will need to pay for it.

The third is we need to do better with what we have, and that has been a very clear takeaway from this report: that we don’t do asset maintenance well. That’s where focusing on the basics, the basics of infrastructure, must be a priority for us as a country. If I look at my own electorate in Northcote, we’ve had infrastructure projects such as new school projects in Northcote College, which is a great initiative, but that costs $88 million. That’s the equivalent of two new schools that we just opened. We have to do infrastructure cheaper and more efficiently in this country.

Now, I wish to acknowledge what this Government is doing to fix the basics and build the future around RMA reform, fast tracking key infrastructure projects, up-zoning around transport locations, and making sure we’re getting councils focus on the basics around water and key infrastructure. But there’s more work to do. It’s going to require discipline, leadership, courage from across this House. The future of our nation depends on it. I commend this report to the House.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (17:14): Well, it’s a pleasure to take a call on this debate, on the National Infrastructure Plan, and I have been enjoying the opportunity to reflect on the thoughtful contributions from members from across the House, including the member who just took his seat.

The Infrastructure Commission lays out the challenges we face as a country in remarkable depth and detail, and I am grateful for their report, but I think, when I reflect on the conversation in this House, there’s another element that we can add to the diagnosis of what’s behind our infrastructure deficit and what’s behind our future challenge, and it’s politics. That’s what’s been in the background of all of the contributions, isn’t it? It’s that our politics is toxic to be able to achieve the infrastructure goals that our public expect us to be able to achieve. New Zealanders want roads, they want hospitals, they want schools, they want an electricity grid that works—and yet it’s too tempting for us to lean into the politics around infrastructure that is detrimental to us achieving those outcomes.

I am so grateful for the thoughtful contributions that I’ve heard today that suggests something else might be possible. I don’t underestimate the challenge of maintaining this posture from here, though. How easy is it going to be in the next seven months to promise a road; to oppose a road; to try and make political hay out of cancelling or promoting an infrastructure project? We know these things are very, very tempting, because people like them and want them. But, fundamentally, by playing politics in that way, we undermine our whole country’s ability to get anything done, because it’s that politics that leads to the stop-starting on infrastructure projects. Get it? It’s because, if we say, “Yeah, I’m going to make a bargain about a hospital with the electorate.”, and then another Government changes that, then that means that it’s back to the drawing board or the effort put into that project was wasted—sunk cost, like they say about the Interislander ferry. So it is our politics that is the problem.

I am pleased that, today, we’ve heard recognition from the Government that the work of the Infrastructure Commission started under the last Government. I’m pleased to see how well Minister Bishop has continued to shepherd this work through, because this is our only hope for actually getting things done, is a new way of talking about infrastructure, and a step back, in part, from some of the politics of infrastructure, and to identifying those areas that we can agree on a pipeline.

I want to talk about some of the statements about health infrastructure in the Infrastructure Commission’s report. They spell out things that we have known for a long time. We have a low number of hospital beds compared to other countries, an ageing population, deteriorating infrastructure, and a low level of overall investment. Things must change. What is incredibly helpful about the Infrastructure Commission is that they have put down on paper that we need 4,900 additional hospital beds by 2043. To put that into context, our number of public hospital beds now is 12,000. That is a massive increase above where we are now, so the fundamentals of our level of investment and ambition in health infrastructure absolutely has to change—it has to be a step change. I am so pleased to see this number in print. I have been asking for this number the entire time in Opposition, because I knew that this work was under way, but I didn’t know the number. We should not be playing games about trying to conceal these numbers from the public. If we want to change our politics, it should be in the public domain. New Zealand now knows we need 5,000 hospital beds, and it’s incumbent on all of us to create the political environment where we can get on and actually get that done.

I did prepare a longer contribution, where I was going to painfully read through my many efforts at select committee to try and get that out of Health New Zealand officials and the many times that they dodged answering that question. I hope those days are over.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (17:19): I rise with great pleasure to talk about New Zealand’s very first National Infrastructure Plan—the first one that has been presented. I’d like to commend our Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop, for bringing this forward because, as we’ve all acknowledged around the House today, in this special debate, it is incredibly important that we do find common ground when it comes to infrastructure investment in New Zealand. We all agree that there has been a huge under-investment in infrastructure and that we certainly need to focus on the priorities of building our roads, our schools, our hospitals. We need to focus on the maintenance of our public infrastructure and public assets, but also, of course, enable private infrastructure to be built as well, and focus on some public-private partnerships, which, of course, are also very important.

I’d like to take this opportunity, in my contribution, to look at how important it is, these infrastructure projects. We’ve been very fortunate in Hawke’s Bay for the very first road of national significance to take off to be the four-laning of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. This type of resilient infrastructure is very, very important for our rural regions across New Zealand—for our export regions—not only for getting our wine and red meat and apples and everything to the port fast and efficiently but also for the fact that it creates a lot of jobs and opportunities in our regions. That’s why infrastructure drives growth, strengthens our economy, and it’s really important.

I just want to give another little example of how we see the flow-on effect of that really strong, good, resilient infrastructure. I visited Tūpore, which is a local company in my electorate, recently. They’re a roading company, and they’ve just invested in a very large asphalt facility to provide the asphalt for the roads across the East Coast—which, of course, is really important, because we were devastated by a cyclone recently, which really highlighted how important resilient infrastructure is. This company has produced this new plant, and that’s going to produce 1,500 tonnes of asphalt per day to meet that growing demand. Of course, this is also creating jobs and opportunities across Hawke’s Bay, so that just shows how important resilient infrastructure is to the regions. The Māori Party touched on that earlier—because, of course, we’ve seen more devastation across the East Coast where we need to highlight how important infrastructure is to our regions.

One of the main priorities in this report is building better hospitals and investing in our hospitals. I’d also like to touch on the investment that we’ve seen in our Hawke’s Bay hospital and how important this is. We recently opened the radiology department at Hawke’s Bay Hospital—this is the beating heart of the hospital—and to see the smiles on the staff’s faces and see the benefit of a really, really good piece of infrastructure is so important for our hospitals, for our patients. We’ve also just started the construction on a new ward at the Hawke’s Bay Hospital—also really, really important for freeing up space in our emergency department and getting better patient outcomes. Also, just last year, I opened Kaweka Hospital, which is a private hospital, but this just showed the benefit—which is also another priority in this report—of public-private partnerships and the way that we can get better outcomes for patients by looking at public-private partnerships. When the patient’s lying on the operating table and looking up at the ceiling, I don’t think that they’re thinking about who owns the ceiling; they’re thinking about their operation and getting that done. With public-private partnerships, we can create better patient outcomes—this is really important.

There are many things that could be discussed in this report, but I also just want to very quickly touch on the flood protection and how important resilient infrastructure is, and that investment particularly, for mitigating climate change. As we’ve already heard, we’re seeing these natural disasters more often, and we need to invest in mitigating climate change—that’s really important. I really commend the National Infrastructure Plan to the House.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (17:25): That was a great segue—thank you, Catherine. We do need to put money into mitigating climate change, and one of the biggest emitters in the country is actually cars. I’m glad that this report talked a lot about roads, and that is probably what I’m going to talk most about today, because I do think that the Infrastructure Commission’s report does paint some really hard truths for the “roads of National Party significance”. For those who don’t know, these are 17 roading projects that the Government want for economic growth—that’s the simple message that I’ve understood from what they’ve been saying. I can’t speak for all the roads; there is actually just one of those projects that I’m extremely interested in.

I do want to say, off the back of Catherine Wedd’s speech, that I do acknowledge that there are regions in provincial New Zealand especially that need roads to connect them to things like hospitals—we’re not disputing that at all. There is one project in those 17 projects that is not needed by any means, and it also happens to be the most expensive road per kilometre that has ever been built for at least the last 26 years. I’m talking about the State Highway 1 improvements here in Wellington. For those who aren’t aware of this project and who don’t live in Wellington, this is 2 kilometres of road—2 kilometres—all it does is add one lane in each direction, and it adds about six to eight traffic lights in 2 kilometres of road. This is going to cost more than a billion dollars.

Simon Court: We’re being scammed!

TAMATHA PAUL: We’re being scammed—that’s right, Simon Court from the ACT Party. It’s a scam. If you want to save money for the people of New Zealand, don’t do that project. If there’s anything I know about Wellingtonians, we are among the highest public transport and active transport users in the country. It’s a project that nobody asked for and nobody wants in Wellington. The reason for that, and I think the report really gets at this, is that we need to fix the systems that we have in place and the infrastructure that we have now instead of focusing on new, shiny things like billion-dollar tunnels. This is also a project with a potential negative cost-benefit ratio. It could have a cost-benefit ration of 0.75. That means, for every dollar we put into it, we are losing out on the benefits. That’s because the Mt Victoria Tunnel is not going to enable more housing in Wellington, it’s not going to fix congestion, and it’s not going to increase economic growth within the city. It’s just not doing a whole lot for Wellington at all. We have to ask ourselves: why is the Government continuing with a project that is not needed, that is the most expensive in history, and that nobody asked for?

To give you a bit of a reality of what the report is trying to say—I think the Mt Victoria Tunnel is a perfect example. Why are you spending more than a billion dollars on this 2-kilometre stretch of road when bus fares in the Wellington region are set to go up by 3.1 percent from May this year? If you live in the west of Wellington, in Karori, or the east of Wellington, in Miramar, it’s going to cost you $5 per trip to get into the city centre. Our regional train network is completely underfunded and desperate for investment. Many of our popular train routes in the Wellington region have been replaced by bus replacement services, which means you have to catch multiple buses instead of catching one single train. Our train stations and train stops in the region don’t have simple things like toilets or places where you can wait and not get hit by the rain. We’re at risk of losing 50 of our bus drivers because the English language visa requirements are too onerous. We don’t even have solid weekend or night-time bus services. We are the capital city of New Zealand, and our public transport is woefully inadequate but also extremely expensive, and you can see why Wellingtonians are frustrated. Our transport network is falling apart; meanwhile they’re proposing this billion-dollar tunnel, for 2 kilometres of road, that nobody asked for.

This is exactly what the report is trying to say: invest in the things that people need. Just to contrast it with another form of infrastructure, Wellington Hospital goes into code red on average twice a day. That means there is not enough staff to look after the people coming to the waiting room. Are we fixing the hospital? No. We’re building the most expensive road in the last two decades that nobody asked for. We can do better, and Wellington deserves better. Kia ora.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (17:30): I want to acknowledge and congratulate Minister Chris Bishop and the infrastructure commissioner for delivering this report to the House. Infrastructure is the foundation that supports our daily life: the roads we drive on, the water we drink, the hospitals that care for us, and the schools that educate our children.

New Zealand faces a serious infrastructure challenge. We spend a greater share of our GDP on infrastructure than many compatible countries, but we achieve less. This is not sustainable. If this continues, New Zealanders risk missing out on the hospitals, schools, water systems, and transport networks they expect and deserve. The issue isn’t just how much we spend; it’s how we plan, prioritise, and deliver infrastructure. Too often, projects are delayed, costs escalate. Planning is reactive rather than long term. This is why change is needed.

The National Infrastructure Plan provides a 30-year road map to address these challenges, and it has four basic principles. One, plan what we can afford; second, look after what we’ve got; third, prioritise the right projects; and fourth, make it easier to build better. This means making honest long-term investment decisions within our fiscal limit. It means maintaining and renewing existing infrastructure before it fails, it means assessing projects to ensure they deliver the greatest economic and social benefit, and it means improving procurement and consenting processes so we can reduce cost and build more efficiently. In short, it’s about spending smarter and achieving better results.

So what does this mean to Auckland and people in Mt Roskill? Auckland is home to more than a third of our population and delivers a significant share of our economy, yet it faces some of the greatest infrastructure pressures. So planning what we can afford means Auckland’s major transport and housing projects can be sequenced properly, avoiding stop-start cycles. For communities like Mt Roskill, this creates certainty, ensures that growth is matched by investment in roads, public transport, and local facilities. Looking after what we have got is crucial in Auckland where aging water infrastructure has caused disruption. Proactive renewal means fewer bypasses, fewer closures, and less disruption to families and businesses. Prioritising the right project means focusing on initiatives that reduce congestion and improves connectivity, builds a transport link between suburbs and employment hubs, and allows Mt Roskill residents to access jobs easier, with reduced travel time and lower commuting costs.

Making it easier to build better means faster delivery of housing-enabling infrastructure, school, and healthcare facilities in growing communities. A more efficient construction sector reduces costs, benefiting both the taxpayer and ratepayer. But it is encouraged that many of the commission’s priorities are already reflected in this Government’s works. Health New Zealand now has a long-term capital infrastructure plan led by record hospital investment to support our ageing population. Water reforms are under way to renew ageing systems and restore affordability. Major transport projects are being carefully sequenced. Flood resilience is being strengthened through national investment, and planning reforms enable development, like key transport corridors. These steps show how we are moving from planning to delivery, and this is very important. It’s all about delivering.

As I say, New Zealand spends more than many comparable nations, but we achieve less. We cannot afford to continue that pattern. The National Infrastructure Plan sets a clear direction: be disciplined, be strategic, and be long term. If we follow that path, we will not just build better infrastructure; we will build a stronger, more productive New Zealand for the generation to come. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my genuine pleasure to take a call in this special debate on the National Infrastructure Plan. I think the conversation that we’re having in this House has had incredibly thoughtful contributions from members who have taken to their feet to talk about what is something that we know as politicians that we need to start doing differently, and the infrastructure plan that was delivered at the end of last year and released this year lays that bare. The infrastructure is difficult. It is hard. It requires a different way of us doing things than we do in the normal political cycle.

I’d like to congratulate the Minister, Chris Bishop, for bringing this report to the House, and I’d also like to congratulate the antecedents of this report, and I think it shows the way that we can do differently. This is, of course, born out of the establishment of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission in 2019 by the first Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Grant Robertson. We then went on in 2022, we had the first 30-year infrastructure vision, and now we’re seeing the continuation of this with this first plan. I think that shows how this has to go beyond the political cycle. It’s going to cross over multiple Governments, and it is something that as politicians and as Parliamentarians, we can be proud of.

What the report lays bare and what contributions in this House have laid bare is that we do need to do things differently and at the core of this is a more collaborative approach. It is a more bipartisan vote or multipartisan vote that seeks to take some of the politics out. I thought my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall gave a very thoughtful contribution about how we need to be careful that the everyday politics doesn’t intrude in this. Even in this debate where I think we’ve had some very thoughtful contributions, we can’t have missed some of the edging in, the pork-barrel politics that has underwritten infrastructure for too long in this country—that thinking being a good politician is talking about the winds in your local patch rather than that long-term strategic planning that we need to do as a country.

We also need to realise that collaboration and multipartisanship isn’t about the Government of the day telling other parties how it is; that genuine collaborations, genuine multipartisanship, whoever is in Government, is actually about coming together to form enduring plans that can cross Governments, that can endure, and that do set New Zealand on that long-term trajectory.

Infrastructure is hard. In Government, I served as the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Minister of Housing, Minister for Energy, and briefly as the Minister for Infrastructure, and it does not get easier. It does not matter who is in Government, it is expensive and we lack the depth to deliver in New Zealand in terms of our sector, and we need to be building that up so we can continue to deliver a pipeline.

The other thing that’s come through is this needs to be evidence based and nowhere have we seen that more than in the area of energy. What we have seen is that we know that we need to increase our renewable energy in this country and we need to have long-term plans to do it. The report from the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission had the key actions in this area to lock in stable, long-term energy strategies and I think that is critical. I implore the Government to bring through the Gas Transition Plan. Never has that been more important than in the current context this week, that we do have that plan in place, that we do have that energy strategy that has been sitting in the Beehive since the Government came in, that could be delivered to do that, and to use that evidence base.

To hear the current Government dismissing the words of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission who warn that there is no evidence that bringing in liquefied natural gas (LNG) would lower electricity prices, that this being swept away as recently as today in the House is concerning. What we have to do as politicians is accept there is evidence, that there will be opinions, and we have to be prepared to look at that, and we need to be prepared to take it seriously. Bipartisanship does not mean pushing through projects for which there is not political consensus, when the evidence does not see it stack up, when the world is on the brink of an energy crisis in terms of the spiking of LNG prices to push on with that project.

So this report gives us all food for thought. We need to work together, but we need to work together in different ways. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (17:40): It’s great to rise and talk to this National Infrastructure Plan—a 30-year view on how New Zealand can better plan, fund, maintain, and deliver infrastructure. As others have said, we can be grateful to the Infrastructure Commission for the work that it’s done on this report. Of course, the Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Chris Bishop, asked them to prepare this work soon after our election, and they got to it. What we’re seeing now and what they’ve outlaid is nearly 12,000 projects that are at a value of $275 billion, with most of those projects unfunded. We’ve got a lot of work to do, and we’ve got a lot of prioritisation to do, but the good news is it doesn’t start here. There’s already a lot of work under way by this Government as far as national infrastructure goes.

We are fast tracking—you’ve seen that legislation come through and even in my own electorate, New Zealand Transport Agency have applied for the Northwest Busway fast-tracking application. We are improving health and education infrastructure, and you can see the work that Erica Stanford’s doing around education property, and the work that Simeon Brown is doing in health infrastructure. We are improving infrastructure funding and financing, and you can see that with the entity that was set up by the Minister last year or the year before and the amendment bill that is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee to give better tools for our “Going for Growth” agenda, with the territorial local authorities and councils before the Finance and Expenditure Committee just today. You can see the Auckland Transport reforms that sit with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and will not only give better and greater transparency and accountability to Auckland Transport but will also set up an Auckland Regional Transport Committee of both Crown and council and a 30-year integrated transport plan. Again, this is long-term transport planning for our biggest city, Auckland, which of course will be 2 million people by 2033. An Auckland deal with council and the Government is pending too, so there’s a lot of work happening.

Time of use charging—that is sometimes colloquially known as congestion charging—is something that the leaders of Auckland have known, and have been asking for, for over 25 years—whether it’s the Employers and Manufacturers Association or chamber and the surveys that they used to do back in the day of Michael Barnett and others. When they put a survey out to Aucklanders—would you be prepared to pay a small toll if it means you could get to work quicker and there was a free viable alternative?—overwhelmingly people said yes. That is long overdue.

In fact, I would argue that public-private partnerships (PPPs) are long overdue. I know with the Land Transport Management Act in the early 2000s, when Paul Swain was transport Minister, they set it aside and tried to get the PPPs going. It took an amendment paper by Steven Joyce to try and improve that PPP structure, and it worked to a certain extent. A great example of a PPP or BOOT, build-own-operate-transfer, is Spark Arena. In 2007, a management company signed a 40-year deal, a leasehold with Ngāti Whātua. Council chipped in some money, the build was $94 million, and they’ve got it for 40 years. In 2047, that’ll be handed back to the ratepayers of Auckland for zero. As someone alluded to, no one really cares who owns this infrastructure, particularly if they’re at Spark Arena watching “Tay Tay” or whoever.

Swimming pools—swimming pools. We would love a big swimming pool, a new swimming pool, in the northwest of Auckland. Even the Labour councillor Shane Henderson said to me, “I don’t care how it’s funded; I just want the swimming pool—as do the people.” So there are opportunities, not just around transport infrastructure but in community amenities like that.

It’s great to see some political consensus come out of our investment summit last year and some really encouraging words from the likes of the Hon Barbara Edmonds. It’s great to see that we are heading towards some bipartisanship, but we do need to prioritise—12,000 projects and $275 billion worth of projects, mostly unfunded. We need to prioritise, and this Government’s committed to that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member’s time has come to an end.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:45): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call as Labour’s transport spokesperson in the special debate on the National Infrastructure Plan. I do want to acknowledge the former Government for establishing the Infrastructure Commission, and I also want to acknowledge the current Government for continuing to allow the commission to operate. This is a plan that is seriously long overdue, and it provides an independent lens and assessment and a view on what the infrastructure needs are for Aotearoa New Zealand now and into the future. The very clear position that is outlined in the plan is that New Zealanders are spending more and are getting less for what it is that they’re spending in the infrastructure space. In terms of infrastructure, we know that that does touch everyone, and everyone has an interest in it. I understand that The Aotearoa Circle is here on precinct today. They’ve got their own take on infrastructure and the needs that that carries through as well. Defence have needs, health have needs, education, and, of course, transport and others have needs. It’s transport that I want to focus my contribution on this afternoon.

When I engage with industry groups and participants in the transport space, they warn about the politically driven infrastructure that has been part of our country for quite some time. We know that that leads to cancellation, it leads to delays, and it leads to cost blowouts. Already, today, in this Parliament, the ferries are a great example of that. That was, let’s face it, a political call that had consequences in terms of delays—we’re still waiting—cost implications, time, and, obviously, the nature of the infrastructure that’s now in place. The other aspect of that is—and this is what was referred to by the Hon Dr Megan Woods—the “pork barrel” aspect of politics, where we see pieces of transport kit and infrastructure that suddenly appear in marginal seats or in political electorates because it suits the individuals of the day rather than, necessarily, having a long-term look at what that looks like.

The transport sector, like others, is calling out for certainty. I get it—we get it—because what needs to change is that chop-change, in-out sort of nature of infrastructure that has really plagued our country for many years. People are sick and tired of that—and rightly so. When we look at building and construction, the number of people that have left this country is well over 20,000 people because of the in-out stop-start sort of nature of the change that’s in that space. One way that we can remove the political element in the transport space is by allowing an independent lens over all of the transport-related projects, all of the projects that Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency might want to put through. Currently, they don’t do that, and there is a system that’s been stood up that will allow for them to remove that political lens and to actually spit out at the other end a fair assessment, an independent assessment, as to what each of those transport projects do look like.

Now, I acknowledge and accept the Infrastructure Commission’s priorities when they come to transport. The first one around time of use charging—we’ve supported the legislation that permits and allows time of use charging. Around tolls—the use of tolls needs to be in circumstances where it’s not tolling an existing route, it’s not tolling anything other than something that is new and certainly not a replacement road. This Government got a very clear message around their attempt to try and toll Te Ahu a Turanga - the Manawatū-Tararua Highway, as to why any Government shouldn’t be turning its mind in that particular space. We support aspects in that particular rhythm.

The other around maintenance and renewals—and this is a big focus in the report, about how seriously underdone New Zealand has been and has been served as a result of not investing in ongoing maintenance and renewals. The upzoning and transport corridors in terms of providing some coordinated strategic approach to that, and then the final one is around the absolute need to prioritise and schedule projects. My real concern is the current suite of roads of national significance that actually have not been scheduled or prioritised and are a very irresponsible way to try and spend $56 billion that does not exist.

So, you know, these are examples where, yes, bipartisanship is important, but the proof will be in the pudding. On this side of the House, we are absolutely committed to doing what we can to ensure that the long-term infrastructure needs of our country are met, and we hope that the Government and others come on board with that, too.

Nancy Lu: Madam—oh, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Nancy Lu.

NANCY LU (National) (17:50): Mr Speaker, sorry about the hiccup in calling you Madam Speaker. I was actually quite impressed with the willingness from the Opposition, who are keen to know more about the details in the National Infrastructure Plan, but also the willingness to work together for the long-term betterment of our country. This is exactly why I welcome the National Infrastructure Plan that is announced by the Government. All parties in this Parliament need to have a look at it very, very closely to make sure that we can work across party differences for the betterment of all of the population in New Zealand.

But may I begin with the reality that is ahead of us, for the entire country. Basically, in the past 20 years, as the National Infrastructure Plan has suggested, the country has spent around 5.8 percent of GDP each year, and, to be honest, 5.8 percent of GDP each year on infrastructure puts us amongst one of the highest-spending in GDP proportionality in all of the OECD countries. However, we rank pretty much at the bottom in terms of productivity; in terms of efficiency; actually, fourth to last in all of the OECD in asset management, and in cases where in some of our big agencies we don’t even have a full list or a good understanding of where our infrastructure is or the status of the assets or what is supposed to come in the next one, three, five years of maintenance plans. In plain language, we spend really big—5.8 percent of our GDP in the country—but we don’t spend well enough.

So the 30-year National Infrastructure Plan that the National Party campaigned on in 2023, in the election, is precisely to deal with that: to give a bipartisan, cross-party opportunity for all of us to come together as a Parliament and also as Government to make sure that we are delivering for New Zealanders into the next 30 years, so our next generations are ready and can really benefit from the growth of infrastructure in New Zealand. This is why the independent New Zealand Infrastructure Commission was set up to do precisely that: it takes away the politics so we can focus on actually delivering for New Zealanders with taxpayer money.

Now, the infrastructure plan, with the 30-year view, sets out very, very clearly where New Zealanders can plan—very importantly—to fund. Often, when people think about infrastructure, we think upfront the capital cost, but it’s more than the capital cost; it’s also about the maintenance, the repair, and the delivery of the actual construction of the infrastructure. These are challenges ahead of New Zealanders but also ahead of the Government to make sure that we are building practically and responsibly for the future of New Zealand.

Now, a few of the key items that are within the National Infrastructure Plan are, for example, hospitals and the ageing population. Now, that is by no doubt a surprise to anyone in New Zealand that our country is ageing in terms of the demographic. So how do we plan long term and in advance, ahead of time, to make sure that we are providing for the future demographic of New Zealand? The long-term investment plan into building hospitals and retirement villages, etc., is critical for us.

But also it comes down to, for example, water renewals and affordability for New Zealanders in different cities, from rural areas to urban to larger cities. The reform that we have implemented and brought in since this Government came in in 2023 was Local Water Done Well, and that is one of the best reforms, in my opinion, that we are providing that stronger oversight and with clear cost structure so we are able to provide better water infrastructure for everyone in New Zealand.

Then it comes down to smarter and better transport funding, and so the need of legislation to move on from the time of use charge—it has passed; people have moved on, and we need to be able to evaluate who actually uses roads in New Zealand and is actually relying on roads to transport goods and services and people around the country. Even, for example, with our city Governments, we are moving into the more modernised electronic road-user charges.

So there are many, many of the big categories that are included in the National Infrastructure Plan, which the Government has made publicly available. I encourage people who are watching on TV or media to have a really good read. But I definitely encourage and welcome all members of this Parliament to come together, to take away the politics and really think about the next 30 years for New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, everyone. We’re on the National Infrastructure Plan. We’re on call No. 16.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (19:30): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a five-minute call on the National Infrastructure Plan special debate. I’m pleased to be coming back to make this contribution. I particularly want to make it from the perspective of what is covered in the report in terms of education.

When I was thinking about this speech, I thought one of the greatest joys as a member of Parliament is to go to an opening of a new school building or a refurbished building—whole parts of schools. Some that I can recall just recently were Northcote College and a huge building that we opened there with many, many classrooms, teaching spaces, and learning areas. Also, Opononi Area School was one that I did last year and really enjoyed going to. These are projects that mean so much to those schools and to those communities, because the schools are really the heart of our communities.

We can think about infrastructure, and it can seem like a bit of a dry word. We can all think about the wood, the bricks, and mortar, the roofing iron, and so on, but when we think about what it means in terms of education, these are the spaces that our children are learning in and that they spend so much of their time in, their days in. It helps them to learn the skills that they need to go on to have the jobs and careers that they want and to be contributing members of our society but to also pursue their passions and their interests.

When we talk about the importance of having an infrastructure plan that plans for the needs of our education infrastructure, I want to echo the contributions from those around the House, supporting the work of the Infrastructure Commission from its establishment, to the strategy that it came up with, and to the plan that it has now produced over many years. It’s wonderful to hear support across the House for the work that the Infrastructure Commission has done.

