Tuesday, 10 March 2026

Tuesday, 10 March 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

GREG O'CONNOR (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Parliamentary Membership

Te Pāti Māori Membership—Mariameno Kapa-Kingi

SPEAKER (14:00): Members, under Standing Order 36(1)(c), I’ve been advised by Te Pāti Māori that their parliamentary membership has changed and that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi is a member of Te Pāti Māori for parliamentary purposes.

Ministerial Statements

Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned—Final Report

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:01): I wish to make a ministerial statement. Today, I advise the House that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned has presented its final report. This is a significant moment for New Zealand: an independent account of one of the most consequential periods in our modern history.

Before I turn to the report’s findings, I want to acknowledge all New Zealanders affected by COVID-19 itself. We think of the families of those who lost loved ones to this disease and of those who are still living with the health consequences of COVID-19 today; their experience is part of this story too, and it will not be forgotten.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the nurses, the doctors, the aged-care workers, our emergency services, and the many thousands of essential workers who kept this country functioning throughout the pandemic. They showed up every single day, often under extraordinary pressure, and New Zealand is a better place because of them. We’re enormously grateful for everything that they did.

What this report asks is whether the decisions made by decision makers were the right ones and whether New Zealanders were well served by their Government. Those are important questions, and New Zealanders deserve honest answers. New Zealanders should be proud of how this country came together in response to the pandemic.

The commission finds that the initial response to COVID-19, starting in February 2020, was balanced and appropriate—Kiwis looked out for one another, communities came together, and that effort saved lives.

But as the response continued, particularly into 2021 and 2022, the royal commission finds that restrictions extended beyond what public health advice recommended. Decisions meant that Kiwis were separated from family, people could not be at the bedside of dying loved ones, and funerals were held without family present; businesses closed, and children stayed home from school for months; mental health services were overwhelmed; and many New Zealanders are still living with these consequences today.

The commission finds that former Ministers chose to keep Auckland in alert level 4 lockdown, against public health advice. Unredacted Cabinet papers obtained by the royal commission also reveal that former Ministers kept an Auckland boundary in place over Christmas and new year against the explicit advice of the Ministry of Health; New Zealanders were not told this at the time. The boundary remained for more than month, preventing some Kiwis from travelling to see friends and family over the holiday period.

The commission also finds that the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group advised against a two-dose vaccine mandate for 12- to 17-year-olds due to myocarditis risks. Former Ministers were informed of those concerns.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order—this is most unusual—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, you’ll be aware that the Opposition has been provided a copy of the Minister’s statement prior to him delivering it. The statement that he has just made is factually incorrect and, in fact, is the opposite of what the royal commission have found. This is a ministerial statement, and it must actually relate to the topic and accurately reflect the findings of the royal commission. The royal commission specifically found that Ministers were not presented with the advice that the Minister has just claimed they were presented with.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Speaking to the point of order, the royal commission finds that, on 22 December 2021, the briefing was made available to the Minister for COVID-19 Response, the Hon Chris Hipkins, of those concerns.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is very important, because it’s a representation of the royal commission’s findings. I’ll quote directly from paragraph 495 of the royal commission’s report: “We consider the failure to ensure that this specific advice reached Ministers and the public was significant.” That is the finding of the royal commission. The royal commission went through the very issue that Simeon Brown has just claimed Ministers were informed of and found that Ministers were not informed of that, and that the oversight from the relevant officials in not informing the Ministers was, to quote them, “a significant oversight”.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Well, we’re not going to have an argument about this. We’ve got a ministerial statement that is on, and so we’ll follow the procedure under Standing Order 418, and there will be a Q & A available to it. I think the Minister is about to conclude his statement, and then we’ll hear from the Opposition.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The two-dose mandate remained in place regardless of both workplace environments and extracurricular activities such as sport.

The commission also looked at the economic response through the pandemic. Treasury advised from the outset that pandemic spending should be timely, temporary, and targeted. Despite that advice, the $60 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund spanned 821 programmes, half of which had nothing to do with the pandemic. The commission finds that economic buffers were depleted, and the debt that accumulated has left New Zealand with less room to respond to future shocks. It finds that a key part of preparing for a future economic shock is to ensure we have prudent fiscal management.

The commission is clear New Zealanders are still living with the consequences of these decisions today. The cost of living pressures many households face today and the social divisions that have not fully healed—these too are part of the story. The pandemic was an evolving situation, and that context matters, but uncertainty alone does not explain what happened. Advice was given, and in several significant cases that advice was not followed. Ordinary New Zealanders paid the price through longer lockdowns than were necessary, through spending that drove up the cost of living, and through health and education systems still catching up today. The public placed enormous trust in their Government.

This Government is carefully reviewing the commission’s findings, and we expect to outline our formal response to the recommendations of phase one and phase two by July.

I want to acknowledge the families, the healthcare workers, the business owners, and the tens of thousands of Kiwis who gave evidence to the commission. This report exists because of them. To those who grieve what was lost during this period, your experience is part of our national record now. It will not be forgotten.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): I’d like to welcome the second royal commission into the COVID-19 response report that is being presented to the House today and thank the royal commission for the work that they have done.

When we turn our minds back to February and March of 2020, sometimes it’s easy to forget the scenes that we were seeing from around the world, particularly looking at countries such as Italy and the UK, where COVID-19 had taken hold. Health systems were being overwhelmed. Economies were also being locked down, but not for the reasons that New Zealand’s ultimately was; they were being locked down because they couldn’t cope with COVID-19 rather than because they were trying to prevent that. We as a Government were determined to do everything that we could to ensure that that did not happen here in New Zealand.

I would like to thank all of the front-line workers who were involved in New Zealand’s COVID-19 response: our doctors, our nurses, all those in the health system, those who worked at the border, those who managed our quarantine and isolation facilities—all of the essential workers who went to work at a time when there was huge fear and huge uncertainty, putting themselves at risk in order to serve other New Zealanders. To all those whose lives were disrupted, who experienced the pain of a global pandemic, we also acknowledge all of you.

I want to quote directly from the royal commission’s findings—which I note was something the Minister did not do—and perhaps some of the most telling findings of the royal commission. A direct quote sums up what I think is a high-quality report: “Evidence shows New Zealand had among one of the best pandemic responses in the world.” A further quote: “By many measures, Aotearoa New Zealand’s response to the pandemic was enviable. We recorded lower case numbers and fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita than nearly all comparable countries. Our health system did not collapse. The economy rebounded strongly from the initial shock and unemployment rates remained low throughout the pandemic period.” Those are the findings of the royal commission. Those are direct quotes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I think it would be a good idea for some people commenting here to recognise that it should be a respectful debate in response to the Minister’s statement on the royal commission of inquiry. Apologies for interrupting—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A further quote from the royal commission is also worth reflecting on: “Ministers and officials often had to work at breakneck pace to keep up with the rapidly changing environment and the multitude of tasks required to manage the response to the virus. The success of Aotearoa New Zealand’s pandemic response, most obviously measured in terms of New Zealand’s low death rates and excess mortality, is a credit to their work and dedication and to the quality of the decisions they took.”

They further went on to say, “Ministers and officials regularly faced a set of unpleasant high-stakes choices. There was no scenario in which New Zealand or any other country could have confronted the pandemic without some cost.” I believe those findings are a testament to the work that everybody involved in the COVID-19 response undertook.

I want to respond specifically to some of the incorrect claims, not borne out by the royal commission’s report, that the Minister has just made. The Minister has made a claim that the boundary was in place in Auckland over Christmas and new year. Aucklanders will know that from mid-December, they were able to leave Auckland. That is a matter of record. Aucklanders experienced that. Where there was some disagreement between the Government and health officials was around the requirement for testing before people left Auckland. We were trying to contain the spread of COVID-19 around the rest of the country for as long as we could. The claim that the level 4 lockdown was extended against public health advice in Auckland is simply factually incorrect. The Director-General of Health attended the Cabinet meeting in which that decisions was taken; the advice he presented on the day was different to the written advice that Cabinet had received several days earlier, and the director-general spoke directly to that at the press conference immediately after the decision was taken. The direct quotes from the director-general at the time confirm that the public health advice was to continue the lockdown at level 4 for a further week.

The Vaccine Technical Advisory Group advice against two doses for 12- to 17-year-olds never went to Ministers, and the royal commission finds that. The findings on the economic—

Hon Shane Jones: We’ll see about that!

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, it’s interesting that the people who set up the royal commission appointed the members and set the terms of reference about questioning its findings.

The argument—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: The House will just come back to a bit of order.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The arguments around the Government’s economic response, particularly those put forward by the National Government, contradict the position that they took at the same time. Christopher Luxon’s very first announcement as leader of the National Party—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. The speaker’s time is up.

SPEAKER: That’s largely up to the Chair, but I make the point: please conclude your speech.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, point of order. It is not up to the Chair; it is up to the long, decades-old practice in this House that you have to follow the clock and you’ve got a certain time to speak. His time has expired. His argument expired a long time before that.

SPEAKER: There have been numerous occasions just in recent times where I could point to people going well over the clock.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, I seek an extension of time.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

Hon Member: Yes!

SPEAKER: OK, thank you. That’s it. I call Ricardo Menéndez March.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Shane Jones: Hiding information!

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what: if that continues, the member who’s calling out will have to spend the afternoon outside the House. Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:14): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. The Green Party acknowledges the phase two report on the lessons learned from the response to COVID-19. We also want to draw upon one of the quotes that was already acknowledged in the previous contribution that “Evidence shows [we] had one of the best pandemic responses in the world” and that decisions had to be made under tight time pressures, balancing public health responses and the need to protect our health system with real limitations and infringements on people’s rights. I also want to acknowledge that there are many people who remain impacted by COVID, whether it’s their health or economically. I want to acknowledge many of the front lines where there were health workers or, actually, iwi, hapū, and whānau Māori who were actually protecting and taking lessons from previous pandemics that have happened in the world.

I also want to acknowledge that COVID has not gone anywhere. Hospitalisations are still increasing at the moment, as we speak, and we’re yet to see a comprehensive plan to address this. This is a disabling illness that accumulates damage the more times you have it. I also want to acknowledge that the distributional impacts economically are still being felt. During this period, we saw wealth inequality rise; we also saw child material hardship rise as a result. This is something that the Greens constantly fought to address by increasing welfare support to those who needed it the most and putting an excess profits tax on companies who were making record profits while everybody else was made to struggle due to a pandemic completely outside of our control. To that end, I think it is also time that we work in cross-party way to address the recommendations in this report. We also call on the Government to bring back fully free rapid antigen tests for people and prioritise increasing air quality and ventilation standards in public buildings and in schools.

We broadly agree with the recommendations, including limiting exemptions to regulatory impact statements, developing standing primary legislation for pandemics with clear powers and safeguards and greater transparency over the data and evidence decision makers use to justify their actions, especially in regard to restrictions on human rights. While we are not happy about the fact that the Government is choosing to exploit monetary policy decisions from this inquiry, we acknowledge that an overreliance on unconventional monetary policy saw one of the largest transfers of wealth that we have ever seen, along with the inflationary environment impacting low-income New Zealanders the most. Despite the inquiry not being able to undertake fulsome analysis, we are glad to see recommendations relating to greater understanding of the use of unconventional monetary policy. Another recommendation is to improve epidemiological modelling and strengthen data and modelling of public health measures, including their assessment against key social outcomes.

I now have some questions for the Minister. I’d like to ask the Minister if he is aware of any impact that cutting 1,850 jobs in the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand has on their ability to meet the spirit of these recommendations, including tracking data, contact tracing, and modelling for current and future pandemics? That is my first question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:17): I appreciate the member’s comments, and particularly his reflections on the recommendations around the monetary policy advice in the report. In relation to Health New Zealand, Health New Zealand continues to stand up a large number of people who are responding to COVID. We have invested significantly as a Government in testing, waste-water testing, vaccinations, and treatments. That is about continuing to ensure that our health system is able to respond to COVID as it now continues to be a disease that is in the community. Part of that is making sure that that data is there and available to be used in monitoring the disease.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:17): The line of questioning was around the 1,850 jobs in the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand and whether this has an impact on their ability to meet the spirit of the recommendations. I’ll move on to my second question: will he reverse the job cuts to the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand to implement the recommendations around improving modelling and data on the social and health impacts of public health measures?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:18): The report provides a range of recommendations that, as a Government, we will be considering and providing a full response to in July. In terms of Health New Zealand, the last Government merged 20 district health boards together during the pandemic to create Health New Zealand. As part of that, there has been the process of bringing those organisations together to find efficiencies in the back office, with a focus on making sure that we can invest in more in front-line workers—doctors, nurses—so we can deliver more for the care of patients, which is exactly what we’re doing as a Government. As per the recommendations, we’ll be considering in full phase one and phase two recommendations and providing a full response in July.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:19): Would he be able to give further clarity on the process that he will undertake in determining the Government’s response to the recommendations—specifically looking at what agencies will provide advice and what Ministers or Cabinet committees will be involved?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:19): The Prime Minister has asked me as the Minister of Health to coordinate the Government’s response to both the phase one and phase two reports of the royal commission. I gave an oral update to Cabinet yesterday in relation to the report and the process that will follow. Ultimately, it will be a number of Ministers and a number of departments who will be fully engaged. The report’s recommendations include health, education, and social development. Also, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, and a number of other ministries will be involved and will require a whole-of-Government response to this report.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:20): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My following question is: is he is committed to working in a cross-party manner to achieve consensus on how the recommendations will be implemented, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:20): The first point I would make is we will be, as a Government, working through the recommendations. There will be some areas which, no doubt, will require consideration across the Parliament. That is something we will be considering as part of our response in July.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:20): Will he, during the process, ensure that he actually reaches out to all political parties so that their response to these recommendations can outlive this Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:20): Well, ultimately, this will be a Government response to the report. We will be taking an all-of-Government approach. That will be the starting point. And then, ultimately, Cabinet will be taking a view on that. There will be, no doubt, areas where there will be consideration for that and we were considering that as we go through the report, prior to making a report back in mid-July.

SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon David Seymour, can I just refer the House to Speaker’s ruling 54/1 in relation to the point of order exchange earlier.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) (14:21): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. This commission of inquiry, second report, is important to so many New Zealanders: to those who suffered from COVID but, equally, those who suffered from the then Labour Government’s response to COVID. It was those women who didn’t know they had breast cancer because screening was stopped. It was those children who missed out on learning, that will affect them for their lifetime, because education was put down the society’s totem pole of priorities as COVID became everything. It’s those butchers who were crying on the footpath as they threw out meat, yet again, because their stores were shut while their competitors in the back of supermarkets could continue. It is those young people who observed that the Government added a third to house prices and doubled Government debt with miscoordinated and irresponsible fiscal and monetary policy.

At the height of their arrogance, the Labour Party commissioned a royal commission of inquiry into its own performance and set the terms of reference to exclude those matters from consideration. Just like the response itself, they did not consider the impacts of the response on the rest of society; only that singular goal that increasingly consumed and, ultimately, devastated their Government. It is because this coalition Government, and I might say the ACT Party that has campaigned and won a revised terms of reference, with revised commissioners, that all those New Zealanders who suffered will get some truth and some understanding of what happened.

For all those future New Zealanders, who, when something like this happens again—and pandemics have always been with us, so it will—will have a message in bottle saying, “You know what? If you’re going to respond to a pandemic, try to balance all the other aspects of New Zealanders’ welfare against the one thing that you are pursuing.” That is the message that comes out.

I have to say—for those who say, “Oh, it was difficult” and “On balance, we did well.”—anyone can quarantine an island, and, if you’re prepared to double the Government’s debt, you can even keep the economy going for a while. We know that. But, the question is: do you have the strategy to exit the lockdowns? The answer, in this report, is: they didn’t. Are you prepared to adopt the technology, such as rapid antigen tests, that will allow people to get on with their lives faster? And the answer is: they didn’t. Can you follow the official advice and use vaccine mandates in a way that does not divide this society? And the answer is that they didn’t. And I know that there will be all sorts of attempts at avoidance and blame-shifting—we even saw it from Christopher “Sensitive” Hipkins with his point of order exchange a moment ago. But—

SPEAKER: No—no. Just—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: But the truth is—

SPEAKER: Just withdraw that comment.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw that comment. But the truth is that there are more. This is the guy, when he was Minister of Police, crime went up. When he was Minister of Education, school attendance went down.

Glen Bennett: How does this relate to the statement?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: When he was Prime Minister, Government debt went through the roof.

SPEAKER: Yeah, come back to the point—to the ministerial statement.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I will, Mr Speaker. If this guy opened a funeral parlour, nobody would die. He can screw up anything—

SPEAKER: No—sorry, that’s enough. I just remind the House these are responses to the ministerial statement and should not go broader than that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) (14:25): Under Standing Order 365(1)(a) and (b), we won’t be saying at the very beginning that we always believed this inquiry would be deficient. Quotes we said back then: “We disagree with allowing the current inquiry to simply continue as ‘phase one’ in its current form, the current chair remaining in place, and the further extension of [the] report-back period.” Further, we said: “We believe that ‘phase one’ of the Royal Commission is simply a continuation of the current inquiry, which is far too narrow in [its] scope and remains compromised by the current Chair’s direct involvement [and] the previous Government’s administration and direct planning of the COVID pandemic response.” And further: “New Zealand First campaigned on the fact that the current Royal Commission was nothing more than a Labour Party political tool, being used to craft a message through its lack of scope and lack of suitability of the commissioners. We believe the public perception of bias of the current chair represents a reputational risk for ‘phase one’ of the inquiry.” Enough quotes.

Today, there is a serious lack of confidence across New Zealand in our health system and its processes as a result. Here are the questions we wish to ask. This is basic, to start: does the inquiry show that Ministers imposed a vaccine mandate for 12- to 17-year-olds and kept it in place, despite clear warnings from experts that a two-dose vaccine mandate presented risk for young people? That’s the first question. Second: does he agree with the finding of the inquiry that the failure to provide information about the risk of two doses of the Pfizer vaccine to 12- to 17-year-olds was “significant”? Third: does the inquiry show that Minister Verrall was aware of the advisory group’s concerns about requiring two vaccinations for young people? She was aware that they were concerned about that at the time. Four: did the inquiry show that Ministers were aware that the benefits of the 2021 lockdown in Auckland did not outweigh the costs, as compared to previous lockdowns? Five: did the inquiry show that Ministers were not fully assessing the economic and social effects of keeping Auckland in lockdown in 2021? Six: does the inquiry identify shortcomings in the provision of rapid testing of New Zealanders, particularly in comparison to Singapore, which first started using the tests in 2020? Seven: does the inquiry show that Ministers made decisions regarding vaccine mandates without consideration or even any monitoring of the medium-term effects on the health and education workforces?

Now, we’ve got countless other questions, but those are the ones we want to start with today, and to say, at the end of the day, what we’re concerned about here is the alacrity with which the Leader of the Opposition got up and tried to excuse himself in the face—as perverted and biased as it might be—of a shocking report.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:28): Well, I thank the member for his questions. The first issue was in relation to the risk of myocarditis for 12- to 17-year-olds, and that is an issue that was traversed significantly in the report. The report found two things. Firstly, that it was a significant failure on the Ministry of Health not to clearly provide clear advice to Ministers on that particular point. However, also in paragraph 413 of the report, it says: “On 22 December 2021 the Ministry of Health provided a briefing paper to Hon. Chris Hipkins, Minister for COVID-19 Response, titled ‘Policy decisions required for further amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order (No 7) 2021.’ The paper was considered by Hon. Dr Ayesha Verrall, Associate Minister of Health, on 7 January 2022.”

Hon Shane Jones: Hiding the information!

SPEAKER: Just hold on. I’m trying to listen to make sure that there’s a fair go all round and that the information being given by the Minister can be clearly heard. Anybody who thinks that they’re helping him by yelling out like that is not doing so.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Paragraph 414 says, “Paragraph 23 of this paper stated that: ‘In November 2021, CV TAG has raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups (e.g. those under 18 years) to be fully vaccinated. Consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate.’ ” The reality is that that advice was provided to the Ministers, and the mandates that it related to continued to stay in effect for some time after that. Concerns were clearly made, and the reality is that the questions around why those decisions were made are questions that would need to be put to the former Ministers.

In relation to the other questions, I think the report outlines, certainly, around some of the Auckland lockdown decisions, advice from the Ministry of Health not being followed and alternative positions being taken to Cabinet; certainly, delays in getting access to rapid testing in New Zealand didn’t support a more rapid and nimble response; and, of course, there are certainly some recommendations, which will be considered, around how the issue of mandates and the impact those have on people versus the health benefits—that is certainly an issue that is going to need to be further considered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) (14:31): Could I ask the Minister: how many tens of thousands of 12- to 17-year-olds could have been adversely affected as a result of the Government of that time ignoring the advice of people who knew what they were talking about?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:31): Well, the reality is that there would be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of young people in that age group, and the reality was—as is outlined in paragraphs 413 and 414 of the report—that a briefing was provided to the Hon Chris Hipkins. It was then considered by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall on 7 January 2022, and that report said that the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV TAG), in November, had raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups to be fully vaccinated: “Consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate.” The reality is that those mandates did stay in place for some time following that paper being considered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) (14:32): Does the report mention any officials who were sacked for failing to advise the Government Ministers of the time, or is it a case where they did advise the Government Ministers of the time and the Ministers who are claiming today to be innocent are denying all knowledge? Is there anybody in the report who was fired for failing to advise Ministers?

SPEAKER: In so much as the Minister is able to answer somewhat factually, then he could make a comment.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:33): The report makes the finding that there was a significant failure on behalf of the Ministry of Health in not being clearer in terms of the advice that it provided on that point to Ministers. The answer to the member’s question relating to the issue of the officials and who provided what, is not answered in the report.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters has one minute and 21 seconds of his time, if he wishes to—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) (14:33): No—next week.

SPEAKER: Thank you. [Debbie Ngarewa-Packer rises to take a call] No, this is a—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On the basis that it takes some people to absorb the information that we’re giving them, I’ll come back next week with it, or the week after.

SPEAKER: Oh, that’s very generous of you. The Māori Party would need to seek leave for—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, kia ora. E te Pīka, I’d like to seek leave to take a call.