When I look at the report and I look at the specifics around education infrastructure, one of the interesting points that the report notes is that they are predicting a population decline of young people. Therefore, that will impact what the needs of education infrastructure is around the country. While it only makes up about 3 percent of the spending that the Infrastructure Commission talks about, it’s important none the less.

One of the things in the report that I think is very important for this House to take note of and for all parties to take note of is the point where the Infrastructure Commission says that whilst they do predict that there will be a population decline in terms of young New Zealanders requiring this infrastructure, there are regional variations to that—that will be particularly in Auckland and in Canterbury—so it’s important that we plan for long-term growth in those areas. That needs to be done over successive Governments.

It also points out that there will be regional variations in places like Northland—Te Tai Tokerau—and Te Tai Rāwhiti. I see our member for Te Tai Rāwhiti here. One of the unusual things that this report points out is that the local demographics will change. For Māori, for example, the Māori school-age population is expected to grow significantly in most regions, while non-Māori aged populations are expected to decline in most regions. This may increase the relative demand for schools with Māori emersion settings. Māori-medium education is one of the areas that has long had inequities when it comes to property and infrastructure and providing for the network.

When Kelvin Davis was the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education), we had a vision of having 30 percent of Māori students in Māori-medium education by 2040. That was going to require new schools, more Kōhanga Reo, to be able to make that provision. This infrastructure plan actually says that Māori are going to have population growth in the area that will require more schools, and Māori medium is an option that they are increasingly wanting to take, so I implore all parties in Parliament tonight to take special heed of that advice from the Infrastructure Commission, because that is something that we will need cross-party support on to ensure that we can provide for those needs, going into the future. Mr Speaker, thank you for that time.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (19:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just hope, for a moment, you might indulge me for the first minute. I’d like to acknowledge my daughter, who, exactly 26 years ago to the minute, was born. She’s here in the House, and she’s celebrating her 26th birthday, so congratulations to Eve. Well done! You’ve survived your father for 26 years. I’d also like to acknowledge her partner, Jesse May, here, who has just been acknowledged today as being accepted into the police college. Congratulations to you both. Thank you for indulging me, Mr Speaker.

Look, this is a really important report—a really important report. If ever there is a region that actually feels like, over the years, it has suffered from the country not having a decent infrastructure plan, it is Northland. If you have a look at the history of Northland, going back, they’ve had to fight all the way through and keep fighting to get any infrastructure investment of significance into the region. Going as far back as 1917, for a bit of a history lesson, there was a parliamentary road tour, driven by a bloke who became an MP, Colonel Allen Bell. He led a delegation of MPs, media, and officials all around the north, to demonstrate the need for infrastructure investment. It shouldn’t have to take that sort of advocacy to get outcomes. That is one of the reasons why this is so important: having a plan for the country.

Another bit of history, because we’re about to embark on, very shortly, starting the next stage of the Northland Expressway, which has received a bit of commentary from people in the House tonight. Is that investment a wise investment? Well, for the people of Northland, it is. That’s because we’re making up for generations of a lack of investment. The frustration—if ever a region has suffered from the politics of infrastructure, it is Northland, because in 2017, a road that was proposed to be built then, significantly cheaper than now, was cancelled. Consequently, in the not-too-distant future, we will be turning the sod on the next stage to Te Hana; whereas, if we had a good infrastructure plan, we should have actually been cutting the ribbon. That is the difference.

Then, one of the other things, which I’m pleased is highlighted in the infrastructure plan, is resilience. If ever there is a piece of resilience infrastructure in Northland that needs to be replaced, it is the road around the Brynderwyn Hills. When that road was shut due to bad weather and Cyclone Gabrielle at that period of time, it cost our economy over $2 million per day. I feel for other parts of the country that suffer these sorts of events from lack of resilient infrastructure. I just think, as we build our plans, we’ve got to think it’s not only about the population base; it’s also about what can be delivered for regions like Northland.

When you look at the potential upsides, which have been highlighted in the report commissioned by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research of particularly the long-term benefits of building decent infrastructure as part of an infrastructure plan for the north—really, really important. When you look at the type of benefits that could come to a community that has suffered for too long in terms of the outcomes, in terms of its social outcomes and all the other outcomes in the north, the benefits could come from good connectivity, from good infrastructure plans—those are the sorts of things that we are looking for.

I congratulate and I thank the members on the other side. Yes, there will always be some debate about the importance of certain infrastructure, but I think we need to keep it in context of a bigger benefit over a long term, not just the short-term look, because these are big, expensive projects that mean a lot to the people and to the regions that they are invested into. I’d just like to say that to finish up. Finally, once again, happy birthday, Eve, and congratulations, Jesse. All the best. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (19:40): There is nothing I love more than having the last word, and to have the last word on this debate is a wonderful thing. Look, we’ve all been very excited to see this infrastructure plan come out. I’ve been in transport my whole life, so, of course, naturally, I’m going to talk about transport.

I’d just like to acknowledge, first, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of Transport, who started off this debate by talking about Napier, so, of course, naturally, I’ll finish the debate talking about Napier. One thing he did mention was about toll roads and the future of infrastructure, how we fund it, and who should have to pay for it. I think that’s a really important topic.

Secondly, my colleague Catherine Wedd from Tukituki, my good neighbour to the south, talked about the spend in the Hawke’s Bay Fallen Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, which I don’t need to mention a second time, but it’s just worth acknowledging that again.

What I really want to talk about is the fact that in my time in transport, and certainly in my time in politics—I campaigned in 2020; I campaigned again in 2023—if I had a dollar for every time someone said, “Couldn’t infrastructure be bipartisan? Couldn’t you have a longer-term plan and a longer-term pipeline so that we had success?”

Stuart Smith: You’d be a wealthy woman.

KATIE NIMON: Yeah, exactly, and, look, I would be—thank you very much, Stuart Smith—a very wealthy woman because this is something that people talk about all the time. They say it for a number of reasons. One is that we would be able to do it all more affordably if we had a long-term plan, a long-term pipeline, for contractors and for civil construction companies to be able to plan this work and to be able to do this work.

Secondly, our communities would be able to make plans based on the work that we are proposing to do. In Hawke’s Bay alone at the moment, the amount of proposed developments of housing and industrial is enormous. They are doing that because we have indicated and we have shown—and the spades are in the ground, the diggers are in the berms; the cranes and the bridges are there; it’s all being built. Now, these guys know that they can start planning their industrial developments and their residential developments at either end of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. This is what it means. It’s vital for us to do this work.

It’s not just transport—of course, that’s the thing that I’ve got a lot of experience in and really happy to talk about—but it’s also in health and it’s also in education and energy and you name it, but we have to be able to agree to a long-term plan that we commit to.

I was very much there in 2017, when we talked about, as the last National Government, the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. It was almost all but there. Then what happened? We didn’t get in to Government that time. It got cancelled, and there goes another six years of that project. Just as my colleague Grant McCallum talked about, it becomes more expensive, we have less progress, we have the cyclone which happened which meant that we had two hours for people to get to work in the morning. These are the things that make a big difference. So now we’ve got progress. It’s going to take a couple of years, but people see the work happening, and it makes all the difference.

Now, I just want to draw everyone’s attention to another very important corridor, and that is State Highway 2 north, from Napier to Gisborne. Now, you might think, “Oh, there’s not a huge population north of Napier; you’ve got Wairoa, you’ve got Gisborne, Tairāwhiti as a region.”—it’s not about the population; it’s about the potential. Actually, we saw in Cyclone Gabrielle just how vulnerable that area is. If you lose the Waikare Gorge, which we did, the time it takes to get to Wairoa from Napier is 10 hours, as opposed to one and a half. It is fundamental. I have been bleating on about this corridor since well before I got into politics, because we have to start now. Actually, we hadn’t done work to that corridor since Steven Joyce, when he opened the Matahorua Gorge realignment. I remember going on that road, in a bus, very, very afraid that I was going to hit a truck as we went past each other on that corner. The very same issue is the case in Waikare Gorge. Now, of course, which Government has given the green light to the Waikare Gorge realignment? It’s ours. But, actually, what we need is a commitment to long term, to saying “Once we’ve done the Waikare Gorge realignment, we look at the Devil’s Elbow, we look at all of these other parts, we look at the Whareratas, we look at well beyond that into the Waiōeka Gorge.”

Stuart Smith: The Hurunui one-lane bridge.

KATIE NIMON: We’ve got a one-lane bridge on a State highway, Stuart Smith, and it is absolutely astounding. It does not mean that we have to fund this all now. We have very much talked about the affordability of doing it. We just have to have a plan that we all commit to so that in a decade’s time we aren’t still here, talking about the same thing.

Now, one thing I will go back to that the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop, mentioned earlier is the “Not in my backyard” approach. We have got to very much get real about how we are affording to pay for this and how we are going to make it happen, whether it’s public-private partnership, whether it is tolling these roads. We can all stand by and say “Don’t do it to me, but you can do it to Auckland for the harbour bridge.”, but we’ve got to have a real sensible approach to this.

I’m pleased to have had the last word. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this plan to the House.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Public Finance Amendment Bill, Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill, Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Legislation Amendment Bill.

Bills

Public Finance Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Part 1 Amendments to preliminary provisions and Parts 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Public Finance Amendment Bill, Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill, Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Legislation Amendment Bill.

We now begin with the debate on Part 1 of the Public Finance Amendment Bill, this is the debate on clauses 4 to 30, “Amendments to preliminary provisions and Parts 1 and 2”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:47): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, while I hope that the Minister of Finance’s enthusiasm for this bill would last for the committee stage, there is actually quite a few things to get through in this committee stage, not to mention the Minister’s new Amendment Paper 502, as well, which also has a few interesting bits that we would like to dig into.

I want to start by maybe checking with the Minister in terms of the interaction between Part 1 clause 4 and also her Amendment Paper 502, in terms of the amendment to clause 6. Clause 4 mentions “nominated relevant department” and also “servicing department”. But what we are seeing here in the Amendment Paper from the Minister is, when we are looking at clause 6, it refers to replacing “the Crown or an Office of Parliament” with “the Crown, an Office of Parliament, or a parliamentary agency”. I just want to check with the Minister on the interaction between those, on why, for example, “parliamentary agency” was included in that amendment.

Continuing on from that line of question, I want to draw the attention of the committee to the regulatory impact statement, noting that this is something that I didn’t go through the Finance and Expenditure Committee with. But one of the things that I would like to actually congratulate officials on is that this is probably one of the few regulatory impact statements where the options considered for each section is really clearly laid out, and the option that the Minister has decided to go with is also highlighted. So, I think, definitely props for that.

I guess, a broader question I want to check with the Minister, first, is that I’m sure the Minister is aware that currently there is also a parliamentary inquiry into performance reporting, and that’s one of the limitations that was mentioned in the regulatory impact statement page 5. I wanted to check with the Minister: what was the rationale behind introducing this bill while the parliamentary inquiry into performance reporting is still taking place? Indeed, you know, advice and consideration—if they’ve been sought with the Office of the Auditor-General. So I guess that’s my second question. So I have two questions for the Minister currently.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:50): As the bill sets out, clause 4 means section (2)(1) of the Public Finance Act (PFA). That’s the section that defines the terms within the Act, and it adds two new definitions: “nominated relevant department” and “servicing department”. That, essentially, means that interdepartmental executive boards or interdepartmental ventures are defined in the PFA as “relevant departments”.

In terms of the reasons for introducing the Amendment Paper in the time since the bill was considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the Parliament (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2025 has come into force, and that states that the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service cease to be departments or part of the Crown for the purposes of the Public Finance Act. We now need to amend the bill to ensure it is consistent with those changes made to the underlying Public Finance Act, and the Amendment Paper includes a technical change to do this. That’s what clause 6 does.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (19:51): Thanks, Madam Chair. I still want to focus on clause 4 of Part 1 for this particular question, and it is in relation to the new definition that’s going to be inserted in the interpretation section of the current Public Finance Act. Of particular reference is that “nominated relevant department”.

The question I have for the Minister is: can she please provide examples of what an “interdepartmental venture” is; what they are currently; the reason why we have not provided a schedule to the Public Finance Act actually listing what those interdepartmental ventures are; or whether there has been any consideration of whether we could allow for a modification where we could actually list those interdepartmental ventures? Given this is a new definition in the interpretation section, is there a way that we could actually include those that are currently into the primary legislation and then look at an Order in Council mechanism in order to add new ones to the list?

My concern is that, currently, this is a new definition. It is really difficult to understand what is actually meant by that particular section, because when you read it, the relevant cause means “the relevant department that has been nominated by the board of an interdepartmental venture to provide the following on behalf of the interdepartmental venture: (a) information on strategic intentions: (b) financial statements”. So I just want to see whether the Minister or Treasury, as part of the drafting, had actually considered whether they needed to include a schedule as part of this Act. Therefore, it is more transparent to the New Zealand public that we know exactly what an interdepartmental venture is, because I note that an “interdepartmental venture” under the current Public Finance Act has the same section given as section 5 of the Public Service Act 2020. So, again, for the lawyers in the House and for the lawyers that, for any particular reason, are questioning or could do a judicial review to Treasury as to whether they have met the obligations under the Public Finance Act, they would have to go trawling through two separate Acts. Why can’t we just include a schedule as part of the Public Finance Amendment Bill itself?

And, also, whether the Minister has received any advice as to whether we could actually include the list as part of primary legislation, if not as part of the schedule; and if you did include it as part of the primary legislation, whether you could include an Order in Council mechanism?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:53): Clauses 34 to 36 amend the reporting requirements departments involved with an interdepartmental executive board. An example of that is the climate change independent interdepartmental executive board and/or an interdepartmental venture. We don’t have any interdepartmental ventures yet, but they are listed as a schedule in the Public Service Act, and so, the omission of that definition in this Act would raise questions about how it was to be reported on for PFA purposes.

The member has asked about whether we should be doing this via the primary legislation or in the way that we have. It’s always my view, on matters like this, which are subject to change, then having the flexibility of doing it in the way proposed makes sense.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (19:54): Thank you to the Minister for that elucidation. Then, therefore, if we don’t have an interdepartmental venture, why are we having this change?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:54): As I just said, they are listed in a schedule in the Public Service Act.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (19:54): Therefore, why is that schedule not in the Public Finance Act, given you now have to have a separate cross-reference to a separate Act, when in fact there is none in the primary Act, which we are here trying to amend?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:55): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to ask a further question. I’m just noting that I still have an outstanding question for the Minister. Thank you so much, Minister, for your response to my questions before. That was very clear. My question previously around, I guess, the rationale of introducing this bill in light of the parliamentary inquiry into performance reporting is still outstanding.

I want to check another question from the Minister. Understanding that, between the introduction of this bill under the first reading and then coming back to the second reading and now the committee stage, there are changes being made to the definition of “nominated relevant department” and “servicing department” where the article that has been used has changed from an indefinite article into a definite article, i.e., from “a” to “the”. That would make sense in terms of “nominated relevant department”, where you’re looking at a singular, and one and only, relevant department that has been nominated. But I’m curious to know why that has changed for “servicing department”. Can I just get clarity from the Minister that when you are looking at the interdepartmental executive board and we’re looking at a servicing department, that there’s only “a” singular servicing department, i.e., “the” department identified as the servicing department, or it still allows multiple departments to be the servicing department?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (19:56): Thank you, Madam Chair. I go back to my earlier question, which hasn’t yet been addressed by the Minister, as to why we are even having a change or an introduction of a new definition into the interpretation of the Public Finance Act, given that it cross-references the Public Service Act, Part 4, Schedule 2, which actually has no listing of an interdepartmental venture.

Therefore, if the purpose of this bill was to tidy up the Public Finance Act—and some bigger changes, which we can address as part of the further clauses as we go through this committee stage—why was that not cleaned up, then, as part of the change as part of this bill? Given there is, when you go to—again, the difficulty—going to the Public Service Act, you go to Schedule 2, Part 4; it then refers you to section 33, which talks about the establishment and reorganisation of interdepartmental ventures, and it talks about the framework in which those interdepartmental ventures can be set up, which is through Order in Council, which was, kind of, my suggestion to an earlier point.

My question is: why was that not cleaned up as part of this bill? Because I appreciate that was a 2020 bill, those amendments that were made to the Public Service Act. There was quite clearly an intention by the previous Government to perhaps bring in, through Order in Council, an interdepartmental venture—and obviously, now, with a new change of Government, the ability and the discretion for the Minister to make the changes to the Public Finance Amendment Act through this particular bill. Had they considered cleaning it up by just removing those references—or, actually, first of all, not including it as an interpretation or a new definition, and then cleaning up the cross-references to it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:58): In response to the Green Party member, yes, I am prepared to address his question about the meaning of “a” and “the”: yes, there is only one servicing department for an interdepartmental executive board provided for in the Public Service Act.

In response to the question from Hon Barbara Edmonds: what these clauses do is amend the reporting requirements for departments involved with an interdepartmental executive board or interdepartmental venture. These departments are already defined in the PFA as “relevant departments”.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Barbara Edmonds. Before the member starts, can I please ask members to highlight which part or which clause you are referring to?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: We’re still up to clause 4, the very first clause in Part 1. It’s in relation to section 2, the amendment and the new interpretations.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (19:59): To the Minister’s response, which is it’s in reference to those Public Service Act schedules: again, that’s a roundabout interpretation in the sense that—so, why do you have it? The scope of this bill was to do some specific changes to clean up the Public Finance Act.

To the Minister’s response, it still doesn’t make sense as to why you would keep this in there, because it’s superfluous legislation given that it’s quite clear there’s no intention for there to be an interdepartmental venture, unless, Minister, there is going to be a new interdepartmental venture. The reason why I ask is because, actually, this might be an amendment that we could actually table.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the Minister’s response. I do want to try and look and, I guess, move to sections 5 and 6, but, again, I note that there is still an outstanding question to the Minister regarding this bill and also the parliamentary inquiry into performance reporting. Thank you, Minister, for your response to the servicing department. I think in cross referencing with Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Public Service Act, the specificity of a singular servicing department is understandable.

Moving on to clause 5, can I just check, as a starting question, that replacing “registered market” with “licensed market” which has two separate meanings, is something that is quid pro quo, as in it’s a one-to-one transition from “registered market” into “licensed market” and as in those two are essentially referring to the same thing and it is simply an update to the primary Act? Again, you know, this is not being my area of specialisation, I’m also particularly interested in learning from the Minister as well. So I guess in this case, has the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 replaced the Securities Markets Act 1988?

On to clause 6, I just want to touch on this for the time being, and I’m sure others will have more questions around it. I want to thank the Minister in terms of her explanation on that in light of the recent Parliament Bill. I do want to know with the cross heading—I guess I’m confused as to the difference between what is in the cross heading of clause 6 and what is defined in clause 6(1A), because in clause 6 it says “(Expenses or capital expenditure must not be incurred unless in accordance with appropriation…”, but in 6(1A), it says, “does not require the Crown or an Office of Parliament…”—or parliamentary agency in the amendment—“to incur the expense or capital expenditure that it authorises.” So if you’re looking at the subheading, am I correct to assume that it can’t incur expenses that’re not within the appropriation, but in clause 6(1A) it seems to imply that it can’t occur expenses that it already has authorised. So I just want to check with the Minister on that clarification.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:03): In answer to the question—repeated question—from Minister Edmonds on the same point, the Public Finance Act and Public Service Act clearly work together. Ventures and boards are set up under the Public Service Act and those provisions remain, whereas the Public Finance Act deals with their financial accountability. Hence the cross references are the simplest way to address that.

In answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about clause 5, what that clause is essentially doing is legislative repair, updating a reference to a definition in another piece of legislation that’s since been repealed and replaced. It replaces the reference to the term defined by reference to the now out of date Securities Market Act 1988, i.e. “registered market”, to the relevant term in the New Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, which is “licensed market” and that replaced the Securities Market Act in 1988. So that is simply a change of definition in the cross-referenced Act.

In terms of clause 6, which the member also asked about, this clause is simply clarifying an ambiguity in the interpretation of the Act, specifying essentially that an appropriation does not create an obligation to spend; it creates a permission to spend, but not an obligation to spend, which is a good thing because when public agencies feel that spending is no longer necessary, it’s appropriate that those dollars paid for by hard working taxpayers can be put to purposes that are necessary rather than simply spent because of a technical requirement of the Act.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (20:04): Thanks, Madam Chair. Just actually carrying on from the question and the Minister’s response in relation to the registered market within the meaning of the Securities Markets Act. So if I go to the Securities Markets Act, “registered market” means any of the following and that’s—sorry, Madam Chair, just for your understanding, it’s clause 5. So you look at the definition in clause 2 of the Securities Markets Act, “registered market means any of the following: (a) a securities or futures market that’s registered under section 36F: (b) a securities or futures market that is treated as if it were a registered market under section 36ZY(4)”.

So I just want to clarify to the Minister, is she confident that the replacement with “licensed market”, which is under a separate Act, which is the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, covers the specificity required under section 36F and section 36ZY(4) as part of the registered markets. I’m just wanting just to check because it’s one of the things that we had not checked caused by clause as part of the select committee stage.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (20:06): Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the Minister in the chair for her answer around clause 6. I just have a follow-up question. I understand completely the Minister’s explanation that an appropriation is an estimate, it’s an invitation to spend. But what we didn’t get the chance to explore at select committee stage is what was the kind of policy ill that this was trying to rectify? Were there examples where this was being misinterpreted by agencies, that it was seen that it was something that was creating situations where departments were spending where they may not have otherwise been if this clause had been in the Public Finance Act, or was it merely a general tidy up of the Act, given that there were a range of revisions that were being done, that the Minister received advice that it would be an opportune time to do that legislative tidy up?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:07): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank you, Minister, for clarifying clause 6. That does make a lot of sense in terms of what the Minister is saying, that an obligation is different from a requirement. Well, that a requirement is different from something that here in this bill.

Let’s look at it in terms of an agency or Crown or office of Parliament or any of the department agencies. While this might be a change in legislation to make things clearer, is there also an expectation, then, that certain budgets are able to carry forward to a subsequent year or, if you’re looking at a four-year cycle, that they’re able to bank some of that? In general, whether you’re in the private sector or in the public sector and you are given a budget, even though you’re telling people you don’t have to spend all of it, if the remainder of the budget is going to be recalled as a part of that, there’s still, regardless of who it is, a desire to spend some of that. I guess my question is: while clause 6 is a clarification, how does the Minister think it’s going to play out in practice? Does the Minister think that it is going to be able to give a better signal to agencies or better reassurance to agencies that they don’t have to spend everything but also give reassurance to agencies that things can be carried on into subsequent years?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just say we have been on this one clause—there have been four different questions on it. I think it’s been well traversed, so I’d like to keep this moving, please.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (20:09): Which clause are you referring to?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Clause 6.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Yeah, so clause 6. My question is, and this is the first time I asked a question on clause 6, the amendments reads, “After section 4(1), insert: (1A)”—I’m thinking this is subsection 1, paragraph (a). The current drafting of the bill has that as a capital “A”. So I just need to clarify, is this a subparagraph or a subsection? If you look at section 4 within the actual Public Finance Act, in the way that it is set out, they don’t have subsections or subparagraphs, they actually set it out—sorry, they do have subsection paragraphs, but I don’t understand why it would be 1A rather than 1(a). That’s probably the easiest, simplest way to explain, and I just need to check it’s not a drafting error.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:10): In response to the question from Barbara Edmonds relating to my confidence about the definitions in clause 5: yes, based on the evidence provided to me and my faith in the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

In answer to the questions from both Megan Woods and Lawrence Xu-Nan about clause 6, the members’ interpretations are broadly correct, which is that this is cleaning up on the way through something that could play out in future and ensuring that the legislation is absolutely unambiguous on that matter.

For the benefit of information for Lawrence Xu-Nan, there are already, outside of this clause, measures in the Budget process that allow funding to be carried from one year into the next. That occupies part of the time of the Minister of Finance. Ministers have to submit those through what’s called the October Baseline Update process, and there are rules about the way in which that happens. But, obviously, it is the case sometimes that appropriations that are made by Parliament, for whatever reason, don’t get used in the year in which they are intended, and Ministers then face choices about whether those funds are returned to the centre for use on new initiatives or whether those funds are retained to be used for that appropriation in the next year. Those are already built into the Budget process and the finance Minister’s powers.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:11): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister Willis, for your response; I truly appreciate your engagement on all of these. Also, I take your note, Madam Chair, and I’m happy to move on to clause 7—well, actually, I’ll do clause 7 and 8 together, because one refers to non-departmental capital expenditure and the other one is departmental expenses. Just trying to get clarification on the intention of 7 from the Minister: when we’re looking at non-departmental capital expenditure, I want to check, using—let’s say my main portfolio that I spend a lot of my time on is education, so when we’re looking at non-department capital expenditure, the closest equivalent I can think of is when you are looking at school properties, for example. Would that be something that is considered as a non-departmental capital expenditure? But, in this case, what sort of circumstances will we be looking at when we’re looking at multi-category appropriations (MCAs) when it comes to something like that, and how would you have MCAs and categories of expenditures that don’t currently contribute to one single overarching purpose? Is that something that has been happening currently, which is why this clause is in there as a way of correcting or, again, clarifying what is the intention of an MCA in the first place? So that’s my first question.

Then, looking at clause 8, I’m curious as to 8, replacing section 7C(2)(c) with a new (c), which is that when you are looking at a departmental expense appropriation, other departments may incur expenses at the same time and then be used against the appropriation at the direction of the appropriate Minister. So I guess, again using the education example, Vote ERO—Education Review Office—is a separate appropriation, etc., but if Vote ERO is drawing on additional or is incurring expenses that normally sit under Vote Education, with the permission of the appropriation Minister, they are able to draw on the appropriation from the Ministry of Education for the work that ERO is doing but fulfills the same purpose. Is that how I’m supposed to interpret clause 8, inserting new paragraph (c)?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:14): In answer to Barbara Edmonds’ query about clause 6: yes, it is a new subsection 4(1A), not a drafting error.

In answer to the questions about clause 7, look, this is essentially removing a requirement for the Minister of Finance to approve the establishment of an MCA; rather, it just allows Cabinet to do it, which both removes an administrative step from the Minister of Finance but also acknowledges that once Cabinet’s approved the creation of that multi-category appropriation, it’s good to go—noting the Minister of Finance is a member of the Cabinet anyway. It’s just an unnecessary administrative step.