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

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:34): Thank you. First of all, we all want to acknowledge the enormous sacrifice made by many across Aotearoa during the COVID-19 pandemic. At home and across the motu, we saw marae and iwi mobilise and really feed and care for their whole community. This report is bereft of that information. In fact, it’s really disappointing because it’s framed the whole response, in our view, as everything being successful based on what the State did, and let me tell you how we saw it from our perspective: the State was missing in action.

We had the largest Māori caucus, and yet we still had to endure warrantless searches on marae. We had to endure tikanga that was harsh and that didn’t have any input from iwi across the motu. We had to have tangihanga challenges and we also saw mandates, and they were cruel and harsh on our people. We saw that the supply of resources didn’t arrive.

One of the things that I think that was really disappointing was that the whole role of iwi and the backbone of the COVID response was actually just seen as some extra, versus what it should have been seen as and what we also see in the climate crisis—they are a critical part of recovery. They are a critical part of standing up for the whole community. There were checkpoints, there were community protection measures, there was delivered kai, there were medicines, there was testing, there were protected kaumātua, and vulnerable, vulnerable communities, which is why we didn’t have what happened in Italy. I think that what the coordinated campaign’s done off the back of their own steam is really important and sadly missed in some of this.

We reject the framing that everything needed to be attributed and thanked to the Government at the time. What’s even more disturbing is that there haven’t been lessons learnt from this that we would expect to have seen come through. I think some of the things we know is that Māori and Pacific communities were disproportionately affected and that isn’t something that’s because of their culture, it’s because of deprivation, and that needed to be acknowledged in this as well as Te Tiriti.

I have some questions that we would like to put to the Minister. The first one is: why does the report acknowledge the success of iwi-led response during the pandemic but fails to recommend permanent resources for iwi and Māori providers to lead future public health responses? As Minister Seymour said, there will be other pandemics.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:36): Well, the report was an independent royal commission report. I can’t speak to why or why not a recommendation may or may not have been added to the report. As a Government, we will respond to the report’s recommendations.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:36): Thank you. My next question is, how does the Minister reconcile the report’s findings with its ongoing removal of Te Tiriti obligations from the health system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:36): Well, I’d say those are two separate things.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:36): I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that—apologies.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:36): I’d say that my response to that is those are two separate matters.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:37): The next question is: does the Minister accept the delayed access to Māori-specific health data undermined iwi’s ability to protect their communities?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:37): Well, I think there was certainly a need to ensure that during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, that all communities were engaged in the response and to make sure that the response was as effective as possible.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:37): Does the Minister believe that a Māori-led pandemic response framework is critical and something that should be adopted as a consequence of this report?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:37): We will be responding to the phase one and phase two reports. Cabinet will be considering that and reporting back in July.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:37): Does the Minister believe that a Treaty-based emergency governance that includes iwi decision, given the way that we saw iwi stand up and actually contribute to the success of the COVID response that this nation had, is important to be addressed?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:37): We are focused on responding to the royal commission’s reports. We’ll be providing a full response in July.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:38): Does the Minister believe that there are future safety issues for communities with inequities in future pandemics affecting Aotearoa?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:38): I think, as the report highlights, the best thing that New Zealand can do to be prepared for future shocks, whether those are economic shocks, whether those are natural disasters, or whether those are pandemics, is having a prudent fiscal management of our economy and focusing on growing our economy so that we’re able to respond to shocks. That is why this Government is focused on making sure we have fiscal strategy, which is about reducing the burden of debt, which is about ensuring we are focused on economic growth and the resilience of our economy in the face of shocks. We are a small country. We are far from international markets. Our isolation can be something which can be an advantage, but ultimately, at the same time, for all New Zealanders, the best thing we can be focused on in preparation is ensuring we’re running the economy well, keeping debt down, and ensuring we’re focused on fixing the basics and building the future.

SPEAKER: That concludes this debate.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:39): Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:39):

Petition of Katja Feldtman requesting that the House increase penalties for serious or repeated privacy breaches, strengthen the Privacy Commissioner’s enforcement powers and improve accountability where organisations fail to protect personal or health information

petition of Wendy Joy Baker requesting that the House urge councils to reduce rates and spending.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER (14:39): Ministers have delivered two papers.

CLERK (14:39):

Government response to the report of the Health Committee on the inquiry into the aged care sector’s current and future capacity to provide support services for people experiencing neurological cognitive disorders

New Zealand Royal Commission COVID-19 Lessons Learned, documents related to phase one and phase two of the inquiry.

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

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:40): Eighteen select committee papers have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:40):

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the

2024/25 annual reviews of AgResearch Ltd, Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd, the New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd, and New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd

2024/25 annual reviews of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd, the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd, and the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Ltd

2024/25 annual reviews of the Accreditation Council, the Real Estate Agents Authority, and Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd

2024/25 annual reviews of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, New Zealand Tourism Board, and the Retirement Commissioner

2024/25 annual reviews of the External Reporting Board, Kordia Group Ltd, and New Zealand Growth Capital Partners Ltd

Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the

2024/25 annual review of the Ministry for Regulation

2024/25 annual review of the Treasury

Budget Policy Statement 2026 and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2025

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025–26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2024/25 annual review of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Insights into local government: 2023

report of the Justice Committee on the 2024/25 annual review of the Ministry of Justice

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Parliamentary Counsel Office, Annual Report on Legislative Practices 2024-2025

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the

2024/25 annual review of the Children and Young People’s Commission

2024/25 annual review of the Independent Children’s Monitor

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Oranga Tamariki: Inquiry into procurement and contract management.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The Budget Policy Statement, reports of the Controller and Auditor-General, and the Annual Report on Legislative Practices are set down for consideration.

Bills

Employment Leave Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER (14:42): The Clerk’s been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK (14:42): Employment Leave Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:42) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:42): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his claim that giving landlords a $2.9 billion tax cut would lower rents; if so, why have rents gone up almost 10 percent in the past year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud of the fact that we actually have seen rents stabilise in this country after having gone up $180 a week under his Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he believe that rents going up 10 percent in a year is a sign that they’ve stabilised?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member: asking me about housing policy, which was an abject failure of his Government, is a waste of time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Those were both actually very straightforward questions, about rents going up 10 percent. The Prime Minister’s chosen to not address those questions at all. I think that last question in particular—why does he believe that a 10 percent increase in rents is a sign that rents have stabilised?—is not an unreasonable question.

SPEAKER: I don’t think there’s any suggestion it was an unreasonable question. There was a response from the Prime Minister that, clearly, he judged to be in the public interest, and that’s where the public will probably judge it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should everyday New Zealanders believe that the economy’s improving when 70 percent—seven out of 10—of working people received pay rises last year that were less than the rate of inflation, meaning that their pay in real terms is going backwards?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, we do have an economic recovery under way. That’s evidenced by the GDP growth being 1.1 percent in the last quarter. It’s evidenced with inflation being low at 3.1 percent. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Treasury expect that interest rates will remain low, as will inflation. We’ve got consumer confidence the highest it’s been since 2021. We’ve got business confidence the highest since 2014. We’ve got farmer confidence the highest since 2016. Manufacturing growth, record exports, great growth in tourism, trade surplus for the first time in five years, building consents up 20 percent, construction jobs up 43 percent in the last year, job ads up 10 percent in the last year. There’s still a lot more for us to do, and life is hard, but it underscores some of the conversation we’ve had here in this House today, which is if you don’t run an economy well, if you don’t manage it prudently and responsibly, you end up taxing more, borrowing more, spending more—

SPEAKER: Good—OK.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and causing huge pain and suffering for New Zealanders and, most importantly, damaging the economy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the building and construction industry has turned around, why was there $5 billion less activity in construction last year compared to 2023, and 751 construction firms going into liquidation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve explained to the member before, construction is very contingent upon something called interest rates, because you actually need to borrow money to get developments done and built. How you end up with high interest rates is because of wasteful Government spending leading to high inflation, which leads to high interest rates. That really hurts a construction industry, and building and construction. What I’m saying to the member is it’s good to see that we’ve got building consents up 20 percent in the last six months, we’ve got construction jobs up 43 percent in the last year. That’s good progress; there’s more for us to do. We want more New Zealanders feeling the recovery. But if the member feels very strongly about it, why doesn’t he support our fast track?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think that the 2,000 New Zealanders a week who have been giving up and leaving the country under his leadership feel that the economy’s turned around?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m pleased to report that, actually, New Zealanders returning back to New Zealand was up 12 percent on the previous year. For the last four months, I’m very pleased to say that New Zealanders leaving is less than in any month in the period that he was Prime Minister. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with his finance Minister that struggling New Zealanders just need to be less impatient, or will he admit that his Government’s been consistently making life harder for New Zealanders?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Labour leader frequently raises points of order to try and debate matters of fact. He’s just misrepresented the Minister of Finance, and he should withdraw and apologise for it, as you asked me to earlier.

SPEAKER: I missed that there was a—it was the description of the member that I took objection to before, on behalf of the House. Was there a descriptor for the Minister of Finance in that question?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, a member can’t take objection on behalf of another member.

SPEAKER: Yes, I’m aware of that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: But second of all, the statements that I make in my question or, if you like, the assertion in my question is no different to any other assertion. If the Government wants to reject it, they can reject it in the answers.

Hon Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has formed a repeated habit—

SPEAKER: No, hang on.

Hon Nicola Willis: No—a repeated habit of misrepresenting my statements in this House.

SPEAKER: No, sorry. A point of order has to be specific. It can’t be a general speech about how the member feels.

Hon Nicola Willis: The way he represented my statement in his supplementary question was inaccurate, and he should withdraw.

SPEAKER: The member might—why don’t you ask the question again and I’ll decide whether you should withdraw?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with his finance Minister that struggling New Zealanders just need to be less impatient, or will he admit that his Government’s—

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think you can say that. Sorry, unless you can point to a quote that actually says that, you can’t—

Hon Ginny Andersen: It’s what she said.

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon? Ms Andersen, are you now sitting in the Chair? Good, because you’ll be sitting in a chair outside the House if you keep challenging like that. You can’t assert something or come to some conclusion about what something else might have meant. It has to be fact.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Further point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order. I can clear this up.

SPEAKER: Just a moment. You might be able to, but I’m hearing from the—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, if you’re ruling that we can’t make assertions or paraphrase Ministers in our questions, you’ll be knocking out most of the questions in this House, including a significant number of the patsy questions that come from the Government solely for the purposes of attacking the Opposition.

SPEAKER: No, I’m not doing that. Standing Orders do it. If you read the Standing Order, you’ll see that that is clearly the situation. Does the member have another supplementary?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, supplementary question.

Hon Nicola Willis: Quick, speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Supplementary here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much—

Hon Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, can I speak to the point of order?

SPEAKER: Sorry, no. Mr Peters, we’ll go to the supplementary here. We’re moving on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We can’t take any more of this.

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Hon Nicola Willis: Can I speak to the point of order?

SPEAKER: Look, I know you’re pretty fast on your feet, but you’ve got to be fast to beat this young guy.

Hon Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, the point of order’s dealt with.

Hon Nicola Willis: Well, can I raise a new point of order?

SPEAKER: Best be a new point of order.

Hon Nicola Willis: I wish to state for the record of the House that I have never stated—

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a point of order. Sit down.

Hon Nicola Willis: Just need to be—

SPEAKER: That is not point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister identified one single New Zealand family that’s received the full $250 a fortnight that he promised them before the election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it’s quite interesting the member is so flippant about the efforts of this Government to help low and middle income working New Zealanders. It wasn’t deeply ideological to lift tax thresholds to help lots of people with lower tax. But what we know is that member spent too much, borrowed too much, for way too long, caused huge amounts of suffering, and he wants to get a go at doing it all again. Not going to happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: if an inherited $92 billion debt blow-out was spent on consumption—not production, not wealth creation, and not added value—is it likely that adverse economic indicators will stay around for some time?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you’ve ruled already that assertions cannot be made in questions. That was just a string of assertions, none of which have a basis in fact.

SPEAKER: [Interruption] No, sorry—slightly different. In your case, you asserted that a Minister had said something. Mr Peters asked the Minister a question about those things—quite different. It is hard but Standing Orders will never cover the whole lot.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I want to thank the member for his question, because it’s very illuminating, which is that the Labour Government was the second-biggest spending—

SPEAKER: No, no—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m giving context.

SPEAKER: Wait on. Hang on—just a minute. There’s a point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a Government patsy question from a Minister to another Minister, and he begins immediately by attacking the last Labour Government.

SPEAKER: Yes, and that’s right. Before you stood to your feet, I was about to stop it. [Interruption] Sorry? Another one who wants to come and sit in this Chair. There’ll be a whole choir of you outside shortly. I’ll just tell the Prime Minister you—

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Actually, we’ll move on. Rawiri Waititi.

Rawiri Waititi: Hopefully the Prime Minister will be thanking me for my question. Will he finally condemn the USA and Israel for their illegal invasion of Iran, which has killed at least 1,205 civilians, including at least 194 children; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As the member knows, I gave a statement in this House last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has given subsequent statements, and I’ve got nothing further to add to what we’ve already said last week.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he categorically rule out sending any military support to the United States and Israel for their illegal invasion of Iran?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven’t been asked. We are not central to the region, we are not central to the issue, and we are a long way away. We haven’t been asked and we don’t expect we will be.

Rawiri Waititi: When he said, “We haven’t been asked to.” in a response to a question about Aotearoa joining the strikes, was he suggesting that we would support the strikes if the USA or Israel asked us to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Hon David Seymour: Does he think it’s very likely that the United States would ask a country called Aotearoa to join a military action?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question.

Finance

Question No. 2

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (14:52) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on economic policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:53): The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned was released today. One of the four key areas it focuses on is economic policy. The royal commission observes that the COVID-19 pandemic was a substantial shock to the economy and the costliest event in terms of fiscal support in New Zealand in the past 40 years. We must learn lessons from the way this event was responded to, because these lessons must inform the Government’s response to the next natural disaster, global downturn, pandemic, or other economic shock. Denial is not an option. Mistakes were made in the economic response, and these mistakes were costly. Those who choose to minimise these errors are not well placed to learn from them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question about a royal commission report. The answer was largely the Minister’s opinion on what she thinks about the royal commission’s report, not the contents of that report, with a deliberate attack on the Opposition. Government patsy questions—and you’ve repeatedly ruled this—should not be used to attack the Opposition.

SPEAKER: That’s true, but the—

Ryan Hamilton: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s good—let me speak first—

Ryan Hamilton: My primary question—

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait on. Let me speak first. Sit down. The question, if you read it, says, “What reports has she seen on economic policy?” Well, certainly there were aspects of that in the royal commission report. I don’t think it was unreasonable for her to comment on that.

Ryan Hamilton: What did the royal commission say about Government spending and fiscal stimulus during the pandemic?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it says that Treasury and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advice from the outset was that fiscal stimulus measures to address the consequences of the pandemic should be timely, temporary, and targeted. However, the royal commission found that many examples of Government spending, including the so-called shovel-ready infrastructure projects did not meet these tests. The $60 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery fund spanned 821 programmes, around half of which were not related to the pandemic, such as conservation programmes, additional public housing places, and school lunches. Many initiatives in the COVID fund extended well beyond the time of the pandemic, and some were baked in, including permanent increases to welfare benefits. As a result, the big increase in Government spending was highly stimulatory and went on for too long.

Ryan Hamilton: What did the royal commission say about the consequences of that stimulus?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it says that highly stimulatory fiscal policy, together with low interest rates, led to a surge in house prices in 2021 and 2022. House prices, I acknowledge, also rose in other countries but the commission points out that the increase was far more dramatic in New Zealand. This was avoidable. The commission says that fiscal policy set in 2020 received limited review and adjustment. It says, and I quote, “We are not aware of any sizeable component of the fiscal stimulus programme that was reviewed or cancelled to lessen the stimulus once the undesirability of further stimulus became clear.”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table Christopher Luxon’s first announcement as Leader of the Opposition, arguing for the Labour Government to spend more money on the COVID-19 response, after the Reserve Bank had already started to tighten monetary policy.

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

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

Ryan Hamilton: What did the royal commission say about Government debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Fiscal stimulus comes from increasing Government spending. In the circumstances, increased Government spending had to be borrowed. As a result, New Zealand’s Government debt rose from 18.6 percent of GDP before the pandemic to 38.7 percent in 2022/2023 fiscal year, obviously a very significant increase. The royal commission makes it clear that the large amount of debt accumulated during the pandemic means New Zealand is now in a weaker position to deal with the next large shock that comes along. The report concludes—and, again, I quote—“there is a pressing need to reduce public debt to provide a buffer for future pandemics or other economic shocks.” This Government agrees with that conclusion.

Finance

Question No. 3

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:58) on behalf of the Hon Barbara Edmonds (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:58): In context, yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does she stand by her statement on 6 March 2026 that, “There’s no getting away from the fact that a higher oil price means New Zealanders paying higher prices.”, and if so, does she expect current overseas events to worsen New Zealand’s inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I stand by my statement of 6 March, and I also stand by this Government’s decision to unwind proposed petrol tax increases by the previous Government which would have added 12c extra to fuel as well as 10c in a regional fuel tax.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was Nicola Willis correct on 19 July 2022 when she said that Governments “can’t simply blame these issues on overseas factors. It needs to front up and do its bit.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, that was a very wise statement from Nicola Willis, who I also recall at the time was pointing out while we can’t control global factors, the Government can always control its own response, including the spending decision it makes. I recall, at that period, what we had was both the Reserve Bank making decisions but also the Government choosing to have a highly stimulatory fiscal stance, right when we were also trying to fight global inflation factors. Yes, global inflation played a factor, but no, the previous Government did not take prudent steps to rein its own belt in.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was Nicola Willis correct on 14 June 2022 that Governments need to stop blaming overseas events and step up and deliver a plan to fight inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and how prudent it was that, on being elected, this Government restored a single inflation-busting mandate to the Reserve Bank and that we have delivered $43 billion worth of savings to reduce pressure on inflation that can come from stimulatory fiscal policy. How good it is that we are a Government that is committed to a fiscal strategy to see the debt curve bend down and to reduce spending, as a proportion of the economy, and get the books back in balance. Members, of course we cannot control global events, but every Government has the choice about how it responds, and, as the royal commission report lays bare today, the last Government, in responding to an unavoidable shock, made costly fiscal and monetary policy decisions for which New Zealand continues to pay today.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was Nicola Willis correct on 21 April 2022 “It’s simply not credible for [a] Finance Minister to distance [themselves] by blaming our inflation woes solely on global causes.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and I certainly have not done that and would not do that. What I acknowledge is that global changes in the price of oil do have an impact here at home, but what I have also been is a finance Minister who has recognised that monetary policy needs mates, and the fiscal decisions that a Government makes have an impost on New Zealanders and have impacts for inflation and interest rates. I take very seriously that role, and I think that this would be a point where members opposite might reflect that the decisions made in response to COVID-19 in the independent appraisal of the royal commission of inquiry, along with the New Zealand Treasury, find clearly that they spent too much, they stimulated the economy too much, it led to a massive spike in debt, a massive spike in the cost of living, and we are still unwinding that now. I watched that response unfold. I’ve reflected on the lessons; it’s time that lot did too.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister’s position that no Government can control every factor but every Government has a responsibility to take control of the ones it can, and, if so, what is this Government doing to boost growth and to control inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I wholeheartedly agree with those statements from the Deputy Prime Minister. This Government, while we do not have it within our power to declare peace in the Middle East, is ensuring that we are supporting growth in this economy and that we are doing so through sensible fiscal management, by reducing red tape that stands in the way of investment and development, by having in place an Investment Boost tax policy to encourage new development and growth, to pursue more free-trade agreements, and to encourage investors to come to New Zealand to ensure we are delivering a sustainable pipeline of infrastructure, and we are lifting the achievement of children in schools so that the workforce of the future can be more productive. This is a Government with a clear plan. We are controlling what we can control, but we haven’t sorted out peace in the Middle East yet.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Isn’t it the case that the Minister doesn’t need overseas factors to have a negative impact on the economy; she’s well on her way to doing that herself?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’d suggest the person doing the most damage to themselves today is Mr Hipkins, who seems to be in a state of fervent denial.

SPEAKER: The question and the answer probably matched each other quite well.

Tourism and Hospitality

Question No. 4

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (15:04) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent reports has she seen on tourism in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality) (15:04): Data released last week shows New Zealand’s tourism sector continues to grow, driving billions of dollars into our economy. The Tourism Satellite Account shows total tourism expenditure in New Zealand is at $46.6 billion for the year ending March 2025. A new travel option that enables eligible Chinese and Pacific visitors to cross the ditch to New Zealand visa-free is also bringing in a considerable boost to tourism with over $210 million being injected into the economy as a result of our Government’s visa changes. These results highlight exactly why tourism is a key part of our Government’s plan to fix the basics and build the future.

Carl Bates: How have the Government’s recent visa changes provided a boost to our economy?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In December, we announced that 13,000 Chinese and Pacific travellers had already visited, with 24,000 total requests approved. That number has now almost tripled to 36,800 visits. With average visitor spend at $5,800 for Chinese visitors, that’s an estimated economic injection of $210 million for Kiwi businesses from those who have visited, with Chinese visitors making up 36,200 visits through the new pathway. This visitor spending is going directly into local businesses; it includes shops, eateries, accommodation, and transport, and this is spending that may not have come into New Zealand without these changes. More international visitors mean more customers for our businesses and more jobs being created across the country.

Carl Bates: What progress has she seen on employment in the tourism and hospitality industries?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The latest Tourism Satellite Account data shows that now one in nine people are employed in the tourism and hospitality industries. Total tourism employment increased 2.8 percent to over 325,000 people. This means almost 9,000 more people are employed in the industry. This data shows the importance of our Government’s commitment to growing tourism and its contribution to employment growth across New Zealand. More visitors mean more spending on our accommodation, cafés, bars, restaurants, and local businesses, which, of course, gives a significant boost to the economy and supports more local jobs.

Carl Bates: What commentary has she seen on these reports?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Tourism Industry Aotearoa Chief Executive Rebecca Ingram has said, “This summer, we have seen changes to our visa settings for China, which has made a real difference, and we have also seen quite considerable activity to stimulate demand.” Napier City Business Inc. General Manager Pip Thompson said, “When visitors are here, staying overnight, and spending, it supports accommodation, hospitality, and the wider CBD.” Greymouth iSite manager Kelly Ashworth describes tourism at present as “Fantastic—great to see. There’s not accommodation available in Greymouth, Hokitika, or Punakaiki … It’s great not just for the tourism industry but for supermarkets, cafés, boutiques, local businesses that we’re lucky to have. They’ve all benefitted—it’s what keeps everyone employed.” Tourism is critical to our economy, and our investments will help to deliver lasting benefits for communities and businesses from one end of New Zealand to the other.

Prime Minister

Question No. 5

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (15:08) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (15:08): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he share the incoming US ambassador to New Zealand’s priority of “expanding our defence partnership”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we believe in is we have our own independent foreign policy. We work with like-minded countries on making sure we keep the Indo-Pacific region safe and secure.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is he comfortable expanding defence partnerships with a country that has launched an illegal war with Iran, further destabilised the entire Middle East, and upended global fuel supply?

SPEAKER: The question itself needs to be reworded.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he comfortable expanding defence partnerships with a country that has launched an illegal war with Iran, further destabilised the entire Middle East, and upended global fuel supply?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation and the assumptions that are inherent in that question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Prime Minister rule out providing any resources or intelligence to support the US-Israeli war with Iran?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ve canvassed these issues before. As I’ve said, any intelligence that is collected and shared is done in accordance with New Zealand law.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement that, “Our position is the same as the Australian position.”; and if so, why does his Government share Australia’s support for the US attacks on Iran?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t understand the question.

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s a statement that the member is making. It’s certainly not one that my very considerable following of this issue could verify. So, I think, reword the question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement that, “Our position is the same as the Australian position.”; and if so, why does his Government share Australia’s support for the US attacks on Iran?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s the last bit that’s the problem.

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

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is his Government unable to articulate a clear position on the illegal US-Israeli war with Iran?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We canvassed that last week. We’ve had statements in the House on that. I’ve got nothing further to add to what’s already been said and discussed.

Health

Question No. 6

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:11) to the Minister of Health: Is the Government’s 24/7 online GP service on track to reach one million patients a year; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:11): The member opposite appears to be confused. There is not and has never been a target for X number of patients being seen through this service. Since the Online GP Care service was introduced, tens of thousands of New Zealanders have received care they otherwise could not have accessed—making a real difference to patients’ lives. The figure of 1 million, which the member is referring to, was not a projected usage target; it relates to survey findings for access to primary care, not to any target for the Online GP Care service. The Government introduced services like this to work alongside our wider primary care plan, to ensure that patients can get the care they need when and where they need it. Uptake of this service will only continue to grow, and I encourage the member to support it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When will the service reach 1 million users a year, as promised in the fact sheet distributed in the launch?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the answer to my primary question: the figure of 1 million, which the member is referring to, was not a projected usage target; it relates to survey findings about access to primary care—not to any target for the online GP care service. Ultimately, usage will continue to grow, and we encourage the member to promote it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Sir, if the Minister was accurate and that there was no target of 1 million, that primary question would not have been allowed by the Clerk’s Office. As you know, we are required to provide verification, which we did, and that is why the primary question was allowed. It is inaccurate for the member to dismiss the question by saying, “That isn’t the case.”, when it’s already been verified, through the parliamentary process, that it is.

SPEAKER: I don’t have that in front of me. I accept that the question was accepted. The Minister’s answer can’t be dismissed just because of the acceptance of the question by the Clerk’s Office. The reality is that the 1-million patient number will be reached when the 1-millionth person rings the line.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir. I accept that, but my point is that if it was inaccurate for us to claim that there was a target of 1 million—as happens every sitting day, if there is something—

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what—I’ll tell you what.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —in a question that can’t be verified, it is sent back by the Clerk’s Office. This was not, because it was verified.

SPEAKER: OK. I don’t have that in front of me. I’ll need to go have a look at that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who said he could see this “taking off quite well”; or his own data, which says that the service is only reaching 5 percent of the patients he promised?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Prime Minister, of course, is always right, and, ultimately, the tens of thousands of New Zealanders are using this service, and it will continue to grow, as people become more aware of the service. But I do note that the policy of the members opposite, in the Labour Party, was to scrap—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —the ability for people to access Online GP Care, which is something, I think, many New Zealanders would be opposed to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How few people would have to use the service for the Government to discontinue it?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this service is making access available to New Zealanders who otherwise wouldn’t have access. We’re having to promote access, and it is one part of our plan to increase access for primary care; expanding access to urgent after-hours care, Online GP Care; investing more in record capitation for general practitioners; our Primary Care Tactical Action Plan; growing our primary care workforce, with more doctors, more nurses, more nurse practitioners. We have a clear plan to increase access to primary care: it is multifaceted, and it is delivering for New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: Just to refer back to the point of order by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, the authentication, I’m reliably informed, didn’t say it was a target; the quote is “It is estimated up to 1 million may use this service in a year.” That makes the question that’s asked perfectly legitimate—when will it be on track for 1 million patients in a year? It equally makes the response from the Minister correct as well.

Trade and Investment

Question No. 7

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (15:16) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What do the latest international trade statistics show about the resilience of New Zealand exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:16): New Zealand’s exporters are winning, despite challenging international conditions. Stats released last week show a robust performance across global markets, reflecting the skill, innovation, and resilience of Kiwi exporters, who continue to compete amongst the best in the world. Exports rose to $29.2 billion for the December quarter compared to a year earlier, up $2.2 billion. Two-way trade also increased strongly, reaching $61.2 billion for that quarter. These results show the importance of opening markets and strong trading relationships, and they show that New Zealand exporters are well placed to navigate ongoing trade disruption and global economic uncertainty.

Catherine Wedd: Which key export sectors are leading this growth?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Export growth has been broad across our key export sectors, but, again, our farmers and growers are punching well above their weight. In the December quarter, meat exports increased by a significant 21.4 percent; dairy exports were up 10 percent, tourism—thank you to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality for her work—grew by 9.4 percent; transportation exports grew by 7.5 percent; and for our foresters, log exports were up by 3.7 percent. New Zealand exporters are performing well across both goods and services, and across multiple markets, despite these ongoing global economic uncertainties. These results show our exporters continue to compete successfully in a highly competitive international environment.

Catherine Wedd: What is the Government doing to ensure New Zealand exporters remain resilient and competitive as global economic conditions continue to evolve?

Hon TODD McCLAY: This Government is focused on using our free-trade agreements (FTAs) to back exporters by reducing barriers at the border, improving market access, and giving New Zealand businesses greater certainty in tough global conditions. Statistics show exports have grown most in markets where New Zealand has free-trade agreements: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, in China, in Australia, the UK, and the European Union—growth across each of these markets demonstrates the value of our FTAs in helping Kiwi exporters remain competitive and succeed internationally. As global conditions evolve, the Government remains committed to strengthening and growing our expanding network of FTAs.

Catherine Wedd: What does this export performance mean for jobs and incomes for New Zealanders?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Trade supports one in four Kiwi jobs, and companies who export employ more women and they generally pay their workers more. So strong export performance is important for jobs and drives higher incomes across New Zealand. Over the past year, New Zealand exported more than $114 billion of goods and services, and delivered a small trade surplus. Resilience in our export sector helps underpin regional economic growth, it creates jobs, and it pays Kiwis better wages.

Economic Growth

Question No. 8

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:19) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she stand by her statement, “Economic growth means more jobs, higher wages and better opportunities for all New Zealanders”; if so, why?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) (15:19): Well, yes, because economic growth means more jobs, higher wages, and better opportunities for all New Zealanders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Are wages keeping up, when Radio New Zealand reported that 70 percent of workers received a pay rise that failed to keep up with inflation last year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it’s always the case that family circumstances vary. While some workers will have received pay rises or moved to jobs with higher pay, others will not have received pay rises in the previous year. What our Government is focused on is increasing opportunities in this economy, which will allow more job creation to occur, allow businesses to pay their workers more, and ensure that every New Zealander has more choices about the opportunities they face. I’d point out to the member that one key way we are doing that is with the Investment Boost tax policy, which Treasury forecast will increase wage growth significantly over the forecast period.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she expect that wages will keep up with inflation this year given that food prices are up 4.6 percent and economists are now predicting inflation will increase further?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I outlined in extensive detail yesterday, there are currently a number of issues occurring globally which mean that it is challenging for anyone to give a definitive forecast about what will happen with New Zealand’s annual inflation rate or our rate of economic growth. It is always the case, however—I can confirm for the member—that we want to see people’s wages rising faster than inflation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she credibly say that there are “better opportunities”, when wages are going backwards, New Zealanders are now facing higher prices, and the best her Government can do is to set up an oversight group?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I absolutely reject the assertion at the back end of this question, but what I would also highlight is that when I think about those people who are working on the new housing development in Nelson, fast tracked through the fast-track Act; when I think of the construction workers working on the Auckland port extension, made possible by the fast-track Act; when I think of the workers across the country doing work right now that would not be possible without the fast-track Act, then I think it’s pretty clear that this Government stands on the side of opportunity. I would put to that member that members who opposed that fast-track legislation and the jobs it is supporting right now may be speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

Energy

Question No. 9

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (15:22) to the Associate Minister for Energy: What reports has he received on fuel security?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (15:22): Obviously, the war in the Middle East is creating considerable pressure on our fuel importers. We do have, however, a reasonable supply of fuel, with 25 days’ worth of diesel, 27 days’ worth of petrol, and similar amounts safely on its way here. However, in 2022, when the Marsden Point refinery was closed down, with the approval of the then Labour Government—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: You don’t need to. That’s not a line you should pursue, given the nature of the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is it a line that he shouldn’t pursue; it’s also factually incorrect. The Labour Government did not approve the winding down of Marsden Point; it was a private business.

Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order, sir, I never said that the Labour Government gave its permission; I said that the Labour Government approved of it in the context of an agreement—i.e., they expressed their agreement. If you have any doubt, I shall table the Cabinet paper where they say that. And why don’t we ask the Clerk to consult the dictionary as to whether “approval” can be an expression of agreement, as opposed to offering a consent or permission?

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, that’s a lot to take in. Jenny Marcroft.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No—oh, OK.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, based on Shane Jones’ logic, then every closure of a factory that’s happened over the last couple of years has been approved by this Government. The fact that it happened to happen whilst we were in Government does not mean that the previous Government approved it.

SPEAKER: OK, look, there’s also reference to a Cabinet paper in what Mr Jones said to the House. I don’t have that in front of me. I don’t know whether Cabinet ever considered that or not. But the point, I suppose, being made by Mr Jones is that if it went to Cabinet, there clearly had to be some kind of approval for the private sector action in closing the plant.

Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh, well, I’m kind of finished.

Hon SHANE JONES: I can actually, genuinely, in this case, be helpful.

SPEAKER: The last person I heard say that was Richard Prebble, and it didn’t work.

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, in that case, I’ll shut up.

Jenny Marcroft: What risks to fuel security does New Zealand face due to the Middle East crisis?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I’ve said, when the previous Government approved of the Marsden Point closure, sadly we are now reduced to importing all of our fuel and beholden—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The question was about the Middle East. You’re just ignoring the Speaker and making a mockery of the whole thing.

Hon SHANE JONES: —to the whims of the global market. Twenty percent of the global—

SPEAKER: Sorry; hang on. Give it up. It’s about fuel security. Anybody who thinks you can talk about fuel security and not mention the Middle East and the current environment is, I think, wide of the mark.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The point is, Mr Speaker, the question was about the Middle East; the answer has nothing to do with it. If you were listening to it, sir, the question was “What reports have you seen about the impact of the Middle East?”; the start of his answer was “the previous Government”. If you’re not going to pull it up, no wonder we are carping on the sideline, sir.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, the sideline’s about to get a heck of a lot further away from where you’re currently sitting.

Hon SHANE JONES: Roughly 20 percent of the global oil supply, not exclusively feedstock, does pass through the Strait of Hormuz. But more importantly, two-thirds of the crude used by the refineries in Asia which deliver our fuel does come from the Middle East. I say again, because Marsden Point was shut down, these refineries are our exclusive source of fuel, and when the Government said at that point in time, “I do not believe there is a strong case to support continued refinery operations on fuel security grounds.”—I’m right, you’re wrong.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was 100 percent of the oil refined at Marsden Point imported?

Hon SHANE JONES: Marsden Point, when it performed at its peak, was responsible for the generation of 70 percent of all products, including carbon dioxide, including inputs to agriculture, including fuel for aviation, fuel for cars, fuel for trucks—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a minute. I think I can help you here. The question asked, effectively, about the feedstock for the former refinery at Marsden Point. Certainly, the member has given us an outline of the production that came from that, but it came from a feedstock and that was the question. Ask the question again—no penalty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was 100 percent of the oil refined at Marsden Point refinery, prior to it being closed, imported?

Hon SHANE JONES: I say again that essential strategic asset, closed down and approved for closure by the then Labour Government, was a facility that drew its feedstock from overseas destinations.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Was it imported? Simple question.

Hon SHANE JONES: Which is just what I said.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has asserted in his earlier answers that the closure of Marsden Point left us vulnerable to imported fuels when he’s just admitted that 100 percent of the fuel that was refined at Marsden Point was itself imported. The fact that we had to ask him that multiple times somewhat illustrates the point—

SPEAKER: Debating point—a debating point, which I think you’ve made.

Jenny Marcroft: Why does New Zealand have a fuel security plan?

Hon SHANE JONES: A far-sighted nationalist party, New Zealand First, put it in the coalition agreement. However, it’s important that our wee nation does develop and implement a fuel security plan, and I’ll be the first to acknowledge that all sides of the House have an interest in fuel security—with the exception of the Greens, who do not believe in fossil fuels.

Jenny Marcroft: Was it a mistake for the Government to not keep Marsden Point open?

SPEAKER: Oh, just a minute. That’s not something that the Minister, with his current responsibilities, can reflect on. Do you have another supplementary? Is there another supplementary?

Jenny Marcroft: No.

Building and Construction

Question No. 10

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:30) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What, if anything, is the Government doing about the 20,000 job losses in construction on its watch?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:30): Well, we know that the construction sector has had a hard time over the last several years—since the previous Government’s COVID-19 response, in fact—including through high general inflation peaking at 7.3 percent, high interest rates, and high construction inflation, as well, at a 50 percent increase. But over the last two years, through the actions of the Government, we’ve taken steps to fix the economy and make building easier. Inflation is now under control. Interest rates have dropped, therefore building costs have stabilised and confidence is returning.

Arena Williams: When he said in a press release that he’d listened to frustrated builders, did they tell him how long it will take them for the industry to recover from his Government’s management of its construction pipeline when it cancelled and scaled back hospital builds from Whangārei to Dunedin while claiming to be focused on infrastructure builds?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The frustration that’s been expressed by the construction sector reflects the fact that their sector was beset by an even steeper boom-bust cycle, as exacerbated by the last Government’s actions, than they had realised. Therefore, the consequence has been that we have had to work all the harder to make construction easier, faster, and more affordable, as well as getting Government procurement actions, yes, across health, but also education, defence, and social housing at the right settings so we can see the increase—which we have, by the way, with a 15 percent increase in building consents, for example, compared with the same time last year.

Arena Williams: Are the frustrated builders wrong to hold them to account when the Government has cancelled 3,500 State houses—homes that would have kept them in business, apprentices on site, and kept New Zealand families off the street?

Hon CHRIS PENK: It’s important for New Zealanders in general, but including for the construction sector, that we have a coherent approach to State housing. So it is that Kāinga Ora—and, by the way, also community housing providers, commonly known as CHPs—are given a mandate to build the right type of social housing, in the right place, at the right price. That is exactly what, as a Government, we have been getting on and doing.

Arena Williams: Does he agree with the Prime Minister today that there’s good progress for the building and construction sector when, to the contrary, $5 billion less was spent in construction this year than in 2023?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Again, we’ve traversed the history, including in the exchange that involved the Prime Minister earlier in question time. He was quite right to note that, for example, construction job ads were up 43 percent in December 2025. Of course, with 11 fast-track projects touching on construction activity across the country, creating tens of thousands of jobs, it’s clear that this side of the House has a plan to increase construction capacity. We’re getting on and delivering exactly that.

Arena Williams: Does he think that the frustrated builders are comforted by his words about a plan to increase construction activity when things like his overseas product rule changes—that he admits are no silver bullet—are happening while 751 construction companies were liquidated last year?

Hon CHRIS PENK: There are a large number of different factors, some of which I’ve already outlined. But, of course, to make it easier for Kiwi tradies to get access to high-quality materials from overseas as well as New Zealanders is actually a win for that trade as well as for Kiwi consumers. These are good things, and I’ve been pleased, at least until now, that the Opposition has seen fit to support them. They should know that the sector, as well as Kiwi consumers more generally, with the house price inflation that was seen under the last Government, but also in terms of commercial construction and infrastructure alike—these changes are hugely important and welcomed by the sector. I just hope that the Opposition continue to realise that and support accordingly.

Defence

Question No. 11

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (15:34) to the Associate Minister of Defence: What is the Government doing to support defence personnel into quality housing?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence) (15:34): Recently, the Government announced changes to remove barriers that prevent our defence personnel from using their own KiwiSaver funds to purchase their own home. Since 2010, Kiwis have been able to withdraw from their KiwiSaver accounts to assist with the purchase of a first home, so long as they live in the homes that they buy. However, when applied to defence personnel—who are required to live on base, out of their hometown, or overseas on deployment—this is clearly an unfair barrier. I’m happy to say that this Government is removing that barrier.

Suze Redmayne: What feedback has he seen from defence personnel in relation to the KiwiSaver changes?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback has been extremely positive from our defence community. New Zealand Defence Force personnel already sacrifice a lot to serve, often spending large periods of time away from their home towns and away from friends and family in the service of our nation. It’s only right that we make this seemingly small but actually quite meaningful change that will make it easier for them to purchase their own first home, and I do add that the member asking the question provided some of the genesis of the idea that would help our defence personnel, with her initiative around rural farm and home purchases, too.

Suze Redmayne: What else is the Government doing to ensure defence personnel have access to quality housing?

Hon CHRIS PENK: This Government is putting significant investment into our defence estate so that our sailors, soldiers, and aviators can stay in accommodation that is fit for purpose. The Government spent around $138 million on estate regeneration last year, with some $16 million being spent on housing alone. Currently, Defence is planning and constructing a further 77 new homes in Waiōuru, Linton, Ōhakea, and Burnham, with additional homes planned in the coming years.

Suze Redmayne: Why is new investment in the defence estate important?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Much of the defence estate was built during the Second World War and it is currently now no longer fit for purpose—and that’s the polite version. Investing in the defence estate, therefore, is investing in our people. Ensuring that we have an estate that is modern and functional will help us to recruit and retain talent, ensuring that the defence force can continue protecting New Zealand’s interests.

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (15:36) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (15:36): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has his Government increased or decreased our country’s dependence on fossil fuels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’ve done is actually made sure we’ve got an energy strategy that de-risks our reliance in a dry year and actually, as a result, we’ve taken the risk premium down. It’s been encouraging seeing recent announcements that maybe electricity wholesale prices have come down by about $20.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does his decision to pour $1 billion - plus of taxpayer money into a new LNG import terminal instead of, say, distributed renewable energy generation increase or decrease our exposure to and dependence on risky and volatile fossil fuels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the failed policy of the previous Labour-Greens Government meant that we were making the rather unique transition from domestic gas to internationally imported coal. That’s not good for emissions, but we are also in a place where the risk around the dry year has been costing New Zealand about $5 billion a year since 2017. Building this facility takes that risk premium down, and, as I’ve said before, this will save Kiwis about $265 million a year, or about $50 a household, and will actually protect 2,000 jobs from higher energy prices.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Did his decision to completely remove the Clean Car Discount—which has seen electric vehicle sales plummet from 27 percent in 2023, to 8 percent in 2025—increase or decrease our country’s dependence on risky fossil fuels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there’s actually a lot that goes into our energy mix across our energy policy and our actions that we’ve got. I’d want to say to the member that it’s been very exciting to see that there has even been a draft approval through fast track for renewable wind in the South Island. That could actually power up a thousand homes and move them into renewable energy, and that’s a good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Did his Government’s decision to cancel $640 million of support to decarbonise and electrify our farmers and growers increase or decrease our dependence on risky fossil fuels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as I’ve said to the member, the previous policy had led to total failure. It had led to high electricity prices that actually raised up power bills and put jobs at risk. That’s not something that this Government is doing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What will it take if not new evidence seemingly every single day—like the unfolding war in Iran—that increasing our country’s dependence on risky fossil fuels hurts regular people for the Prime Minister to end up backing down on expensive and, ultimately, resilience-undermining plans, like his billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded LNG terminal?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, but the member, when she was part of a Labour-Greens Government, caused a huge amount of failure in our electricity market. Prices went up to $800 per megawatt hour. That caused mills to shut down and low and middle income working New Zealanders to lose their jobs. I’m sorry, but the member has no credibility in energy. The good news is—I know the member cares deeply about emissions, and, as I said to the member last week—the October quarter was the lowest level of emissions generated by this country since 2010. That’s good news.

Debates

Rising Oil Prices—Government Response

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (15:40): Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Barbara Edmonds, seeking to debate Standing Order 399 the Government’s announcement of its response to rising oil prices. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there’s ministerial responsibility. The conflict in Iran and the impact on oil prices is a developing situation. I don’t think that the Government response so far warrants setting aside the business of the House at this point. The application is declined.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) (15:41): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the continuation of: the second reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill; the committee stages of the Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill, and the Online Casino Gambling Bill; and the second readings of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 March 2026.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (15:42): This bill recognises a simple truth: when we set a clear target and maintain a sharp focus, we improve outcomes. In health, clarity matters. Targets drive accountability. They ensure that resources are directed where they are needed most. This bill will make our healthcare system more effective, more responsive, and more transparent. It will enforce the importance of measurable outcomes and consistent performance across the country. Our angle is clear: deliver quality, timely healthcare for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, Public Service Amendment Bill, and the Online Casino Gambling Bill.

Legislation Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Part 1 Main amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill, and the Online Casino Gambling Bill.

We start with the Legislation Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 51, “Main amendments to Principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:46): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m in the chair instead of my colleague and friend the Hon Judith Collins, who’s Attorney-General. I’m very happy to, obviously, field any questions or comments that colleagues may have.