In terms of clause 8, really, the purpose of this clause, what it does, is it specifies that only departmental expenses can be incurred under these multi-category appropriation arrangements, and that resolves some uncertainty for departments about the types of expenses that have been permitted under those arrangements previously.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (20:15): I just want to ask the Minister of Finance to clarify that process change. So she’s referencing clause 7, and it was the amendment to section 7B, which has been replaced. The Minister referenced that it’s no longer the Minister of Finance; that now it goes straight through to Cabinet. Have I just surmised that right, Minister?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:15): Well, yes, it’s always been the case that approval has to be granted by Cabinet or joint Ministers—the Minister of Finance and the appropriation Minister. So what this now says is that the requirement for the Minister of Finance to approve the establishment of an MCA is removed. So it just aligns it with other appropriation types, which is to say there doesn’t need to be that additional step.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (20:16): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Madam Chair, it’s only clause 7—it’s only clause 7.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s ambitious.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (20:16): Well, 8, actually—ha, ha! Good try, Dan. So, just moving on to only clause 8 of a lot in Part 1, the appropriation limited by amount—sorry, clause 8, section 7C amended, “Responsibility for, and administration and use of, appropriations”. I just have to ask the Minister of Finance: what is an example of an appropriation administrator? Is that at an executive level or is that at a departmental level, please?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Barbara Edmonds.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Just while the Minister of Finance gets some advice in relation to that, the question I have, again in relation to section 7C, which is now being amended with new section 7C(2)(c), is that if you look at new paragraph (d), “if the appropriation is a multi-category appropriation that includes 1 or more categories of departmental expenses, any other department may incur departmental expenses of the same type as the category or categories of departmental expenses in the multi-category appropriation against the multi-category appropriation—(i) at the direction of the appropriation Minister; or (ii) with the agreement of the appropriation Minister.” When I have a look at the current 7C under the Public Finance Act, which was actually amended in July 2013 according to the history within the actual primary Act itself, it made a particular change in that 2013 amendment bill which I just don’t quite reconcile in relation to what is currently section 4. I just need to check: is the new clause 8, replacing 7C(2)(c) with new paragraphs (c) and (d)—is that still in reference to, sorry, section 75 of the Public Finance Act, or have I just totally misread how that amendment has happened in 2013, changes to section 5 of the Act and now in section 7C?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:18): The member’s now repeating the same question, just using more words. As I have made very clear, the bill removes the requirement for the Minister of Finance to approve the establishment of multi-category appropriations, leaving the approval with Cabinet or joint Ministers. The whole point here is that it is consistent with other appropriation types. In terms of administration and use of appropriations, it is for departments to use the appropriations of another department.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (20:19): The Minister might not have listened to the actual question; there were two totally separate questions, and so if you’d like me to repeat—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No—thanks.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —the second question, but they were two very specific and different questions. One was in relation to just an example of what the appropriation administrator is, and the second one was actually in relation to section 5 under the current Public Finance Act and the reference to 7C(2)(c) in clause 8.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I have one more question—and also just, I guess, signalling to both the Chair and also to members on the other side of the Chamber that, although we’re going clause by clause, we have been moving through the bill at a reasonable pace. There is quite a bit more meat in Part 1 that we want to get to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Xu-Nan, the Chair will determine the pace.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you. Just on clause 8, the final question I have on clause 8: I understand, when you’re looking at replacement section 7C(2)(c) and (d), it says in subparagraph (i) “at the direction of the appropriation Minister;”, but I’m curious to know, when it says “or (ii) with the agreement of the appropriation administrator”—which, looking at the definition of “appropriation administrator” under the Public Finance Act, it alludes to, I’m guessing, the chief executive or the secretary of agency—in those cases, are they simply looking at the operations of how, I guess, the multi-category appropriation or further appropriation is used? Surely the appropriation administrator doesn’t have the ability to alter what is currently in the Budget and it should only fall under the Minister. I guess this is more of a clarifying question for the Minister.

I do want to move on to a new section, because this is actually something that I’ve found very interesting—this is, I guess, starting from clause 10 to 13. Now, this is something that is not in any regulatory impact statement, nor was it explained in the explanatory note, which is the exclusion of the intelligence and security information, from having to declare certain information. Or, if you’re looking at, for example, in clause 13, new section 26DA(2), the end-of-year performance information on an appropriation and an audit report is not required, I see, and the intelligence and security department are exempted from having to report to the House on their end-of-year performance and appropriation. I just want to check with the Minister: this is not in the regulatory impact statement, nor was it really discussed at length, from what I can see, in the select committee report, nor can I see that in terms of the information here. How did that come about—the exemption of security and intelligence agencies from reporting?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:22): Well, the member Lawrence Xu-Nan is bringing a new and unwelcome definition of “pace”, but I’ll leave him to his own interpretation of what pace truly is.

In terms of Barbara Edmonds’ question: yes, replacement section 7C(2)(c), inserted by clause 8, simply clarifies the existing section 7C(2)(c). Section 7C(2)(c) was confusing. It required application of other terms to interpret it.

In terms of the question on admin and use, an appropriation administrator can be any department. Appropriation administrators are listed in the Estimates document.

In terms of the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan about the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, it has been a longstanding feature of our public finance reporting environment that the NZSIS reporting has some secrecy attached to it, due to the nature and sensitivity of the work that they carry out and the need not to signal to those whose actions threaten the peace and stability of New Zealand what it is that we are investing in and where we are increasing our investments. These are all measures that have been taken in order to create the peace and security of New Zealand. This is not a new thing that’s been introduced as part of this bill; therefore, that is why it’s not included in the regulatory impact statement.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:24): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a few more questions for the Minister in this particular section. I understand from a national security perspective why that would be exempted, but I’m just checking—I guess clarifying from the Minister—if it’s something that’s already happening, that has been taking place, but then without a legislative backing to support what the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) is currently already doing, which is why it’s in a bill. I’m assuming it’s in a bill because something needed to be clarified. That’s my first question.

Again, like I said, while I understand the requirement and sensitivity when it comes to national security, I do wonder, from a public scrutiny perspective, and also the ability for the public to trust the way that we are spending tax dollars, what mechanisms are still in place to ensure that the NZSIS, for example, are still doing things within the bounds that are expected from the New Zealand public.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:25): I’m happy to clarify for the member. It’s actually the other way around, in that this amendment in this bill enhances reporting requirements, in that it removes the exemption for the intelligence and security department to provide end-of-year performance information on appropriations for audit by removing the exemption wording from section 15A(4) of the Act. That’s already a voluntary practice that they do that end-of-year reporting, but it formalises that requirement. They prepare audited performance information.

This, of course, has been their response to address recommendation 5 of the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terrorist attack. That amendment ensures consistency, transparency, and will foster greater public trust in the operations of security and intelligence agencies. That also relates to clauses 12 and 13 in the bill.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (20:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re just up to clause 9 of 30, for Dan Bidois’ notice, just in case he was wondering how many clauses are in Part 1. We’re looking at “Section 14 amended (Contents of Estimates)”. I do want to acknowledge the Minister. She is answering every question we’ve had, so thank you very much for that, Minister, because it does help the pace of the debate, as some would say.

In clause 9, which is “Section 14 amended (Contents of Estimates)”, when you go through the current Act, which is section 14, it basically lists through from paragraphs (a) to (h) a set of requirements for the appropriations. Subclauses (1), (2), (3)—no issues with those, because, when you compare it to the changes that it makes in the current primary Act, they fit perfectly. I just had a question, though, for the Minister on clause 9(4). That’s where it reads: “After section 14(2)(c), insert: (d) the scope of the appropriation set out in the statutory provision that creates the permanent legislative authority.” For those members of the committee who don’t know what a permanent legislative authority is, basically, it’s an approval for Government spending that continues in effect without needing an annual renewal by Parliament. Basically, it just continues.

The importance of that, though, is that if you’re given that power because it renews without the ability for Parliament to, basically, have to do it, there needs to be some checks and balances in relation that. I just need to understand from the Minister, because it is a new subclause, what exactly is the mischief that this new paragraph is trying to achieve, given some of the earlier changes that are going through Cabinet, which is good, because there’s still an executive check on that. It’s no longer the Minister, it’s whichever appropriate Minister, but in relation to that new paragraph (d), what is the mischief that they’re trying to achieve by that? Unfortunately, when I checked some of the initial briefing on the bill—some of the papers that we received by officials, who I need to acknowledge as well: thank you, officials, for your support during the select committee process—I couldn’t quite find what you were trying to achieve by this new paragraph.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:28): This responds and resolves issues where departments have previously failed to accurately reflect the scope of permanent legislative authorities; and in doing that, we reduce the risk of unappropriated expenditure. I would note there have been several instances of unappropriated expenditure in recent Parliaments.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank you, Minister. I do find your answers very, very helpful, so I really appreciate it. With that, I’m actually going to move on to a newer section. I think this is probably the section that received the most attention, which is starting from, I guess, clause 14.

I’m going to leave clause 14 for the time being, which is around the overall removal of “wellbeing”—removing the requirement to articulate the wellbeing objectives in Budget decision-making—but I want to draw on the fact that, in light of that being removed, how do you think, in terms of what we’re seeing in clauses 15 and 16 around the fiscal strategy report, the long-term objectives and the short-term objectives are also encapsulating the same essence of what the public expected from the wellbeing?

The reason I ask this question is that, while the wellbeing has been removed, we do hear from the submitters and also from economic and legal and also community advocates that the lack of mentioning—even though people can still do that, but the lack of a clear signal within a budgetary document or within the expectation of the objectives is going to leave some people worse off or leave certain communities and vulnerable communities worse off.

I want to check with the Minister, with that, let’s say with clause 15, in terms of the variables or the alternative variables, is there anything in there that would give the indication that an aspect of wellbeing is still considered when you’re looking at some of that fiscal strategy reporting? Madam Chair? I’ll continue—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —thank you—while the Minister is, I’m assuming, seeking some advice.

The reason I also mention this when it comes to the long-term objectives and also in terms of the wellbeing—and this is something that we do see in terms of the inquiry into parliamentary performance reporting—is that there isn’t a clear goal in terms of outcomes and also in terms of measures. I accept that, and I’m hoping that in terms of some of the changes to the contents of the fiscal strategy report long-term objectives, we do see some of those changes.

However, like I said, I am concerned that possibly at this stage it is not considered in clause 15 under, let’s say, subclause (2), inserting sections 26J(1A) and (1B), that there is anything that potentially indicates that an aspect of wellbeing is still considered. Therefore, I wanted to check with the Minister if the Minister is receptive to my amendments to this. While we’re looking at total operating expense, revenue, and the balance, the level of total debt—that is clear and understandable—the level of total net worth potentially requires some level of calculation.

I also think, if that is the case, we should be adding additional variables, so my amendment is to include—let’s start with two of the amendments—two new additional variables. One is on the level of long-term social deficit, and the other one on the level of long-term infrastructure deficit. While it’s important when looking at long-term objectives to know what that is—I’m sure the Minister knows way more than I do when it comes to fiscal strategy and also in terms of the debt and deficit. But one of the biggest concerns we’ve seen—and we just had two hours of debate on this—is the fact that it’s hard to evaluate the cost to New Zealand when you’re looking at long-term structural deficit, whether it is social or infrastructure, so I want to check with the Minister if she’s open to those two amendments.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:33): I was going to address this question by saying it highlights a philosophical difference, but I defer to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and thank him that he acknowledges that I know much more than him in terms of fiscal strategy, debt, and deficit. Thank you. That is a rare compliment from my opponents. I agree with you.

One of the things that I do know about debt and deficit and the need for fiscal discipline is that, actually, economic and fiscal responsibility are essential to wellbeing. There can be no wellbeing without economic and fiscal responsibility, and it is a philosophical difference between us. It is my view that you can’t simply keep borrowing for ever, because eventually you do have to pay, and paying becomes more expensive if you are an undisciplined economy. The Treasury’s estimation is based on advice they provided the previous Minister of Finance—advice that he signed off on. If New Zealand incurs more than 50 percent of debt as GDP, we put ourselves at massive wellbeing risk, if you would want to phrase it that way, because it could mean that, should a shock occur which required us to have a debt buffer that we could borrow to, we would find ourselves in a debt doom spiral by which our interest bills would become so big that we wouldn’t be able to fit them within our Budgets, and that could be extremely problematic to the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

We’ve seen that happen in countries around the world, where it’s led to them having to take drastic and Draconian measures in order to service the debt that they have to international debt markets. I simply, philosophically disagree with the member’s view that you can just simply keep borrowing for wellbeing. Actually, keeping on borrowing destroys medium-term wellbeing, particularly when we consider the impact on future generations.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also thank the Minister, I think, but I think also the Minister brought in philosophical differences. I think part of this is a philosophical difference, but we’re also aware that when we’re looking at public infrastructure—whether we’re looking at social infrastructure such as health or education, or whether we’re looking at physical infrastructure such as roads, railways, etc.—at this stage, our ability to plan long term and the impact that will have on people long term is not entirely captured in the way that is structured here in clause 15 under the fiscal strategy report long-term objectives.

I guess the question is—I don’t think anyone is saying that we should be borrowing debt indefinitely to be able to service wellbeing, but there is a balance. Counter to what the Minister is saying, it is also the Draconian approach that certain countries have taken to reduce their borrowing and reduce their debt that shocked the system, which massively increased interest rates, which is what brought down Theresa May.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just remind the member this is not a debate; this is actually an interrogation of this bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess it comes down to my original question in terms of whether the Minister will support my amendments to clause 15(2), inserting sections 26J(1A) and (1B)—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Minister has addressed that question.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: She said we have philosophical differences but not necessarily that she will not support the amendments. The question to the Minister, I guess, posing a new question to the Minister, in terms of a different amendment of mine, which is around the fact that the Minister would also understand in terms of some of the long-term risks—again, we are referring to fiscal strategy report long-term objectives. When we’re looking at the long-term objectives and risks to the country, our obligation under the Paris Agreement, for example, is something that has been also discussed quite at length, particularly around nationally determined contributions.

In this case, my other amendment that I will ask Minister to consider for subsections (1A) and (1B) is also the level of risk of climate impact fiscal risk, which is something that should also be, I think, considered or reported as part of our long-term fiscal strategy reporting. Again, while we don’t want to take on additional debt—and, also, I do think that debt and deficit, in this case, particularly with structural deficit, are different things—we must also acknowledge that as a country we can’t operate in isolation. With the long-term objectives of new sections 26J(1A) and (1B), inserted by clause 15(2), has that considered in there our obligation and then, potentially, the fiscal risk in terms of the international agreements that we have signed up to?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:38): Clause 15 simply permits the Government to continue to use the statutory variables in the Act to express its long-term objectives, and it gives Governments some flexibility to use an alternative variable or variables in substitution, and it does that in a way that still requires major metrics to be reported on.

I just want to point out to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan that these are minimum requirements. There is nothing preventing the Government from setting out other goals and priorities in its Budget Policy Statements and its fiscal strategy reports, for example. In the recent Budget Policy Statement which I published, I set out very clearly—I encourage the member to read it—that the Government’s overarching goals for its term of office are to build a stronger, more productive economy that lifts the real incomes and increases opportunities for New Zealanders; to deliver more efficient, effective, and responsive public services to all who need and use them; and to get the Government’s books back in order and restore discipline to public spending. There is nothing to prevent the Government having objectives which guide its Budget decisions, and certainly that is the case with our Government.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (20:39): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually want to go back three clauses because my good friend Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, who is actually the education spokesperson and who is not the finance spokesperson, has jumped ahead three clauses, but I actually have questions on clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13, before we even get to clauses 14 and 15.

In relation to clause 10—

Stuart Smith: It’s a by-part debate; you don’t have to go in order.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —it is replacing section 15A(4) of the Public Finance Act. Sorry, what was that, Stuart Smith?

Stuart Smith: I said you can go in any order. It’s by part; it’s not by clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me! This is not a debate across the Chamber.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Sorry, it was an interjection—I was just trying to hear his interjection.

Tangi Utikere: She’s allowed to respond to interjections.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Absolutely. Any member can go anywhere, but I’m just going through it one after the other.

In relation to this new amendment, it’s replacing section 15A(4) with “However, in the case of an appropriation for borrowing expenses, subsection (2)(c) does not apply.” Now, when you look at the Public Finance Act, the current 15A(4) actually has two paragraphs. In 15(4)(a), “in the case of an appropriation for expenses and capital expenditure to be incurred by an intelligence and security department,” which I think the Minister of Finance had said there is no more requirement for that to be reported, and then goes to (b) “in the case of an appropriation for borrowing expenses, subsection (2)(c) does not apply.” I just want to confirm her earlier response to an earlier question from another clause that that is actually why we don’t have that paragraph (a) and it’s only (b) as per the amendment.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:41): Madam Chair, this is now getting repetitive. I have already clarified that the bill requires these departments to provide end-of-year performance information on appropriations with the same content as the other departments. This has been done by convention. This brings it into statute.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just signalling to you, Madam Chair, also in terms of the conversation we had before, that a lot of the questions I asked of the Minister of Finance, on clause 15, are philosophical in nature, but I want to get down to the specific clauses and subclauses and ask if the Minister wouldn’t mind providing an example. Again, I noticed, with clause 15, that one of the things that has changed between the first reading of this bill and the end of the second reading of this bill is this subclause (1), which is “Replace section 26J(1)(a) with:” subclause (1)(a)(ii)(A) and (B). I want to check with you, Minister, whether you wouldn’t mind providing an example of the variables detailed in subclause (2) when alternative variables must include a variation—as detailed in new subsection (2)(1B). What would be an alternative variable that can be “used in addition to, or in substitution for,” as stated in new subsection (1)(a)(ii)(A)? Would you be able to give an example of what would be considered a substitution?

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (20:43): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m tempted.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just noting that I am moving through Part 1 but that a lack of engagement from the Minister of Finance is one of the reasons why I have to—it would be good to, from the Minister, have a response to some of these questions.

I can move on to clause 16, which is where we’re looking at the content of the fiscal strategy short-term intentions. I wanted to start by asking the Minister about clause 16(1), when we’re looking at “The fiscal strategy report … for the financial year … which the report relates [to] and for at least the next 2 financial years … explicitly [using] ranges, ratios, or other means,” I do like the measurement of this, but I wondered if, by explicitly stating “next 2 financial years”—which makes sense—“explicitly [using] ranges, ratios, or other means,”, there are any situation where that potentially could limit or create inflexibilities in terms of how the short-term fiscal strategies could be reported on?

I’m going to start with that particular question, and if the Minister so wishes to address my previous question around what is considered a substitution, it is also found in a similar phrasing in clause 16(1), replacement (1)(b)(i).

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:45): The member asked for an example of where an alternate variable could be used. An example is core Crown net debt versus total debt. Obviously, both measures are still providing a descriptor of the Crown’s debt position, but they are slightly variable. New section 26J(1B), inserted by clause 15, continues to require the Government to explain how those long-term objective accord with the principles of responsible fiscal management, and where the Government chooses to use an alternative variable, either in substitution for, or in addition to, the statutory variable, the fiscal strategy report must state how the alternative variable used is similar in nature to one or more of the statutory variables. I note that successive Governments of different political stripes have, from time to time, used these alternate variables.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (20:46): Just before I call the member, I’ve been watching this debate for the last hour. I’m aware it’s quite a technical bill, and the well-informed nature of those engaged in it has also been noted. That shouldn’t be an excuse to use the technical nature of it to bog us down, and nor should it be, on the other hand, a reason why we shouldn’t actually be delving deep into it. Just that balance is what we’re trying to seek to achieve here. I also note we’ve had what, I’d have to say, is quite an ambitious closure motion from the other side, but we are just moving forward at a nice pace.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:47): Thank you, Mr Chair, I really do appreciate it. I agree that this is quite a technical bill, and I’m also trying to get my head around it, which is why we are seeking clarifications from the Minister, but I note that this is the Public Finance Amendment Bill, and public finance—in many ways, the way we do the Budget—is going to affect every part of what we do here, including any portfolio and any ministerial work. I guess I’m just trying to be thorough enough with this bill to give due respect to the magnitude of this bill.

Thank you, Minister, for that response. That’s really helpful. That’s a really good example, which I will remember, in terms of substitution. I want to pick up on something that I mentioned that straddles clauses 15 and 16, and that is clause 14 and, subsequently, clauses 17 and 19 maybe, which are all around the circumstances of the removal of wellbeing and also the repeal of certain clauses. When we are looking in the regulatory impact statement’s option two, which is removing the wellbeing-related requirements, it says that, in terms of consistency, “This option could lead to less consistency and comparability of information contained in the Budget Policy Statement over time.” I just want to check with the Minister about, with the removal of the wellbeing, how the Minister would ensure that the consistency and comparability of information are maintained at the same level as it is currently.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:49): Well, clause 19 simply repeals that requirement that the Government would state in the Budget Policy Statement the wellbeing objectives, as a separate matter. This removal just reflects the actual practical reality of a Budget Policy Statement. If the member is to read my most recent Budget Policy Statement, I set out, very clearly, the Government’s overarching goals for its terms of office, which I would intend to do in the future and, I suspect, any decent Minister of Finance would do. Then I simply state there are also the wellbeing objectives, because achieving them is what we’ve judged to be the most important contribution the Government can make to the long-term social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of New Zealanders. It is simply a fiction to say that, by placing a requirement on wellbeing in the terms of the Public Finance Act, it is, in practice, changing anything about the way in which Budgets have been put together or formed. I would make a generous assessment that there has probably not ever been a Minister of Finance who has set out to try and deliver a Budget that would reduce wellbeing, and putting the clause in there, I think, is more window dressing than anything else.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:50): Just a very short follow-up question—sorry, the Hon Dr Megan Woods. I wasn’t referring to, I guess, the wellbeing part. What I’m specifically referring to is what is on page 26 of the regulatory impact statement around consistency and comparability of information contained in the Budget document as something where the removal could have a potential negative impact. The only question I have is whether the same level of consistency would be expected. Although the regulatory impact statement says that they may be negatively impacted, is that something that the Minister is already working on to ensure that the same level of consistency exists? That’s all.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (20:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions are related to the questions that my colleague’s just asked around clause 17 on the repeal of the wellbeing objectives. In reading through the regulatory impact statement in terms of the options that the Minister was presented with in terms of solving the policy ill that she saw there, option three, which obviously was not the option that the Minister went with, was clarifying wellbeing requirements to strengthen transparency and accountability. I’d like to know the extent to which the Minister considered that. The Minister’s consistently said that she can cover this off through the Budget Policy Statement more broadly, but, indeed, when the wellbeing requirement was introduced in 2020, it was about having that consistency and transparency, which is what the objective of this Act says it’s trying to increase. So how are we going to compare one Budget to the next in terms of having that consistency?

My second question to the Minister around that is: why are we making these changes now while, at the very same time, the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been tasked by the previous Government of doing the inquiry into public reporting? This has been brought up by a previous speaker. One of the things that that is looking at is how not only we, as a Parliament, can hold the executive more to account in terms of its fiscal decisions but also non-fiscal indicators and what they may look like. In many ways, making this change is very much getting ahead of that piece of work that’s going on. I’d like to know the extent to which the Minister considered that when she was working through the policy options that were presented to her.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:53): Mr Chair, I’m delighted to say that I considered that, and I think the budget documents are pretty comparable. All you need look at is the waffly words, and photographs, and pictures, and endless sentences, and superfluous phrases in Grant Robertson’s Budgets and then compare them with mine and know there’s a new show in town. I don’t think that the wellbeing measures have provided consistency in that regard.

The second thing that I would point out, very clearly, is that never, at any stage, were specific statutory metrics introduced in relation to the wellbeing objectives such that they would have been objectively comparable, whereas the Public Finance Act, on the other more longstanding measures, does have metrics around the level of debt, around the balance between operating expenses and operating revenues, the level of total net worth, and the total operating expenses. I think the member probably already knows it, but the reality is the wellbeing clauses were inserted into the Public Finance Act by the previous Minister of Finance as a window dressing exercise to pretend that, somehow, his Budgets were different from any others, but they were judged in the same way as any Budget is, which is: what’s the inflation rate? What is that doing to the cost of living? What is the growth in the economy? What is unemployment? What’s the debt? What are you spending? If she disagrees with that is how his Budgets were judged—what is the impact on public services? What is the impact on taxpayers?—then I invite her to have another discussion with Grant Robertson.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (20:54): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think these committee of the whole stages are important for the House to ask the Minister questions about the decision-making process around the various policy options that were presented to her. The question that I put to her around option three, which wasn’t retaining the status quo—that was option one. Option three was around clarifying those wellbeing requirements. The Minister said that she wasn’t satisfied that there were statutory metrics that were there in the same way that the fiscal indicators had statutory metrics, so I’d like to know: did the Minister consider, instead, amending the legislation and putting in place statutory metrics by which those wellbeings could be measured? That is entirely different than the answer that the Minister just gave, which was around option one, which was retaining the status quo.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:55): No.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (20:55): Thank you, Mr Chair.

Tim Costley: Slow to the draw.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: There’s a long way to go, people.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: A very long way to go. That’s right, Dr Megan Woods, because we are only at clause 17 of 30 of Part 1 of two parts, plus an interpretation.

What I want to ask the Minister is in relation to, particularly, the wellbeing provisions, where clause 17 repeals section 26KB of the Public Finance Act. Now, even though the Minister believes it was window dressing, an organisation that didn’t believe it was window dressing was actually the United Nations. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)—so it’s a committee in the UN—recognised that the introduction of these wellbeing objectives into the Public Finance Act was a crucial framework for safeguarding children’s rights and that the launch of the subsequent Wellbeing Budgets from 2018 was a positive step towards realising one of our international obligations under UNCRC, article 1. The UN committee recognised these positive steps, and so it is not merely window dressing according to the UN.

One of the wellbeing objectives that we did have was around child poverty and the ability, basically, for Governments to be able to observe was that the wellbeing objectives were more about longer-term thinking. There were many submissions that we had received during the select committee process that reaffirmed that view. Their concern was that, by the repeal of section 26KB, the Minister was no longer taking a longer-term view into the wellbeing of children but was actually making more short-term decisions, which we have already recognised in some of the Amendment Papers on the Table, and that measures such as GDP assess, perhaps, how much you can produce or service but doesn’t actually calculate if you’ve got people sleeping in cars—how is that reflected in GDP?

My particular question to the Minister is: given the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recognised the introduction of the wellbeing objectives into the Public Finance Act as crucial for safeguarding children’s rights and also the subsequent Wellbeing Budgets as a positive step towards realising under UNCRC article 1, what are her steps, now, to deal with that, given she has now repealed that as part of clause 17 and repealed section 26KB?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:59): The question really highlighted something that I hope my colleagues agree with, which is that I’m glad it is the people of New Zealand who democratically elect their Government and not a report writer at the United Nations, because if that member wishes to press the case that, by simply inserting wellbeing objectives into his Budget Policy Statements, Grant Robertson was about to deliver more wellbeing, I would suggest to her that 33 months of out-of-control inflation reaching an intergenerational high, the accumulation of tens and tens of billions of dollars of debt, a cost of living crisis, a crash in the economy, which led to his Government being voted out, would suggest that most New Zealanders judged that the insertion of wellbeing objectives did not, in fact, enhance wellbeing. I’d also address the member’s questions by saying that we have retained the child poverty Act, so in relation to her questions around that, those reporting measures remain. I’d also point out that the inclusion of wellbeing measures did not prevent people sleeping in cars, which was a common occurrence under her Government in which the social housing wait list was much, much longer than it is under ours.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just an observation, first, Minister. The reason the Minister doesn’t make comments in the chair is because she has a microphone and they are broadcast. So please defer from that. Secondly, also to be aware: the more material the Minister introduces into her answers, of course, it does broaden the debate out. Thirdly, though, be aware we need to be still making progress and I’ll be now asking for each member who is actually asking questions to refer to the part of the bill that they’re referring to.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (21:00): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, the Minister did open up a whole lot of different questions in relation to—

Hon Member: That’s right.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I know, a lot of debatable points which we will go through.

Simon Court: You haven’t been able to answer any of them.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Sorry, what was that, Simon Court? Just so we can put on Hansard, thank you very much, take a call.

So, therefore, given the Minister’s particular comments in relation to some of our obligations that we have committed to under the UN and some of the conventions—particularly to the rights of children—is she now saying to the New Zealand public that she does not believe that New Zealand should not be a party to the United Nations conventions on the rights of children, given her response that she just gave? I ask the Minister to respond very carefully to it because it would be a very interesting Hansard to review, and to continue this line of questioning, given the different subjects that she opened up as part of her response.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:02): Thank you, Mr Chair. Also, Mr Chair, you spoilt our fun because the Minister has already opened up and we would love to have the opportunity to talk about shock events and the fact that we often seem to have this amnestic effect that we have on the other side, when the very shock event that the Minister refers to that we need to be prepared for is exactly what happened globally in 2020, where we actually, overall, came out better in terms of our level of debt compared to many other in the world.

But the question I have for the Minister is referring to clause 20. Within the regulatory impact statement (RIS) there were a number of issues that this bill is hoping to address and there’s still a few more that we haven’t touched on yet, and I want to touch on to the one that talks about quantifying and publishing new tax expenditure estimates. I want to check with the Minister; I guess the first question over here is in the regulatory impact statement—and I’ve been keeping a close eye to it—when it comes to clause 20; new 26MA. I’m looking at subclause (3), specifically “the tax expenditure statement must include, for each tax expenditure”.

One of the things that we are seeing—this is the options identification of this particular section in the regulatory impact statement where option three is chosen, and this is page 19 of the regulatory impact statement. The content in the regulatory impact statement that says, “The content requirements to be specified in legislation would include:” five different categories. In most cases, each of the categories match for match what we see in (3)(a) to (e). But I’m curious as to why there’s been a change in the legislation from what is in the regulatory impact statement for option three, d., which is an explanation of the outcome the expenditure is intended to achieve. Whereas 26MA(3)(d) is the type and objective—objective, not outcome—of the tax expenditure, noting that when we’re looking at the definition of outcome versus objective, outcome is straightforward, but the objective is a step-to-step process of leading to a particular goal or, i.e., a particular outcome.

So I guess my question to the Minister is: why are outcomes not required to be included in the tax expenditure statement in the legislation, compared to the RIS?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (21:05): In answer to Barbara Edmonds’ question: no. But as the member should well know, it has simply never been the case that New Zealanders agree with every sentence in every UN report. In relation to clause 20, this is simply a transparency measure, and I note that it was actually welcomed by Opposition members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which is to put in a requirement where there is this tax expenditure, that there is some reporting on the outcomes of it.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (21:05): Thank you, Mr Chair, and tēnā koe e te Minita.

My question is relating to clause 17 and the repeal of 26KB. Acknowledging the Minister’s focus on fiscal responsibility and of course the fact that Māori had strong support for this in their submissions—for the wellbeing reporting—in their submissions in 2018. Given the strong performance of the Māori economy, which is based on generational wellbeing and evidence of prudent fiscal management, did the Minister have any conversations with any iwi or iwi entities, including hauora entities? Was there any consultation undertaken with those entities and the impacts that this will have on the long-term effect of not just the Māori economy but the overall economy, with a Māori lens? Did the Minister receive any advice on whether changes to the inclusion of the Wellbeing Report will affect any obligations under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and was that even a consideration? Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (21:07): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I still do have questions on those clauses 17, 18, 19, 20, which is the set of clauses that are removing the wellbeing reporting.

In the regulatory impact statement (RIS), Treasury noted that the Wellbeing Report “provides a standalone piece of analysis on broader economic and social outcomes, published at regular intervals. It is … using Treasury’s professional judgement and is independent of Ministers. This supports public debate on the state of the nation. Ceasing the [Wellbeing Report] therefore risks less information being made available for public debate.” Now, this is quite a fundamental change in terms of the what the bill’s purporting to do, which is around transparency; that actually there’s advice from officials that it’s going to risk less information and less transfer transparency feeding into the public discourse in public debate.

The other question I have for the Minister is in the explanatory note, it gives streamlining the number of stewardship reports the Treasury must prepare as a reason for discontinuing the Wellbeing Report. It’s seeing it in the context of those other stewardship reports that are produced and this could be re-characterised as a de-prioritisation or a cut, if you like, Mr Chair. So if administrative efficiency was the priority, as outlined by Treasury in the RIS, was the consideration by the Minister for merging the existing requirements of the three existing stewardship reports into the Wellbeing Report to look at consolidation of those reports, rather than simply cutting the Wellbeing Report in the name of streamlining? Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (21:09): In reference to the questions from the first member, I note that the bill went through a full select committee process to which any Māori individual entity or organisation was able to submit. I note the bill only received 80 written submissions. However I can also confirm for the member that no inconsistencies with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were identified during the development of the policy proposals in this bill.

In answer to the questions from the Hon Megan Woods, I just simply disagree with the statement that she quoted. In terms of her question around consolidation: no.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I also have to say that broadening out the debate doesn’t mean spending too much time on those broader issues, either. It means they can be obviously addressed.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:10): Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t believe the Minister answered the question from Cushla Tangaere-Manuel at all, and I want to come back to clause 17, particularly when we look at this from a wellbeing perspective, and we look at the strategies that roll out in terms of Māori-targeted funding. Now, we were talking about the consultation process, and the Minister has not given us a satisfactory answer with regards to that, particularly given what the Māori economy is worth. We’re talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet the Minister has not come back with any answers in terms of her consultation process.

Also, we’ve seen so much money—in fact, I would say around a billion dollars, and I’ve taken this up with Minister Bishop and Minister Potaka—in terms of the Māori housing strategy; over $800 million in the last year or so transferred out of the Māori-targeted area for Māori housing, which is something that has been incredibly crucial in terms of development for Māori. I would like the Minister’s response to that, given that we had a programme in place—we had Māori housing groups in place—and it seems to be something that this Government has ignored, despite that funding going into the mainstream pūtea. Now we have Māori providers who have to compete and who are missing out, so it goes against the grain. [Chairperson signals to member]

Yes, yes, I’m trying my best, Mr Chair—it’s a very difficult, tricky topic here. We’re talking about Budgets—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Maybe best left to others, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m trying my best here. If we’re talking about wellbeing, where is the wellbeing in transferring that money out? Where is the strategy in terms of targeted funding for Māori? Where is the consultation? Where is the partnership with Māori? I think that the Minister has been very—well, I did not hear the response. In fact, I thought it was an inappropriate response.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (21:12): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We probably need to keep moving forward now, to those questioning.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (21:12): Yes, and I’m happy to carry on from my colleague Mr Jackson, who just gave an excellent speech outlining the kinds of things that need to be reported under wellbeing reporting, and the kinds of things that would pick up. I’ve got a very simple, quick question for the Minister; it is still on clause 17. Why did she not consider the consolidation of all of the reports into one?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (21:13): Because I thought it was better to remove it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:13): I would like to move on to, I guess, the next broad theme of this bill, which is around specific fiscal risks, or SFRs, which is what we’re looking at in clauses 22 to 24, noting that clauses 22 and 23 essentially replace some of the reporting aspects from two years to four years and three years to five years respectively.

I want to check with the Minister on clause 24(2), also noting that this is still a brand-new clause that hasn’t been touched on previously. We are looking at specific fiscal risks. Clause 24(2), which says, “After section 26Q(3)(b)(ii), insert:”—the new subparagraph (iii)(A) talks about “the fiscal impact during the forecast period for the economic and fiscal update if the risk were to materialise;”.

I want to check a couple of scenarios with the Minister and whether they would then be considered the materialisation of a risk for the forecast period of the economic and fiscal update. One of them is, for example, what we are seeing now, when there has been international conflict that potentially disrupts supply chains, etc. Would that be considered something that is going to happen here? It’s not something, I would assume, someone could forecast, but if it does materialise, would it be considered a specific fiscal risk? That’s my first question.

My second question is: if you are looking at the increased frequency of climate-charged weather events—and, again, when we did the infrastructure debate, there was a lot of conversation about what happens when certain communities are cut off. I think Grant McCallum talked from a Northland perspective, and I think Katie Nimon also mentioned Tukituki—

Katie Nimon: Napier!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, no, you’re Napier—I’m sorry. Tukituki and Napier, Katie Nimon’s and Catherine Wedd’s electorates. If that were to happen, and we are looking now at a very clear increase in climate-charged weather events—we know that those risks will materialise, so would those kinds of risks also appear as a part of specific fiscal risk? Those are my two questions. Where does it go if it’s not anticipated, and would climate-charged weather events be included, because it’s now happening?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (21:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just noting that we are up to clause 20—I’m just doing a progress update. Clause 20 of 30 in Part 1 of a two-part bill, including the interpretation section. Going specifically to clause 20, which is new section 26MA, which is the tax expenditure statement, during the select committee process we heard from a number of submitters who are actually very supportive of this new amendment, this new addition to the Public Finance Act by the Minister, so I do acknowledge the work that she and the Treasury have done on that in relation to making this a mandatory reporting obligation. Some of the particular questions in relation to the tax expenditure statement were on parts that were perhaps missing.

Just quickly for the Minister: has she considered reporting on how much potential revenue is being lost to avoidance or evasion, by broad tax type? That does sound weird—how can you report on how much tax may be avoided or evaded? However, Inland Revenue do have a compliance model where they do, via industry sector, try to calculate the level of avoidance or evasion—whether it’s avoidance or evasion, they’re two separate things, and they won’t necessarily say one or the other. They can actually measure that, and that’s by industry sector. For example, if you’re in the hospitality sector, and other cafes of similar sizes are showing that they’re reporting X amount of revenue, but your particular business doesn’t actually show that same level—it’s actually probably a drop—that is actually a flag within the system that they would probably report as part of their compliance modelling.

I just want to ask the Minister that question: had she considered whether—because it’s not as part of the current tax expenditure statement—how much potential revenue is being lost to avoidance or evasion, before I ask other, further questions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (21:18): In relation to the questions about clause 24, I refer the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to the latest half-year economic and fiscal update for examples of what risks look like, and I note that these include climate change related risks. For the member’s information—although I would note that providing this information is certainly wide of the bill at hand—if a risk materialises and has an impact on the Crown, it is no longer a risk; it would be included in the forecasts.

In terms of clause 20, I’d just simply note for the member the Hon Barbara Edmonds that nothing precludes any Minister from reporting information above and beyond what is required from the Public Finance Act. This Government certainly stands by its delivered promise to invest more in audit and compliance at the IRD. We have done that over successive Budgets, and we are proud to have done so.

NANCY LU (National) (21:19): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Barbara Edmonds, moving forward.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (21:19): I am moving forward, Mr Chair, to, actually, my proposed amendment that is on the Table, specifically an amendment to clause 20. That’s to insert new paragraph (f) after new section 26MA(3)(e), and that’s the estimated number of taxpayers that would be affected by the tax expenditure. I note the Minister of Finance says that the current amendment doesn’t preclude Ministers from being able to report on anything; however, I believe that this is important enough that it should be actually in the primary legislation. The reason why I say that is that by ensuring the tax expenditure statements also include the number of taxpayers that would be affected by tax expenditure—this would prevent a repeat of where a Minister makes claims about how many people would benefit from a tax cut or a transfer, only for it to be wildly overestimated.

I do think it’s important that that goes into primary legislation. Yes, Ministers could decide to report on that by other means; however, by putting it into one place, which is the tax expenditure statement—again, I hope that amendment would be able to get the support of the committee—it means that the Minister has to actually record the estimated number of taxpayers that would be affected by that tax expenditure—not in a policy paper, not in a little Budget at a Glance booklet, not in a press release, but, actually, in the tax expenditure statement. I seek, hopefully, an answer from the Minister as to whether she would support my amendment to clause 20, new section 26MA(3), to insert new paragraph (f).

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (21:21): No. The clause codifies existing practice. The way in which the member the Hon Barbara Edmonds has put the amendment would significantly increase the resources required to be applied by taxpayers in order to deliver on that legislative amendment. But I guess some members of the House have different views on how we should use taxpayers’ money. I always think we should be as prudent as possible.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (21:21): Given the Minister of Finance’s response that it’s already recorded in other things, how would it cause even more resources to, actually, then just record it into one place? That argument does not make sense. The Minister’s saying, “Well, they have to record it in this statement, in that statement.”—the Budget at a Glance, for example, or a press release—but that it’s going to cause a whole big bunch of resource to put it in the tax expenditure statement. If the Minister stands by her response, how much more resource would it be? What advice did she receive from Treasury or IRD in relation to that large amount of resource, extra resource it’s going to take? How much would that extra resource cost? Why can’t she include that as part of a further financial year? And if the Minister is standing by her claim that it has to be recorded in other documents, name those other documents, otherwise she has totally, basically—what’s the word?

Hon Member: Misled.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —misled or mischaracterised. If it’s going to be included as part of other documents, I don’t—I’m trying to understand how it is more of an extra big resource to put it in a tax expenditure statement.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on to, now, looking at a new clause. Again, I note that I’m not our finance spokesperson, so a lot of the questions I ask are probably going to be asked in more depth by other finance spokespeople, like the Hon Barbara Edmonds, in far more detail than I could muster. Also noting, with what the Minister mentioned before, that there are some good bits in there that we do agree with, but it’s still important just to check with the Minister of Finance on some of the intent and some of the operationalisation of it.

With that being said, I want to move on to clause 26, which is around the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU). This is to do with one of the other policy intents of this bill, which is adjusting the requirement of a HYEFU in an election year. The only question I have for the Minister in this—and I understand why we’re moving from October to September, it’s a logical move in terms of the gap between what is going to be in a Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) and what is going to be in HYEFU. But one of the things that I see in the regulatory impact statement, on page 38, is that there is the risk that if the exemption applies more often because we have moved the date of the HYEFU from October to September, there are no further requirements for producing any economic or—sorry, the exemption from October to September; there’s no requirement to produce a HYEFU, possibly, at the end of an election year before and to Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) the next year. So I want to check with the Minister—and this is something that’s recorded in the regular impact statement—what is the Minister’s intent; is that a significant enough risk in the Minister’s perspective? I guess that’s the first question.

Maybe I’ll just ask my second question now as well, which is on clause 27, and that is to do with the shifting of the PREFU earlier, taking note that more people would be doing advance voting. I think the idea of shifting from, I think, at this stage, the window between 35 days and 25 days is a good one. But in terms of the interaction—which we said before—of the exemption for HYEFU and then the shift in terms of the PREFU, does the Minister also think there’s going to be a longer and longer gap between the BEFU mid-year in the election year than, potentially, a PREFU now earlier in terms of the election? And there’s going to be a much longer gap potentially. Then, if you get a HYEFU that’s been exempted, there’s going to be a longer gap between the PREFU and the BEFU of the subsequent year—is the gap going to be too long for it to be considered a good process?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (21:26): In response to Barbara Edmonds’ questions, the advice I received was that by formalising publication of the taxation expenditure statement as it currently stands, rather than a new, novel, and expanded form as she has described, that reflected what Treasury and Inland Revenue believed they could achieve within existing resources. I was advised that collecting comprehensive data on all tax expenditures in the way described would impose compliance and administrative costs that presently outweigh the value of the additional information and would divert resource from analysis of policy options.

In terms of the questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan, I note that this is simply about being pragmatic and practical. The period between a half-year update and a pre-election update—if it is too short, it imposes significant burden on the treasury. As it is, the time difference between a Pre-election Fiscal Update (PREFU) and the next update, which would be at Budget if the exemption were to apply, is not dissimilar to the existing gap between a Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) and a Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update in non-election years, which is roughly eight months compared to seven.

I just also note that regardless of the requirements in the Act, a newly elected Government may wish to provide updated economic and fiscal information to the public and would be able to do so—again, nothing in the Act precludes it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Tom—

Hon Member: Rutherford.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): —Rutherford. You’ve been away a while, Mr Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (21:28): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’ll also just remind that attempting to persuade at this stage and attempting to clarify will be two quite different points that will be taken by the Chair.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (21:28): Thanks, Mr Chair. I have a question in response to the advice that the Minister of Finance just gave. The advice that she received was that it would take additional resource, that, basically, the tax expenditure statement as set out currently in Amendment Paper 502. The additional resource for Treasury and IRD is based on how much resource it would take for this, for, basically, what’s in clause 20, new section 26MA, which is “(1) The Minister must present to the House of Representatives a tax expenditure statement”, and they must present that statement immediately after they delivered the Budget for the financial year—which is fine. “(3) The tax expenditure statement must include, for each expenditure,—(a) a description of the tax expenditure; and (b) the legislative provision that authorises the tax expenditure; and (c) the estimated value of the tax expenditure, where it is reasonably feasible to estimate; and (d) the type and objective of the tax expenditure; and (e) if available, a link to an internet site where [the] documents that record the following are published: (i) the decision to make the tax expenditure: (ii) the analysis that informed that decision.” Then, (4), it “includes an exemption, allowance, preferential tax rate, deferral, or offset.”

I accept the officials’ advice that that does take significant resource, because this is new. Every time something is new, in the same way as when the disclosure statements were introduced as a regulatory requirement, it does take effort. However, for example, when officials estimated that 21,000 families would benefit from FamilyBoost, the maximum is 250, and when we’ve asked the Minister how many of those families have actually received it, the Minister is unable to answer it. So we have assumed it’s zero.

That work is being done. That is part of a Budget policy. The work has already been done to forecast that it was 21,000 families. So I don’t understand how that work, which has already been done, cannot be transferred into the Tax Expenditure Statement, and why that would cause huge—sorry, I think the word was “big”—resources by the Minister when the work’s already done.

Again, let’s follow that from step one. The Minister has released a FamilyBoost policy as part of Budget 2024. If the Tax Expenditure Statement was required in 2024, there is a whole list of things that they would need to do as part of the Budget Policy Statement, because it must be released straight after. The work has already been done to forecast how many families would benefit from that particular tax policy. I do not understand what is the extra, because that’s actually the real question: what is the extra resource to translate the forecast of 21,000 families into a Tax Expenditure Statement? The reason why I’m asking what is the extra resource is because although I can accept from officials that, yes, for Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department there may be significant resources for the new Tax Expenditure Statement, they would have had to do the work as part of the principal tax policy decision, which the Minister has included as part of her Budget.

The introduction of the whole Tax Expenditure Statement is to make it mandatory as part of this Act. You are making it mandatory. I do not accept the excuse that it is big resources, so my question to the Minister, and it is a new question, is how much extra resource—the extra bit, given officials, hypothetically, have already estimated X thousands of families are receiving this—is needed to put that in a Tax Expenditure Statement, given the purpose of the Tax Expenditure Statement is to set out the effect of tax policy decisions, made as part of the Budget to make it mandatory, when the work is already done? I don’t understand the Minister’s response of “big resources”, because, actually, the resources have already been allocated, they’ve already been forecast, so what is the extra resource that’s required to put this in a Tax Expenditure Statement?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (21:33): I have a question for the Minister on clause 27, which is “section 26T amended”, which is around the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU). We supported increasing the number of days in which the PREFU needed to be published. This is an important part of the election cycle, when the books are opened up. Parties right across the House and the Opposition, as well as the New Zealand public, get insight into how much money there is and how the policies stack.

One of the things I’m interested in is that if you look at the primary legislation, section 26T(1), it states that “The Minister must, not earlier than 30 working days, nor later than 20 working days, before the day appointed as polling day in relation to [the] general election …”. Clause 27(1) in the amendment legislation replaces “30” with “35” and “20” with “25”. I support that, but one of the things I’m interested in is whether the Minister received any advice around whether that polling day was the right day that we should be using, given the growth in advance voting in New Zealand, or whether or not we should be setting the days that the PREFU needed to be published out from the beginning of advance voting.

We’re seeing hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who are casting their votes before polling day. It is an important part of the election cycle in terms of Opposition parties being able to release policy, making sure it all stacks up. That window has fundamentally changed since this primary legislation was put in place that saw polling day as a fixed state, whereas we now know, in fact, that the regulatory impact statement and some other work actually shows the growth of advance voting, because it is such a thing and it is part of the rationale for why we extend it out. I just wondered whether the Minister either received or asked for advice on whether polling day or the beginning of advance voting was a better metric.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (21:35): As the member well knows, the clause has the effect of, effectively, meaning the Pre-election Fiscal and Economic Update is published five days earlier. This strikes an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that voters have better information before they go to vote, and, on the other hand, ensuring that that data is up to date and not out of date by the time they go to vote.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (21:36): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 502 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Barabra Edmond’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment deleting clauses 12 and 13 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment deleting clause 14 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “the level of long-term social deficit” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “the level of long-term infrastructure deficit” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “the level of climate risks to financial stability” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “long-term social deficit” into new subsection (1B) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “long-term infrastructure deficit” into new subsection (1B) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “climate risks to financial stability” into new subsection (1B) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 16(2) to insert “short-term social deficit” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 16(2) to insert “climate risks to financial stability” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 16(2) to insert “short-term infrastructure deficit” to new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment deleting clause 17 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment to clause 20 inserting new subsection 26MA(3)(f) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 32A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Part 2 Amendments to rest of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 31 to 43, “Amendments to rest of principal Act”.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (21:54): The amendments to the rest of the principal Act include amendments to section 34 around the responsibilities of chief executives: financial management of departmental matters; clause 32, which amends section 38 around departments’ provision of information on strategic intentions; clause 33, which amends the requirements for information on strategic intentions; and a number of other clauses which are a combination of consequential amendments relating to amendments in other clauses, remedial measures, and cross references to other parts of the Act.

We have taken the opportunity, in amending the Public Finance Act, to tidy up some things along the way, such as clause 42, which clarifies the Minister of Finance’s authority to issue securities, and other measures, such as applying reporting requirements.

I do note that clause 44 is being added by Amendment Paper 502, which I have spoken to already in the debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended and resumes at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Extended Sitting

Thursday, 5 March 2026

Bills

Public Finance Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Amendments to rest of principal Act (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is resumed.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (09:00): I move, That the committee report progress presently and move on to consideration of the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now move to consideration of the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill.

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

Committee of the Whole House

Part 1 Amendments relating to accident compensation and calculation of weekly income

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now turn to the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (09:02): Mr Chair, I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Part 1: this is the debate on clauses 4 to 7, “Amendments relating to accident compensation and calculation of weekly income”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:02): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. This is a bit of a quasi-urgency bill because we had a one-week select committee process, there’s no regulatory impact statement, and there was no ability to adequately engage with cross-Government agencies on the bill. I have some questions that would have been answered if we had had a proper process to begin with, and I’ll move to the clauses shortly.

The first one is: did the Minister, at any point, engage with ACC officials or the Minister for ACC in relation to the provision of this bill, and was she advised, at any point, around the inclusion of sexual violence survivors as part of those 37,000 people affected by the bill? If she did not consult at all, or her officials did not consult, with ACC on the inclusion of sexual violence survivors, I would like to know why, because submitters in the select committee stage were very, very clear about how this would affect not just sexual violence survivors but abuse in care survivors as well. That is my first question around the extent of engagement she has had with ACC, or the Minister for ACC for that matter, and whether she received any feedback.

On Part 1, I’m particularly interested in the provisions in clause 4(1) and then new subsection (1AAA), because this is where we talk about people’s partners. I want to start with something that the Minister has yet to acknowledge publicly, which is the impact on partners of ACC claimants and the relationship rules at Work and Income New Zealand and how this may affect people who may be deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage with a person who’s receiving a benefit and may be an ACC claimant. As the Minister may know, the Work and Income New Zealand rules in relation to a relationship in the nature of marriage can include just going on a handful of dates. It could even include flatmates who may have just been deemed to be too close but not actually for all intents and purposes having a romantic relationship. I know this myself because I have sat at benefits review committee hearings where people have been accused of this, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has previously even been accused by the Privacy Commissioner for their practices in determining this and the type of information they gather.

Can the Minister illustrate how many partners of ACC claimants have also had historic debts as a result of the provisions in this bill? I am so far referring to the provisions in clause 4 because of the way that we are defining “P” or their spouse. I think this would be one of the more appropriate parts to outline it. How many partners are affected by this? These partners are not necessarily the ACC claimants themselves. Often if you’re a beneficiary and your partner is also a beneficiary—say, for example, a supported living payment recipient—part of the challenge is that, say, somebody on a supported living payment, a person who’s got really serious health conditions and who’s a partner of an ACC claimant may just lose all their benefit and all their entitlements once an ACC claim comes through. Does she have a breakdown of who these partners are, how many thousands of them there may be, and, for example, the types of benefits that they may have been on, if they were on any benefit? How many of them would have been on the supported living payment with really serious health conditions and have been unlawfully put into debt due to the practice that MSD has carried out for decades? I want to begin with that.

If the Minister does not have the information in relation to partners, as defined in clause 4 by “P”, I want to know why she didn’t do due diligence to understand the scope of who is being affected by this bill. Equally, if the Minister did not engage with the Minister for ACC or if her officials did not engage with ACC officials to determine how many sensitive claims there were—or whether there were even sensitive claims, because I’m yet to hear the Minister, at any point, acknowledge sexual violence survivors in her contribution as people affected by this bill—I want to know why she has yet to acknowledge them. Those are my introductory remarks, and I hope that we can have a fulsome debate. This is the bill that affects 40,000 people, so I think it’s a worthwhile thing to be debating.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (09:07): Thank you. I want to start my contribution by talking about my concern about whether people in this Chamber, and indeed the Minister, the Hon Penny Simmonds, truly understands the nature of the change that is proposed and its impact on people. I have got to admit that I did not when I began this inquiry. I am in the select committee that heard from submitters, and it was an enlightening experience. It sent a shudder through me that it had been proposed that this was actually something that would be done under urgency without a select committee. That would have been a travesty.

What emerged during that select committee process was an injustice that was very evident and was not evident in the advice that we had been given. I understood that there had been a longstanding practice in the relationship between the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and ACC and that that longstanding practice needed to continue because, otherwise, there was a risk that people would double-dip—they would get ACC and they would get MSD support—and that that was a risk that we were facing.

I would like the Minister to talk specifically about that double-dipping risk. I’d like to understand whether the Minister still thinks that, without this piece of legislation, there is double-dipping. I want to explain why I don’t think there is. What we were told in the submissions, over and over again—and we had 850 submissions. It was a very, very short time frame. Last week, we were in a recess from Parliament. We sat and we listened to only some of those submissions, not all of them, because of the process. Those submissions revealed a pattern that goes something like this: if you have a person who has a broken arm, their claim is immediately accepted because it is obvious that they have a broken arm. But if you have a person who has been sexually abused repeatedly and they suffer from post-traumatic stress as a consequence, many years later this becomes an impediment to their capacity to work. That is a common scenario. The Minister—not the Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, but the Minister responsible for this, the Hon Louise Upston—was at a sexual assault centre with me last week on recess. We saw on the whiteboards in that centre the impacts of something like post-traumatic stress disorder and how much those symptoms impact on people’s capacity to work and function. They’re very, very real. I think we’ve all accepted that as a country, I hope, but I think we still remain a little ignorant about it. The Minister wouldn’t be, because she saw the same whiteboards that I did.

In that situation where a person suffers from a sexual assault, it is a complex case. We heard from the advisers in ACC that they only had time to break down the last 50 of these potential cases in the last year. They looked at them and a significant number of them are sexual assault scenarios.

If that is happening, then the person—and I just want to foreshadow that I’m going to have to tell the story beyond the next time, and I’ll be seeking the next call. In that scenario, you have one situation which is a broken leg. Their claim is accepted and they get a whole lot of support in addition to 80 percent of their earnings. If they’re an airline pilot, they do rather well. If they’re on minimum wage, there is a capacity to pay a certain amount and they get that. That’s how they do it. But, because they’ve got a broken arm, they may get some household help. I had that, in fact, myself when I broke my arm when I was breastfeeding a baby. They gave me household help. It made a huge difference. They’d get rehabilitation services. There are all sorts of additional things they get. They may get winter warming costs. They might get taxis. They are getting a bundle of benefits that are financially significant in addition to the 80 percent earnings.