The purpose of the legislation is, of course, to improve the transparency in the sense that members of the public, those affected by regulations, will have a clear, accessible, and transparent way of finding those in a single location.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Rt Hon—oh, sorry—the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I almost gave you a “Rt Hon” then.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:47): Oh, that’s all right, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not that it’s my place to do that.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yes. I am planning on a late comeback, but we’ll see how we go.

Look, it’s no secret that this bill is widely supported around the Chamber, but it is, actually, one of those bills which is important—part of the constitutional framework of the bill. I do think, when we come to examine this bill, it is appropriate and I’m glad that it’s Minister Penk in the chair who’ll give us some thoughtful reflections on the bill. The first question that I have—and perhaps I’ll give him two at once because they’re both relatively small ones to kick off with—relates to clause 6, “Section 5 amended”, the interpretation section. The first thing is the introduction, I believe, of a new phrase in the definition of “administering agency” that deals with the various agencies that administer legislation—whether it be local authority, Office of Parliament, the department, and so on. Then it comes up with—and I’d be interested if he could explain exactly what it is—“an instrument of the Crown”. To be perfectly honest, it’s not something that has occurred to me before, how, outside of Crown entities, local authorities, and departments, exactly what this “instrument of the Crown” is. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is almost a drafting point but a little bit more. Throughout the legislation acronyms are used. “PCO” is used quite a lot, and I think that’s one that’s relatively common. I’m not going to suggest that most people don’t know what that is, but “MLI” is also used. Now, MLI refers to minimum legislative information—we know that—but my concern is that MLI is never defined. The use of MLI is in new section 72. It sits there in the title. Now, under the old legislation, I don’t think that acronym was, in fact, used in that way. It may well be that this is a new practice of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, but I think I can confidently say the current Speaker would not endorse the use of acronyms—in fact, he hates them. I’m just curious as to—I know what it means, but, I’ll be honest, when I saw it, I had to go and fish around and just make sure and ascertain that. Is that appropriate to use acronyms like that scattered throughout legislation, which is actually supposed to be assisting in the accessibility of legislation? There’s a couple of questions to start.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I fear he may have talked me up too much in anticipating helpful and clear answers. On the second of those two points that he’s raised: I see that it’s proposed to amend the principal Act, such that in the interpretation section—being section 5 but clause 6 of the bill—the definition of “minimum legislative information” would have inserted after it “ ‘or MLI’ ”, effectively defining that term, albeit that it’s an acronym that is, at least as yet, not as well known as, for example, “PCO”. I take his point around that.

As for the instrument of the Crown, I might benefit from some advice on that point and would look forward to coming back to him.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:51): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you in advance to the Minister for his, no doubt, very thoughtful responses on this significant piece of legislation, which has huge constitutional importance. I do know that the Minister was, of course, a member of the Regulations Review Committee when we contemplated the initial legislation going through the House, so he is very aware of the importance of accessibility. Indeed, this is a project that started as a result of the 2014 inquiries and then the subsequent change to legislation. In many ways, this piece of legislation recognises an administrative difficulty, if you like, in terms of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) doing all the legwork to get secondary legislation published.

I had a few questions, also, on the same section, which is the interpretation section, clause 6. It’s a different question about administering agencies. The old definition of “administering agency” means, in relation to legislation, the “department … Office of Parliament … or other organisation that is, or will be, responsible for administering the legislation”. The change notes that PCO is now the point of recognition, and my question is around when new paragraph (b), as inserted by clause 6, of the definition applies. When would you have a situation where PCO didn’t record who the administering agency is? Just so we understand what the scope of that is. There is also a change in relation to clause 6(3), where there is a repeal of, actually, a string of definitions: “central government entity, Government amendment, legislative guidelines or standards … ”. A string of those are repealed, and I’m just wondering what the effect of that is, and if there are new definitions of those provisions in clause 6(3), or whether they were deemed no longer necessary?

In terms of clause 6(4), there is a reference to the new definition of “consolidation”. I just wanted to confirm whether my understanding is correct that this is not a reference to a consolidation of proposed amendments that have been approved but haven’t yet commenced. I know that there was some discussion about whether it was worthwhile, the public having access to changes that hadn’t yet come into effect, but being able to access what that secondary legislation were to look like, as well. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:53): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank Vanushi Walters for her always thoughtful remarks. Actually, if I could initially go back to her colleague Dr Duncan Webb, I can hopefully demystify the “Curious Case of the Instrument of the Crown”—it does sound quite Holmesian, doesn’t it? My new understanding, the new knowledge on which I’m relying, is that an “instrument of the Crown” is not a department but might otherwise describe—I’m trying not to use the word “entity”, because a Crown entity is different again. An example of the instrument of the Crown, I’m told, is PCO, the Parliamentary Counsel Office—there’s an acronym, and for our Speaker, who loves acronyms so much, I might just add “L-O-L”, which, of course, means “lots of love”.

In terms of Ms Walters’ points, I wonder if the first of them might have partly been answered by that answer. If not, then she will let me know, surely. In terms of her second point, I do wonder, and I will confirm and come back to her if it’s not the case, that those various repealed definitions may relate to a part of the bill that is no longer required because there is an intersection between what this legislation had proposed to do with the Regulatory Standards Act, as it now is. I’ll confirm and let her know if that’s not the case—otherwise, please take that as my response for that point.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (15:55): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was not fortunate to be on the Justice Committee, so excuse me if there is something that I ask that may have been clarified during the committee. I do hope you’ll be able to answer some of my questions.

My first one is really about an aspect of the bill that we probably generally agree with—this single point of access for primary and secondary legislation. The Greens think anything that makes legislation more accessible to the ordinary person is a good thing. I wanted to know what consideration had been given to whether the single point of access also creates a certain vulnerability. We have seen that ManageMyHealth, and also other health data that’s held by private companies, has been subject to malicious attacks. What reassurance can the public have that legislation—including regulations—that is held and is more available to the public and now more vulnerable to attack will be protected from being undermined?

I also wanted to ask, if I may—this is in Part 1, clauses 4 and 5: I just don’t know what “Imperial legislation” means. For the interest of those of us who are not lawyers and for the public that might be interested, which empire are we talking about, and could you clarify that? I have some more questions later on.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:57): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for that initial response. I did have one more question in relation to clause 6(5). This is the one that changes the definition of “legislation website”. It replaces the words “or supporting material (or both)” with the words “and information relevant to legislation”. The full section currently reads “any Internet site maintained by, or on behalf of, the PCO for the publication of legislation or supporting material (or both)”. The wording of the change seems interchangeable to me, so I’m not really sure what the impact of the change to the language there is.

Let me see if I can find my second one—if I can’t, I might just let the Minister respond to that question. No, I have it here. The next one is clause 6(7). In this one, the definition of “minimum legislative information”, after paragraph (c) in the principal Act, there was an initial proposal to insert new paragraphs (ca) and (cb), and (ca) has now been deleted. This was a reference to “in the case of an Act, the date on which it was enacted”, and now, the new version only refers “secondary legislation, [and] the date on which it was made”. I just wanted clarification on the impact of deleting (ca). Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister; I always find the committee of the whole House stage with the particular Minister in the chair to be extremely enjoyable and engaging. I thought that the Minister’s insertion of “L-O-L” was going to be something along the lines of “Legislative Office of the Law”—but whatever the Minister thinks is appropriate.

My first question is in terms of the definition, in clause 6, of “administering agency”, and I know that there will be a little bit of crossover between what we’re seeing here in the bill—and I’m sure others will refer to it, as well—and what we’re seeing in the Minster’s Amendment Paper 506, noting that in Amendment Paper 506, there is an additional insertion after “Office of Parliament” of “parliamentary agency”. One of the things is that we’re seeing that appearing kind of frequently. I think there is another bill where this did appear, as well.

I just want to double check if in this case the parliamentary agency also retained the same definition as what has been introduced as part of the Parliament Act—if the Minister could answer that question as a starting point.

I then move on to clause 6(8), which has the new additional definition for agency-drafted legislation and agency-published legislation. Again, we see some of the differences in criteria between what agency draft/publish and what the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) draft/publish. Can I just check how—considering there are two separate definitions for agency-drafted and agency-published, do we have a situation where it is drafted by the agency but published by PCO? The other way around, I guess, is understandable; it’s more common. But considering that that is now a possibility, is it a consideration that is being considered to have PCO-drafted agency-published or vice versa? Those are my two first two questions for the time being.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, congratulations to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for the new website, which I hope we’ve all gone and had a good look at. Good work there. It actually does seem to work quite well. It’s a great example of technical modernisation by this Parliament, in fact.

The second is about that. It’s about this legislation and bringing up to date publication. Throughout the legislation it talks about legislation being published on a website hosted by on behalf of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I guess my question there is about the security of that site. I’d be curious on the Minister’s reflections, because we do know that cybersecurity is a massive issue. Whilst New Zealand might not fall if we can’t read our legislation, it still is important that it be sovereign, right? I’d be interested to know when you say hosted on behalf, by or on behalf of PCO, whether it’s in fact hosted in New Zealand, and if it’s on behalf, whether there is any kind of sovereign risk in that?

The second question to move on is actually about clause 8 of the Legislation Amendment Bill, which inserts section 16B, a matter close to my heart, because it actually is a pointer section. It doesn’t actually do anything in and of itself. It says how to meet legal requirements using electronic technology and there is no definition, or there was no definition in the Legislation Act as to what an electronic signature, for example, was. It does strike me that the right place for the definition across all legislation of electronic signature or electronic message or any of those things is the Legislation Act.

But we’ve got this curious situation where, tucked away in the dusty and cobweb-ridden depths of the Contract and Commercial Law Act, you’ve got a whole of what used to be the Electronic Transactions Act, and yet it’s not about commerce and consumer law, it’s about the whole of the law. I’d be curious if the Minister could explain to this committee why we didn’t simply put the relevant definitions and provisions in the Legislation Act for all of the legislation, rather than having general provisions in a specific Act, and having essentially a big red legislative hand going, “And if you want to know about this, you’ve got to go all the way over there”, which is strikes me as kind of poor drafting and just, frankly, hard to read. So I’d be curious on those two questions there.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m grateful to have a chance to take a call, lest I fall further behind. On that final point, I understand the point the member is making. I presume that he’s right to raise the question of where these general requirements of electronic witnessing and so on may be met, and that we’re not merely pointing to the requirements in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 that apply only in relation to that type of agreement or pact.

I’m taking the unusual step of expressing this doubt while on my feet and excusing my back, hoping that I’ll be rescued at some point on that. But suffice to stay I understand and acknowledge his point. On his first point in his latter contribution, I would say that cybersecurity and other considerations are of course important, but I think properly outside the remit of the legislation. I mean, the legislation is already about legislation, which is confusing enough. This is all quite meta, isn’t it? Certainly, his point’s well made about the importance of the security of that site from a point of view of sovereignty and even just the continuous access for the reasons that we all agree are important under the rule of law.

I wonder if I can connect that back to a point that was made by Celia Wade-Brown, which I think I understand to be around having a single point of failure in terms of where all the information might be, which could have an implication for, you know, vulnerability in the case of a cyber-attack or other outage, even of non-suspicious origin. I think, if I understand correctly, the mechanism by which the websites would operate includes that the site’s in question sometimes has an aggregator function and it can sort of point to other Government agency or, indeed, Crown instrument sites. It might be the case that those are under attack, in which case we’re no better off, except to say, I suppose, we don’t have all our virtual leagues in the same basket necessarily, if my understanding of the architecture of those sites is correct.

As for imperial legislation, staying with Celia Wade-Brown, I can only assume that it’s the British Empire, of which this nation and this jurisdiction was once part. But if the commencement date says that any of it comes into effect on May the 4^th, then we’ll have to contemplate other imperial regimes that might relate to it.

In terms of agency-published versus drafted legislation, to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s point, I think it’s the way round that he indicated would be more logical in his mind. Certainly, that would accord with my understanding that it might be that an agency was to draft legislation but not necessarily publish it. Whereas I think—no, excuse me, the other way around. I confused myself, but not as much as he confused me, which is that an agency might publish rules or other guidance that have this particular status in terms of being legislation but not primary legislation, but it could be published or its publication could be supported on the Parliamentary Counsel Office - governed site.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:07): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister. I’m still on clause 6 and I’m just looking at subclause (8), which refers to exemptions. I guess my broad question is whether we have the exemptions from publication right. At the moment, we’ve got reference to certain cases where the agencies—the Parliamentary Counsel Office might be exempt from publication and you can accept that, of course, that might need to be the case in certain emergencies, etc.

I think this kind of takes us in a bit of a segue fashion to the Minister’s amendments, which, as I’ve read them, significantly broaden what is almost an exemption. This is when failure to comply does not invalidate secondary legislation. The Minister would have seen that I’ve proposed a few amendments on this, because my concern would be that if you had secondary legislation that was published that subsequently fell off the portal and the website, it would continue to have effect in law, however would not be accessible to individuals who are trying to assess what the law is. Of course, that is entirely what this piece of legislation is trying to address.

Now, I completely understand that from time to time this may happen and that there may be an error, but the amendments that I would propose to the Minister’s amendment are that we allow a window of time to rectify that error. I’ve proposed 20 days or 40 days, but of course the Minister could insert whichever number of days that he deemed was suitable in terms of rectifying that. My concern would be that if it fell off publication for a long period of time, there is really no legislative directive to correct that. So that’s just one suggestion, and while we’re on the Minister’s amendment, my other concern—and the Minister would have seen that I’ve proposed amendments to the amendment in this regard, as well—was failure to present to the House and what the consequences ought to be in terms of failure to present. Again, this is something that we certainly discussed a fair amount in the Regulations Review Committee. Understanding that there’s a huge administrative burden to be able to present the number of pieces of secondary legislation to the House that need to be, again, I wonder whether the way to address that is allowing a time buffer to ensure however large it may be, that there is a requirement to present or—and perhaps I’d say controversially—that the secondary legislation is not lawful if it’s not provided in that window.

For that amendment, again, I have proposed a number of different days, including 100 working days after the time required to do so under the House’s rules and practice. So I think I’ve been fairly flexible in that regard, and I’m interested to hear the Minister’s views.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:11): Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms Walters would surely know that the Regulations Review Committee doesn’t need 100 working days to do anything. But, you know, I understand the point she’s making in her amendment to the amendment to the Legislation Amendment Bill.

I think in the event of failure to present to the House, as with her other proposal around a window of time to rectify if there’s a loss of access, she rightly notes, I suppose, a potential glitch in the matrix, but as she quite rightly goes on to note, that’s no worse a situation than that which we currently face in terms of lack of accessibility. So I’ll consider those amendments in good faith, but suffice to say, I do understand the point she’s making.

As to the point that Dr Webb had made, I understand that his point was contemplated or has been contemplated in the earlier stage of the passage of the legislation. To rework the bill in the way that I think he’s proposing would have taken more policy work and time. I think that’s possibly as far as you’ll get from me as an acknowledgment that he makes a very jolly good point and that’s maybe something that could be looked at further.

Then, finally, just going back to the “Imperial legislation” question, it’s pointed out to me that, of course, UK legislation being the British Empire as it then was, includes—more to the point, New Zealand law includes the Bill of Rights 1688, which is New Zealand law that predates New Zealand in terms of New Zealand—much as I hesitate to raise that in the House after question time.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. Noting that we are currently just in the midst of discussing clause 29 of Amendment Paper 506, but there are a few things I do want to go back to. I want to pick up on what the Minister said first. I guess, if you’re looking at the explanatory note of Amendment Paper 506, like the Minister said, there’s a glitch in the matrix if there are things like failure to comply with drafting and publishing requirements, and potentially if it’s in the wrong format. That’s understandable, but can I just check with the Minister in terms of the operationalisation of secondary legislation: for example, when they haven’t been published—now on the single-source website—or have not been presented to the House and then they’re still considered effective, what would happen if someone is non-compliant with that regulation but doesn’t actually know that regulation has happened or taken place? Would that be a possibility?

I do agree with my colleague Vanushi Walters in terms of amendments, but, I guess, in this case, as the Minister will also know from the Regulations Review Committee, something like this—would it often be part of the scrutiny agenda of the Regulations Review Committee where things are not published in the right format or people didn’t sign a signature, etc.? Can I just interpret it as kind of in the same vein: that while they haven’t met the requirement, they’re still nevertheless considered in effect, in which case people still have to be compliant? But what, then, would be the cause or repercussions if people aren’t compliant with that particular legislation? So that’s my first question.

Speaking of compliance, the second question goes back to new section 68A(4), inserted by clause 12: “Administering agencies have a duty to comply with the regulations”. Other than through Regulations Review Committee, what does the Minister think if this particular clause provides additional directions, particularly by the Attorney-General, when it comes to the non-compliance of agency-drafted legislation if it is not published in the right format or it’s being placed in that single source? The specification has been mentioned in the bill, but in terms of the repercussions for non-compliance staying as it is currently. Those are my two questions for the time being.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to Dr Xu-Nan’s second point, in the absence of any particular consequence being outlined for non-compliance with the particular requirements of new section 68A in terms of how law is to be published, I wouldn’t have thought there was any different outcome to that which would currently be the case.

On his first question, which I found really interesting, I think he’s highlighting a scenario in which there could be non-compliance with a rule of which a person is unaware, or potentially, compliance with a rule that no longer exists in a brief moment of time by reason of not having been presented, I suppose, in the first instance, or having perhaps lapsed in a way that Ms Walters has identified. I think he’s asking whether the law or the rule would be said to be effective or not in that situation. It’s sort of a Schrödinger’s cat of the law in that it sort of both exists, but not at once.

As for the consequence in any given case, obviously it would depend on the particular legal and then factual scenario, but I would express a hope—and I hope I’m not going too far out on a limb to say this. If the central government—you know, State or local government or other authority—were involved in a way that was able to reflect a lenient approach given some degree of uncertainty, then I’d hope that they would do that for the sake of the citizen or other person involved.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:17): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question about the status of legislation and what the definitive version is, because it strikes me under this legislation—and perhaps prior to this, but certainly under this legislation—the legislation now requires publication on a website. So if you are, for example, going to court and you need to know the exact definitive version of the law, you now refer not to the statute book but to the statute website.

Now, there is, of course, tucked away in in the Clerk’s office somewhere, the copy that the Governor-General has signed—of which I believe there are three—but, in fact, for the general public and anyone using the law, it is now the case that the certified copy of the law is the website. Which brings me to the crux of my point, which is in clause 17 which replaces section 72. In replacement section 72(2), it says, “The PCO”—that means the Parliamentary Counsel Office—“must continue to publish the legislation and information by ensuring that, (a) as far as practicable, the legislation and information is at all times able to be accessed at, or downloaded from, the legislation website”.

The words I want to focus on are the words “as far as practicable” because that’s a balancing word. The question then becomes, is that the right threshold? I would have thought “as far as possible” would be a better framing because there’s a price quality trade-off. We know that we could have a more or less reliable provision of information, but what we are providing is not a handy reference, it is the definitive source of what the law is in New Zealand. If that’s the case, saying, “It wasn’t practicable for me to provide the law. The website’s down for a week and we can’t actually get it back up because it’s tricky.”—that’s actually not good enough. “We didn’t have a triple back-up server.”, or whatever it might be.

Am I right that we now have the definitive version being online? Secondly, does the Minister think that if that is how we find out what the law is, that it’s OK to have a practicability test?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:20): It’s a very fine distinction that Dr Webb highlights, not entirely without meaning, if I may say, in my view, but I sense that if we were to say that it must be available as far as or much as possible, then that would inevitably be read in a way as to mean something along the lines of “reasonably possible” or “possible in the circumstances”. If the circumstances were that the first and second server were down and there was not a third then that would be a matter of impossibility as well as impracticability. So I take his point, but I’m not sure that we would justify our time and energy as a committee in debating it much further or indeed amending.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just going to go back to new section 16A, inserted by clause 8, which I don’t think we’ve discussed. This is the “References to Sovereign’s birthday”. The question for the Minister is: this feels like we have a moment to potentially make a change that New Zealanders may like, and I looked up why we have the Sovereign’s birthday in June. It turns out the origin of the Queen’s second birthday or the June birthday can be tracked back to the dilemma of planning a party around fickle British weather.

So while the Edward VII and then King George VI were both born in November and December, respectively, their birthdays were celebrated in the middle of the year to allow for that. Now, of course, in the middle of June in New Zealand, we’re in a little bit of a different circumstance, and so there is potentially an opportunity there for some thought. I’m just wondering whether the Minister had given any thought to that.

Then a couple of practical questions on new section 16B(2), which sets out when Subpart 3 of Part 4 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act provisions won’t apply, and when that might be the case in terms of the use of electronic technology. Also, in relation to new clause 11(2), which makes reference to the “Chief Parliamentary Counsel must not make a PCO (Parliamentary Counsel Office) notice unless satisfied that the administering agency for the secondary legislation to which it relates has agreed to the notice applying to that legislation.”

The question is: am I correct that this has more or less the same effect as the current provisions in the Act which anyway require agreement between the administering agency and Chief Parliamentary Counsel? So there is effectively no change in procedure on that front. Thank you.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (16:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the filmographic references from the Minister and filmographic is a word that will now be in Hansard. Also his historical references: 1688 makes 1835 and 1840 look pretty recent, so thank you for that background. My subsequent question is really related to new section 16B, inserted by clause 8; I am avoiding the Sovereign. I want to know about—there will no longer be a requirement to retain information in paper or other non-electronic form, as I understand it.

I’m just interested in whether primary legislation and regulations—whether there will be required paper archives. I mean, it’s a wonderful thing when you’re waiting for your turn for House duty to go and look at Hansard. I’m not sure I fully understand everything that I read in there, but it’s there. Again, thinking about either malicious attacks or just mistakes or just data being lost: can I be reassured that there is some way that there will be paper? I’m not requiring any stone tablets to be produced by this Government or any other.

If we just see how technology has changed. I think there are other members in the House that would remember being excited about having a Walkman, and that has been somewhat superseded by other technology like CDs, DVDs. Will there be hard drives that we know will not be corrupted by magnetic, by—goodness gracious—solar flares, all of the excitement of magnetic poles changing, or would we have some paper happily kept? Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:25): Thank you, Madam Chair.I think the member is quite right to highlight the possibility of compromise by various means.We somehow dodged a bullet on Y2K, but there are other ways by which of course electronic or digital systems can be compromised.