Then you have the person with the delayed claim. Let’s take the sexual assault survivor. For that person, their claim takes five years to resolve. In that time that it is resolving, they may not be able to work because they’ve broken down as a consequence of what’s happening. I hope we all understand that that is real. In that situation, they will only have the Ministry of Social Development’s main benefit, and it will be, as my friend from the Greens has talked about, impacted in terms of whether they’ve got a partner, etc., so it will be whatever that minimum is. They may get some other benefits, like winter energy—they might be eligible for it—but they won’t get the much richer bundle of support that they would get under ACC.

Then, after five years, they get their claim accepted and ACC are accepting that they’ve been in default for that entire five-year period. At the moment, the arrangement has been for many years that the main benefit—there’s a discussion between ACC and MSD and the amount of money that they’ve had as a main benefit is taken out of the back pay of the 80 percent of earnings before the claimant ever sees it, so they lose that.

What this Government, as I understand it, is seeking to do now is to say that it is right that what they have been doing is MSD—because this is considered income, and I’d like a discussion from the Minister. I’d really like to know what she thinks about the income basis and the inequity here. Because they only look through the lens of income under their own Act, they have been asking and insisting that the claimant pay back any other costs that they have met. If they have met accommodation, they will ask for it back. If they have met any counselling needs, any energy payments, anything like that, they are asking the claimant to pay.

ACC have not paid any of these amounts during that time at all. They haven’t paid any of the superior bundle of rights that person will have, but they don’t seek to pay it back. I’d like the Minister to answer whether I’m right. Am I right that ACC has financially benefited enormously in most of those situations because, during the default, they do not actually pay any of this money and, in fact, then the claimant is paying back its own support? If the claimant has taken any support at that time, they must pay it back out of their income. Am I right with regard to that? If I’m right—and that’s what the claimant said—they are infinitely worse off.

What the Government seeks to do today is entrench that inequity, where somebody who had a perfectly justified claim for five years has missed all those benefits is also being told they are responsible for all payments above it. Am I right that there is a problem here? For the main benefit, I understand that would be a double-dip. If you got the main benefit and you got the 80 percent earnings, that would be a double-dip, but that’s not what’s going on. We have never allowed that to happen in this country. What the Minister seeks to entrench here is the right of MSD to take back all those extra payments that MSD has made and not compensate that person with anything that ACC should have paid in the interim.

Now, that seems deeply unjust to me, and I’d like the Minister’s explanation as to why equity is established in this way. We have an amendment on the Table, which we hope, as the Labour Party—it’s informed by submitters, and I’d like to speak to that amendment separately. We have an amendment where we think that we can fix some of the injustice here. I’d like another call, but first of all, I’d love to hear the Minister explain why this is considered double-dipping and why I’m wrong about this. Thank you, Minister.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (09:17): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, there’s been a number of questions and a number of statements, and I want to clarify the situation.

First of all, I want to make it very clear that this bill is about treating all types of income, whether ACC or other income, in the same way. It’s to ensure that the system is treating any income people can rely on in the same way, to ensure fairness and equity.

In terms of the questions from the Green Party member Ricardo Menéndez March, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) consulted with ACC as part of this process. I understand that ACC provided information to the committee about the nature of ACC claims that were available, including sensitive claims. With regard to the member’s questions about partners, relationship rules are out of scope of this bill.

I want to make it clear that this is ensuring that longstanding policy intent underpinning MSD’s approach to backdated ACC payments and charging income against past entitlements is aligned with the general principles of the welfare system, and those are the principles of a targeted welfare system. It’s clarifying longstanding practice and there will be no impact on clients compared to the current state. There will be no change. There is no difference. It is clarifying what has been longstanding intent.

I also just want to note that it is providing certainty in the law to remove that risk of the policy intent not occurring, so past assistance should always be reviewed when backdated ACC payments are received.

I also have another comment here: MSD does not hold the ACC claim information beyond the financial information, so income will continue to be charged as per the longstanding policy and practice. Clients will not get less than they currently are entitled to based on their situation.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:20): It’s astounding that the Minister would actually say that partners are out of scope of this bill when, in the select committee, we literally got given information confirming that if your partner is someone on a benefit and you get an ACC claim, that partner could lose their benefit as well, because the income calculations for benefit eligibility are treated as one.

Where is a Minister that is actually aware of this bill in the Chamber to speak to this? We’re not going to have a substantive debate if the Minister incorrectly says that something is out of scope. I want to ask again—

Hon Karen Chhour: Point of order. I do believe mentioning someone’s absence from the Chamber is not supposed to be happening.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order, just a note for the Chair as well that there’s been a longstanding history that, if the absence of a particular member in the House is vital to the debate of the House, we are able to call specific people as being absent.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Sit down; I’m going to make a ruling. I am going to make a ruling, so you can sit down. I mean, I do take the member’s point around absences in the House. If I could ask members to steer away from that. I think the point has been made. I would encourage members to not make it again.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. I will ask the Minister to engage correctly on my question. How many partners of people on a benefit who have made ACC claims who are also on a benefit are affected by this bill? What’s the breakdown of the types of benefit that they’re on? We have had very surface-level engagement—a little bit in the select committee around this—confirming that partners are affected. I expect the Minister to be on top of it, so can she please give us a number?

I’ll continue with some of my other questions in relation to the provisions in clause 5. I would also like to seek her engagement to my prior question as to whether she, the Minister, sought any advice on the impact of this bill on sexual violence survivors, abuse in care survivors, or people with traumatic head injuries; the three groups that we’ve received feedback from in the committee stage? I hear that officials engaged with ACC. I want to know if she, the Minister, sought any advice on the impact of this and, as a follow-up question, as to whether she sought advice that sensitive claimants would be one of the groups that would likely have some of the greatest debts imposed by the Ministry of Social Development due to the time that it takes for these claims to come back to them. Therefore, they would have accumulated quite a bit of debt due to the amount of time they would have been receiving some of the assistance outlined in clause 5.

Which takes me to my next question in relation to the provisions in clause 5: how many people that are affected in this bill, out of the 37,500-ish people, have received the disability allowance? I want to know whether the Minister thinks that the disability allowance is genuinely comparable to any support that ACC can provide for rehabilitation, because the disability allowance is normally not in line with any support that ACC can provide. The reason why I ask this is because we have heard a lot of discourse around how people access support during the time they’re waiting for their ACC claim. Then the ACC claim gets put as a debt, because it covers the support that people have received, but those two supports are not comparable.

To recap, did she engage in any way and seek advice on how many, and whether sexual violence survivors, abuse in care survivors, or, for example, traumatic head injury survivors were affected by this bill? How many people affected by this bill received the disability allowance? Is she able to clarify how many partners of ACC claimants have lost their benefit or have seen a reduction on their benefit as a result of the provisions of this bill, and whether she has a breakdown of the types of benefits? Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (09:25): Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of partners—and I’ll read some of the points out for the member—if a client or their partner receive a backdated ACC payment for the same period the client received Ministry of Social Development (MSD) assistance, any MSD assistance the client and their partner received may be impacted. This is the same as it is currently. Backdated ACC payments are applied against the full main benefit rate before it has been split between a client and their partner. Like main benefits, supplementary assistance is split between a client and their partner.

When MSD charges income to assess entitlement to assistance, both the income of the client and their partner is included. This means that, if the backdated ACC payment reduces the main benefit to zero for a past period and the supplementary assistance is reviewed, a debt may be created for both the client and their partner’s portion of any overpaid supplementary assistance. This is current practice.

Also, with regard to survivors of abuse in State care—and I want us to be very careful in addressing this, because it is important that these people, who have already been traumatised, are not used as a political football—redress payments are made to survivors of abuse in State care, and they are not in scope of these amendments. They are not in scope. Redress payments made to survivors of abuse in State care are not considered as income or cash assets when testing entitlement to MSD. This will not change.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before we move on, and for the enlightenment of the committee around the points of order that were just taken before, can I refer member’s to Speakers’ ruling 29/1: “(1) It is a convention that we do not make reference to the fact that a member is away or is not in the member’s seat; but (2) if it is felt that the absence of a member is of sufficient importance, then the real or suggested importance of the absence overrides the convention.” That’s quite a high bar. We do have Ministers who often sub in for other Ministers as well. That point has been made, but I would like members to remember that moving on.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green) (09:27): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just seek clarification whether this bar has been met, because if we had a Minister that says something is out of scope incorrectly—and I’ve raised concerns about whether we have an issue with the Minister who actually introduced the bill, the Hon Louise Upston, not being in the Chamber, whether you think that actually has met the bar? We have seen literally in exchanges now where the Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, has incorrectly said that something was out of scope, only to then go back and claim that it wasn’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK. Just to respond to the point of order. What we do want from the committee is, of course, conduct and engagement: conduct from members asking questions and engagement from the Minister. I want to acknowledge that the Minister is engaging. The Minister is addressing questions. There are officials at the back who are supporting the Minister as well. At this point, I do not believe that that bar has been met.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (09:28): Point of order. Thank you. Just a follow-on question with regard to that use of people’s—or saying that they’re not here. Yesterday, there was exchange in question time with the actual Minister. I was concerned that the actual Minister did not understand the nature of the change today. Is it appropriate, under that ruling, that I would bring that up in this forum? Wouldn’t that override—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What’s the point of order?

HELEN WHITE: I’m asking for clarity on whether that sort of situation overrides the suggestion that we don’t talk about people not being present. I can’t put those question to the actual person.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I don’t actually think that comes into it. Ministers often try to address questions and members opposite don’t like what they hear. There always is a sense of frustration often in question time as well. I don’t think that’s related to the absence of Minsters or members.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to be able to take my first call in this debate. This is a very impactful bill, and I think there have been some comments raised in this debate by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that this is not going to change the status quo. That is not correct, in the sense that we did have a situation where the High Court found that the intention of this House and Parliament had been incorrectly applied by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). Of course, we know that MSD’s intention and the policy that they were working to was consistent with their policy, but that doesn’t mean that this law does not change the status quo for many hundreds, if not thousands, of people who may be impacted by these claims. So I think it’s important to know that we are talking about an impactful bill and an impactful change that will affect people’s lives, and that’s why we have taken this proposal really seriously.

We, as members have alluded to, have had an original proposal to have this passed very quickly and then have it engaged substantively with a select committee process, and, unfortunately, what this select committee process did outline was that many of the concerns that we had and that we were not able to get sufficient information about at first reading were borne out by the submissions of people who had submitted to the Social Services and Community Committee. Further to that, even yesterday—and members have referred to this, but I think it’s important to note it—the Minister referred to ACC providing information to the committee. Now, my understanding—and members of the committee can correct me if I’m wrong—is that this occurred yesterday and that that information has been available to members only from that time.

I’ve looked at that information that the Minister referred to. That information is concerning because it shows that from the information that we’ve been able to be provided by ACC, the majority of people that we’re talking about who will be impacted by this bill are women and they are women who have sensitive claims and so are most likely to have suffered sexual abuse. That does change the proposition, I think, for the House in relation to this bill and the way that we talk about those affected. Of course it’s not entirely that group, but the statistics provided by ACC, when they looked at a group of 50 as a sample, found that around 65 percent of the people would have had sensitive claims and 70 percent would be women, and so these are the people that we are talking about today. I appreciate that there are aspects of that statistical analysis which will not be perfect, but I think that that’s important for our context.

The other thing that I think it’s important to set out for us—and I want to thank the officials who have provided advice to the Ministers and who are providing advice today in the Chamber—is that there is a way that some of these concerns can be alleviated in terms of the impact on highly vulnerable people, in terms of the impact on sensitive claimants, and in terms of some of that impact that my colleague Helen White was discussing in relation to the payments that ACC has made which may have been related to recovery, and we have tabled an amendment in the name of Willie Jackson. This is a very significant amendment for the Labour Party. If the Government is not able to support this amendment, which would allow a discretion for situations of unfairness and would remove abuse in care survivors and sensitive claimants—those very vulnerable people, who have already gone through what we would all acknowledge is a terrible experience, and those people on a disability allowance, where it is highly likely that that money was used for recovery and rehabilitation that would have otherwise been provided by ACC.

We have put this amendment up in good faith. We would like the Minister’s support for this amendment. We’ve given it on notice to the Government so that they can assess this particular amendment, and it’s really important for us. This is in the part that we are currently discussing. I do have some questions on clause 4, but this is in relation to clause 5, and so they’re the two very first clauses we’re debating. If the Government is willing to support this amendment, that will be very integral for us in this debate, moving forward.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (09:35): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just giving some answers to the question on numbers that the Green Party member asked for. While the Ministry of Social Development doesn’t have the exact numbers of how many disabled people would be impacted, around 11,000 people had an ACC-related debt established for disability allowance between January 1998 and November 2025—again, no change to how that was dealt with.

In terms of partners, the partner status data: for clients that have a partner without ACC debt, 1,146; for those that have a partner with ACC debt or supplementary assistance, 11,467; and for those with no partner, 24,925. I’m just giving those numbers, again confirming that there is no change to what occurs currently.

I note Camilla Belich’s comments about it being an impactful bill rather than it being a bill that’s not going to change current practice. It does not change current practice. The High Court and the Social Security Appeal Authority judgment have identified a misalignment between the Social Security Act and longstanding policy intent and practice, and so the Government has a duty to fix that and ensure that policy and law match up and are aligned. We need to ensure that the law is aligned with the general principles of a targeted welfare system, where the more income you earn, the less assistance you receive from the State.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:37): Thank you so much, Minister Simmonds, for engaging on the fact that this bill will impact 11,500 partners on a benefit. It is a substantive figure, and before I go on to more questions about clause 5 and one of my amendments, I have a question about the intent of the bill. I’ve heard the Minister say that this is just legalising existing practice, basically, but does that make the practice morally right or just? I mean, we could apply that to many things that were wrong that were done for decades. If, say, homosexuality was actually illegal for many decades, if you were just clarifying to continue doing that, I would be standing here again and saying that that is not correct, and so can I ask the Minister: does she genuinely believe that the existing practice is correct, even when it puts sexual violence survivors into substantive amounts of debt?

My second question—which she hasn’t engaged with—is whether she has received any information, or whether she is aware that sensitive claimants may be more likely to have greater debts with Work and Income because of the time that it often takes them to receive their ACC payments? I know that this is an extremely sensitive issue, and that’s why I do think it deserves adequate engagement and recognition of who it is impacting and a recognition of the fact that, as far as I’m aware—but I want to know if the Minister is aware, and if she has any information to allude to the fact that sensitive claimants do take longer to get their claims and are, therefore, more likely to have greater debt.

Now, I want to move to my first amendment, on Amendment Paper 522, which changes clause 5. This is an amendment that was brought forward after concerns from expert lawyers who echoed some of the stuff that we’ve been saying since the first reading, and the reason why I wanted to bring this amendment for discussion is that it does make significant changes—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you have the number of the amendment?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Amendment Paper 522.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Amendment Paper 522—cool.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. For this amendment—and if you’d just indulge me, Mr Chair, in making sure that I explain it thoroughly—I am seeking as much cross-party support as I can because this is actually not necessarily just a partisan amendment from the Green Party. This is coming from actual experts who understand this issue at a deep level, and they are people who work on these issues on a regular basis. I know that they have reached out to all political parties in the hope that we can all get behind this.

This amendment would actually create some limits—just limits—on the recovery of supplementary assistance following ACC back payments. What it does is it creates a framework where the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) isn’t able to recover all or part of the supplementary assistance if the person received the payments in good faith, did not intentionally contribute to any material error—and MSD is needing to have regard to all circumstances and consider whether the recovery would be inequitable. It also would allow MSD to have to consider whether these debts would alter the material position that people are in—for example, whether there was any delay in getting this entitlement; the financial circumstances of the person, including whether the recovery would cause serious hardship. These back payments and the weekly back payments can often genuinely undermine someone’s ability to make ends meet. If you’re on the breadline—if you were, say, someone who was living in a Kāinga Ora home, if you’re somebody who was literally struggling to survive—I think having consideration for the level of hardship these debts can impose is necessary.

Additionally—and this is why I was asking around the disability allowance—the amendment would prevent MSD from recovering the disability allowance paid during the relevant period, and any supplementary assistance paid to meet costs that would generally be made by ACC. Again, I want to seek the Minister’s engagement on my Amendment Paper 522, because this is a call for cross-party support to heed the calls of experts who work with survivors and people in hardship, who are telling us time and time again that just because this practice happened for decades, it does not make it right; and just because we’re legalising the practice, it does not make it right. I’d like to seek some engagement from the Minister on my Amendment Paper 522 and whether she would be inclined to support it; and, if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (09:42): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have seen the member Ricardo Menéndez March’s Amendment Paper 522. I just want to be very clear that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has a statutory duty to take all reasonably practical steps to recover debt. Having said that, MSD does have the discretion to look at the person’s circumstances and to ensure that any repayment is done that recognises their situation, that recognises any hardship, that recognises what would be an appropriate level of repayment. MSD has that discretion; they exercise that discretion to ensure that any repayment is done in such a way as to minimise the impact on the client.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:43): Can I just seek clarity over those comments, because my understanding is that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has no option but to impose these debts. They could choose to work with the beneficiary to, say, either have it as being taken as a lump sum out of their ACC back payment or negotiate with the beneficiary—an ACC claimant—over a weekly repayment rate. Now, there is actually no discretion as to whether these debts on the supplementary assistance are applied altogether. This is why our Amendment Paper does seek to give MSD the tools to consider that hardship or, for example, the disability allowance.

Can I just check with the Minister that her understanding of the bill is that MSD has no option to say, “We’re not going to put debt—or we’re not going to create this debt—altogether, and maybe we’ll charge ACC for it instead.”, for example, if this would create hardship; or whether she’s referring more to the options around whether this is, like, a debt that’s imposed as a lump amount from the back payment or as a weekly repayment rate, and then there’s a negotiation of those?

Now, I have a question in relationship to the latter, around the weekly repayment rates. That maybe is what she was alluding to in her comments. It would be useful if she would clarify for us. Does she have any information around the breakdown of, historically, who has chosen to have that debt be taken out of the back payment as a lump sum, or whether it’s been imposed as a weekly repayment? On the latter, I would like an understanding as to whether she has any information on the median amount of repayment rates that people have had. We know, for things like advances and other debt to MSD, there is a huge disparity among gender and ethnic lines on the weekly amount people have to pay back to MSD, where there is discretion applied on the level of repayments. We know—we have this information—

Hon Karen Chhour: That is done on earnings, so it’s not race or gender.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —and I think the Minister on the other side of the Chamber should engage on this bill if she cares so much, rather than just throwing jabs.

I would say that this is important, because, if she says that the status quo is that MSD does have the ability to not impose debts if there is hardship, I want to know what she’s specifically referring to, because this is not how the bill works. This would raise further concerns that I raised earlier about the understanding of the bill by the Minister and how this is actually undermining the debate that we are having. Again, I want to make a call for the Minister to engage with Amendment Paper 522. I don’t believe she has engaged with the substance of the amendment, because the bill itself does not give MSD that level of discretion. This amendment would allow MSD to have that level of discretion.

As a follow-up question, what I would like to seek the Minister’s engagement on, as well, to add to the list—I know that she said earlier that she didn’t have the number of disabled people out of the 37,500-ish people affected—but does she have information that shows how many people would have been on benefits that you can only qualify for if you are disabled or have a health condition? I know that some of these benefits may be historic, like the sickness benefit that we don’t have any more—but whether she received advice on how many people, historically, would have had debts while being on a benefit that means that they’re qualified as having a disability or a serious health condition? That is very different from how many disabled people are out there, because we know there are disabled people who are on the jobseeker benefit and are unable to access those other benefits. Does she have that information; and, if so, what is the breakdown?

This would actually be in relationship to the provisions in clause 5, in my view, because, ultimately, if you are someone—say, on the supported living payment, you’re far more likely to be needing that supplementary assistance. That is why this is relevant to the provisions in clause 5; ultimately, this is about understanding who is affected by clause 5 and who are the people affected by the provisions in clause 5.

So, engagement on my amendment; the breakdown of benefit type; whether MSD can actually just waive those debts or whether it’s just simply how those debts are established—it would be really, really useful to hear from the Minister to have a constructive engagement on this debate, and in the hope that we can heed the calls of experts who work with survivors, who have asked all political parties to mitigate some of the harm that this bill is entrenching; and an ability to give MSD a bit more flexibility to consider people’s hardship.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (09:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I made very clear at the start, when I was talking about repayments, that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does have a statutory duty to take all reasonably practical steps to recover debt. It is not discretion around debt; it is discretion around the repayments and taking into consideration the situation of the client. MSD already has that discretion.

I think the member Ricardo Menéndez March already answered their own issues around discretion when he said about MSD and their application of that discretion around repayments, and saying how inconsistent it was and how it wasn’t evenly applied against gender and ethnicity. Therein lies the problem: when you provide more discretion to MSD, there is a possibility of inconsistencies, and, therefore, the clearer the legislation is the better. They have the discretion already; the member has complained about how they use that discretion, and yet he is asking for more discretion. We see exactly the issue that he clarified, that he made clear: that is the inconsistencies that can occur across how discretion is applied. So, no, we won’t be accepting it.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:49): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I am interested to hear the Government-side contributions, because I think we’re certainly a long way away from a closure motion. We’ve barely discussed any of the substantive detail in Part 1 at all, and Part 1 is the majority part of this bill. I am sure that they have some very valid contributions to make to this debate, and that’s why they’re seeking the call.

The question of discretion is really important. The Minister hasn’t answered yet, in relation to the two amendments put forward to her that would allow discretion, whether she would support those or not. It is important to know at this stage; this is the time that we are debating these amendments. Will the Minister support this or not? Will she support discretion?

We’ve had a slight exchange here. It did appear that she was saying there was discretion already. I wonder if she was talking about the social security regulations and if she was referring to that at all, because I have had a relatively close look at some of the regulations, specifically No. 208, but my understanding is that only occurs when there’s been an error by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), which would not be the situation in most of these particular situations. She said that the discretion is in relation to the type of repayment. If she could just clarify that that is the only existing discretion and that there is no discretion, either, in the bill currently proposed, and, additionally, if why she was referring to discretion was perhaps because she may be looking to support some of these amendments. Now I’ve just lodged another amendment, which gives a generalised—

Hon Member: No.

CAMILLA BELICH: —discretion to this bill. Those on the other side say, “No”, but I would remind them that the discretion is in relation to people who are survivors, mainly, of sexual assault, who will be given debts due to no fault of their own, due to the passage of this legislation.The discretion, as described, I think, in all the amendments tabled, is in relation to situations of unfairness and undue hardship and inequity.When those types of situations occur, that is when MSD can apply the discretion under the amendments proposed.

Now, the Minister notes that sometimes discretion can be applied in a way which is unjust and that that’s a risk. I don’t think that is a reason, or a justified reason, to turn our backs on not allowing payments for very vulnerable people who’ve already had terrible experiences, through no fault of their own, to suddenly be indebted, when that would be unjust, when that would be unfair, and when that would create undue hardship for those people. If the Minister is concerned about making sure that criteria apply, the amendments tabled have very, very specific criteria, which would allay some of those concerns. When applied in a uniform manner, they are unlikely to result in situations of discretion being applied unfairly, because of how prescriptive they are. They do require good faith, and they do require a situation where there is no fault on behalf of the claimant.

This is a serious matter. I go back again: the Minister did say that she did not agree that this was a change in procedure. Well, we do have a law, and as the law currently stands the recovery of these benefits is not permissible, and that is why the Government is bringing in this law. It is a change to the current status quo. I think it is really important to know that question of discretion. I know there are a lot of people who work in this field who are watching this debate and are keen to know: will the Minister agree? Will the Government agree to compassion in allowing discretion when there is truly a situation, assessed by MSD, of hardship? She has a few options in front of her, provided in good faith.

I think we need clarification that she does not consider that the current regulatory system allows for discretion. If that’s not correct, we need to have that cleared up right now, because this is going to be integrally important for how this particular piece of legislation is received and impacts the community. Discretion and the ability of MSD to utilise discretion is absolutely fundamentally important to how this bill will proceed, so having clarity on that is very important. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (09:54): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just before we move on from discretion, I wanted to ask the Minister whether she was aware that the amendment that the Labour Party has put up on this matter—which is quite comprehensive—is based on ACC discretion. While the Minister made a case that there should be no discretion because that could lead to inequity, in fact it’s based on a similar provision, as I understand it, that works well in the ACC setting.

Is she aware that a letter was written to the Minister by the very same experts in the area, seeking what the Labour Party has tabled as an amendment here, based on what they think will practically work in this area and make things fairer than they would otherwise be? I still haven’t had an answer to my question about what the differences between someone who has a long claim and their claim is accepted in five years versus somebody who has an accident which is apparent straight away and can be ruled on straight away.

Does she accept they’re being treated differently? And does she think that’s fairer or not? Because, if you look at the actual purposes and the intent that is at the beginning of the Act—so it relates to this clause 2—the reason for this clause is supposed to be that it looks at inequity.

I want to raise an issue about accredited employers and moral hazard because this did come up during the submissions. There are lots of accredited employers out there and some of them are our meat works, etc, so I’ll use that as an example. If a meat works has somebody who has a gradual process injury, so they are impacted because they’re cutting the meat and it is putting pressure and there’s enough pressure that it becomes a gradual process injury under the Act. It’s quite a hard one to establish because there are other things that you need to look at like was the person’s shoulder going to deteriorate anyway, etc. So it takes time through a process.

It’s an accredited employer and the accredited employer is paying for the cost of rehabilitation. If we had a bad faith situation or even just somebody who thought of it in terms of the numbers, aren’t they better off just delaying the claim, in that in any situation that they can see prima facie any reason to delay, aren’t they better off—that accredited employer who pays their own ACC—delaying the claim? Because under the law as we will make it now—and I take Camilla Belich’s point: the law as it is now doesn’t do this because the High Court has said it won’t; it would only take the main benefit. But, actually, in this current situation that we are putting in place today, isn’t an accredited employer put in a position where there is a moral hazard because we are making delays pay for an employer in that situation, because they don’t have to pay any of the additional costs.

At the end of the five years, they don’t pay all the things they would have paid. We had an example given to us by Hazel Armstrong from Hazel Armstrong Law. She was talking about her role, also; she’s on the board of the Port of Auckland and she was talking about how much benefit there is if you accept a claim early for the individual and for the rehabilitation of that person. In the Port of Auckland they’ve got gold-plated rehabilitation. People return to work much quicker but it costs the company the outlay at that time because they put in that work.

If there is an employer who doesn’t do that and decides delay is their best friend, aren’t we making a moral hazard in this law, here? So I’d love an answer to that question. I want to know, also, because we had an ACC briefing yesterday in our select committee. It was after the select committee process was through and we had to report back, but we had really lots of unanswered questions. So I want to know some of the answers that I still haven’t got back because it was only a 20-minute briefing.

So the question I asked ACC is: why are you not paying for these people’s extras? Why are you only passing on the 80 percent earnings? Is there a legal reason? What’s going on there? I haven’t received an answer to that. So I’d like to ask the Minister: has she asked —

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (09:59): Mr Chair, tēnā koe. Tēnā rā tātou. It is an absolute privilege to stand here to rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori but on behalf of many Māori—as we know, overrepresented when it comes to social welfare and many other detrimental effects that really cause pain and suffering for generations. We’re not just referring to the last week since this bill came into this House, but we’re drawing retrospectively—pun intended—on the impacts that this bill and the proposed changes, amendments by the Minister, will have going forward prospectively.

Now, I have been a part of the select committee process and was fortunate enough to read as many of the 850-plus submissions that were put through, many of which were from Māori, submitted from whānau Māori, individuals, partners, separated parents, widows, survivors—several survivors. The harrowing stories that they shared openly with the select committee in writing and in person cannot be ignored by this Minister or this Government.

One other area that cannot be ignored, that must be considered seriously with serious consideration by the Minister and by this Government, is the inclusion of a section that guarantees every New Zealander will be protected, and that is through Te Tiriti—one of the many amendments put forward by Te Pāti Māori. This is not ideological. Te Tiriti ensures that every New Zealander is safe, is treated with great respect, and is treated equally, yes—and I want to draw our attention again to that word, because that word is at the centre of the purpose, the intent, of this bill. Equity is what I understand the Minister is trying to achieve, but the stated objective of this bill is to maintain the integrity of a targeted welfare system and to ensure that people do not receive duplicate income replacements.

Equitable, to achieve equity—this isn’t it. This bill does not achieve that. It has been proven and shown in court and during the select committee process. It is written by legal experts who have been supporting survivors of abuse. They say that this bill does not provide equity. In fact, it provides, in perpetuity, inequity, and it also goes further to create further harm, to deepen hardship, to deepen the pain and suffering that these 37,500 people already suffer.

It has been proven in the High Court that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) was acting unlawfully. Rather than addressing that issue, we are now debating how we can scratch that and move forward but apply a retrospective lens that claws back what rightfully was paid to claimants. It wasn’t a main benefit. It was a supplementary to ensure that those people accessed and had access to the right supports—for instance, rehabilitation. For whānau that scrape together the last 10 bucks to put butter on the table, actually finding services, finding the right services, for whānau Māori—we’re talking about rongoā. Not everybody in te ao Māori actually goes to hospitals, seeks out those sorts of supports, but the ability to access compensation as well as supplementary supports to help families in desperate need is the query. Te Tiriti—one of our many amendments—ensures that everybody in New Zealand and everybody impacted by this bill is treated fairly. Fairness is what we call for in the amendments that we’ve put forward.

The Minister did say, and I acknowledge, that the intent of this bill is to ensure a targeted welfare system, but in her statement, simply fixing a situation where there has been an overpayment with MSD with benefit and supplementary allowance payments that are made while someone who is paid weekly ACC and someone who gets a backdated payment—excuse me, I’m a little bit nervous; this is my first time. The question to the Minister is does she agree that the bill as enacted means that there is a difference between the person who gets ACC paid on time and gets backdated—

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

Hon Members: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me. I was just going to suggest to the member, when your time is expiring, you can seek another call, and if so, because the member had already started her question, I would give her the opportunity to finish the question. But I do encourage members to get to the questions earlier on, OK. Oriini Kaipara.

ORIINI KAIPARA: Thank you. I’ll finish the question. Does the Minister agree that the bill as enacted means that there is a difference between the person who gets ACC paid on time and gets a backdated payment? If so, is the Minister aware that in many supplementary assistance cases, it is used by people to pay for treatment and rehab for their injuries? When this money is paid on top of that person’s weekly compensation, by forcing them to pay this money back to MSD out of their weekly compensation payments, they are paying for their own treatment and their own rehabilitation costs, and so they are worse off.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (10:05): I want to acknowledge the amendments from both the Green Party and the Labour Party with regard to additional forms of discretion. The reference to ACC discretion was made. Of course, ACC discretion is out of scope of this bill, and this bill is addressing how income is treated for benefit purposes. I just want to note that while the two parties have put forward amendments on discretion, the Government considers that creating additional forms of discretion goes against the actual intent of this bill, which is to provide clarity and consistency in how ACC payments are treated in the welfare system.

I hope that I picked up Te Pāti Māori’s question right, about whether this bill is going to ensure fairness between the different types of ACC—whether it’s delayed payment, backdated payment, or ongoing payment. That is precisely the reason to ensure fairness between those two types of ACC payment.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:07): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Yeah, astonishing the members on the other side are so keen to engage in the debate—but anyway. Look, I just have one clarification on my Amendment Paper 522 and the Minister’s amendment which was introduced in committee of the whole House and we haven’t had a chance to debate it.

Just on 522, I want to ask the Minister to clarify—I know that she just briefly touched on it—whether it is her view that some of these debts could cause hardship. Can she acknowledge whether this is currently what she’s intending to do?

Moving on to the Minister’s amendment that she has introduced, I wanted to ask—this kind of touches on all parts of the bill but particularly I think references some of the stuff in relationship to the Social Security Appeal Authority and the benefit review committees, etc. I may just take the opportunity to talk about her amendment right now, because it actually addresses the whole of the bill, but can I just get clarification from the Minister—because this will help us know whether we need to draft a further amendment to it, and I would love to be able to do so before we get to Part 2—whether the change that she is making through her amendment would also include people who have filed reviews of decisions.

The amendment language seems to only talk about benefit review committees, but there’s often a period in which you file a review of a decision and the Ministry of Social Development hasn’t had the chance to evaluate the review of the decision. For those who don’t know, often there’s sort of like a three-tier stage that people can go through, right? Sometimes, in my experience when I was at the front lines, once you launch a review of a decision, you may be able to get an outcome within a day. You may be able to get an outcome within a week. But sometimes it can take quite some time to get an acknowledgment. Can I just get clarity over her amendment, which does touch on all parts of the bill. I’m seeing some engagement. I can leave that for the other parts if that is the Chair’s ask, but anyway, just wanting to raise that.

I’ll move on from the questions on her amendment and I’ll go to some of the provisions in clause 5. This is specifically on subclause (1), inserting new section 198A(5)(d). I wanted to get a sense of whether she also had any information on the temporary additional support data and how many people access it.

I also want to know, again, whether she considers that the support that people can access via the temporary additional support is comparable in any way to the support people can get through ACC for things like rehabilitation, etc. The reason why I’m focusing on the temporary additional support component as one of the types of supplementary assistance that is explicitly named in the bill—in clause 5, and this is a new point—is because often temporary additional support is to meet the costs that effectively no other type of supplement or main benefit can get you. So it can actually be used for things like, for example, transport costs, etc., to get to the doctors. My question is more whether the amount that people can get for temporary additional support and the scope of what it can be used for is comparable to the range of support they can access when they finally get their ACC claims.

This is particularly important because we have heard that this is about addressing inequity between—well, which I disagree with the language, but this is what we’ve been told—people who have had access to a main benefit while waiting for an ACC claim and received support from MSD compared to people who perhaps got their claim really promptly. But my understanding is, and the High Court agrees, that a lot of this supplementary assistance is not necessarily comparable and it is just because people needed it while they waited for their claims to come through. So if she has any data on the temporary additional support specifically—so how many people needed it, maybe the range of things that she’s aware it can cover and whether it’s comparable, that would be particularly useful. And I know that she may choose to address her amendment in another part of the bill, but I would none the less like some engagement on it at any point in this debate. Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (10:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question from the Green Party member about the savings provision, and, of course, the amendment came about because of the very issues that the member talked about, that was heard from submitters at the select committee. And so the inclusion now has been made to those who have made application for a review by the benefits review committee, and they include those who have filed. So just absolutely clarifying that for the member. I will wait for some additional information from the officials regarding the temporary additional support data.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National) (10:12): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we are getting towards the end of this part, members. There are likely some questions on the two schedules, clauses 6 and 7; if we can move on to those while we wait for the Minister to get her advice from the officials.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (10:13): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will move to clause 6, but I’ve actually got a question which is on new section 198(5)(b) and (c), inserted by clause 5. and that’s with regard to the issue of winter energy payment. That came up in the submission process because people who have been disabled are often in a situation where they need warmth and that is often paid for by ACC. So it’s a very—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): So what’s the question?

HELEN WHITE: I want to know from the Minister whether she considered an issue like the winter energy payment is something that might have been excluded or could be excluded at this stage because there’s such a correlation with recovery from an injury. So it’s something that is a really direct example of someone paying for their own rehabilitation. I’d be very keen to know what was discussed with regard to the winter energy payment.

Then if we move to replacement Schedule 3, inserted by clause 7, if we look at (1A), we have “MSD must, in calculating a person’s weekly income under subclause (1), determine the period or periods to which any income (other than annual … pay income) relates based only on—” and then there’s a very long example of how they must do it. So first of all, I would like to know from the Minister, why “must”—why have we been so directive in that situation? Because then we go on to (2) to say, “If MSD cannot determine the period … to which the income relates…”. It sounds to me like what the drafters are trying to deal with there is that it’s a guessing game and that became very apparent in the process we were going through, is to calculate after all this time is actually really difficult. And so there has been an additional part here.

I wanted to contrast that and say, can the Minister explain why they would not be able to determine periods and periods of income that relate? What is the logic for that exclusion? Am I right that it is because it’s really, really difficult to do? And so MSD—we were told that the reason we were doing this was it was just going to be a nightmare administratively to actually change things for people away from long-standing practice. There’ve been a whole lot of people who had money clawed back and there would be a lot of work involved in doing it, because it’s so uncertain what was going on. Isn’t this an example of it being a nightmare the other way where there’s got to be calculations and then there’s uncertainty? So could I please understand that situation? I’d be really grateful for an answer on those before I moved on. So I do appreciate that the Chair often looks for a to and fro. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:17): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to note that we have had a few generalised questions around specific amendments that are in relation to this part, but there are a number of clauses that we haven’t touched on at all, so my intention is to ask specific questions on those clauses.

Just also to clarify for the Minister, the Minister’s Amendment Paper, is that to be debated in Part 1? Because if we moved on to Part 2, we wouldn’t be able to significantly discuss that. So if we could get just some clarity in relation to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It does straddle both, and there has already been commentary on the Amendment Paper.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, I’m aware of that, but I just wanted to know if it—so that’s actually really helpful to know that it is in Part 2 as well.

I do have some specific questions that I wanted the Minister to answer in relation to these earlier questions on Part 1, and I think that these haven’t been touched on. So if we look at clause 4, which is the first section, we’ve received some information from the Minister around partners and the amounts a week that that they would receive. I think we can probably move on from that section.

If we look at clause 4(4), we see that we look at what is a specified benefit under this particular Act. The question that I have is in relation to the kind of temporary benefits and the discretionary benefits that do not form part of the main types of benefit that would normally be considered, which are more usually described as a specified benefit. So obviously we have the disability benefit and then we have the winter energy payment, and we have the accommodation supplement. But those discretionary benefits which are also going to be covered by this order, has the Minister received any information as to what types of situations that those particular such benefits would apply? Because I think that is important in terms of the argument that we will have probably throughout this bill, that is really important to know and identify whether the ACC payment that has resulted in the debt was actually as a result of people using what would otherwise be utilised as a payment. So if someone was on ACC, they would have received money for recovery, and it might be that there’s some further information around those less common types of payments that might make it clearer as to how that was utilised, and that is really important to the effectiveness of this bill.

Also, one thing we haven’t discussed at all is the issue of holiday pay. I don’t believe we’ve discussed that issue at all. This does apply to holiday pay, and there’s a relatively complex discussion of how that holiday pay will be calculated in relation to whether it will be covered under this particular bill. The way that I had understood it is that people must have received their actual salary for their holidays and that is the only way that a holiday would be included within this, but it might be that that is incorrect. There is reference, in addition to that, to public holidays, and, obviously, some people are paid for public holidays and some people aren’t. Some guidance from the Minister on how that works, in relation to this, would also be helpful.

Additionally, we had the partners out of scope, and then they were in scope. Is this something that’s also taken into account? What about other types of payments, when people are on parental leave or other types of Government assistance? Is there an interaction with that in the bill? I think there are some outstanding matters in relation to the nuts and bolts of the calculation, which, while we have been looking at the high-level issues, have not yet been touched on at all within this debate.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (10:21): Madam Chair, thank you. With regard to temporary additional support that the questioner from the Green Party was asking about, there are 10,963 people who were receiving temporary additional support and who also received backdated ACC payments.

With regard to Helen White’s comments, I’m just confirming, again, that this is confirming what is a longstanding policy intent when calculating a person’s weekly income. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has to charge that income for the period that it represents and account for scenarios where MSD is not able to determine the period of a person’s income that it represents. They must determine the appropriate period to charge that income, having regard to the extent to which it was earned in that period or those periods, the extent to which other entitlements to it arose in respect of that period or periods, and the period or periods for which it was otherwise received, acquired, paid, provided, or supplied. The member asked: when a period can’t be determined, what sort of example would that be? For example, something like a gift for a relative doesn’t relate to any specific period.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, can I please encourage members to move forward? We are now starting to go backwards. That is becoming repetitive. This is a warning that the debate is becoming repetitive.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (10:23): Thank you. We have not talked about the retroactive nature of some of these provisions at all, from what I can recall. The issue is connected with the amendment that has been made because the amendment from the Minister herself is to widen the scope of the people who are able—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): What clause are you speaking to?

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, I’m speaking to the amendment and the retroactivity of cutting off the claims.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is that Part 2?

HELEN WHITE: You just indicated that we were discussing the amendment in this part.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Minister’s amendment—

HELEN WHITE: The Minister’s Amendment Paper 528. I can deal with the retrospective aspect in the next part and just deal with the amendment if that’s helpful.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, because retrospective—

HELEN WHITE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): —is in Part 2.

HELEN WHITE: Lovely. I’m very happy to do that. We thank the Minister for making that amendment, but what it does is it captures a group of people who have got claims in the works, basically. It is a situation that seems to me to suggest that the Minister accepts it was not just to cut people off who were in that position and that there’s an acceptance that it is unjust. Presumably, they would be double-dipping too—if there was really any double-dipping going on.

I’d like the Minister to answer that question. Why has that amendment been made? Is that a concession that these people are unjustly affected in that situation? Are they—those people that are now captured, which is a slightly wider circle—also the people who are going to now double-dip? I would really like a straight answer because I’ve had no answers on double-dipping. It’s not an answer to say that this is the practice that’s been—that was a justification for it. I want to know: what’s the story? Are they actually in a situation where it will be accepted that these people will be double-dipping but that’s OK because they’ve got their process in the works and it’s down to a High Court ruling that was itself illogical? Or is it, in fact, a group of people that we need to expand? In which case, I would like to know whether the Minister considered has other expansions of this group. The ones who were really vulnerable couldn’t have known that they had to make a claim, because, in fact, this happened so quickly, but there’ll be a whole group of people who are just as impacted and who don’t know. Did she consider a pathway through for those people who are in that situation now and who were impacted by that decision when she was considering this particular amendment?

I don’t want to detract from the fact that I’m happy to see an amendment on the Table that gives a few more people their rights under the law, but what was the logic for this particular carve-out? I am very keen to hear why it wasn’t applied to others and whether others were considered in the greater scheme of things. Is it an amount of people? How many people are affected? What we heard from ACC is that they were only looking at the last year and they were only looking at 50 people. Is it that it’s considered that that will help sexual assault survivors? Is there some sort of logic there, because that is the greatest number in that period and that they’re more likely to know? I’d really like to know.

Finally, just with regard to the sexual assault issue, I’d really like to know: was there a discussion with the Minister who is involved in the prevention of sexual and family violence about this impacting on people who are the victims of that violence? I’d really like to know. Was there any discussion with that Minister about the nature of this and the impact on those survivors because she’s deeply committed to that area and is working in it? It would seem logical given the numbers, or was that sort of impact just not known to the Minister? We only found out about it after our report was done. Thank you, Minister. I really want to hear the answers to those questions.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (10:28): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not going to take that closure motion just yet, but it is very close.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:28): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a very specific question around clause 7, “Schedule 3 amended”. When we’re looking at “Periods to which income (other than annual holiday pay income) relates”, I want to focus specifically on the overall section. First of all, what I would like to know, in terms of clarification, is: when we are talking about the income and particularly the extent—for example, replacement subclause (1A)(a) says, “the extent to which it was earned in that period or those periods;”. When we are looking at that, particularly in the context of ACC, is that granted income or is that payable income? Because those two things would be considered different in that context.

Now, moving on—just very quickly—to touch on to replacement subsection (2), it does say that “If MSD cannot determine”, it may use other alternative measures, but I want to check that with the Minister because there’s no example given. A table of the sort that we see under (1A)(b) would have been helpful in terms of how the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) uses alternative periods or has regard to different periods in order to determine the period or periods in which an income relates if they cannot determine it. Those are my two questions, at this stage, around clause 7, “Schedule 3 amended”.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (10:30): Madam Chair, thank you. I also wish to propose an amendment to Part 1, Part 7—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Clause 7.

ORIINI KAIPARA: Clause 7—thank you. It’s in regard to what my colleague here to my right touched on, in clause 7(2), replacement clause (1A)(2): “If MSD cannot determine the period …” Now, is there scope there to consider, knowing that the majority of the people—there are a large amount of Māori being impacted by this bill, and many others. There are a lot of Māori who are going to suffer by these amendments. The proposal is, in clause 7, which amends clause 13(2) of Schedule 3—on page 5, after line 29—to please input: “2(a) MSD develops an operational guidance for determining the period to which income relates in partnership with Māori, including iwi, hapū and Māori service providers.” This also ensures that partnership at that high level is implemented practically and pragmatically in law, in legislation. It allows Māori, especially iwi post settlement, to ensure that they can act with courage, but also to take responsibility and help their whānau, which they want to do. This is really referring to ensuring that there is equity across this entire bill, and particularly in this Part 1, proposed new clause 7(2A) of Schedule 3 of the Act, in Amendment Paper 513.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (10:32): I want to note that in the notification from ACC, the Ministry of Social Development always knows what period the payment relates to. ACC determines that period. In terms of the example, I had given an example earlier of where it can be difficult to determine a period—things like a series of gifts from family might be where it’s difficult to determine the period.

In terms of the paid parental leave question and the holiday pay question from Camilla Belich, paid parental leave is treated as income in the benefit system, and the bill is intended to treat holiday pay as other income, but there needs to be the bespoke provisions in here because of the nature of holiday pay, which can be earned in a different period to when it is paid.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:33): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I have some question on clause 7, and I will also be touching on some things that are yet to be addressed, including a couple of amendments I haven’t had a chance to speak to.

The first one is—if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying, on clause 7(2), replacement clause (1A)(b) of Schedule 3 of the Act—whether, in determining “the extent to which any other entitlements to it arose in, or in respect of, that period or those periods”, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) also has the opportunity to assess whether someone hadn’t received their full and legal entitlements as part of that process? I raise this because often when a case manager or case worker may be looking at someone’s entitlement, they may actually realise that someone may have been entitled to something that they haven’t received. I’m just checking whether the provisions in clause 7 are only to be used for the purposes of establishing a debt, or whether MSD could actually determine, hey, it turns out we should have been giving you a bunch of support that we didn’t, and that also gets to be addressed as part of that process.

The second one is in relation to—the Minister’s amendment touches a little bit on it, but she hasn’t addressed that, and I think clause 7 is the best place for us to potentially address it—the interactions between the mandatory reviews that are coming into place in March and how this works. Could the Minister elaborate on the mandatory review policy and the interaction with these, basically, assessments of periods to which income relates in the provisions of clause 7—whether there’s a relationship to those and whether she would like to speak to the implementation of mandatory reviews and how they interact with this bill, as proposed in her amendment. This is particularly important because, obviously, if those mandatory reviews will have significant impacts on MSD staff and people on the benefit, and they are mentioned in her amendment.

There are a couple of amendments in part 1 that I really need to speak to before we move on, because they matter us and they matter to the people we serve. The first one is Amendment Paper 524, which I haven’t spoken to yet. Amendment Paper 524 is very specifically asking that, in clause 5, the entitlement does not relate to a sensitive claim, to survival of abuse in care, or the beneficiary having been a victim of crime. I wanted to know whether the Minister—524 is the amendment. Thank you—I appreciate the Minister checking. The reason for that is that I hear comments around how this is simply entrenching existing practice, but I guess it goes back to a question that she hasn’t engaged with from earlier—before the current Chair was in the Chamber, I believe—about whether she believed the existing practice was right. That’s why 524 is an amendment that I am proposing and that I would like to seek some engagement with.

One last thing that I haven’t had engagement from the Minister on and that I do want to reiterate to just see if the Minister would like to engage on this issue—it deeply matters to me and, I know, to other members—is the amount of debts that are established as a result of the provisions in clause 7. Would she be able to outline what some of these quite large amounts of debts are—what are we talking about? Do we have people that have debts in the amount of $30,000 plus? You know who these people are. It goes back to an earlier question I asked that has not been addressed, which is whether sensitive claimants are likely to have a greater amount of debt, and whether the Minister has that understanding or otherwise.

The reason this relates to clause 7 is because, ultimately, we’re talking about the calculation of the period of the person receiving that income and supplementary assistance in clause 7, so as part of calculating that period, we’re looking at the reality that the longer that period is, the larger the debt is also likely to be. Therefore, I want the Minister to outline which groups of people are likely to have a greater period being assessed as part of the provisions in clause 7 that may lead to them having large debts. Are those people more likely to be sensitive claimants? Again, if she would like to comment or address the range of debts that we have, particularly in the higher brackets, and what kind of level of debts we’re talking about, that would be really useful to get the Minister’s engagement on. Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (10:38): I just want to clarify again that we are ensuring alignment—this bill is assuring alignment—with current policy and practice. We are not here debating whether a targeted welfare system is appropriate or not.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT) (10:38): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 528 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oriini Kaipara’s amendment inserting new clause 4AAA, set out on Amendment Paper 509, is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 524 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to clause 5, set out on Amendment Paper 525, is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (1A) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (1B) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (2B) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (2C) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (3A) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (3B) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (3C) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (3D) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting subsection (3E) into new section 198A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting paragraphs (c) to (f) into new section 198A(2) and inserting subsection (4A) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 518 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 511 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 515 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 516 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 526 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 517 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 519 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 5, inserting subsection (6) into new section 198A, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 522 is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 6(2), deleting “or an accredited employer” from new paragraph (b), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oriini Kaipara’s amendment to clause 7 set out on Amendment Paper 514 is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s amendment to clause 7 set out on Amendment Paper 513 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Part 2 Amendments relating to transitional, savings, and related provisions, and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clause 8—“Amendments relating to transitional, savings, and related provisions”—and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (11:00): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I want to go back to the Minister’s amendment because, at the end of the day, it touches a lot on Part 2. First of all, can I ask the Minister, in the saving provision changes that she is proposing, how much money will likely or potentially be considered as part of that, right? So we’ve got the amounts that are potentially being considered by the Social Security Appeal Authority, and now we’ve got the ones in this provision that are part of the benefits review committee. I would like to understand whether she did any work to understand how much money would be in question here.

Earlier, I actually asked a question, and I just want to triple-confirm with the Minister, because I’m particularly concerned that the answer I got given may have been incorrect. Now, if I look at page 10 of her Amendment Paper 528, the Schedule, “New Part 11 inserted into Schedule 1”, clause 108, “Effect on proceedings”, it says, “Clauses 105 to 107 apply to proceedings before a benefits review committee (BRC), the appeal authority, or a court only if those proceedings are begun on or after the changeover.”, and then it kind of talks about, in (2), the same thing. Earlier, I asked about whether people who have lodged a review of decision would be captured in this, but my understanding is that the proceedings of the benefit review committees do not start, necessarily, when someone lodges a review of decision; the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) determines after a review of decision, whether this will go to a benefit review committee. This is particularly important because, during the select committee process, we did get a breakdown of how many reviews of decisions have been lodged, how many of them were waiting for a hearing, and how many were in front of the Social Security Appeal Authority. We also found out that people who were lodging these things for the purposes of challenging the dates established by this practice were waiting, on average, considerably longer than others. In her amendment, I do not see a specific reference to a review of decision.

What I am concerned about is that you have got people that would have literally filled out the form, haven’t heard back, and may be excluded by this new amendment, which, in the Minister’s own words in the second reading debate, was brought forward because of the concerns that were raised by submitters and members during the one-week select committee process. Confirmation of this is critical to understanding our support and satisfaction with this amendment and whether it generally honours the contributions by submitters. If she has excluded people who have lodged a review of decision, I would be keen to know whether the Minister’s intent would be to support any amendments presented by us to include review-of-decision documents that have been presented to MSD. Clarity over that would be useful.

I go back to my earlier question around the dollar figure that we’re talking about through the inclusion of the benefit review committees, which is the new language in the Minister’s amendments when it comes to the saving provisions.

The other thing that I wanted to understand is whether the Minister would confirm whether MSD had proactively let people know, after the High Court decision and this bill being introduced, that the existing practice was unlawful and that they could challenge it. This also has affected the number of BRCs and Social Security Appeal Authority numbers that we’re talking about in the savings provisions outlined in Part 2. Is the Minister aware whether MSD took any steps to let beneficiaries know of the High Court decision and that their practice had been unlawful and that they would be able to challenge this through any process; if not, why did MSD not let people know that the practice was unlawful and that they could be eligible to actually receive quite substantive amounts of money back? If that is the case, I wonder whether the current amendments still leave out people who would have been legally able to challenge these debts but just may not have been aware, because I would say that the layperson is not necessarily following proceedings in the High Court.

So those are my three sets of questions that I hope the Minister can engage with in a full extent.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (11:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just confirm what I said to the member’s question regarding the provisions, the amendment, and the expanded provisions. For avoidance of all doubt: they are reviews that are filed with the benefits review committee, including those at the internal review stage, so there is no doubt they are those that are filed.

The Ministry of Social Development have undertaken some very high-level costings based on the reassessment for the first 39 people, and anticipate that these expanded savings will cost an additional $2.1 million to expand the savings provision to another 91 people. So that’s, at a very high level, the cost of the expansion of the Amendment Paper.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What’s the figure?

Camilla Belich: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Camilla Belich.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Sorry, I don’t think the member heard: $2.1 million.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to be able to take a call in Part 2, which, obviously, does cover some significant parts of this Act. I think it is important to note that although there has been a policy rationale articulated by the Minister in relation to this particular bill, the rationale for the retrospective nature of this bill, and the fact that the High Court has determined the legislation as it applies in New Zealand at the moment, and since the passage of the primary legislation in 2018, that it would have been possible to change the law in order to be consistent with the objectives of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the policy that that wanted to implement, without having a retrospective element to this bill. It could have been a decision that the Government made in relation to these transitional provisions and commencement, which are in the Schedule, “New Part 11 inserted into Schedule 1”, clause 104 to actually have this bill apply to future events and to change the law to align with policy of the future.

This is an important point, because, essentially, what we’re having here at the moment is the Government saying that there are a certain set of rules that applied at the time that these particular payments were made and that we’re going to go back in time and we are today going to change those rules so that different rules apply. So things that were done in good faith over that time can be covered. I think this is a fundamental point of Part 2.

Although we’ve heard from the Minister, repeatedly, that this is no change to the current practice of MSD, there is a way that the Government could have put forward a bill which did not have this element of retrospectivity whilst making the position consistent. I think the committee deserves to know the rationale for that. I would imagine that it is partly due to the cost of that, and we’ve got some exclusions to that, and the Minister’s Amendment Paper is relevant to this because this does expand the group of people who would not have these rules apply to them. But we need to hear the policy rationale for that. As we know, retrospective legislation is not the norm in this House. I’ve read the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, which I don’t feel sufficiently addressed—it certainly didn’t find that there was a breach. But also, at the time—and I think this is important—she didn’t have the information available to her on the types of people impacted by this bill, and, as we’ve said, those are mainly women and mainly people who are victims of assault and of sensitive claims. This is a serious matter, and the retrospectivity of this means we could be going back some time.