I think in terms of backup, while the detail would be an operational matter rather than a matter for the legislation itself, I would hope that there would be some sort of effective backup whether or not in hard copy. One, of course, must always think of the trees. But if not in hard copy, then some sort of cached or other record that’s not vulnerable to cyber-attack or either way, in which it could be deliberately or accidentally removed from accessibility.

In terms of point that Vanushi Walters made about the Sovereign’s birthday, the Associate Minister for Emergency Management Recovery has told me there’s no good time in New Zealand at which we can avoid inclement weather for the purpose of celebrating the Sovereign’s birthday—God save the King—so it’s not something that had occurred to me in terms of changing, but it seems to me that any change is a good a time as any, and one’s likelihood is no worse than any other time to have some kind of celebration, accordingly.

As for 11(2), the point that she makes about whether there would be a Parliamentary Counsel Office notice being made, notwithstanding the administering agency for the secondary legislation agreeing or not, there is no effective change to the current rules of the game, so to speak.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:27): Moving through the bill, the next question is in relation to replacement section 72, inserted by clause 17, which is also the same question I have just for the Chair, for your record. It’s the same in theme, in terms of my question, to replacement section 75, inserted by clause 19, because those two are basically the same but one is in from a perspective of minimum legislative requirement for Parliamentary Counsel Office and one of them is for administrative agency.

My question is that for example, for section 72(2), “must continue to publish the legislation”—I think in general we were looking at the improvement and the digitisation of our legislation, and it does have specific requirements for things that are considered accessible for the New Zealand public. My question is with the update that we’re seeing—two questions—will there be ways for us to be accessible from a disability lens, particularly when we’re looking at the ability for the new legislation website to have better ways for, I guess, speech transcription for those who are blind, in particular?

And whether the way that we’re having a single source, which is also better for accessibility—whether the hyperlinks that are going to be used within that website to link to either revoked, repealed, or previous versions of a legislation, primary and secondary, or if it’s hyperlinked to an agency website that has a secondary legislation, if it’s agency administered and published, and whether those hyperlinks will also be readily available for someone who is blind or hard of seeing? So I guess those are my two questions from an accessibility perspective.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (16:29): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In terms of the accessibility point, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s points are well made. Of course, we talk about access to justice or accessibility of the rules being a key tenet of what we would call the rule of law, in general. Of course, in a disability sense, accessibility is no less important, so I take his point about speech transcription and the availability of hyperlinks it seems to me is a starting point, notwithstanding any mechanical issues that would need to be overcome in terms of providing those different ways of reaching the law that our agencies in general and Parliamentary Counsel Office in particular—our instrument, as we now know it to be—should make as great a provision as practicable or possible, according to whether Dr Webb’s in the House or not, to ensure that that’s the case for those citizens of New Zealand.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. A few very quick questions from me. Clause 17—so this is the replacement section 72—refers to the obligation for the Parliamentary Counsel Office to comply with that section, even if the legislation is repealed. So this is just a question about whether that’s any change from the current situation. I imagine that there isn’t a removal of repealed legislation, as a matter of course. So I’m just confirming, just to be crystal clear, that there’s an obligation there to keep the legislation up, if you like, and accessible?

The next two questions are in relation to clause 19. Lawrence Xu-Nan has asked one of the questions that I had on disability and access. My view, if the Minister was wanting to make an amendment, is that replacement section 74(3) may present an opportune place to add some language about accessibility for disabled people. But my question is in relation to the little grid that we’ve got in subsection (1), where it sets out when the secondary legislation must first be published—and the language is: “As soon as practicable after the legislation is made”. Did the Minister consider imposing a time period regarding first publication? That’s my first question. The attached question is: do comparable jurisdictions have time-bound directives in terms of when the time frame in which secondary legislation must be published?

I, then, also had a question in regards to replacement section 75(2)(a). This paragraph says “as far as practicable, the legislation and information is at all times able to be accessed at, or downloaded from, an Internet site referred to … free of charge;”. Did the Minister consider making it mandatory that legislation must be downloaded? Now, this is a question that actually attaches to my colleague’s question about disability access, because if you are able to download secondary legislation, then you may well have the tools to be able to apply a voice system or to increase the size of the print, etc., and so that could be quite an effective way of addressing the accessibility issue by simply changing the word “or” in that paragraph, to the word “and”. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:33): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that response. I guess this is something that’s applicable in both primary and, potentially, secondary legislation, from accessibility and also in terms of good legislative practice with the languages, as well, of Aotearoa New Zealand. To give some context, we are seeing, for example, in Canada, legislation is published in both English and French; and, for example, in Wales, legislation is published in both English and Welsh. I wondered, while we’re looking at, potentially, official languages, etc., in this House, whether there is any consideration as part of this bill to also be able to draft—other than settlement bills—bills in te reo Māori, as an official language, which I know that many other jurisdictions do, and in recognition of its official language status. Understandably, it is harder when it comes to New Zealand Sign Language, but I just also wondered, even from a New Zealand Sign Language perspective or, even, te reo Māori perspective, how are we ensuring that legislation is accessible in recognition of other official languages?

But, I guess, also, in terms of an even broader context—it depends on the response of the Minister. I do have, under the potentially different context in terms of, even, how English and the United Kingdom drafts its legislation in terms of using some of these other languages, as well.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:35): Just in response to Dr Xu-Nan’s last point: there’s no intention in this bill to look at mandatory drafting in te reo Māori, or, I guess, the equivalent in New Zealand Sign Language. There are, probably, very good reasons for that. I think our country has had quite an interesting history of drafting legal texts in two languages and trying to reconcile, perhaps, different interpretations of specific words in different languages can cause issues. We have enough of those issues trying to argue about interpretations of a single language in our courts, let alone others. So that might have to be a discussion for another day, but it’s not one for this particular bill.

Just to address one of the questions around access, from Vanushi Walters, I’ve just got some advice here that the bill does support disabled communities’ access to legislation both in-house, published on agency websites, and the features of the new website. Regulations made under the bill will set out what forms and formats legislation must be published in. We anticipate that this will require publication of secondary legislation in machine-readable formats, and so that means that people who are supported by screen readers will be able to use them to read published legislation. The new website will also aim to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2, Level AA—and that’s probably a technical term that the member knows more about than I do, but that is the advice provided.

Just in terms of the question around “Should it be changed from”—this is in clause 19, which inserts new section 75(2)(a)—“ ‘accessed at, or downloaded from,’ to ‘accessed at, and downloaded from,’?” I’m not convinced that that change would make a material difference. Of course, there are probably arguments that as soon as you’re accessing something online, through a device, you have actually downloaded that data, anyway, so there may well be some technical interpretation questions as to why you have “accessed… or downloaded” as being the option. But we think, with those standards put in place around disability, around accessibility, that having the option to have it read by a screen reader, or the ability to download it, perhaps, in PDF form at some later point are sufficient.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:37): Thank you, Mr Chair, and just also to signal to the Chair that my previous question was in relation to replacement section 72, inserted by clause 17, and replacement section 75, inserted by clause 19, in terms of accessibility.

Thank you for that response, Minister, but I guess this is a broader conversation for the House to consider when it comes to publishing in dual languages. Again, other countries—I mentioned Canada, but also other regions, I guess. Canada and also Wales are already doing things like that and they have no issues in terms of publishing in two languages.

I guess my trivia for the day for the committee is, indeed, even in British or English legislation, they currently still use Normandy French because Law French goes back to the courts in the 13^th century. That is something that we are seeing, that multiple languages, understandably, are used within the British Empire.

I guess, my second question to this—now I’m moving on to replacement section 73, inserted by clause 19, and I want to pick up on new subsection (1A), which I know is a new addition from the select committee stage. I just want to make sure that the Minister in the chair has the same interpretation for how we look at it, which is, currently, on the legislation website, if you go to the “Versions” tab, you will see the different versions both in terms of primary but also in terms of potentially some of the Parliamentary Counsel Office - drafted and - published secondary legislation. For this particular clause, my understanding is that, under the new website, there is also an obligation for agency-drafted and -published secondary legislation to also have the ability for someone to go back and check the previous versions. I’m seeing nods, which is great; so I’m guessing that has been clarified.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:40): I’d invite Dr Xu-Nan to maybe just reframe that question in the next call, because I was nodding in understanding of his position, not necessarily in response.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, the nods are from the officials.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Oh, the nods are from officials. Well, look, I’ll take the member’s word that the nods are from officials. So take that as a yes.

I’ll just address the question from Vanushi Walters from before. If I turn the member’s attention to clause 20, clause 20 is the provision which states that secondary legislation doesn’t commence until first published. There are a couple of exceptions to that, but that will, I think, solve or remedy the question of should there be a mandatory requirement or a publication date. I think the fact that the secondary legislation doesn’t come into force until it’s published kind of takes care of that. If the regulator wants the rule to be enforced or regulatable, they should publish it and bring it into force.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:41): Thank you to the Minister for that response. I’m just looking at the new section 76, inserted by clause 19, which is “Alternative obligations if publication exemption applies”. The first is a general question about exemption. So when I spoke to exemptions more broadly earlier, I talked about the fact that sometimes you might not be able to wait until publication for certain secondary legislation to come into force, and that could be times of emergency, etc. But what about the possibility of having subsequent publication requirements where there is an emergency initially, so you do want the secondary legislation to commence, but in due course you also want it to be published—whether there’s anything that I’ve missed in the current bill that speaks to that; and, if not, whether it would be a useful addition for that to potentially be included.

New section 76(b)—I think this is a brilliant new section of the bill—requires the administering agency to publish details as to the availability of anything that has been exempt. I think that’s an excellent thing so people can try and find a way to access that secondary legislation. I’m just wondering whether there ought to be an obligation to also publish the nature of the exemption, just in terms of transparency.

At new section 76, I just wanted to make one more quick plug for my amendments, which speak specifically to this. Again, I have no issue with commencement beginning on publication date. The issue I pointed to the Minister who was in the chair was that should that secondary piece of legislation fall off a website, it would still be law, regardless of people not being able to access it. So my amendment—and I’ve proposed a couple of alternatives—could go some way to addressing that.

Section 78, amended by clause 21, along with it replacement section 79, amended by clause 23, speak about the official versions of legislation, and then the legal status of official versions. This is where, essentially, the Parliamentary Counsel Office may identify official, electronic, or printed versions of legislation. For all those many people eagerly listening at home, I wonder if the Minister could speak to the effect of having official versions of legislation and what their legal status is, versus the legislation that individuals would be accessing from home via the new portal.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:44): I’ll stand to be corrected, but my instinct would be that the legal status of any secondary legislation or, in fact, legislation, would be that the Order in Council or the regulation which is signed off by the Minister or the Governor-General is the one that is the final version and has legal force, in the same way that the statute which is given the Royal assent is the final version, but I’ll take some advice if that’s to the contrary.

On the point around exemptions when you can’t wait, again, I’ll take some advice as to whether or not this isn’t the case, but if you combine new section 76(a) and (b), inserted by clause 19, that does require the agency to both make the legislation or part of it available in a way which meets the requirements and also publish details as to its availability. A combination of them both may well, in effect, solve that issue of whether or not something has been published. I think the question from the member is: “Should there be a requirement to publish an exempted piece of secondary legislation on the official website at some stage or within a certain time frame?” I’ll grab some advice from the officials on that, but the reassurance from new section 76(a) and (b) is that a similar affect will take place, and it would be good practice, in my view, if we are trying to get all secondary legislation in one place, to have that on the official record at some point. But I’ll get some advice as to whether or not there is a requirement to do that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:45): Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, just to acknowledge the fact that the nod before was from the officials around the consolidation. I think a really important aspect that maybe people who don’t spend as much time on the legislation website—particularly, I think, when we’re looking at it from a judiciary sense—it’s really important for agency drafting and published secondary legislation to be able to track some of those version histories. Particularly when it comes to cases, the ability to quickly go through previous versions is important when you identify specific timing of whether something has been commenced or is in effect or not. So I think that’s a really fantastic, quality-of-life improvement to the way we look at agency drafting and published secondary legislation.

Moving on to a new part—speaking of consistency—I want to check with the Minister in terms of clause 27, new sections 83AA to 83AC. I’m sure others may also have—I’m seeing nods from Vanushi Walters. I think we’re thinking very similarly in terms of the areas that we want to touch on. I guess my question to the Minister is that Inland Revenue occupies a very peculiar space in terms of the drafting of legislation, where my understanding is that it is, essentially, the only department that is able to draft its own bills.

One of the recommendations that was had as part of the select committee stage was for the drafting of relevant Inland Revenue bills to go back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for consistency, as opposed to remaining with the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). I guess the context of this is while this has been in place since the 1990s, that was at a time when PCO may not have had the capacity to do some of the drafting, which is not necessarily the case nowadays. So I wondered, to the Minister, rather than having that level of consistency approach, which we have seen throughout this bill, why was there the intention to continue this anomaly of IRD drafting its own bills, and then giving, I guess, further directions in effect to it under clause 27, this new sections 83AA and 83AC.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll address the question from Vanushi Walters around that exemption. Essentially, the publication exemptions in new section 76, inserted by clause 19, would, in most circumstances, if not all, I think, be temporary. So, because they’re temporary, they would also be required to be presented to the House. I’m advised—if I can read this correctly—they will be published by matter of process, once the exemption ends, because they are only temporary exemptions. That is, of course, unless they are exempt by the Act under Schedule 3. So that’s, I think, the last bit of answer to that question.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:49): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for that response, although it does sound like there may well be cases where there are more permanent exemptions in place. Potentially, the argument still stands, and just to support the question from my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan, that was a question raised by the Law Commission, as well, in terms of why it was that we had the unusual situation where we have one department that is drafting primary legislation while the rest is done through the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

I am looking at new section 83AB in clause 27. This is a part that regards directions that the Attorney-General may give to support a consistent approach across agencies. My first question is in relation to subsection (4), which specifies the situations where the Attorney-General can give a direction. It says that “A direction may be given only—(a) to 1 or more categories or types of administering agencies”, and then it says, “or (b) to a group of administering agencies”, with the group being made up of “at least 3 administering agencies;”. It just seemed odd to me because, in fact, that would mean that if the Attorney-General wanted to give directions to two administering agencies, he or she would then need to do that separately, as opposed to doing it as a group. So I was just wondering what the logic was to defining that as three agencies.

I’m then looking in clause 29 at new section 83A, “Annual report on legislative practices”, which I think is fantastic, and I look forward to being able to read these. In subsection (2), it says that “A report may include—(a) recommendations for the repeal of redundant or spent legislation or provisions of legislation;” and a series of other considerations, as well. My question to the Minister is whether there was consideration given to making that mandatory. I’ve certainly heard comments from a number of senior academics—and the Law Commission, as well—who have suggested that a broad review of legislation and secondary legislation that should be taken off the books is done, and so if we make it a mandatory reporting consideration under the annual reports, that could go some way to then giving us a methodology to be able to embark on that process.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just quickly looked up clause 29, which is inserting new section 83A(2), which the member referred to. I think the issue would be that the new section says that “A report may include—(a) recommendations for the repeal of redundant or spent legislation or provisions of legislation;”. If it was “must include”, then, therefore, the report would be legally required to include recommendations on something that it might not have a recommendation on. A report has the option of including a recommendation, but it doesn’t have to do it, or otherwise you’d be requiring it to report on something that it might not be recommending. That’s the reason why it’s a “may” rather than a “must”.

I’ll go back just to round off the question around the publication exemptions to which new section 76 in clause 19 would apply. We had a quick think about how regularly this would apply and to what kinds of rules it could apply to, but they would be very rare and very few and far between. One example that we could think of would be, for example, rules around market access conditions requirements. Those rules would only be made available to the participants to whom they applied and, therefore, they wouldn’t be published. That’s the kind of exemption that would tend to be put in place for that, and there is a list of the exempt Acts under Schedule 3—which I was trying to dig around for. It’s actually the new Schedule 3 in Schedule 2 of the bill, if anyone needs to find it.

Just to tidy up another couple of points, there was a question around official versions. The term “official versions” means that a printout of the website is taken to state the law. That makes it easier to use in court proceedings. If you are presenting the court with a printout of the website, that will be accepted as what is the law. However, courts do routinely use aids to publish legislation, and so using the word “official” makes it easier.

Then there was the question from Dr Xu-Nan about the IRD, and whether we could go back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for consistency. As he reflected, they have been doing this since 1995. There are benefits in having separate policy and drafting responsibilities. The IRD, or Inland Revenue (IR)—although I think it’s been the IRD for a while—has the ability to require particular expertise and dedicated resource. This bill will actually enhance existing systems, which will enable PCO’s and IR’s drafters to collaborate in order to align their drafting practices. IR’s drafters do use PCO’s drafting and publishing systems, and the bills are published on the New Zealand Legislation website. Hopefully, that addresses Dr Xu-Nan’s questions.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:54): Just moving along, we do have a few more parts to Part 1, and I want to move to a new clause, which is clause 31. Actually, let’s take clauses 30 and 31 together, in terms of editorial changes.

My first question around the editorial changes is this. Assuming that this is in reference to agencies drafting or publishing secondary legislation, I guess that the question here is when we’re looking at new section 86B in clause 31, which is on how the Chief Parliamentary Counsel is able to authorise an editorial change by the administering agencies, I wanted to check with the Minister as to how this interacts, for example, when it comes to the power granted by the Regulations Review Committee when it comes to making changes or seeking changes or disallowing secondary legislation under the Legislation Act, as well.

When we’re looking at consistency and when we have the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel asking an administering agency to make editorial changes, and then you are getting, for example, the Regulations Review Committee also having the mandate under the Legislation Act to ask the administering agency to make different editorial changes, which department trumps which in those kinds of situations, where you have the possibility of multiple people seeking to make editorial changes. That’s, essentially, my main question on this particular part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:57): I’ll have to think about the interaction between the powerful Regulations Review Committee and the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s editorial ability—editorial change ability. Somewhere in the back of my mind is the thought that the threshold for Regulations Review Committee complaints or inquiries into the validity of regulations is relatively high under the Standing Orders. I’d have to rack my brain, and probably more experienced and cleverer people than I in the Chamber could tell me whether or not issues with maybe a typo or an editorial change in a regulation meets the threshold for the Regulations Review Committee to make recommendations or disallowance motions on them. So I can’t exactly comment on that at the moment, but I will get some advice from officials.

I’ll just address Vanushi Walters’ question previously on the Attorney-General’s directions. That power that’s in there mirrors the whole-of-Government directions that exist in other legislation, and what it’s doing is it’s ensuring that the Attorney-General can’t direct particular agencies about a particular matter. That responsibility is for the Minister responsible for the particular statutes.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:58): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that in his inimitable way, Mr Xu-Nan is going very methodically through the legislation, but there is a point that I would like to raise, and it is skipping ahead a bit. It’s about revision bills, which is clause 37, and one of the cornerstones of this piece of legislation is broadening what a revision bill is, because it was the view of the Attorney-General and the Justice Committee that revision bills weren’t being used to full effect. Having said that, new section 96(3) in clause 37 does broaden it quite a lot, and I would actually invite the Minister to express clearly perhaps the Government’s view as to how broadly they should be interpreted, because under the Legislation Act as it stands, for example, it says that a revision bill may also make minor amendments, and in this draft the word “minor” has disappeared.

What I would really like to look at, though, is clause 37, “Section 96 amended (Revision powers)”, new subsection 3(b), in general, because looking at that, there is a risk, on one analysis, that you can do sweeping reforms. It’s clearly not intended, and I’d like to hear the Minster say that, because if you think of a kind of red-tape - focussed Government, and you say that you can “(b)(i) make amendments to reduce or avoid unduly onerous or burdensome requirements: (ii) unnecessary compliance costs: (iii) unnecessary costs of administering the legislation: [and] (iv) conflicts [between other legislation]”—particularly those first three—could look like a reform programme. But we know that that’s not what revision bills actually are about. They may be about when there was an oversight or a slip or, perhaps, something a little more than that; failing to anticipate a future circumstance, which has led to an unnecessarily burdensome requirement, then, perhaps, you can go back and tweak that by revision or an unnecessary compliance cost.

But I don’t think that this revision bill—noting that it has to be certified by parliamentary counsel, I think the Attorney-General, and president of the Law Commission—they’re actually the people that this guidance is for; to say, “Well, look, when we say that, we’re not saying you can go and sweep in at a ministerial kind of whim, have a reform package, which is changing substantially the regulatory regime that’s been imposed, because, in a political kind of view, it’s unnecessarily burdensome.” But I think if it’s a somewhat more objective view that the reasonable bystander would say, “That’s actually not what was anticipated by the draft of legislation; it’s not its purpose and intent.”, then that’s a different kind of thing.

So I’m inviting the Minister, essentially, to recognise that and give some guidance from the Government. I mean, certainly in the Justice Committee, that’s the discussion we had. There was some concern around this language, and there’s a process around it. But I’d also invite the Minister to just give us his reflections as to exactly what particularly those three items under new subsection (3)(b) refer to in respect of revision bills.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:02): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll address Dr Webb’s question in a second, after I’ve had time to recover from a piece of work I did on a revision bill when I was a practising lawyer, and spent many hours trying to go back and forth about what the definition of “minor” could be with a client and whether or not they could have recommended this particular change because it was minor or not. So I’ll address that in a second, once I’ve had some expert advice.

But to go to Dr—I think it was Vanushi Walters’ point, or was it Dr Xu-Nan’s point around editorial changes?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan talked about editorial changes.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: It was Dr Xu-Nan’s point about editorial changes. I said I’d come back to him on the interplay between the Regs Review. So the editorial changes can only be made if it’s clear that the law doesn’t change. I think it would be highly unlikely that, having sat on the Regulations Review Committee, one of Parliament’s most powerful committees, whether they would recommend or spend their time inquiring into an issue which wouldn’t result in an actual change to the effect or functioning of the law. But, in saying that, if they were to make recommendations to the Parliamentary Counsel Office about making an editorial change, then the process for which to make that change—it would only be a recommendation—would be administered under the legislation as it’s enacted, or if it is enacted, when it goes through.