I want to know from the Minister the rationale in relation to this section, and also if she’s had any advice as to the period of time that this would actually apply for this policy: will there be people who received these payments in 2018—who will actually be going back that far—who will be impacted by this? I do have an amendment on the Table, but I may wait to see what the Minister says in relation to the policy justification before going over it. I do think that it is a serious decision to bring retrospective legislation to the House. It is something that is out of the norm, and it does require good policy rationale in order to justify it.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:11): I want to look further at the issue of retrospectivity, because it is so unusual that we do that in this House—for good reason. I’m looking at clause 106 in particular, “Validation of certain pre-commencement decisions”. We’re validating the law, as I understand it. We’re validating the practice over what the law has found is unlawful behaviour in that situation. I would love to know what the rationale is, but I’d also like to talk about the practicalities of that. I suspect the rationale is that there’s a lot of administration involved in going back.

For the benefit of the public, this is a situation where the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has been clawing back, for many years, moneys from beneficiaries that have been paid out, and they’ve been doing it unlawfully. They shouldn’t have been taking the money that is those extra payments; they were only entitled, as I understand it, to take the main benefit. They’ve been taking real money off real people, and today what we’re doing is saying that was OK regardless of their circumstances and impact. I would really like to know whether the Minister, faced with the fact that it was going to be hard to go back and repay people what should never have been taken off them under the law, has thought about some practical ways around that that might narrow the number of claimants.

For example, we could have looked at people who had a lot of money taken off them. We could have gone to the ones that had had a significant amount—so, say, over $5,000 or $10,000. We could have just looked at them and ring-fenced them so that we were narrowing the amount of work to be done, but we would recognise that that’s a significant amount of money that had been unlawfully taken off people. I’d love to know whether any work was done in terms of looking at it in terms of the wood for the trees. So, not looking at every claim, but could we have looked at those big amounts where there’s been a clawback? We must know what the clawback was already. That doesn’t seem to be that hard a thing to find out.

Then I wondered, also, whether we could have done that with regard to our most vulnerable—if we looked at people who have been, for example, on a benefit for a long time, or the duration of the period. Those are the people who haven’t necessarily been rehabilitated in the time. Could we have excluded them and paid them? What we seem to have done is chosen a group of people who are probably our most well-informed, who have got on to it and have lodged a review in the process. That seems to me to be inherently unequal, because they are not necessarily the people who have suffered the most damage. I genuinely want to know whether that is something that the Minister would be prepared to do, and how that stacks up against the usual caution about retroactivity.

I would also like to know whether there was any liaison with ACC over these issues, because it really concerned me, in the discussion that I had with MSD advisers during the select committee process, that when we asked about that, it seemed as if the operation of MSD and ACC were acting in silo. Over something like this, how much discussion was there with ACC about the practicalities of that?

We also have got rid of what used to be there in the law, which was a catch-all, which was the Judicature Act’s savings clause. It basically said, under that Act, that if you’d spent money in good faith, there wasn’t a capacity to claim it back, and that has been part of our law since, I think, 1908. It was in statutory form. It is an equitable principle. I don’t want to keep going beyond these points except to say, can I just check in: given that that check and balance was gone, the Judicature Act, and there’s not really an equivalent any more, was it something that was considered?

Then, finally, I want to go to the point of a window for the claims. We’ve heard that we’ve decided what claims were in as of the date, and this definitely goes to the retroactive nature of it. What was wrong with having a window for claims that said, “We’re on notice now that this is going to change. But if you have a claim, and you could have done that in combination with the significant nature of the amount—if you have a claim that you think is over $10,000 or $5,000—then you have six months to get your review in.”? That would have been an opportunity to get the most important cases through. I want to know: was that considered, having a window rather than slamming the door shut with no notice, and particularly in combination with retroactivity? Thank you; I’d be very keen to hear the answers to this question, Minister.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (11:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a relatively technical question, and I am just mindful that the Minister is engaging with her officials. OK, cool, awesome.

Just on Part 11 of Schedule 1, does the entitlement in clause 105(3)—this is page 8, if we’re looking, for example, at the Minister’s amendment, which means the whole bill. I’m looking at wanting to know whether the provisions in there include an entitlement to “treatment or rehabilitation” or simply “weekly compensation”. Then I want to know how this relates to the provisions in Part 1, particularly new section 198A, which doesn’t just include income replacement but also includes disability allowance and other treatment and rehabilitation-related needs. Basically, the question here is: is the intent of the bill simply about requiring repaying injury-related needs from people from weekly compensation or not?

These are two quite different things, right? There’s the loss of weekly earnings that are compensated through the payment, but also there’s a cost of rehabilitation, which I think is really specific support that is unlocked by ACC. I’m particularly concerned as to whether the intent is to—I know we gave an example in the bill.

It says literally, for example, an entitlement to weekly loss of earning compensation, but there’s no mention of rehabilitation, and I want to understand whether that was the intent or otherwise, and if it isn’t the case to include the cost of rehabilitation, whether she would then allow people to be able to have access to those and for those to not be affected by the clawbacks.

One of the things that I am also particularly interested in, and I haven’t had engagement with the Minister on, is on the range of debts imposed by Part 2. There hasn’t been engagement on the upper end of debts that are imposed and who is particularly affected. I’ve continuously sought engagement from the Minister on this and haven’t been able to get an engagement or answer from her on it. The reason for the question, I’ll reiterate, is that I am particularly concerned that the higher end of these debts are likely to be carried by women who are sexual violence survivors. I do think this is such a delicate and important point that we need to have engagement to traverse, and it relates to the savings provisions in Part 2.

I know that in the select committee period we had a bit of—we know that there are debts that are over $30,000, which is substantive for someone on a low wage or a low income. Debt of $30,000 is significant—life-changing, even, I would say. But what the Minister hasn’t given us clarity on is whether she believes that these debts are more likely to be carried by sexual violence survivors or otherwise.

So, once again, clarity over, basically, new section 105(3), inserted by clause 8, in relationship to the cost of rehabilitation—clarity around that as well as the sort of higher-end debts and whether these are likely to be carried by sexual violence survivors would be useful to have clarity on.

As I said, this is a sensitive issue that I do think requires addressing from the Minister and I just think I’m not satisfied by just saying that, well, this is just confirming existing practice. This is in some ways the ability for us to ascertain whether the existing practice is harming people who have been trying to seek recourse from traumatic and incredibly traumatic things.

One thing that I also didn’t get engagement and I want to go back to the Minister on is whether she’s aware whether the Ministry of Social Development it must be considered or even did send communications following the High Court decision letting people know that they would be able to challenge this decision through the review of decision process. The reason why I asked this is she gave us a number, the number of people in the benefit review committees (BRCs), but that’s a very low number compared to the 37,500 people affected by this bill. I believe this number of reviews of decisions and BRCs would have been higher if communications had been sent and this is why I want to know whether, at any point, communications had been sent.

Again, we could have traversed this in the select committee process, but we had one week. It was rushed. We didn’t even have the Minister, so this is the one opportunity we have to seek clarity from her on these issues. Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (11:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s been a number of questions around the retrospective nature of the bill. The key reason behind this is the fact that the bill is reflecting the operation of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) with regard to policy intent. This has been their operating intent, and it has been aligned with the policy intent, and therefore it’s appropriate that this be upheld both retrospectively and prospectively.

If it wasn’t, we’d be looking at substantial inequities arising between ACC clients who have received welfare entitlements. The bill does save those small cohort of cases who have been under review, and that’s appropriate. It ensures that legislation doesn’t interfere with those particular cases, but they are a very small number of cases. The reason for the retrospectivity of it is that it’s important to ensure that the fairness occurs outside of that very small cohort that are currently before review.

In terms of the interaction between MSD and ACC, MSD worked with ACC throughout the select committee process and they engaged on all the relevant questions that have been asked. Just noting with regard to the question from the Green Party member about rehabilitation requirements, that responsibility sits with ACC. This bill is about clarifying how income from ACC is treated in the welfare system.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:25): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do thank the Minister for engaging in some of that discussion around retrospectivity, because it is very, very important and significant in this bill. A slightly different matter that hasn’t been specifically addressed by the Minister is in relation to the changeover date, which is in Part 11. Actually, it was quite difficult when I was doing amendments on this section because it’s a schedule—new Part 11—inserting new clause 104, and then the definition of “changeover”. The reason that that’s particularly interesting and I think deserves comment is this changeover date puts in place a date which I think reflects the time that this bill was introduced to the House. It does make it retrospective, but it is a more unusual form of retrospectivity because it’s actually picking a time that doesn’t coincide with commencement or Royal assent, but simply when this bill became publicly available.

I would like to hear the Minister specifically on that changeover date and why in fact it was necessary to effectively prevent those people who may have had claims once this decision was made giving any period of time at all that was prior to the introduction of this bill. That is particularly unusual to have that changeover date there and something that the Minister could change. I think an even fairer change would be along with introduction of this bill—so whether the Minister would consider an amendment in relation to that, I think that is particularly important to try and make sure that we do have this addressed.

Additionally, the bill, in this part, as it applies to the transitions, puts into place the Minister’s amendment. For the purpose of this, I’m actually looking at the Amendment Paper, which has been lodged in the House as a fully amended bill. I’m imagining that because we agreed to the Amendment Paper in the last section, even though this is in Part 2, these are already in place. I’m discussing the relevant parts of the Minister’s amendment with reference to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 528. The Minister’s Amendment Paper looks at—and we agree with this, and I think all parties of the House have supported it—the inclusion of the benefits review claimants and the people who are excluded from the effect of this bill. The question I wanted to ask the Minister in respect of the benefits review committee is: is she aware or has she sought advice from officials on whether there are people who may have had a claim declined by the benefits review committee or otherwise dealt with in a way that didn’t fully recognise their entitlement?

The reason that this is an important question is because this is a retrospective bill, and because people who are now, and we agree should be, excluded from it are covered by the people who have been in the benefits review committee. Are there people whose cases have been discharged who are excluded from this, and who, in fairness, should be included within the exclusion? The only reason that they would not be is because they were faster and more efficient at asking and inquiring to the benefits review committee around the status of their case. That would also apply to people who had cases in the courts, but we know that that will be a much smaller number of people and that will be most likely because we’ve had the High Court decision. There’s usually a greater degree of consistency required within those types of arguments. That’s quite a specific question, but one that I think should be addressed.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (11:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just noting again some points on the retrospective nature of the bill. The bill, of course, is ensuring—as we’ve said many times—that policy intent and practice is upheld, both going back and going forward, and it’s to ensure that policy and practice is upheld for as many people as possible, apart from that savings provision of that small cohort of people that are in active dispute.

I think we’ve made it very clear: yes, the changeover is 2 p.m. on the date of the bill being introduced. That isn’t the standard approach but there is a very clear reason why there is the need for retrospectivity on this bill, because we need to ensure that current policy and current practice is upheld for as many people as possible. In terms of the claims declined around that very small number, I’ll ask the officials to give me some additional information.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’d just make the point at the moment that the we are sort of covering one aspect of this, which is fine—seeking points—but when each of the presentations is taking the full five minutes, it does sort of influence the Chair on whether the next person will get the call or not. The whole idea of committee stage, of course, is to explore.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (11:31): Thank you. Mr Chair. I would like to speak to my amendment, and this is specifically for clause 105(1) of the schedule. I’m coming at this from a completely different angle, which is from a taxation angle. The reason I bring forward this amendment, which is to say that subclause (1)(a) and (b) are not applicable to any specified benefit or specified supplementary assistance granted payable prior to 1 April 2024—there’s a reason for that.

Previously, ACC arrears covering multiple years were taxed at a higher rate, which is up to 37 percent. That would have applied if ACC compensation had been paid on a weekly basis, starting from the original date of the injury. But the problem with that is that at a higher rate, a claimant could possibly lose all of the entitlement, for example, to Working for Families tax credit for the year in which they received ACC arrears, and a significant portion of the arrears was lost to tax and related liabilities that way.

So this particular aspect of the tax treatment of ACC arrears was changed in sections 57, 59, and 62 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill, which introduces new provisions to the Income Tax Act 2007. But this took effect on 1 April 2024. So, for claimants who will receive the ACC arrears prior to the day and did not have the benefit of the amendment, the bill presents additional unfairness where they are taxed at a higher rate for their ACC arrears, as well as having the clawback we’re seeing in this particular bill, which then means that when we’re looking at this bill, my amendment is simply just to say to ease some of those unfairnesses, we’re looking at those ones simply granted after 1 April 2024.

I guess the question comes down to three parts. The first part: it is likely for those people who are also up before the 2024 date where there is a higher taxation being placed on that, they may very well receive very little in terms of ACC arrears, which means that it’s better for them not to receive the ACC arrears because they’re going to be further in debt. So the first question to the Minister is: how many people would have had more debt accrued than what the ACC arrears present post-tax?

My second question is around whether the Minister would consider this amendment which corrects that potential level of unfairness. Those are my only two questions.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:34): Thank you. The Minister has now repeatedly talked about how this is longstanding practice, and I want to examine that statement in terms of the evidence she has for that because I have seen no evidence of that practice being something that is reflected in the law.

So here we have a law decision—a legal decision—which says this is what the legislature said that the bill would do, and we have an assertion that the practice is the way it is because it’s consistent with the law, as I understand it, and yet the two are at odds here. So what I want to know is: did the Minister get advice as to whether the Ministry of Social Development genuinely thought they were abiding by the law in this practice? Is there any connection there? Because to say it’s a practice, if it’s a practice of chopping people’s heads off when the law says you can’t, doesn’t really cut it. We need to know what the basis is for this being a bona fide practice rather than getting wrong the intent of the legislature.

I would say that’s a fundamental question. So repeating it’s a longstanding practice isn’t going to cut it; what’s the evidence of that practice being bona fide in that way, and what kind of advice has the Minister had on the justice of that, in light of the intention of the legislature? Did they look at the Hansard, for example, from the time when the bill came in and say, “OK, this is what the legislature did mean to happen; we just wrote it down wrong.”? That would be the kind of thing that I’d expect rather than just saying it is as it is.

Then I have a couple of other questions. One is: in terms of claims for delay, you will recall I talked about how I was worried about the risk that an accredited employer might take advantage of the situation and delay things. Well, it’s also true that delay is something that has always been a worry with regard to accredited employers, and that there has been an advantage taken. So would a claimant who had had their claim delayed in a calculated way because this was the practice and the accredited employer didn’t have to pay as much if they delayed the claim—if there is evidence of that kind of practice occurring, which has been a worry for my colleagues in the law for some time, is this law going to stop any case that says that someone has deliberately or in negligence delayed a case, and it has caused loss? Because I would say that in a normal legal setting, you would be able to take that case on the basis of there being a negligent act or a deliberate act to stop.

Are we doing that here? Are we saying no claims whatsoever; you can’t have any remedy? Is that what the Minister intends to do, and is that what is happening here? The next bit is the claims against ACC itself. I have not yet had any clarification about why ACC doesn’t pass over to the recipient—to the claimant who’s successful—the kinds of payments they would have had in the default. They’ve missed a lot of those opportunities. Why does that not happen? In which case, is there still here a claim possible against ACC? Does the Minister intend to stop that happening by this retroactive Act, or is that still possible?

Those are three concrete questions. I actually have had very few answers to my questions so far, and I’d be really appreciative of some of those sorts of answers. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (11:39): With regard to the very specific question around those people who have had a claim declined and will they be captured or not, the amendment is very clear that the savings provision applies to all live cases, either with the review and with the benefits review committee, the Social Security Appeal Authority, or the courts, at the changeover date. It is clear that they must be live cases.

In terms of Helen White’s assertions, this has been practice that has been operational practice by the Ministry of Social Development. It is the policy intent of the legislation, and it aligns with that overall principle of a targeted welfare system, where the more income you earn, the less assistance you receive from the State. I don’t believe that we are here to debate that matter.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (11:40): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I just want to raise some issues that I haven’t had engagement with, and then I’ll move on to some new material.

I’m interested in still knowing about the communications side from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and whether that was considered after the High Court decision, because that would have affected or may give us information as to why we have the number of benefit review committees and Social Security Appeal Authority appeals that we have.

The other thing that I wanted to ask, and this is specifically something the Minister mentioned in her previous answer—she mentioned that there was engagement with ACC as part of the select committee process. She said that explicitly. I would like to know whether there was engagement in the development of the bill. We would know this from a regulatory impact statement, but we don’t know. What kind of engagement did she have in relationship to, for example, the savings provisions with ACC in the development of the bill specifically?

I also wanted to speak to—and this is new material, Mr Chair, but it does relate to the Working for Families entitlements that are affected due to the interaction between the tax system and these debts and back payments etc. Does the Minister know how many people may have lost their entitlement to Working for Families historically over the period that this unlawful practice was happening? If anyone lost their entitlements for Working for Families, does she have concerns that this actually may go contrary to the intent of the Working for Families policy of incentivising and supporting people into employment? Therefore, does she think that the interaction between the bill, which is legalising practice, whether it’s right or wrong; obviously, there’s different views between party lines—but whether she thinks that the existing practice may have actually undermined the intent of the Working for Families policy?

I also want to know, again, whether she had any information on—and this is something that I have tried to seek engagement with. She talked about the lump sum debts but didn’t really engage on the sort of weekly repayments that would, obviously, be affected by the savings provisions. What is the higher-end percentile, the top 10 percentile, of weekly repayments that people would be experiencing? For example, would this be larger than, say, the weekly amount one could get with the winter energy payment? This also helps us ascertain whether these debts are putting people into hardship or otherwise. We do not know, have not had engagement with the Minister, on the weekly repayment rates that come as a result of this. I’m particularly interested in the top 10 percentile, because the top 10 percentile often tells us where discretion has been used in a way that often does negatively impact people.

The other thing that I want to know is whether she has any information about the employment status of the 37,500 people following these debts being established and whether they went on to continue being on a benefit after receiving the ACC support or whether they were adequately rehabilitated to the point of being able to return to the workforce. The reason why I ask this—this is new material, and this is MSD’s responsibility to have those statistics—is because if the ACC back payment is to support people to rehabilitate themselves to re-enter the workforce, but then there’s a debt established which negatively affects the person, negatively affects their financial position, that may negatively impact their ability to re-enter the workforce. Does she have any information to ascertain this? At the end of the day, the outcomes for the people affected by this bill deeply, deeply matter in relationship to whether we or other parties support it or otherwise.

Information around the interactions of how many people have lost their Working for Families entitlements, how many people have re-entered the workforce after these debts or have ended up staying on a benefit, whether communications have been sent by MSD to people following the High Court decisions and prior to this bill being introduced, and the top 10 percentile are things that I’m yet to get engagement from the Minister. That is new material. Thank you very much.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (11:45): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a couple of questions that were really specific that I want to give some feedback on. One, with regard to ACC and Ministry of Social Development (MSD) consultation outside the select committee process, I can confirm that there was consultation throughout the process of developing the bill, so not just the select committee process.

With regard to communications from MSD to clients regarding the High Court decision following the ministry’s acceptance of the High Court ruling in November 2025, MSD’s immediate priority was to engage with the clients who had active cases before the High Court or Social Security Appeal Authority. At that time, there were three that had pending High Court decisions and 36 with the Social Security Appeal Authority.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:46): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister for her engagement on this issue. I wanted to just clarify the answer that she had given me on the fact that the savings provisions only applied to live cases with either the committee or with the courts. I just wanted to get some assurances that the people who actually took the case to the High Court—that would be considered a not live case under this bill, so I just wanted to get some reassurance that those people would not in fact have these debts retrospectively put back on them, considering they were the ones who first took this case and would successfully be able to have a ruling in the High Court. I would imagine that these would be the very people who the savings provisions would want to save and protect—and, if not, whether those people will be disadvantaged by this legislation. I think that’s an important point in terms of how the savings provisions apply.

Then just to raise a few issues which haven’t yet been covered in relation to clause 107, inserted into Schedule 1 by Amendment Paper 528. This also relates to contrary decisions, but I think it’s a new point and not a clause that we’ve referenced specifically in this debate so far. This is quite an unusual clause, because it specifically states that contrary decisions are overridden, and that appears to me to be a statement in relation to existing articulation of law either in the appeal authority, the Social Security Appeal Authority, or in the court.

Then, relatively unusually in the way that this is drafted, there are three cases mentioned. I wanted to check those examples, that that’s not an exclusive list—because it says “examples”, so I’m assuming that that’s not an exclusive list. But does this clause have any effect following the passage of this Act? What I mean is: is this purely to retrospectively state that the law as it is now is what’s currently in the new bill, and then will this clause 107, effectively, be redundant as it has overridden the existing case law?

I assume that the reason for these examples is that there will be more cases that could have been listed, but for—I don’t know—practical reasons or not wanting to miss one out, that was listed. Is this purely an issue to do with the law prior to its commencement, and moving forward will this not override any further decisions? Of course, there could be appeals in the Social Security Appeal Authority around this legislation on different points of law. I think that’s quite an important point. Hopefully, I articulated that in a way that the Minister or advisers can provide an answer to that. I’m really wanting a response on the people that took the case to the High Court, and are they being sufficiently considered with the savings provision because of what the previous Minister in the chair had said, and the future impact of clause 107?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (11:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. I can confirm that the person who took the case is in scope of the savings.

In terms of your other question around the structure of this legislation has been—we’ve taken great care to try and not introduce new risk. Those sorts of things have been carefully considered. One of the things that is important in this legislation is to make it clear that where there has been an overpayment, that is what is being addressed, irrespective of what form of income came in to mean that there is an overpayment. We’ve been very careful not to create additional risk in drafting this legislation.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:51): Thank you. I want to take the Minister up on that opportunity to talk about what that overpayment looks like. We have a whole lot of people who are being cut off retrospectively. I’m mindful that we’re in this part of the Act, but I’m also mindful that the Minister did answer questions in the House yesterday where she talked about equity. That’s actually one of the things that is supposed to be the intention of this part, as much as I understand it as the entire bill. It’s supposed to prevent inequities.

What I’d like to know from the Minister is, is she confident that what she is doing prevents inequities? If I give an example of somebody who is cut off from making a claim when we pass this legislation, who has been subject to a sensitive claim, it’s taken five years for them to go through that process. They have received the main benefit in that time. That is not in dispute. That is a definite double-dip, because you’re getting a benefit and you’re getting the 80 percent. So they had that taken out of the money that they’ve got by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and ACC in consultation before they receive anything. Then they receive what’s left over and out of that comes a claim from MSD—there has been a claim for everything that they have got in their 80 percent, because it is to offset costs in the situation that have been addressed by MSD. So things like energy payments, counselling, etc.

If those amounts have been taken away from them and somebody else who had a broken arm has not had any of that money taken away—they’ve received all of the ACC system through it—how is it equitable to cut them off from what the court has said was an unlawful recovery of the money that MSD has clawed back? They would be significantly better off if there was no retroactivity, because they could make a claim for the money that’s been clawed back, and they get the balance of the 80 percent after the main benefit. That would be their position.

They would be in the same position, then—actually, not as good a position as somebody whose claim was accepted straight away because they would have had more; we know from the evidence before the select committee, they would have received a lot more assistance, because ACC is a better system in many ways; it’s not as bare bones. How can the Minister justify that? I would like an answer. Does she actually think that that person I’ve just described has double-dipped in some way that it justifies the recovery of those payments? Or is it just a fanatical adherence to the idea of income and a siloing of income from the ACC system?

MSD has an idea of what income is and it will not look beyond it. It will not look to equity. That’s what we’re really doing today. We’re not looking at equity. How does she actually reconcile the purpose with this retroactive claw-back confirmation—it’s OK, MSD took all this money off you, and you got nothing: how is that OK? How does that reconcile with the purpose?

I am really interested in her answer on this, because I was concerned in the House yesterday, when she was answering questions about inequity, that the Minister did not understand that this is not a double-dip—that these people are having money taken off them. The only people who are double-dipping are ACC, who are not paying all that money across. They are the benefiters, and now accredited employers, who when they delay matters, have benefited significantly financially. So I would like those issues addressed from the Minister. I’m grateful that she’s here in the chair on this bill. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (11:56): I’m reluctant to say much on this, because I know much of it’s been covered already in the debate. Let me just say this: the welfare system of income support considers a person’s circumstances and their need for an income for a period of time. That is how it works. That is quite separate from the ACC system.

If a person received income, for example, an investment income, it would be charged over that period. If it then meant over that period of time someone had received an overpayment of support based on their income for that period of time, the same rules would apply. This is when we talk about equity. That is exactly what this bill is doing. Irrespective of what the source of income is, it needs to be treated fairly. New Zealanders need to know that the welfare system is based on income support for people when it is needed based on their income. All sources of income, not just some.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (11:57): Thank you, Mr Chair. That’s actually quite a useful contribution from the Minister to engage with, because this goes contrary to what the High Court actually found, which was that these payments were not so much deemed as overpayments, but they were there because people needed it.

Can I get confirmation from the Minister as to whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) provides comparable assistance for things like rehabilitation that ACC can provide? Secondly, she talks a lot about fairness and inequity in referring to this bill, but isn’t it the case that an existing inequity in the system is how long, for example, sensitive claims take to process? Comparing the people who have to wait often years to get their claims with people who may be able to get their claims more promptly, for say things like a rugby injury, is just simply not comparable. I would like to get the engagement of the Minister: when she talks about fairness and inequities, who is genuinely losing out if we didn’t have these debts—who would be negatively materially impacted if we didn’t have these debts imposed directly to people because of the assistance that they receive?

Now, one thing that I didn’t get engagement whatsoever from the Minister on is how many people have lost their Working for Families eligibility from this. Again, we haven’t had engagement from the Minister on this, on the number of people—the number of people—who have lost their Working for Families eligibility because of the interaction between the tax system and the auditor’s reports. Now, the Working for Families package is within the remit of this Minister and I would like to know whether that was something she had explored in relation to this, because this goes back to an amendment that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan made. So I will pose those two questions to the Minister.

The third one is: why did the Minister—the previous Minister in the chair talked about how communications were only sent to people who had cases in the Social Security Appeal Authority, I believe in the High Court, when the decision in the High Court was made. But why did she not send communications to the 37,500 people who had debts so that they could actually challenge these after these debts were found to be unlawful? Why did she remain quiet to tens of thousands of people whose debts were unlawful and not choose to actually send any communications to let them know of the decision so that they could challenge it? Otherwise, the handful of cases that did make it to the Social Security Appeal Authority would have only been because they were able to often engage with expert advocates for lawyers. If she would be able to justify why only a narrow set of people got communications from MSD after their practice of putting these debts was found to be unlawful, it would be really beneficial for the debate and to get clarity as we head to the next reading.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for members’ awareness, the issue around retrospectivity and policy intent has been well canvassed—I’ve just been talking with the Clerks. Just to let people know that that has been well covered. There was an issue raised around Working for Families which I believe is yet to be addressed, but we’ll now go to Rachel Brooking.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green) (12:00): Point of order. Thank you. What is your approach, Mr Chair, in relationship to the Minister for Social Development and Employment bringing new material herself to the debate, and us engaging with that new material that she is bringing? The Minister is making some new points in her contributions, and it makes it hard for us, then feeling like we cannot engage with those.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Well, it has to be within the context of the bill. If I can encourage members to keep their questions within that framework, that would be useful—the Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:01): Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions are not policy questions; they are just questions about the mechanics of the drafting. They relate to the Schedule, new clauses 107 and 108 and the definitions in 104. I’m interested in this term “proceedings”.

Before I get to that, I just want to note that my colleague Camilla Belich was speaking on clause 107(2), which is “Examples of contrary decisions”, including—and there’s some listed there. I think it would be helpful to have in the Hansard why it is that these specific cases have been chosen to be included in the bill, because that just is unusual drafting. Again, that’s not a policy point.