In terms of whether there’s a hierarchy, recommendations from the Regulations Review Committee are just those: they’re recommendations that they often make just in writing to agencies. Of course, they could make a report to the House and they could recommend that the Government look at or address that report, and the Government would have to respond in its normal response requirements under Standing Orders.

But in terms of the interplay, there is no real hierarchy. It sort of works on a bit of a back and forth between the work that Regs Review does and agencies, and making sure they’ve got good, high-quality regulation.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:04): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to pick up on the revision bill, I think the revision bill aspect is probably the most substantial and—well, all of this bill is substantial, but it’s probably the part that we don’t have certainty from the Minister on in terms of how it’s going to function.

Now, following from what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, I do have three tabled amendments on clause 37(5), replacement section 96(3) to (4). In terms of my amendment, I understand where the Minister is coming from in terms of the definition of “minor”, but I think “minor” is an important keyword to be placed back into this particular part of revision bill. The reason I think it is really important is, though it is outside the scope of the committee stage, a lot of the concern that we have in terms of revision bills comes down to Standing Orders 276, which is on revision bills.

Now, for context, revision bills do go through a much greater process within the House. So, for example, in Standing Orders 276, on revision bills, 276(3), “Following the bill’s first reading, the question is put, without amendment or debate, that the bill be considered by a subject … committee nominated”; “Following the … the committee’s final report”—this is Standing Order 276(4)—“on the bill, the Business Committee determines arrangements for the passage of the bill.”; “Following the bill’s second reading, the House proceeds to the third reading immediately,”; “There is no amendment or debate on the question for the third reading.”

So, essentially, it goes through first reading; truncated, potentially, select committee stage; it goes through second reading, no committee stage, third reading. So if there is a possibility or if “revision bill” is open to interpretation to something that’s way more substantial, we skip this whole process that we’re doing here right now. And that is a concern.

Part of the submission—for example, the Law Society submission was not just to the select committee but also proposed that a select committee writes to the Standing Orders Committee as part of the Standing Orders review to relook at the way that we balance Standing Order 276 in response to this particular bill and, potentially, a widening scope of this bill. The reason why this, potentially, is also important, I guess, as a point currently is we’re also seeing the ability using Standing Orders or various forms of Standing Orders to expedite legislative process in this House, as well.

So, I guess, again, the reassurance in the context of how we look at Standing Orders 276, and, Minister, is: is there a way for us to have the reassurance that, though it is not specified, the intention of “minor” remains? Otherwise, the existing process that if you do something that’s more than minor to put in an Amendment Paper to a revision bill, which then would potentially still have a committee stage, kind of currently is already allowed. I can see the Minister is waiting to respond, because this is something the Minister possibly has experience in, as he said previously.

So I would ask the Minister to consider my amendment, which is dated to 9 March 4.57.01, 4.57.02, and 4.57.03.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:08): OK. Let’s tackle the “minor”—or not—issue. It does go back to the example I raised before, and I’ve just dug through my papers and looked for some examples, and the examples raised around these requirements did mention the Valuers Bill. The Valuers Bill was a bill that I did a piece of work on in the past. Essentially, the intention is to avoid those long back and forth debates on whether or not a change is minor or not. You could think of examples of legislation that might be over 100 years old, where the change in updating in language could be seen, by some, to be quite substantial, but, by others, to be actually required in order to make the legislation work.

So, in order to avoid that back-and-forth debate over whether or not a change is minor or not, bearing in mind that Parliament or the House, in essence, has the ultimate say over what amendments can or can’t be made to legislation—and that’s reinforced in replacement section 99—nothing in the Act prevents the House from amending a revision bill for any purpose. Now, that comes with the caveat that this place operates on convention and common understanding. And I don’t want to put on the record in the Hansard that the intention is to take out the word “minor”, but to leave it implied, because some enthusiastic, young law graduate at some point will look up the Hansard and try and make an argument in the court that the things that we say in Parliament, whether it’s at 5.10 a.m. or 10.10 at night, are true and proper intentions of what Parliament intended. Sometimes they are just the somewhat lengthy ramblings of a junior Minister, and sometimes the better way to look at what the intention of Parliament is when it passes a statute is to look at the words in the purpose in the context of the statute. In this instance, I would encourage those who have concerns about the removal of the word “minor” to look at both section 92 of the Act, which sets out the purpose, and look at new section 98, which is around the certification of revision bills, which requires that the certifiers are satisfied that the powers in section 96, which is what Dr Webb pointed to, have been exercised appropriately having had regard to the purpose of section 92.

I’ll also just finally make reference to those qualifiers in clause 37(5), which is replacing section 93(3)(b)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). I think that if you look at the words “unduly” and “unnecessary” in (ii) and (iii) and “conflicts or adverse interactions between legislation:”, I think those do a significant amount of lifting to try and address some of the concerns that Dr Webb had of maybe some nefarious Parliament or House trying to slip through a substantive piece of legislative reform under the guise of a revision bill. I just think there are too many safeguards in the legislation as it stands for that to be a realistic opportunity. Of course, there are the political constraints on that kind of action, which inevitably constrain the House and Parliament and Government from doing all sorts of things in terms of legislative reform, which they technically could do but don’t do, due to convention or due to the political boundaries within which they operate. I acknowledge the member’s amendments, but we wouldn’t support them for the reasons that I’ve outlined.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:12): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a quick follow-up question—actually two quick follow-up questions—to this. I understand where the Minister is coming from, and there are some very strict requirements currently because of the interpretation of “minor” when it comes to revision bills. To my knowledge, the Valuers Bill is one of them, and there’s only been, I think, two other instances of revision bills that have actually met the threshold.

We already have mechanisms to make some of those other changes—for example, the Statutes Amendment Bill was a really good example of having those consequential changes across the board to different legislation that updates on some of the outdated language, granted that the statutes bill is proposed from a Minister’s perspective, whereas the revision bill is something that can be proposed by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. If the mechanism already exists using a statutes bill, as an example, or even other forms of omnibus bills, like a regulatory systems bill that we have seen a number of times in this House, why then do we need to expand the scope? I do acknowledge, going through the select committee stage, that clauses 38 and 39 have changes made that added additional safeguards, but I still want to know why there is such a variation in the first place.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:13): Thanks, Mr Chair. Look, I think the member raises a couple of really good points. To have two bills go through in 14 years since the system’s been available is probably not a great reflection of its accessibility and usability. Part of the reason for these changes is to provide a bit more flexibility and scope for revision bills to meet the threshold for certification. I don’t know the ins and outs of the certification process for specific bills, but my guess would be that questions and queries around the word “minor” probably have done some work in knocking some of those revision bills out. This is a way of trying to utilise an existing process to tie up the statute book. Of course, the mechanism itself will be less and less usable over time as we become better and better about keeping the statute book updated by using things like regulatory systems amendment bills and by using things like statute amendment bills. It could be the case that there would be an argument in the future to amend Standing Orders to remove the need or requirement for revision bills and remove this part from the statute, but we do have it. It is a tool available at the moment to help tidy up the statute book. If this bill goes some way to encouraging one or two more bills to go through the system and do that, then we think that’s a good thing.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. I’m now moving on to, I think, probably the last few clauses of Part 1. I’m going to move on to clause 45, in terms of “Confidentiality”, and then I want to move to clause 49, in terms of “Regulations”. Starting with clause 45, we updated this particular part in the select committee stage in terms of the definition of “counsel”. I want to check with the Minister—and this is specifically, I guess, from the Minister’s perspective—in reference to 45(2)(c) under “counsel”. We had a discussion around a contractor or secondee of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) who’s working under the supervision and who is a counsel under paragraph (a) or (b) and how the confidentiality is applied to them.

I guess the question that we didn’t manage to tease out is: for a contractor or secondee to be a part of that, would they also then, in terms of confidentiality, be part of a confidential network—i.e., a digital infrastructure that is within the PCO—or, let’s say we get a contractor from a law firm, for example, are they are able to have that confidentiality extended to their digital infrastructure? We understand in terms of the specific personnel, but it’s the system confidentiality requirement that we didn’t manage to touch on during the select committee stage. That is my first question. Can I just check if the Minister is going to respond to that and if we need to move on to the next one. Is he seeking some advice?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): He’s writing something.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. I’ll leave that because the second one is a completely different clause.

Oh, I’ll keep going and just give the Minister a little bit more time to seek some advice and also to jot down some notes. I guess in terms of clause 49, “Section 147 replaced”, and in terms of “Regulations”, there are parts of this that attach on to the new Regulatory Standards Act. One of the things that we haven’t been able to, again, tease out, even as part of that and also in this clause when we’re looking at the section 147, is that now the interaction of “the Governor-General may, by Order in Council made by recommendation of the Attorney-General, make regulations”, which is the standard phrase when it comes to regulations, and the process that will be required for that regulation to go through both the Regulatory Standards Act but also the scrutiny process of the Regulations Review Committee. I wondered if the Minister wouldn’t mind just speaking to how this new process will look and will be lined up under these new facets of how regulations could be made.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:18): Maybe I’ll take one more call, but on the question around confidentiality, I’m not quite sure what the thrust of it is. It might be a technical question around when a contractor is using a system to communicate with the Parliamentary Counsel Office, is the system covered by the confidentiality requirements? I’m just not quite sure what member’s getting at, so if you can just give me a clear steer on what the actual question is and what you’re trying to determine. I’m sure the officials can help me out with that one too.

Then just on the second one, my understanding is that clause 49, which replaces section 147 with a new general regulation-making power, is, essentially, a form of modernising the regulation-making power. I just need to check my notes on this one too, but in terms of how it interacts with the Regulatory Standards Act and the regulations review process, there would be nothing in here that I can see off the top of my mind that would change how that Act or the Standing Orders apply to the scrutiny of regulations as they are promulgated.

I can talk specifically around regulations review: whenever a regulation or a piece of secondary legislation is published, those regulations are automatically scrutinised by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Regulations Review Committee for consistency with the Standing Orders, and, funnily—or a lot of fun for us on the committee—are brought to the attention of the committee regardless of whether they comply or not. So members of that committee will always get a rolling maul of regulations that have been both promulgated and published, and also a check whether or not they’re consistent with Standing Orders—or, actually, consistent with the law or not, essentially.

In terms of the question around its interaction with the Regulatory Standards Act, I don’t have anything really to add beyond that it wouldn’t have any different interaction than other regulations promulgated under other pieces of legislation.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:21): Just on the Minister in the chair’s advice in terms of the clarification, I guess when it comes to contractors, particularly when we’re looking at confidentiality, they will only be invited or be part of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) system when they are doing the work as a contractor for the PCO, which then will cover the confidentiality. Like, you’re not going to be able to have someone who is working off an external system, for example like a law firm, etc., where other people on that digital infrastructure are able to also access that information, which then wouldn’t be covered by the confidentiality, for example. But think that there is—again, I’m seeing nods from the officials, so I think that does actually clarify that question. Thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:22): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to the amendment to clause 29 and deleting new clause 29A in Amendment Paper 506, relating to a 20-working day period of non-publication of secondary legislation, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to the amendment to clause 29 and deleting new clause 29A in Amendment Paper 506, relating to a 40-working day period of non-publication of secondary legislation, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to the amendment to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 40 working days, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to the amendment to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 60 working days, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to the amendment to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 100 working days, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1, set out on Amendment Paper 506, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): In accordance with Standing Order 305(3), I have grouped three amendments from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to clause 37(5).

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s three tabled amendments to clause 37(5), amending new section 3(a), (b), and (c) to insert the word “minor” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Part 2 Related amendments to principal Act and other legislation, and Schedules 1 to 4

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2, this is the debate on clauses 52 to 58—“Related amendments to principal Act and other legislation”—and Schedules 1 to 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. We come to the part which makes, as you well read out, other related changes to the principal Act and changes to other pieces of legislation. If members browse through clauses 52 through to clause 58, they will see that they generally amend schedules in other Acts. So, very, very quickly, they are a range of amendments around transition and savings provisions. If you look at clause 52, it amends Schedule 1 of the principal Act, which sets out the transitional and saving provisions to provide an orderly transition of agency published legislation.

I will draw the member’s attention to, say, clause 53, which amends Schedule 1A, which lists secondary legislation made by royal prerogative to add a reference to orders that establish royal commissions of inquiry.

Clause 54 amends Schedule 2, which provides for the incorporation by a reference. Essentially, the changes clarify how material may be made available for inspection and provide that if the material is available on the internet or an internet site via the internet free of charge, there’s no separate obligation to make it available for purchase.

Clause 55 replaces Schedule 3. We referenced this before briefly. That’s the schedule which outlines the Acts that are exempt from presentation or from disallowance. It largely carries over the existing schedule with some amendments to take into account other amendments made by this bill—amendments to Schedule 3 that were enacted after the Secondary Legislation Act 2021—and to narrow some of the exemptions. For example, the publication exemption under the Financial Markets Conduct Act has been narrowed to cover only exemptions published by the Financial Markets Authority. So to the point before, there were some concerns around exemptions. Some of those statutory exemptions have actually been narrowed.

Clause 56 amends Schedule 4, which is a consequence of the amendments that we’ve already agreed to in clause 42 related to secondary legislation subject to confirmation.

Clause 57 repeals some amendments relating to centralised publications that were included in previous Acts, including the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2019 and the Secondary Legislation Act 2021.

Finally, clause 58 amends various Acts to promote consistency with the decentralised publication system proposed by the bill. That includes removing bespoke publication requirements, ensuring that instruments that have legislative effect are appropriately identified as secondary legislation, and clarifying the effect of provisions relating to secondary legislation.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:35): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that breakdown, Minister. I do have a few questions around Part 2, but I’m going to go and start with my first question. I have quite a few follow-up questions. The Minister has rightfully pointed out that potentially, particularly with clause 52, we’re looking at some of the transitional measures of updating the secondary legislation in particular from the previous requirement to the new requirement. What I want to check with the Minister is around the quantifier for revocation under clause 52(8), which replaces clause 15(5) in Schedule 1—I think I got that correct. For benefit of doubt, we’re looking at page 37, starting with line 23. That might be a more helpful reference.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Which line?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Page 37, starting with line 23, and I will be referring to a few other sections.

So this section talks about “(5) The secondary legislation is revoked on a date specified in the regulations if—(a) the requirements that apply under subclause (2A) have not been complied with;”. And if we’re looking at subclause (2A), which is now page 35, I’m assuming, starting with line 37. On the top of page 36, it also quantifies some of these. My understanding is, under the new requirement for secondary legislation consistency across the board, if they don’t want to be revoked, if they are to be in effect, they need to be updated to the new requirements, which explains paragraph (a)(i) of subclause (2A).

But I want to check with the Minister on paragraph (a)(ii) on the consolidation of secondary legislation that incorporates all of the amendments. That comes down to the question I had for the Minister before in terms of the intention of consolidation. Can I just clarify, if an administering agency who is both drafting and publishing the secondary legislation hasn’t also got their consolidation up to scratch, the whole secondary legislation would also be considered revoked under that new part—can I just check with the Minister.

And also seeking guidance from you, Chair. Part 2 is very technical. That, potentially, will require both the Minister and also officials to kind of go back and forth, so are we able to allow for a moment of pause just while the Minister is getting advice, but also, potentially, from the officials, but also knowing which section I’m referring to.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:38): I’ll ask the officials to back me up if I’m wrong, but I think we could work through it. So the new let’s call it subsection (5), I think—no, they’re calling them clauses. Anyway, replacement section 15(5) in Schedule 1, inserted by clause 52(8) on page 37—yep. Talking about secondary legislation being revoked—essentially a sunset clause. It’s sort of a statutory sunset clause that is revoked on a date specified in the regulations if the requirements have not been complied with. Those requirements are the ones pointed out in subclause (2A) by the member. That is that the administering agency must publish in accordance with section 73 and 74, which we have covered off before, particularly in and around the consolidation of secondary legislation that incorporates all the amendments made by every amending instrument.

So my reading of that—and I’ll get the officials to tell me whether I’m right or wrong—would be that the secondary legislation that is proposed or that has been passed or enacted or signed off by the Governor-General or whoever it might be is the thing that is up for grabs; not necessarily every prior amending instrument. If it’s a consolidation, my understanding would be that the consolidation would be the thing which is automatically revoked, not the underlying instruments or initial regulations, but I will actually get that double-checked because unlike my slightly tongue-in-cheek remark before around the Hansard, this one might actually make a difference. I’ll get that checked, but that would be my reading of it: it’s the consolidation that wouldn’t be enforced rather than the underlying regulations. I’ll get that checked.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:40): Thank you. Advice would be appreciated because, otherwise, I think the ministerial intent would then be even more important in the context of the Hansard, because subsection (5) on page 37 says the “secondary legislation is revoked”, not the consolidation—I mean, previous versions of secondary legislation or primary legislation, by nature of being a previous version, is revoked and is no longer in effect unless it covers for that particular time period.

I guess, to expand on this question that if indeed the previous version of the secondary legislation of the consolidation is revoked, from a judiciary perspective it is also important to know that the current version, the live version, or potentially the official version, is the one and only version that is going to exist, which means any potential cases in a matter of court that challenge a previous version or a time period that would have fallen in the previous version of secondary legislation, are no longer also covered in some ways if the consolidation is revoked, if that makes sense. I do see nods from the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, so I think that is an important part to tease out.

I’m now going to go on to my next two questions. This covers clause 55 and clause 57 and they are very similar in nature, which is how I’m going to do the two of them in one go. Clause 55, “Schedule 3 replaced”, is where Schedule 3 is replaced with “Schedule 3 set out in Schedule 2 of this Act”, which is really, really straightforward and really clear and accessible. But I guess my question to the Minister is: if the list of exemptions is detailed in primary legislation—[Interruption]. Sorry, just checking, Mr Chair, that everything’s OK? [Chair gives a thumbs up]. Yep, cool. If the list of exemptions for publication, minimum legislative information, presentation, or disallowance under this Act is specified in the primary legislation, it also means that it will require further primary legislation to make any changes to the schedule in terms of exemptions.

I wondered if there was any consideration on why this needs to be retained in the primary legislation, whether there is a provision to allow this list be altered by Order in Council or it requires another primary legislation to make changes to the list of exemptions. Potentially there is, but I don’t know the intention or the nature of Schedule 2, which is to replace Schedule 3 under this Act in terms of the ability for one to change it.

On to clause 57. This is very interesting—it may not look like it—because usually revocation is done as secondary legislation as well, but not necessarily as part of primary legislation. For example, at the end of last year, the Parliamentary Counsel Office did revoke a number of secondary legislations, but also as a secondary legislation. The reason I know that is because it came up in the Regulations Review Committee just last week. But I’m curious to know that when we’re talking about that particular Legislation (Revocations) Order 2025, by the nature of it being secondary legislation, there are certain provisions that are attached to it, including a self-revocation clause within that revocation.

I wanted to check again within what we are now seeing with clause 57. I understand that when the Acts are repealed, in which case it will require a primary legislative instrument—i.e., the House or a primary bill for that to be revoked or repealed—but in here it also revokes certain secondary legislation, but not as part of what I assume would be a revocation order, which is also in itself a secondary legislation. So, I guess, is that the correct order of doing things: to revoke secondary legislation as part of a primary legislation? Those two are my two blocks of questions for the time being.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:45): Well, I find this exciting. I don’t know about every other member—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: It is very exciting!

Hon JAMES MEAGER: —but Mr Xu-Nan and I share enthusiasm and excitement for regulations review and for the rule of law. Look, I think I understood the last question. If we say there is existing—I don’t like using the word “regulation” because we’re trying to consolidate all the terms. So let’s say there’s existing secondary legislation “A”, there is a regulation “B” passed to revoke “A”, and “B” has a self-revocation clause in it that says that the regulation is revoked on this date if it’s not published correctly. That would therefore say that secondary legislation “A” is revoked if secondary legislation “B” is properly published. If it’s not properly published it self-repeals and secondary legislation “A” remains in force, if that logic follows.

I think that goes to the point before made around consolidation of secondary legislation. It is the case that if a piece of secondary legislation is needing to be published, which provides a consolidation of all secondary legislation that incorporates all of the amendments made by every amending instrument—if it doesn’t meet the requirements of publication, it is all repealed. So I have to correct that: it is all repealed.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Wow!

Hon JAMES MEAGER: However—ha! Lawrence Xu-Nan’s very excited about that—the piece of secondary legislation which would be being published, itself has to have the revocation clause and the date by which it will be revoked if it’s not published correctly. It has to contain, in itself, “If this isn’t published correctly, it will be revoked by date ‘X’.” It’s not sort of a catch-all statutory provision whereby if secondary legislation is not published by a date it will be revoked. The default is if it’s not published, it’s not in force, but the sunset clause sort of description I gave it only applies if it’s actually contained within the regulation or the secondary legislation itself, which is what the member referred to in the example we used before.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:47): Thank you, Mr Chair—and thank you, Minister, because it does clarify it because I think the key definition here, when it comes to clause 52(8) and replacement clause 15(5) of page 37, is “on a date specified in the regulations”. I assume that the date specified in the regulation is to do with the commencement date in itself and not a specified date of a built-in revocation clause. So I think that clarification is an important one because what that means is if a secondary legislation hasn’t met the requirement of subclause (2A), it is not just automatically revoked carte blanche as part of that. It has to have that built-in revocation clause which then limits the number of secondary legislation that you will have.

Just seeking also the Minister in the chair the Hon James Meager’s response on some of my other questions, but I’m actually going to go on to my next question with this particular section, and that is Schedule 4, which is clause 58. There’s only one particular anomaly that I’m noticing, and I find that the way that it’s been drafted quite interesting and unusual. This comes under page 53, Schedule 4, let’s say line 8, which is the Civil Aviation Act 2023. The reason I picked up on this is I want to check with the Minister that section 63(4) is a standard clause that you will see. You know, “An order made under this section—(a) is secondary legislation (see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements);”, but I have never seen this second paragraph, “(b) is not to be drafted by the PCO under section 67(1)(d)(i) of that Act.” Is there a reason? I’m genuinely curious. How prevalent is something like that, and is there a reason why it is specified explicitly that it cannot be drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:50): I’ll get an update on that one because the Civil Aviation Act is very relevant to me and the portfolio I hold.