Then, in Amendment Paper 528, I want to look at “Effect on proceedings”, new clause 108, inserted by the Schedule. Subclauses (1) and (2) separate—“depending if proceedings have begun on or after the changeover.” That’s that 2 p.m. time—if it’s at 2 p.m. or after, that’s the changeover. Then subclause (2) is for the for the ones begun after: “Proceedings before a benefits review committee, the appeal authority, or a court that are begun, whether or not they are finally determined”. I’m just checking this wording of “whether or not they are finally determined (including any rehearing, retrial, or appeal), before the changeover—”.

I’ll tell you why I’m asking this question: those words are also found in clause 107(1), which is about the proceedings: “whether or not they are finally determined”. My question is just to clarify that link. If a proceeding is started in one tribunal and then it is appealed and goes through different courts, then—this is what I’m wanting confirmation of—the proceeding; that is how this legislation works. It’s because those words about the continuation don’t appear to be in the definition of “proceedings”, but then they do appear in clauses 108 and 107. Would it be simpler if they were, in fact, in the definition: that the proceeding is where it starts and where it continues on to higher jurisdictions? Why it’s not in the definition but it is in clauses 107 and 108—that’s my question.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (12:04): Firstly, the question on Working for Families. The Ministry of Social Development is not responsible for assessing entitlement; that’s Inland Revenue.

In terms of the question around the examples, that is just giving a couple of examples of the decisions, not all of them.

In terms of the question around the proceedings, that is just to provide clarity that, for those that have begun proceedings, they will be progressed until their completion, and Amendment Paper 528 includes those that are at benefit review decision.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:04): Thank you to the Minister for Social Development and Employment. I don’t intend to take a full call; I just was going to ask a similar question to my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, but then wanted to wait to hear the Minister’s answer.

Just for the Hansard and just to clarify that we’ve got this exactly clear, if there is a case in the Social Security Appeal Authority which is saved by the savings provision and if that case then goes on and is successful, then that person would not have their debt recovered if it’s on this point—presumably, that it covers all the other points—and that would not interact, then, with the point in new clause 107 of Schedule 1, inserted by the Schedule, where they’d be overridden. So they’d be able to, essentially, carry on with their case as if this bill had not been passed, and if they’re successful, then they would receive a decision, which would be up to the Social Security Appeal Authority, leaving the courts aside. Maybe in this one instance they were unsuccessful, though; then they would presumably have been unsuccessful under the previous interpretation anyway and so would also just be at the mercy of the Social Security Appeal Authority.

I know it’s quite a technical question, and I’m sure that the Minister and officials know the answer to this, but just so we’re exactly clear on those, especially as the amendment has not been able to be scrutinised in the select committee process, just working out exactly where those individuals will end up.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (12:06): I want to thank the member Camilla Belich, who raised the question, for her engagement on this bill. One of the things that we are wanting to preserve for anyone who is at any stage of the appeal process, that has raised a concern that is in a review of decision with a benefits review committee or the Social Security Authority or further up, their cases will proceed. That was to, basically, recognise that from the date of introduction, anything that was already in a process prior to that point can run its course.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:07): In relationship to her Amendment Paper 528—this is new material, but it relates to her amendment to broaden the scope to people going through the benefits review committee (BRC) process and review of decision, and on top of the Social Security Authority. Will the Minister for Social Development and Employment explore additional resources for people undergoing those processes so that they’re supported to not be retraumatised by it, in acknowledgment that many of them would have been survivors of horrific experiences? I’m just interested to know if, as part of the amendment that she brought forward, she’s intending to have any additional resources for people undergoing those processes who may be survivors of abuse in care or sexual violence.

I ask this because the BRC process is often quite stacked against beneficiaries: it’s two Ministry of Social Development (MSD) people and one community person—they, in my view, often side with MSD. It can be a really daunting process for people to undergo without, say, lawyers or advocates. Is the Minister—now that, in her amendment, she’s broadening the scope of who will be covered in the savings provisions—also intending to allocate any resources so that no one is retraumatised by the experience of being able to prevent those debts being imposed, and, if not, does she think this is something worth exploring to make sure that the people who she’s now including in the settings provisions can actually undergo these processes in a way that does not create further harm or trauma?

All right. I’m still waiting for engagement on the number of people who may have lost their eligibility to *Working for Families. I would lodge for the debate to close—I would hope that maybe the Minister is looking at some documents in relationship to it to ascertain that figure. I don’t know what the Minister feels like in relationship to my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment—if we’re not able to ascertain those interactions within the taxes and the eligibility for Working for Families that these back payments can create.

I also want to get engagement on the top 10 percentile of the weekly repayment rates, that I haven’t had engagement on. I just want to reiterate those. I know the Minister has engage with us, but I just wanted to note and put it in the Hansard that that engagement has just been a repetition of the intent of the policy, which makes it hard for us to engage in some of the substance of those kind of more granular bits of this bill.

Lastly, out of the people who she has now expanded the scope on around the BRCs and review of decisions in relation to the savings provisions, does she have any information in relation to whether they’re in employment or receiving income support at the moment, and, if so, does she know whether any of them have any disabilities that may require them to receive additional support? Not just to not be re-traumatised as part of the process, but to just make sure that the process is accessible to them. Like I said, the BRC process that she’s now including in her amendment often includes people having to prepare a humongous amount of documentations before those hearings. If she is aware that any of them have disabilities that would require additional support to make sure that they can go through the process in a way that it is fair, whether she has identified that in the preparation on the amendment that seeks to include a few dozen additional people into the saving provisions following the select committee process. So some engagement on that would be deeply appreciated.

I’d also like to know how organisations like Community Law Centres Aotearoa will have to engage on this process, and perhaps if the Minister is not tapping into resources to make this process accessible, whether that will have to be footed by front-line organisations supporting those very same survivors.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT) (12:11): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll go to Helen White, but just to reiterate, we don’t want more discussions on policy intent, retrospectivity, and those sort of things. So very specific clauses with new material would be appreciated.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (12:11): So this follows on from something that Ricardo Menéndez March has raised about those who are included within the capture of the savings of this and how we best expedite those cases. Did the Minister consider streamlining those cases basically through a mediation process? Because that would be a faster way of dealing with those matters. I’ve never really had an answer from the Minister on why those people who are part of that category are more equitable than the group beyond it.

I just wanted to also mention that those questions that I asked about the scope of this cut off in terms of what other avenues people might have—so I talked about the delay—they’ve never been answered, and they’re actually really important for the lawyers looking at the Hansard, so that they can see what the intention of the Minister was, whether it was intended that this cut off, and the words seem to cut off the right to take any claim for any reason. So would it be possible for those people to take a claim if they had a legitimate other course of action in that way?

Those are real questions and if you don’t answer them, Minister, then it leaves us in a position where lawyers will be litigating on whether they can do that. And so it’s really important we know what the extent of the intention is in this situation. I would be very keen on knowing plainly where people stand in that situation, and I would thank the Minister for answers.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (12:13): A specialist team at the Ministry for Social Development and Employment has been set up to work through the reassessments for this group.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (12:13): Given the nature and the gravity of the impacts that we are debating here in the Chamber to do with this bill, part of the discussion points that Te Pāti Māori has put forward to the Minister’s select committee and gone through this process in 109, which does not exist. But that is my question to the Minister: is there scope to make an allowance for us to revisit this, knowing this is detrimental? There are severe impacts that could worsen the crisis amongst our whānau. And we’re not just referring to welfare, but the need for supplementary supports for whānau Māori is real. So the question to the Minister is: is there scope to allow for a review of this part of this bill in one year’s time an allowance for this House to repeal this part of the bill should it not give effect to the original intent of the Minister and this Government, which is a targeted welfare system that fully realises equitable outcomes for all?

Now, the question also goes on to ensure that if the Minister is confident that this bill will be applied fairly, then what is, then, the objection to ensuring there are mechanisms within here to review, as a House, but also for further public consultation which was cut very short. In fact, it was only by chance that public consultation was considered on this very significant bill. Koirā taku pātai. [That is my question.]

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (12:15): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’m looking for new material.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think while we’re looking at another part of this particular bill—and I’m specifically looking at the Amendment Paper 528—it’s important to note that there’s still a number of specific data that we’re looking for and seeking engagement from the Minister on.

I do want to pick up on something that we haven’t discussed, later on, which is around the pre-commencement decisions. Also when we’re looking at the effect on the proceedings, I want to check with the Minister that one of the things we are looking at is in terms of noting that in this Amendment Paper we have seen the addition of the benefit review committee being applied. Noting that there are multiple tiers of a review and appeal processes being able be conducted as a part of this, has the Minister considered what the ability is for some of those changes being made and how that could be challenged further under the primary legislation? I think this is something that we will tease out more in the next part of the debate, but I think it’s just a signal to the Minister that there are still questions that we haven’t managed to receive from the Minister regarding some of the data and the costings behind a lot of this, as opposed to sort of the standard line that we’ve been getting, but also in terms of the magnitude of some of those potential repeal, appeal, or review processes.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (12:17): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment deleting Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 523 is out of order as being a direct negation of the question.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 528 inserting subclause (1)(a) into new clause 105 is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

The question is the Minister’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 528 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

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

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oriini Kaipara’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Amendment Papers 510 and 512 are out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 527 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Camilla Belich’s amendment to clause 108 of Schedule 1 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 521 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is a debate on clauses 1 to 3—“Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The question is that—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:24): Sorry, sorry—too enthusiastic. I want to start by actually addressing clause 3, “Principal Act”, and the reason I wanted to pick up on this one first—and I’m sure many other people have many additional questions around clauses 1 and 2, in terms of title and commencement—is because clause 3 amends the principal Act, which is the Social Security Act 2018.

My question is, while my amendment for Part 2 was not accepted because it’s outside of the narrow scope of this bill, my amendment to Part 2 is not outside of the scope of the principal Act. The reason I want to address this is, as part of the High Court ruling—and I want to quote this from the High Court’s response, which is in paragraph 35: “that the recipient of the supplementary assistance needed and was eligible for the assistance at the time. Furthermore, the ministry’s interpretation could result in the State retrospectively imposing potentially significant debts on a person of limited means through no fault of their own. This would be contrary to both the purposes of the ACC Act and the Social Security Act, which provides, among other things, for the provision of the financial support of the people to help alleviate hardship.”

If we’re looking at section 3 of the Social Security Act, “Purpose of this Act”, section 3(a)(i) specifies “to help people to support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment”. My question to the Minister is, in the context of statutory interpretation, the purpose of the clause reigns supreme over other parts of the clauses. What is the likelihood, in the Minister’s opinion, of further legal challenges on the basis of this—because what has been introduced in this bill goes against the purpose of the intention of the principal bill? And, if it is so, you could actually present those kind of additional legal challenges, which then potentially will create ongoing inconsistencies, as we see going forward.

Now, the reason I’m also picking up on that—and it comes down to one of the questions I had for the Ministers before, which is if we are looking at a situation where you’re looking at someone whose post-tax ACC arrear is less than the debt that is accrued through the Ministry of Social Development—including everything else, such as Working for Families credits, etc.—that goes contrary to the intention of the Social Security Act in terms of helping those to alleviate hardship. I guess that’s my primary question in terms of the principal Act, which is: what are the potential further legal challenges on the basis of the broader principal Act, which falls under clause 3?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:27): Another question relating to the principal Act—and this relates to something in Part 2 we never got engagement on, so I’m giving the Minister for opportunity for engagement on this—is that one of them is to help people find or retain paid employment. Now, we know that the interactions between the tax system and some of these debts and back payments could affect Working for Families eligibility, which, again, I was trying to get the number from the Minister and didn’t get engagement on. It seems to me like if these debts push people deeper into poverty, maybe even the way how some of this gets taxed affects Working for Families eligibility, would this not actually be contrary to helping people access—well, to retain or find paid employment?

The other thing that I wanted to ask is, in relationship to the principal Act, whether she believes that these debts can also cause a greater demand for other parts of the Act, like the need for Special Needs Grants. If these debts prevent people from making ends meet, is she concerned that there’s a greater demand of things like Special Needs Grants as a result of this bill? This interacts with the principal Act, as well. Clarification on those two things would be useful.

I’d just reiterate—I think Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan makes an excellent point around alleviating hardship; this seems to be contrary to that. Is she concerned that people could challenge this in the courts, and how these debts actually go against the principles of the Act? Or is she aware that this was already traversed in the High Court—you know, this process that led us to this bill? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (12:29): Obviously, this is not a debate that allows you to traverse the entire Social Security Act. This particular bill is about ensuring that all income is charged in the period in which it was received, irrespective of where that income came from. That is a principle of the Social Security Act. Ensuring that if somebody doesn’t have income and they receive some; that is taken into consideration in terms of their application for income support, and if there is an overpayment, that is then addressed.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (12:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is just a comment on that issue. We had a situation for many years with regard to tax. Redundancy payments were taxed much higher because they were all treated as one lump sum, and so people missed out because the payments were treated as income when, in fact, they were compensation for a long period of time. My understanding is that in the tax department, that was a longstanding practice for years that was unfair, and since that time, there has been a decision to take that payment and spread it over a number of years to get a more equitable outcome. My point is that it is quite possible to find smart ways to create an equitable solution, even when a practice has been going on for a long time. Often that happens in the space of time where departments can talk to each other, and so I want to come to my concern about the commencement date of this and the time that the Minister has allocated.

We have a time which, as has been pointed out, is unusual. It’s a very unusual form of retroactivity, and there is plenty of opportunity here to consider in the commencement date a different one. We have an interesting thing here because we have it saying that the law will come into force on the day of Royal assent, but, actually, the law will come into force on that date in order to create a different set of rules and a different lawful situation a long time before that date of assent. What I want to know from the Minister is whether we could look at pushing out that date of assent for some time so that for some of those situations that we’ve talked about, it would be, effectively, a way of creating a window for people to get in a number of claims, and that would mean that for people who have got their claims lodged, they would be covered by some of the amendments that the Minister has made to allow that.

That would allow a greater window by simply playing with the date that this comes in, and it would also allow that thought about when that would be appropriate. I’ve talked about the possibility of it being six months that we’d look at having a date of assent for when this comes into force, and then we could have a wider group, but it would be the people next in the queue who would be able to get in. The Minister looks like she’s got an answer to my question, and so I’d be grateful for that answer. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have an amendment to this part of the bill. It’s on quite a serious issue, and I think it’s one that could be quite easily agreed to, based on the information that we have before us, and that is a little bit contrary to the bill. I’ve read the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that the Attorney-General did on the bill, dated 5 February. It concluded that there isn’t an inconsistency, or that if there is, it’s justified with this bill, but I suppose the issue is that quite a bit of information has come to light since the Attorney-General provided that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet.

Yesterday, the Accident Compensation Corporation presented information to the Social Services and Community Committee, and that information appeared to show that the main group of people that were affected by this claim were overwhelmingly female. The group of people that they looked was a sample size of 50, and, of course, there may be some issues with that, but it may be that ACC can get a greater degree of certainty on that information. But, certainly, it being 70 percent female is very, very high, even with the Government’s changes to pay equity, which, I think, everyone agrees were a high threshold, but 70 percent would get you there. It’s a significantly high threshold for the number of women impacted by this, and there is also the nature of the claims that the woman have. They are sensitive claims; claims of sexual violence. There is a gendered element in the statistics around sexual violence, and although, of course, that can affect anyone, having such a high percentage of women indicates that that is sexual violence perpetrated against women.

The question I have, really, in relation to commencement is: would it be possible to get the Attorney-General to do another New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet with the benefit of the information provided by ACC? It’s not a time-wasting suggestion; it’s actually because that information wasn’t available, and my understanding and my belief of the people that have been working on this is that everyone has been working on it in good faith, based on the advice of officials, and under shortened periods of time. So this is not a criticism of what the Attorney-General had and it’s not a criticism, necessarily, of this process; it’s a fact of this process that because it has had a truncated time in public and also at the select committee, by its nature, information has come to light, and so I think it would be good to have another assessment based on that information.

The reason I say that is that there is a type of discrimination called indirect discrimination. It’s provided for in section 65 of the Human Rights Act. That type of discrimination is where there’s a policy which appears to be neutral and appears to apply to everyone, but, actually, it affects mainly a particular group of people, and one of those groups can be gender. This is a very good example of something which, on the evidence we have had from ACC, is indirectly discriminatory.

It might be that the Attorney-General could take that information and can say that it’s still justified, and that’s something that her advisers and experts in her office could do. But I suppose my concern is that we haven’t seen that information traversed, as far as I can ascertain, in the initial New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, and so my amendment would be that that Royal assent is granted only after a second New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet has been able to be undertaken. I imagine that that could be done relatively quickly. These are not long documents that we have. I’ve got it in front of me. It’s a few pages, and they’re actually not numbered, but I think it’s around about five pages long. So it could be done quickly.

I think it would be a good part of the process. It’s a genuine attempt to make sure that there aren’t discriminatory aspects to this bill which we should be made aware of, and so I would appreciate the Minister’s views.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (12:37): In terms of the changeover date in which claims are possible and accepted up until, that was traversed in the earlier part of the debate, and so I’m not going to cover that again. In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, that is done prior to the introduction, and I don’t anticipate doing another one, just as with every other piece of legislation in the House where there is a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet at the start and it is not repeated throughout the process.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:37): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on now to clause 2, “Commencement date”, which I have a couple of amendments to, as well. But the reason that I wanted to preface my amendments to clause 2 is around the fact that even when we were looking at my question to the Minister on clause 3, “Principal Act”, while the Minister has said that “This is what we’re doing.”, that doesn’t actually address my question initially, which was whether there is anticipated legal challenge because it may not fulfil the purpose of the principal Act under section 3 of the Social Security Act. I think that that is something for the judiciary, for example, to tease out, but the fact that the Minister didn’t say no implies that that, potentially, is a possibility in terms of weighing up the balance between what is presented in this bill and what is in the principal Act.

That brings me to my amendment to the commencement date. I do believe that through the select committee stage and through the conversation we’ve had today that while we are able to get certain data out of the officials and through the process around the number of people who are affected under the expanded scope in terms of the number of people, which includes partners and spouses that could be affected by this bill, the level of nuance and specificity that is required for something of this magnitude hasn’t quite been teased out. My amendment to the commencement date would just simply suggest that rather than having this bill come into force after the commencement date, it comes into force on 1 July 2027. That is just to give us some clearer guidance and ability to look at this bill more carefully, and for the agency to be able kind of do the background work more carefully, as well, before the bill fully comes into effect. That goes down to what my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March also said in terms of the fact that we haven’t had the confirmation that the Ministry of Social Development is able to contact the kind of people who would be affected by the introduction of this bill.

At the same time, I do understand, potentially, that the Minister wants the policy change to be clarified as quickly as possible. So if the Minister isn’t open to my amendment, which means that the entirety of the bill takes effect on 1 July 2027, my other amendment is to specify to say that we understand the policy part in Part 1 may be taken into effect immediately the day after Royal assent, but Part 2 of this bill, in terms of the transitional measures, etc., and the retrospectivity, takes place later on 1 July 2027. Now, the reason I suggest that also is that regardless of how we’re debating it and how the Minister views our amendments, the retrospectivity is going to take place regardless of the commencement date. I think if we’re going to be doing that, then it actually does, again, allow us a little bit more time to tease out those specificities in terms of the number and the nuance in terms of those who are affected by this bill.

So those are my two amendments. One of them is to amend the commencement date of the entirety of the bill, and my second amendment is only amending the commencement date of Part 2, noting that the Minister’s intention and the bill’s intention is to ensure the policy is clarified in Part 1.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (12:41): I want to just make another point about what happened in the last week. I was on the select committee and what we ended up doing, once the report was in, because we had to bring it back to the House within a very short time frame—we were able to get ACC to come in, but we only saw them for 20 minutes. One of the questions that is at the heart of this issue is why was ACC not paying for the additional benefits that that claimant would have got in the period of default? That’s a clear issue.

Now, I put a question in writing to ACC at the end of the 20-minute hearing on that point, but I haven’t received an answer. I have not got any clarity as to why that was happening. I asked whether there was a legal impediment, whether it was a legal constraint they had that meant they didn’t pass that on, or some sort of permission they had not to pay on those amounts. Because it’s so pivotal to why Labour was supporting this bill and is not any more: we just simply did not understand that there were additional benefits on top of that main benefit that were being paid and that ACC wasn’t passing them on. I don’t have the answers yet. I would like those answers to be present before the Minister signs this into law because it seems critical to me. I simply do not know the answer to a fundamental question that changes who should be paying here. The result of this law is that beneficiaries who have had injuries, but through no fault of their own have not been able to have that claim decided for some time—either because it’s complex or because it’s been declined—are paying for a lot of things that I think most New Zealanders would have thought were being paid for by the ACC system in that time. And I simply don’t know why. I wish I did. It would be an interesting thing to know, and it would be critical to whether this is a fair law or not: knowing whether, in fact, ACC should be paying.

When we asked about whether we could explore those kinds of solutions, we were told we were moving too fast for that, there wasn’t time to consider those things, or they were outside the scope because they were ACC. Nothing’s outside of the scope of a good solution in this Parliament. That’s the nature of parliamentary supremacy: that we should be able to make fair laws.

I would like the kind of amendment that, actually, my friend Lawrence Xu-Nan has put up, which says that there is a delay here that is sufficient for the Minister to assure herself that she knows the answer to that question, because I haven’t heard it today. I’ve asked and I have not heard an answer to that question as to why that’s occurring and why that’s just. So I would like that amendment for that time, and I would like to suggest also that the amendment that says there’s a different treatment of the retroactive part of this is a good alternative because to do that—to split it up—makes sense in terms of how we know now that the law has not been adhered to for many years and that people have suffered. We don’t know the extent of that suffering. In the ACC briefing, we had a situation where we know of about 50 cases in the last year; we know about nothing before that. We do not know how much financial impact we are causing today and who we’re causing it to. It’s an absolute shame that we don’t know those things. We could have known them if there’d been time. Let’s put the date out for a few months while the Minister finds these things out, so that ordinary New Zealanders don’t get hurt and treated unjustly.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, we are getting near the end of it, but this is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”, so if we could keep the contributions within that. It is an opportunity to summarise but not to repeat other arguments or questions that might not have been addressed, from your perspective, in earlier parts.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (12:46): Tēnā koe. Just one observation from Te Pāti Māori in terms of clause 2. Really, it’s in consideration of the scope and the scale and, again, the detrimental impacts this will have on Māori—on whānau Māori specifically. The question is, is there scope and will the Minister and the Government reconsider there being, again, greater investment and greater focus on data and ensuring that we know exactly who is going to be impacted beyond the numbers that have been given to us? We need to know the faces, the places, and the spaces that they occupy.

One area that is very, very, very under-spoken of, if that’s a word in te reo Pākehā—kāore i te tino kōrerotia [it is not often spoken of]. There is really no discussion about how we protect Māori who are severely impacted by these changes in the past, in the current, and going forward when this bill becomes law. The question back to the Minister in terms of clause 2 is if consideration—in fact, ensuring—that there is scope for a Māori impact assessment report. That is the request from Te Pāti Māori: to replace the clause instead with ensuring that there is a subsection in this bill that ensures there is proper reporting investment into this bill that specifies the impact on whānau Māori everywhere.

Due to the timing of this amendment and because it confirms current practice there has been limited opportunity to undertake fulsome Treaty analysis. Te Tiriti is missing from this bill. Te Tiriti protects all New Zealanders, but it ensures that whānau Māori receive the proper care that was guaranteed to them under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Again, I implore the Minister to ensure and to go back to have that hui with the executive that the data for Māori specifically, whether they are survivors of abuse, sexual assault, or they are the injured workers—predominantly Māori work in those spaces. They are the ones that are working in forestry and fishing without proper supports. So when I refer to Te Tiriti, I mean seriously, not ideologically. This is a practical solution to ensure equitable outcomes for all, especially Māori. Minister, Māori impact assessment reports ensure that not just the Crown but also iwi can look after their people.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (12:49): I just want to address the amendment that’s proposed around commencement, but the Greens member answered his own question: the time frame is because we want certainty and clarity for those who are currently receiving income support.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just a reminder about what I said earlier around keeping it confined to title, commencement, etc. That would be greatly appreciated.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:50): Look, I just wanted to speak to the title—I haven’t brought material myself on the title itself. One of the things that I’m always interested in seeking engagement from Ministers on the title itself is whether the title actually facilitates people to understand what the bill really is about. Often titles of bills that actually do seek to entrench or create harm make it harder for the layperson to go on the Parliament website and actually ascertain what the Government’s bills are actually doing. I wonder whether the Minister considered alternatives to the existing title in front of us. So far we have Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill, but I genuinely do think—and I don’t offer these titles in bad faith or with the intent of making a mockery of the bill, but titles which reflect some of the consequences of the bill. So, for example: “Social Security (Entrenchment of Unlawful Practices)” or “Social Security (Continuing Practices of Debt Collection by Government Agencies)”—including other titles that may help people understand this bill, such as, “Social Security (Creation of Debt After Receiving ACC Support)”. More plain language titles, in my view, support people actually understanding the intent of the bill.

The Minister will well know that one of the themes that has arisen throughout the select committee process—if she has read the material from the select committee process—is that many of our law experts will note that many ACC claimants were completely unaware that they would have received a debt after finally getting their ACC claim. I do not think the title of this bill leaves people any wiser on what actually happens to ACC claimants who are on a benefit after making a claim. So I wanted to get a sense as to whether the Minister considered more plain language or clearer options as to the impact of this title on people.

In relationship to the commencement, I wondered whether the Minister is intending to allocate any resources, immediately after the commencement, to send communications to people—for example, people who were making a review of decision or a benefits review committee application—following the commencement, so that they know that these applications still stand. And whether she’s allocating any resources following the commencement date for this, because, obviously, the commencement date is, at the moment—

Tākuta Ferris: 8 November.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: 8 November. Thank you; appreciate it. It’s actually relatively soon after Royal assent. And so I think there’s something about making sure that people are very, very, very clear that, after this, they’re actually (a) going to be subjected to some debts; that people are super aware that if they choose to be on a benefit while waiting for an ACC claim, even if the ACC claim is in relationship to extremely traumatic stuff, like sexual violence, that they may want to be careful of choosing to go on income support or taking up any supplements.

I’m also wondering whether she will be requesting that after the commencement date whether she will consider giving Ministry of Social Development front-line workers any guidance and making sure that this is made clear to people at the front line so that no one is inadvertently, accidentally entering into debt after applying for a benefit while waiting for an ACC claim.

The other thing I had in relationship to the commencement date is whether in the communications that may or may not be sent—and I generally wish to seek the engagement from the Minister on this. It is whether any communications that will be made following the commencement date will be made accessible to disabled people and will be communicated in accessible means. This is quite important because we know that, obviously, traumatic head injuries are one of the things that feature quite a bit within ACC claimants, that often takes a while for them to come through, and I’m worried that without clear and accessible communications people who may be dealing with brain injuries will be left none the wiser on the nature of this bill.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National) (12:55): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): There’s been substantial engagement on this clause, so I am moving to a closure motion.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 528, amending clause 2 to replace “the day after Royal assent” with “1 July 2027”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 528, inserting subclause (2) into clause 2, is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2, set out on Amendment Paper 528 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oriini Kaipara’s amendment replacing the commencement set out on Amendment Paper 520 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

Public Finance Amendment Bill

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

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono) (13:01): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Public Finance Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading next sitting day.

The Public Finance Amendment Bill, the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Legislation Amendment Bill are set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 1.02 p.m.

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