I’ll just clarify to the member, I’ll get an update on our back and forth around self-revoking secondary legislation. It’s come to my attention that we’re actually talking about clause 52, which is transitional arrangements. So we’re actually talking about the requirements for republishing by, I think, the end of next year, secondary legislation under the current existing provisions. So I’m going to get the officials to provide me some advice that I will read clearly and consistently so that we don’t jump back and forth.

Now, in terms of the Civil Aviation Act, I will get some more advice on this, but my instinct is, having had some experience with the orders that are drafted, that it is possibly to do with a similar situation that the IRD falls under, in that there is particular expertise within civil aviation, in terms of the regulation, it being a regulator there, that would encourage or require those to be drafted by those certifiers or those officials. But I’ll get back to the member.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:51): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:51): Thank you. Just also to clarify that I’m still seeking and the Minister in the chair is still getting some advice for this—so if an opportunity arises that we close this part of the debate, if the Chair would be so kind as to allow the Minister to respond to my questions in a subsequent section, I wouldn’t mind that, because I think it’s genuinely important for us to get this right.

I agree with the Minister that this is a transitional arrangement, but it still, then, I guess, comes down to, when we’re looking at revocation, if it doesn’t get updated by the end of next year, is it just a consolidation—i.e., previous version that’s revoked, or the entirety of the secondary legislation that’s revoked if they don’t meet up to standard by the end of next year? Again, even though there’s a long period, there is also a lot of secondary legislation, and there is secondary legislation that is not even available, sometimes, on the website of particular agencies. So it would take the agencies a little while. That 20 months seems like a long time, but, potentially, not as much. So clarification would be helpful.

I acknowledge what the Minister said in terms of civil aviation having specific expertise, but that’s also the intention of secondary legislation, which is that, often, people who do draft secondary legislation—particularly when we’re looking at agency-administered, agency-drafted, or -published—that they do use specific expertise within that agency or within that broader sector, but none of them specify this clause that it’s not to be drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO). So I’m still curious as to: why that level of specificity? Has something happened in the past that’s been drafted by the PCO that hasn’t quite gone right, which is why we need a level of specificity? Those are my only questions.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (17:53): I’ll answer the question around the transitional provisions. So the transitional provisions require all existing agencies’ secondary legislation to be republished. So everything needs to be republished. If an agency fails to republish, regulations can be made under the Legislation Act, which can provide the possibility that the legislation is revoked. However, those regulations haven’t been made at this stage, and, in all reality, it would likely only be made after the transitional period is finished. So, in a sense, it’s a little bit—I don’t want to say it’s a redundant argument, but it clarifies, I guess, the purpose of that procedure to account for the possibility that regulations could be made under the Legislation Act to revoke, and what would happen in that situation. But given the nature of the time that this stuff takes, it’s, basically, unlikely and it’s, essentially, just a housekeeping exercise.

Now, I will seek some further advice, and even if we move on to title and commencement, I’m happy to address the Civil Aviation Act question that the member has raised. But I will note that it’s an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act to say that “An order made under this section … is not to be drafted by the PCO under section 67(1)(d)(i) of that Act.” So I would have to just quickly look up and see what section 67(1) of the Civil Aviation Act says and what it actually is referring to. Despite my intense passion and love of that particular piece of legislation, I haven’t yet committed them all to memory, so I’ll take a chance to look it up.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:55): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Yes, good evening, members. When we finished, we’d just completed Part 2. We now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3—“Title” and “Commencement” and the “Principal Act”.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (19:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. When we left off, we voted, and I didn’t get an opportunity—well, I mentioned that I’d come back to answer Dr Xu-Nan’s question around a particular provision which was to do with the Civil Aviation Act and, essentially, a prohibition, in a sense, on the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) drafting the orders. I checked the principal Act, and I also checked the section it referred to. So the principal Act itself already has this section in there, essentially, and what this new section does is it combines the requirement for the secondary legislation as well as, essentially, the old section provided the choice between the ability to draft the civil aviation orders by the agency—rules written by the Minister—or by PCO. In practice, most if not all of the orders that I’ve come across, and all of the orders in recent history, are drafted by the agency, which is the Civil Aviation Authority, and enacted by the Minister, and PCO doesn’t get involved in the drafting. So this was simply to reflect that fact and to say from henceforth it’ll be the agency that drafts the particular orders. This is not uncommon in the transport sector: there are similar provisions in the Land Transport Act and the Maritime Transport Act.

Just before we go to some questions, we are on clauses 1, 2, 3: “Title” and “Commencement” and “Principal Act”. I’ll just talk to clause 2, which is—actually, we’re only on clause 1, aren’t we? We’re 1 to 3—all of them?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): All of them—1, 2, 3.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: 1, 2, and 3. So, commencement: it’s slightly, probably, more complicated than most commencement provisions. You’ve got, essentially, a default provision in clause 2(1), which is the “Act comes into force on a date or dates set by Order in Council.”—so, as opposed to Royal assent; that the entire Act will come into force on dates set by Order in Council—except for, in subclause (2), the specific sections; I won’t read them out, but they’ll come into force on the day after Royal assent. So some will come into force straight away; some will require regulations or secondary legislation to bring them into force.

Then there are, essentially, some backup provisions. So in subclause (3), “Any part of the Act [apart from] sections 9, 20, and 52 … that [haven’t] come into force 6 months after Royal assent comes into force [by] then.” So, essentially, if under subclause (1) no secondary legislation is passed to bring those provisions into force, they will come into force six months after Royal assent.

And then for subclause (4), that just takes care of clauses 9, 20, and 52—same situation, but that gives a five-year anniversary from Royal assent rather than six months. That is, essentially, to provide for leeway for different provisions to come into force at different times based on, essentially, the transition time needed to be able to bring those provisions into force. If the members refer to all those various sections, they’ll be able to make themselves aware of some of the reasons for that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:33): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister Meager, for that brief explanation as well. And thank you for the response from the previous section around the Civil Aviation Act—I think that’s really, really helpful and good to know.

I’ve got two questions on commencement. Picking up from where the Minister left off, I want to specifically focus on clause 2(4), which is the five-year aspect. Now, clauses 9 and 52 are reasonably straightforward, but I want to pick up on specifically the rationale for clause 20, inserting new sections 77 and 77A, which is the “Secondary legislation does not commence until first published”. By it being Order in Council and having a five-year threshold, what I’m assuming—and the Minister can clarify—that we’re looking at is when different agencies will have different ability to be able to be compliant with that clause, and the five years is a grace period, but five years is also quite a long time. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any other legislation—at least not the ones that I’ve had the privilege of contributing to during committee stage—that has a five-year, I guess, anniversary. So I wondered: were there any particular agencies or particular aspects of that in mind when this was drafted, that the five years is required as kind of a prudent measure? So I just want to check with the Minister, if the Minister is able to provide an example.

My second question is, I guess, when we are looking at subclause (2) or (3), one of the things that is, I guess, a good, positive consequence of this particular bill is the fact that we’re going to get a new legislation website, but the new legislation website has already come online as of, I believe, last Friday. I just want to check with the Minister if there’s any retrospective element that’s required for that legislation to be live currently, or the new website simply is an extension of current provisions and doesn’t require a degree of retrospectivity within this bill. So those are my two questions for clause 2.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (19:36): Mr Chair, thank you. My understanding is that the current website won’t require retrospectivity. I think, generally sprinkled throughout, it is a requirement for secondary legislation to be published on an internet site, and, you know, unless something drastic happens, the current site will be the site. They’re expensive to create and they’re expensive to maintain, and I’d be surprised if we go for a whole new one again. So, no, we don’t need retrospectivity for that.

Just for the first question, I’ll rack my brain, but I have done a bit of work in the past on the Incorporated Societies Act when that came into force. From memory, that’s the Incorporated Societies Act 2020, and I think there was sort of a fallback provision of being five years or six years after Royal assent for some of those provisions. I have to check, but I do have a memory of similar kinds of provisions being in place. But the fact is that’s the longest possible time. It’s essentially, for instance, things like the publication requirements under clause 9, whereby if something’s not published, the regulation itself would be deferred or not commenced. That’s a pretty big imposition to put on an agency who want to publish something but for technical or operational reasons haven’t been able to get to that point where they are regularly publishing them. So it gives agencies time to transition into this new approach—into a new, slightly more high-stakes approach, I would say, with secondary legislation. The five years is more of a fallback position to say, well, we think that by at least five years’ time, or in a maximum of five years’ time, agencies should have gotten to the point where they are able to do this regularly. If we can get to the point where we can do that more quickly, then an Order in Council can be passed to enact those final provisions even sooner.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Public Finance Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Debate resumed from 5 March.

Part 2 Amendments to rest of principal Act, and Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to the Public Finance Amendment Bill. When the committee last debated the bill, we’d just begun the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 31 to 43—“Amendments to rest of principal Act”—and the new schedule inserted by the Minister’s Amendment Paper 502. The question, again, is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:41): Thank you, Mr Chair. Unfortunately, I was ill last week, so I missed the debate on the first part of this bill. I’m a sufficiently sad sack that I actually tuned in to see some of it—devotion, devotion. I could have watched Scottish noir detective fiction or something instead, but I chose the Public Finance Amendment Bill. Now that we’re on to Part 2, I do want to ask just a couple of questions, really. If I could direct the Minister’s attention to clause 33 of the bill, which amends section 40 of the principal Act, it’s talking about the requirements for strategic intentions. A lot of this is just quite technical. It’s looking at how to extend reporting on strategic intentions to—what do we call them?—interdepartmental executive boards, which are quite a useful tool for us.

I do actually want to direct the Minister to clause 33(1)(ca) and the particular phrase “explain how the department proposes to manage its organisational health”. I just find that a slightly puzzling phrase in terms of legislative drafting. It feels like management speak when we start talking about organisational health. I’m guessing this doesn’t mean the health of the individual employees in the organisation, because that would be a curious thing to be reporting on, but it is talking about organisational health. Looking at the phrase “organisational health”, I, of course, then looked for a definition of “organisational health”. Actually, to be fair, I haven’t checked the principal Act, but if there is a definition there, that would be helpful.

I’d like to understand what the Minister thinks would be comprehended within the term “organisational health” and what it is that we are looking for the organisation to report on there. Is it its resilience? Is it the health of its balance sheet? Is it the capability of its employees? Exactly what sorts of things are sitting in there? We have a report on strategic intentions—that’s quite a good thing—but I want to understand why the Minister thinks it’s necessary for the organisation to report on its organisational health within the strategic intentions document. I would have thought that the reporting on an organisation’s organisational health—whatever that is—would actually come through in the annual review, in the annual financial statements, and in the annual report of the department, so what’s the particular flavour or nuance that makes sense to ask the department or the agency or whatever—mutatis mutandis—to report on its organisational health in respect of its strategic intentions.

Look, the other thing that is sitting in new paragraph (ca), the next one down, is “how the department proposes to assess its performance;”. Of course, the performance of the department, again, is already assessed in the annual report, and we already get departments in and have a go at understanding what they’re doing in the whole Budget cycle every year and so on. What is added here? Why are we adding this extra bit of reporting that sits within the strategic intentions? I can see the nuance here, but if the Minister could just set it out for us, that would be very helpful.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:45): Thank you, Mr Chair. The last time we debated on this, we finished with Part 1, but in terms of Part 2, I want to start with clause 32, “Section 38 amended”. When we debated Part 1, it also happened to be the same day that we were debating on the National Infrastructure Plan. One of the things that piqued my interest in that plan—and that I want to check with the Minister around—is, I guess, 4.1 on page 74, which is “Strengthening long-term asset management and investment planning”.

One of the recommendations of that, recommendation three, is to introduce or amend the Public Finance Act 1989 to require capital-intensive central government agencies to produce and publish a 10-year asset management plan and investment plan every three years. Looking at this section, I wonder if this is the best place for it to fit under—where “Departments must provide information on strategic intentions”—because that was something that is in the plan and we have a bill and there is an Amendment Paper that the Minister already introduced, which we’ll come to a little bit later. I wondered if that’s the appropriate place for us to consider adding in—also amending section 38—a 10-year asset management plan.

Potentially, Labour’s finance spokesperson, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, might also have a similar idea because I managed to pick up a copy of her tabled amendment, which is dated to 4 March 2026 at 3.30 p.m., which indeed amends section 38 with a new addition, which is “after section 38(1B), insert (c) a 10-year asset management plan.” The first question to the Minister is: if we’re talking about how a department must provide information on strategic intentions, which is covered under clause 33, would the Minister be open, for example, to the idea of incorporating part of the National Infrastructure Plan in that as well?

I can ask another question while the Minister thinks about those questions and potentially seeks some advice. My next question is on clause 33, which is “Section 40 amended”. I note that this section is very similar in format to a previous section, but what is different over here is new subsection (5), which is “If the department is the nominated relevant department for an interdepartmental venture that, for the period to which the information relates, is not required to provide information on its own strategic intentions (see section 41(3A)),”.

I did have a have a look at section 41(3A), and I believe that might be the section where the relevant Minister may grant a specific agency a waiver of the requirement. Minister, you mentioned before, in an earlier part, that one of the changes we made in an earlier part in the bill was so that you don’t have to continuously give exemptions, etc. That’s an extra step in the process that’s not required. I want to check, in alignment with section 41(3A) of that particular part, if the ministerial waiver is automatic or if the nominated relevant department has to actually apply to, or seek approval from, the Minister for such a waiver under section 41(3A).

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:49): In answer to the Hon Deborah Russell’s question about clause 33, the definition of “organisational health and capability” is a product of aligning the requirements for departmental strategic intentions under the Public Finance Act with the more comprehensive requirements that already exist under the Crown Entities Act.

To answer the member’s question about “What comprises organisational health and capability?”, it’s, basically, how well a department is set up to achieve its strategic objectives—so things like capability, people, institutional knowledge, information, systems, processes, assets, legislation. Managing risk, resilience, and agility are also components of organisational health.

To answer her question about the difference between this and the annual report: strategic intentions are set out in the expectations they want to meet: the annual report reports on actual performance.

To address the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan about 10-year asset management plans, this is something that I am very sympathetic to. There are Cabinet circular requirements already requiring this sort of planning from Government agencies, but it was our observation coming into Government that that has not been a well-delivered practice across Government agencies, and that, generally, Government agencies need to pull up their socks when it comes to asset management plans, asset registers, basic aspects of how they manage their capital infrastructure.

I have previously said to this House that this is a narrow set of amendments to the Public Finance Act, but it is my intention that we consider further amendments in the future, particularly given the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration of overall performance reporting that occurs, and the deliberations that the Finance and Expenditure Committee have been doing on how well our Government accounts are set up to report on achievement against our appropriation objectives. I’d suggest that this question of whether or not 10-year asset management plans should be in the Public Finance Act is one that is worthy of a proper legislative consideration and process. I’d suggest that rather than a last-minute amendment, that’s something that could go through a future public finance bill for consideration, including a full select committee process. But, as I say, I’m sympathetic to the idea.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister. My next question is actually on Amendment Paper 502, from the Minister of Finance. This is quite interesting because what was part of “Amendments to rest of principal Act” is now “consequential amendments to other legislation”, and the “other legislation” being the Education and Training Act.

I guess I want to specifically pick up on the part that is proposed to be amended, and that is clause 40 “Section 45J amended (Final annual report for disestablished entities)”. In clause 40, it does specify, for example, that “The entity must—(a) prepare the final report as if it were an annual report”, the entity must provide an auditor, “The entity’s Minister must present the final report”, etc. There are a lot of very definite requirements that are expected, in clause 40. But that’s not what we’re seeing in terms of Amendment Paper 502. The reason I say that is because, in 502, the Schedule “Consequential amendments to other legislation”, to the Education and Training Act, “In Schedule 1, replace clause 106(1)(b) with: (b) the Minister may specify—(i) the contents of the final report;”; whereas, in clause 40, it says, “The entity must—(a) prepare the final report as if it were an annual report”, including certain specific requirements; whereas now we’re seeing the Minister may direct or may specify what is in there, and the entity may not need to, for example, report on certain things. The change between clause 40 and this particular aspect, I feel, is a substantial one and it doesn’t quite link up perfectly. Also, to reinforce that, in the Schedule in Amendment Paper 502, (b)(ii), “the information in the final report that is required to be audited;”. So, again, when we’re looking at disestablished entities for the Education and Training Act, and, in this case, it might specify, let’s say, for example, the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga, that in their final report, the Minister can choose what to include and what information goes in there, which, I feel, is considered comparatively vague compared to the rest of Part 2.

The rest, for example, does make sense. So (iii) to (v), in that, in these areas, in terms of “the date by which the wānanga must provide the information … the date by which the auditor of the wānanga must provide the audit report … [and] the date by which the wānanga must provide the final report”. Those are comparable to what we’re seeing in clause 40 of the bill, but the first two things in the Amendment Paper Schedule are not. I just want to check with the Minister on where those two came about and whether that should be removed or specified to be more in line with the explanatory note around clause 40.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:55): In response to the questions from Dr Xu-Nan, in terms of the waiver, which you asked about earlier, that would be given by me as the Minister of Finance, if I am satisfied that it is appropriate for that information to be covered by the strategic intentions of the host department. I can grant the waiver if I’m satisfied “Well, the host department’s already covering that off in their own strategic intentions doc, and there’s no need to repeat it.”

In terms of the question about the Amendment Paper and clause 44 that it adds: this cross-references back to the Education and Training Act 2020, which sets out the requirements of final reports for wānanga specifically that cease to be Crown entities, and what those final accounts have to be that they prepare, and it cross-refers to the final report requirements in the Public Finance Act for entities that disestablish and are being amended by clause 40 of this bill. It’s a consequential amendment necessary for consistency, and so the Amendment Paper creates a new schedule in the bill, which is just a consequential amendment to other legislation, updating the heading to Part 2, as well as the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 of the Education and Training Act 2020.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (19:57): I just want to follow up a little bit on what the Minister of Finance has just said in terms of who can grant the waiver, and the Minister of Finance can grant the waiver—just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, I’ll just square that off for the people who are watching at home. Obviously, we do trust that the current Minister of Finance would not issue such a waiver inappropriately; I know she fulfills her duties carefully. But could the Minister just explain what oversight there is on the Minister, or a future Minister, granting a waiver where it may or may not be appropriate? I mean, this might just be within the context of the whole role of the Minister of Finance, but just some reassurance that future Ministers, not this Minister, would not do so inappropriately.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:58): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking that if the Minister of Finance is going to seek some clarification—and if we do close this part of the debate, whether the Minister still has a chance to, maybe, respond to our questions in the next part?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:58): I think I already covered this in my earlier answer, but the oversight is, of course, that the notice of the waiver has to be presented to the House, so, therefore, Parliament is able to scrutinise that decision. Look, it’s really simply about reducing the reporting burden on departments so that a single department can do it, rather than everyone involved.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 502 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting a new Schedule 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 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

New Schedule agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3: title, commencement, and principal Act.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (20:01): I just want to have a little bit of a discussion about the commencement date. The ordinary thing is for a bill is that lots of bills just come into force on the day after Royal assent. This one comes into force on 1 July 2026. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could explain to the committee why it is not the day after Royal assent, but, instead, we’ve gone for a particular date, which is 1 July 2026—and the Minister herself will see that it is on that particular day.

There are bits of this bill that I do like and I think are quite useful, but I’m appalled by the way that we’ve just totally wiped out all the work on the wellbeing stuff, and in some ways I’m tempted to put in a whole set of amendments to change the date so that we keep the wellbeing reporting going. However, 1 July 2026 it is, according to the Minister—if she could just explain why it is that particular date and why not any other date.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:02): Quite simply, that aligns with the beginning of the financial year. The member will appreciate that in passing this legislation at this juncture, agencies have time to prepare for the beginning of that financial year, and the reporting requirement in this amendment corresponds with the next financial year.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:03): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that response, Minister, but I just wanted to check. If the Act comes into force on 1 July—understanding that it’s the beginning of the financial year—would agencies, particularly in terms of some of the requirements in this such as tax, financial statements, etc., now be kind of preparing for that and be waiting for that to come into effect so that they can, in effect, start enacting some of the things we’re seeing here already?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (20:03): Well, yes. It may surprise the member to know that of the people that we’ve described as watching this at home, the people who are most aware of this are the officials who will be responsible for implementing it from 1 July.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Clause 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Those observant members would have noticed that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan made reference to an amendment by the Hon Barbara Edmonds. Inadvertently, that was left off the voting sheet. With the leave of the committee, I intend to put that amendment. Is that leave approved? Thank you.

The question is that Barbara Edmonds’ amendment to section 38 in clause 32, providing that departments must provide information on a capital management plan, and her amendment to insert a new clause 32A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I thank the committee of the whole House for their indulgence.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Public Service Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Debate resumed from 17 February.

Part 2 Consequential amendments to other Acts, and Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Public Service Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we had finished the debate on Part 1. We now come to the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 48 to 67, “Consequential amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:09): Thank you, Mr Chair. We are once again back at the Public Service Amendment Bill, in Part 2. I do note that Part 2 is the consequential amendments, and also I’m just wanting to double-check with the Clerk that we are also discussing the Schedule, as well, which inserts a new Part 2 into Schedule 1. So perhaps the Minister or the Clerk could confirm that that’s the case—that we’ll also be discussing the Schedule as well in this part? I’ll just see if that’s able to be confirmed.

Hon Judith Collins: Sorry, we’ll just find our notes.

CAMILLA BELICH: Sure, that would be great.

I do have a question on each of these bills. I have gone back in and had a look at what the changes are that have been made in Part 2. If we start with clauses 48 and 49, these are amendments to the Child Poverty Reduction Act. Looking back at the principal Act, these are clauses which relate to measuring child poverty. The fundamental change is a change which appears in, I believe, three sections in this part: clause 48, clause 57, and clause 62. But the specific question I have in relation to clause 48 and 49, which is a consequential amendment to the Child Poverty Reduction Act, is will this particular clause and the change of section 52 to new section 11A maintain the same independence that is currently in section 52?

That change has come up, as I said, in clause 57, and that’s in relation to—and it probably makes sense to go through all of those at the moment, if I have time. The second change is in relation to the Education and Training Act, which makes the same, as far as I can see, amendment to replace that particular section. That is in relation to the Chief Review Officer being able to perform certain functions. The third area where we see that change is in clause 62, but related very closely to clause 61, which talks about the chief executives acting independently and the statement of responsibility.

As an initial question, it is simply asking the Minister to confirm the provisions of section 11A and what differs from sections 11A and 52. That’s my first question to the Minister, in addition to the Schedule. I also have some other questions. I’m not sure if the Minister wants to do short question and answers, or whether she would like me to go on to—OK, she’s indicating that she’d like me to go on to my next question.

My next question is in relation to clause 50, which amends the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. Now, this is probably more significant and more substantive than the previous three clauses that I referred to, which just replaced a section in 52 with a section in 11A. That is because in this particular provision, it appears that section 58 of this piece of legislation is being repealed. When I looked back at section 58, I found that section 58 actually provides for Public Service agencies to have a plan during an emergency and an additional responsibility for that to be available in writing. Of course, then I thought, well, is this clause replicated somewhere else in the bill? I did find some provisions that appeared to be related in new clause 5C. A question to the Minister is: is clause 5C in the new bill meant to replace the primary bill section 58?

Additionally, we’ll all be aware—and I’m sure the Minister’s aware—that the Government is currently repealing or amending the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, and that is currently before select committee at the moment. If clause 5C is not a replacement for the repeal of section 58, does the new emergency management bill include the equivalent obligations? These do appear to be important obligations, so I think it’s important that we clarify whether that is true. I regret I didn’t have time to check that entire new bill, but I did check clause 5C. I wonder, perhaps, if the officials have an answer to that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:14): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, thank you for those questions. I think, if I can just deal with these notes, clauses 48 and 49 amending the Child Poverty Reduction Act is to provide an accurate cross-reference to the new section 11A, which is the principal responsibilities of chief executives. This maintains the existing provision under this Act for the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to act independently when publishing reports on child poverty. So then that answers that one.

The member has asked about clauses 50, I think, and 51. They repeal section 58 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act so that provisions in relation to business continuity management for Public Service agencies can be relocated and broadened in scope under the Public Service Act. This provides for plans that ensure continuity during and after any disruption.

There was another question about—what was the other question?

Camilla Belich: Where is that in the Act? Is that clause 5C or is it different?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That was in clauses 50 and 51. As for 5C, I was just waiting for that one to come through, and I just happen to have the answer. Oh, it’s in clause 45(10). OK, right. So we can do that even if there’s any disruption, not just emergencies. That’s the main point there. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member’s question relating to the Schedule—the Schedule was actually part of Part 1 and was debated in there. But thank you for the question. Fernando Hernandez.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (20:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a call at the committee of the whole House stage. My questions are specifically around clause 49, around the replacement of section 52 with section 11A. We can see—and I did check the Hansard transcript, and this bit hasn’t had discussion yet, because, of course, I have been away across the different O-Weeks across the country. So thank you to my colleagues here for—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Which is why I got your name wrong, of course, Mr Hernandez!

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Yeah, that’s right. Out of sight, out of mind, Mr Chair.

So 1(a), ”improving ways of working across public service agencies”, which is in section 52 of the original Act, has been replaced by new section 11A, inserted by clause 11. Section 52(1)(a), I believe, has been translated to new section 11A(1)(g). My question to the Minister is why, instead of having a broader principle of “improving ways of working across public service agencies”, has more specificity been added around the new section 11—because that was the replacement of it, under new section 11A(1)(g).

My second question is around section 52(1)(b), which has been translated to—sorry, hang on. I’ll skip that bit and move on to section 52(1)(c) of the principal Act, which is “the operation of their agency, including in carrying out the purpose of the public service under section 11;”. That’s been translated to new section 11A(1)(e) almost verbatim. Section 52(1)(d), “supporting the Minister to act as a good steward of the public interest, including by—(i) maintaining public institutions,” has also been translated almost exactly word for word. Section 52(1)(f) around giving advice to the Ministers has been translated.

It seems like most of section 52 has literally been translated word for word into new section 11A, with the exception of a few clauses. The one clause that I did spot was “improving ways” seemed to have turned into new section 11A(1)(g), which is “working to improve inter-operability, co-ordination, and collaboration across public service agencies;”. My question to the Minister is: why was that change made, and have I missed any other transliterations in the change from section 52 to new section 11A, and what were the reasons for these changes? Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:19): Thank you. Thanks for those questions, too. Perhaps we can just talk a little bit about clause 11, since there’s been some questions about that, which inserts new section 11A, “Principal responsibilities of chief executives of departments and departmental agencies”. What’s actually changing with chief executives’ responsibilities is it’s clarifying the chief executives’ roles and bringing them to the front of the Act. The purpose of this is placing emphasis on giving advice to Ministers and implementing their decisions, the efficient and effective delivery of services, and the financial stewardship of their agencies. As the member will be aware, chief executives or stewards of major agencies must be accountable for delivering results, and these changes will hopefully improve transparency and performance expectations while retaining the key aspects of existing possibilities.

I think the member might have asked about what was happening and why that was happening. The chief executives are already accountable under the Act for the delivery of their responsibilities, and the Cabinet Manual already provides for them to follow the lawful instructions of Ministers. Nothing in this clause changes the current accountabilities of chief executives or the application of the convention set out in the Cabinet Manual governing the extent to which the Ministers engage in operational matters.

There was another question about—what was it?

Francisco Hernandez: The specific clause change.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, now, that was—which one did you ask about? Oh, I see. The new phrase and ways of working together?

Francisco Hernandez: Yeah.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: OK. Well, that was suggested by the Public Service CEs themselves, and the point of that was to help them to know—they want to be clearer about the need to collaborate and to ensure, basically, interoperability as much as possible. So I thought it was quite a useful thing to happen. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:21): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister and the officials for engaging in these questions. I had just a follow-up question. I want to thank the Minister for her answer to my questions to clause 50 and 51. But I did look back at clause 45 in this bill, and I just wondered if, perhaps, she could just double-check if I recorded the right answer to that. So, essentially, my question was: in clause 51, we’re repealing section 58; where are those new duties? I believe that she said they’re in 45, but, when I looked at 45, I couldn’t see where that was, because, essentially, as I understand, in section 58, which is being repealed in the civil defence Act, that is the requirement—I may have got this wrong, but what I had noted down when I thought that I checked that was the requirement for planning during emergencies. So I just wanted to double-check that I’ve got that right or wrong, depending on what the answer is.

My next question is a new question and it’s relating to the changes to the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998. This is change which is not the same as the change which we’ve already discussed in relation to 11A, but it’s a specific change in relation to including section 11A(1)(j) in the primary piece of legislation. When I looked back at that primary piece of legislation, which I’ve just got a screenshot of here on my phone, that Crown Pastoral Land Act outlines the stewardship duties that are incumbent on the chief executive, and it’s a change of reference to that new section. So I wanted to ask the Minister if there was a substantive change in repealing section 52(1)(d) of the primary Act, and replacing that with 11A(1)(j), in relation to the chief executive stewardship. It’s a slightly different question on that.

Now, I’ve got a new area, too, which I would like to ask about in relation to the amendments to the Data and Statistics Act 2022. This is another slightly more substantive change from what I could ascertain, in relation to these consequential amendments. That is because, when I looked at what was being repealed, it appears to be a change to how the Government Statistician is appointed. The change is, essentially, that if you look at—I don’t have a copy of that legislation in front of me, but the primary legislation, when I look back at it, what I seem to be able to see what the purpose of this was, was that, at the moment, there’s quite a long process to appoint the Government Statistician, but this bill will repeal clauses 10 to 15 of that.

So it’s kind of a significant amount of requirements in relation to the appointment of the Government Statistician at the moment. So my question was: what are the reasons for that change? Also, what process will now occur in relation to the appointment of the Government Statistician, under that?

Additionally, it appeared to me that the clause that was being repealed may affect the definition of the Government Statistician as the chief executive. I might be wrong on that, but I’d appreciate maybe if the Minister could get some advice or she may know whether that does mean that under this bill, the Government Statistician will be considered to be a chief executive, as well, under these changes.

So there’s a few different areas. I won’t use all of my time; let’s see if the Minister can respond to those.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:25): I’ll try and get this in some form of order. I think I’ve got out of order for you, sorry. The member has asked about section 45(10), is it? It’s going to the new clause 11 of Schedule 6. The trouble is there’s lots of schedules all over the place and, and I know it is confusing. Questions about the Crown Pastoral Land Act; clauses 52 and 53 amend 22A(1)(a) of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 to provide an accurate cross reference to new section 11A. That’s the principal responsibility as chief executives and that maintains the existing reference to the Secretary of Land Information Stewardship responsibilities in relation to monitoring the implementation of this Act.

So questions around the Data and Statistics Act: clauses 54, 55, 56 amend sections 6 and 12 of the Data and Statistics Act 2022 to provide the Government Statistician to be appointed under this Act while retaining some of the process elements of the Public Service Act.

So, basically, they must advertise and run a contestable process, but does not require the forwarding of recommendation by the Minister or the approval of the Governor-General; so a slightly different process. Was there another question as well?

Camilla Belich: It was just the schedule about the requirement to have a plan and an emergency contingency plan; was that Schedule 6 of the original bill?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, I’ve forgotten that one. Maybe I’ll come back to that one—you mean new clause 11 of Schedule 6?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It might pay for the member to stand up so we can hear through the microphone.

Camilla Belich: Yes, I did ask some questions around clause11; the Minister is correct. The question I’m just wanting—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I just, I got too ambitious in receiving the question, sorry.

Camilla Belich: These are quite technical questions so I appreciate that it’s not straightforward to answer them. The question—and it may be that I’m missing it. I think the Minister said that in relation to the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act, that there is a provision—and it might be in Schedule 6. I just wanted to check if that Schedule 6 of the primary—I do have the primary legislation in front of me. I just wanted to make sure that there would still being a requirement to put in place a plan for an emergency, which I understand was what was being repealed. I do have some other questions—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Can I go now, please, because otherwise I’m going to lose you. I just need to do theses now because otherwise—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): These interactions are fine; this is what we want to do with our committee of the whole House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This is called friendly interaction that we do.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Watch and note, everyone else, please.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It’s trying to help with these answers, and, I mean, they’re very detailed questions. I’m very aware of this. The issue around the Government Statistician: so, what’s happening is it’s shifting the appointment process under the Data and Statistics Act to match how these provisions sit for other specific appointees, for example, the Police Commissioner. So the process is not changing.

The commissioner appoints without recourse to the Minister or the Governor-General. So the so it’s the commissioner of, obviously, the Public Service. The Government Statistician is deemed to be the Chief Executive of Stats NZ. So that is not affected.

Some more questions around the Crown Pastoral Land Act: the Act refers to the existing stewardship obligation in section 52 that’s carried over without substantial change to an 11A(1)(b), is it? So the consequential simply matches that. That’s all that is, and happy to take some more questions.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. That is helpful. Probably one thing I’m not just 100 percent sure on is just a civil defence one, but I’m happy to come back to that later. Thanks for your answers around the Government Statistician. It appears that that’s not as substantial a change as it might have appeared, and I think the Crown pastoral land stewardship duties remaining unchanged. That’s helpful to know as well.

The next question I had was in relation to the amendment to the Employment Relations Act, which is in relation to, I think, application for judicial review and there’s a deletion there of some of the requirements in relation to, I believe, judicial review. I’ve just been cross-referencing this, and I don’t have that primary piece of legislation. So I just wanted to ask the reasoning for that, and also as well whether that was a substantive change to the judicial review rights in the Employment Relations Act because it was, in fact, a deletion and not a replacement. I assume that that possibly it’s the same. I don’t know, but it’d be good to get that confirmed.

Interestingly enough, the bill that we were previously just debating in the Chamber, the Legislation Act, is also amended by this Act. Because that’s a change of clause 11A to 52, which we’ve already discussed a number of times, my question is not about that because I imagine the same answer would apply for this section, but it’s more that because we have been amending the Legislation Act, is this amendment still valid considering that, essentially, we’ve been at the committee stage for that bill as well? So just wanting to ask the Minister about those areas.

I do have some more questions in relation to other clauses, but I’ll leave it there now—or I’ll ask them, Mr Chair, right away. Thank you.

The next section I had questions on was in relation to the Policing Act, and this is a substantive change by the Governance and Administration Committee and it was actually one of the sections that—I’ll just check with my colleague in the Greens—I believe that all members of the select committee actually supported this change. This is something that’s been inserted as a result of the select committee process and so, I think, it probably deserves a bit of attention. My understanding, and the reason that we, in the Labour Party, although we are not supporting this bill, supported this particular change, was because it seemed to clarify a very important principle which was that in terms of overview in the Public Service, which is of course important from the Public Service Commissioner—obviously, there will be some Public Service agencies or organisations, like the Police, who do have to carry out independent duty but still require some oversight.

So this is quite an important provision because it means that, I think, the Public Service Commissioner, can have oversight over some aspects of policing, but only in relation to those which are outlined, I think, in section 16(1) of the Policing Act. I did look at that, and the only one that I thought was, probably, open to a bit of interpretation was the last requirement: “lawful ministerial direction”. I think this is an important change that was made at select committee. It would be good to hear from the Minister on this, considering, perhaps, she hasn’t had the opportunity to talk about this particular provision. But just, also, to maybe outline for the Hansard the reasoning why this, particularly in terms of the Public Service Commissioner’s role and the interaction with the Police, is particularly important, and the wording, of course, needs to be particularly important. It goes without saying, we don’t want ministerial direction into the actual duties of policing, and so I hope that this is sufficient to address those concerns that the public may have, but I definitely support this particular provision in making sure that there is that appropriate discretion. That is another new area and so I’ll leave that there if the Minister wants to.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:34): There is a question about judicial review that is still able to be undertaken and that’s to maintain the rights of people to do that. So that’s from Schedule 8 to Part 3 of the Public Service Act.

In relation to policing, well, the police, they’re not—the Chair will know this—strictly public servants in terms of taking instruction. In fact, quite the opposite. Policing independence and independence of actions are absolutely inherent in our Policing Act, so the issue, really, is independence versus oversight. The member’s correct, the committee looked at this and said, “Well, what else can we do here?” But we have to make sure that the constabulary functions are not interfered with in any way, shape, or form—such as the choice of how to enforce the law in relation to, I don’t know, crimes or various other things.

Certainly when it comes to the appointments of commissioners—having done a few myself over the years—the Public Service Commission, traditionally, is involved in that activity but they do not make the decisions. It’s very much led by the Minister and its appointment by the Governor-General on recommendation of the Prime Minister. So it’s not the standard Public Service appointment, but the Public Service undertakes the work on behalf of the Minister to put together panels and receive applications, to vet people, and then to put the shortlist before the Minister. So it’s quite different from a public servant chief executive in the normal sense of the word—it’s pretty much the same with the Defence Force too, by the way. The Public Service does that work on behalf of the Minister because Ministers don’t have time to do all that and we don’t have the people to help us to do that.

I think that was the questions asked on that one—yes. Thank you.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (20:37): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. I just wanted to come back to ask a question under the new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, item (f). I’m interested, Minister, if you could explain, just in terms of the “financial stewardship of their agency, including building and maintaining a financially literate workforce“. I’m just really interested in that “financially literate workforce”.

In terms of the responsibilities: will that be streamlined in terms of the Public Service role or is it better risk management to do with financial obligations to ensure that that specific financial stewardship is an important role, not just to manage all the different obligations? If you could explain, Minister, it would be helpful to understand the principalities around it, but also to unpack that and explain to me the function for the workforce to have them financially literate and really comprehensive. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:38): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, thanks for that question. It’s very interesting. So one of the things that we’re really wanting to make sure is these agencies, Government departments, everything else, have a lot of money through budgets and they, of course, always want more—but any taxpayer would think there’s a lot of money.

It is very important that the chief executives understand their obligations, including the ability to keep the books as such—financial books—in order. So the financial stewardship, which says that they’ve got to have that, “including building and maintaining a financially literate workforce”, is actually critically important to getting the best value, but also really ensuring that the staff working in these agencies add skills—get skills for themselves—because pretty much anybody’s work is going to be improved if they understand the numbers behind those decisions and also what these decisions mean in terms of the budgets. So I actually see it as a really good point, not only for the chief executives to have to be financially literate, but for them to help their staff to gain skills that they may not have, because, obviously, not everybody comes into Government agencies with those skills, but it is a critical part of the work.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (20:40): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. Just in terms of unpacking that, Minister, I appreciate that chief executives of various Public Service agencies are required to have those financial skills, but I just wanted to understand what the level would be. Would it just be the chief executive and those who are in senior public roles in terms of the staffing, or will that go to a certain point all the way down to different levels? What would be the expectation in any Public Service agency? Thank you, Minister.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:40): Mr Chair, I think quite a few of these questions are actually relitigating over Part 1, but I’m happy to say that I’d expect that Part 2 is just consequentials; changing cross-references to the Part 1 provisions have already been dealt with. But I would say that I expect chief executives to use their common sense and their knowledge in understanding their staff, if that would be helpful.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just confirm that with references to new section 11A, please ensure that you reference them with something in Part 2.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:41): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister for her answer, especially in relation to the Policing Act. I did just have a brief read of section 16(1) of the Policing Act again, and it does appear that it is looking at some of the overall performance issues. And so I do hope that that is sufficient, but I would be interested to see—hopefully, I assume that there’s been some consultation with the Police and that they’re happy with this change; it’d be good to know that. But, anyway, as I said, we support it, so it’s not something I’m relitigating, but I just think it would be helpful to have that put down for the record.

I know we’re not debating Schedule 1, which talks about the move to a single deputy commissioner, but I did just have a question in relation to clauses 63 and 64, which we haven’t touched on yet. And that is the change to the Remuneration Authority Act. It appeared to me from looking at the website of the Public Service Commission that this change may have already been structurally implemented in terms of one Deputy Public Service Commissioner. Well, at least on the website, it looks like there’s one and not several. I just wanted to ask about how that has worked, considering that this change to the Remuneration Authority Act has not yet been passed. If the Minister for the Public Service could confirm that—it does appear to me that the Public Service Commission has already implemented this new change, which is open to them. They don’t obviously need an Act of Parliament to do a restructure, but I assume they are, as they are senior public servants, subject to the Remuneration Authority Act, and that’s why it’s mentioned here. So I just wanted to ask about the mechanics of whether that has occurred, and if the Minister wanted to make any comments about whether that has in fact already happened and whether it’s effective.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the Policing Act, the Police have been consulted, and they support this change. The other answer is around the deputy, Rebecca Kitteridge, a fine woman. She resigned and she was obviously appointed in a new role at the University of Oxford, commencing in early November last year. She finished her term as deputy on 10 October last year. The vacancy in the second deputy commissioner role was kept under review because, basically, we thought the progress of this bill would eventually come through and an appointment process was not progress; we thought it would be not a good use of taxpayer money to appoint someone and then to unappoint them. So that’s what that is.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:44): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I won’t drag this out too much longer. There is one clause we haven’t touched on, which is the change to the Security Information in Proceedings Act 2022. This, to me, looked like—and the Minister for the Public Service can confirm this or not—just a moving around of the definitions. But I did want to ask why the changes to definitions were in reference to the 2020 Act, and I wanted to just double-check that that was the amended primary piece of legislation that would include these new clauses 5B and 5F in the definition.

From my reading of that, and I didn’t look at it for too long, it seemed to be just moving interpretations around, as amended by the Act, and nothing more substantive than that. But I would appreciate it if the Minister was able to just confirm that that is correct and that these new definitions are the ones that have been inserted through this new piece of legislation. I think that means that we would have covered most of the sections here. I’ll just see if the Minister is able to get some advice so we can have our questions answered. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:45): Thank you. The change to the security information ensures that the commissioner can rely on classified information when restricting the use of products and services in the Public Service, and making sure that that information is kept safe in proceedings. If you think about the fact that we have cyber-security issues that we’re dealing with, I could put another hat on now and say it’s a constant issue. It’s really important, particularly as we digitise more, that the commissioner has the ability to say that we will not be using that sort of brand or that sort of thing, because we obviously have a lot of secure information, including people’s private data, and we do not want to have that compromised. So it’s giving the commissioner that power to say, “Look, for security reasons, we’re not doing that.”

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT) (20:46): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Part 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Schedule agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2: the title and commencement.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to see others take a turn and ask some questions too. I have questions in relation to the commencement clause. I have put forward a number of amendments to clause 2, around the commencement, and the reason I put these forward is because—as I’m sure the Minister for the Public Service agrees—this is an important piece of legislation from a constitutional perspective, and there are a number of changes that have been significant. Specifically, the first change I wanted to mention is in relation to the quite significant change—I can’t just remember the number of the long-term insights briefing that we had, that we’re moving to. I know we’re moving to one but I think we might have had 34 or something? Someone can, hopefully, correct me on that if I’m wrong.

That is a substantial change, and recently we have been in select committee with the Public Service Commission. In our last Governance and Administration Committee meeting we had a really interesting discussion with them around integrity and that long-term insights briefing on integrity and independence of the Public Service. It was really such an interesting topic, and it’s hard to imagine that that type of topic would be produced unless there was a need for organisations like the Public Service Commission and, of course, a lot of other public agencies to produce these long-term insights briefings. So simply stopping them and requiring the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to do one overall long-term insights briefing is particularly concerning and it did come up in select committee as an issue where a number of submitters had concerns.

The amendment that I have put forward is to change those particular clauses, 45 and 46, to a longer commencement date, and that would allow in fact what comes after the long-term insights briefing to be considered and for perhaps those agencies to think about how they might work better with DPMC—that is a significant change. I’ve also suggested that there might be a longer period of time before this is implemented.

We’ve just had the employment leave bill tabled in Parliament this week. It has a commencement date that is two years after it receives the Royal assent. This is not an unusual provision. It’s one that’s been tabled in the House this week, and so because of the constitutional significance of this bill, because of the significant changes and the importance that the Public Service works effectively, I’m interested to know what the Minister thinks about that.

I think I’ve got another amendment that gives 12 or 18 months—anyway, there’s a plethora of options tabled in relation to amendments to the commencement if the Minister was of a mind to accept them. I think there are good reasons for that. Although these commencement provisions are not always made in the best of faith, I do feel that there is precedent for this particular type of commencement date to be put in place. And apart from, perhaps—as the Minister mentioned in her previous contribution—some of the employment issues around the deputy commissioners which perhaps could come in earlier, we could definitely work on an amendment to do that, but I do think that this is an important bill. It is regretful that we weren’t able to reach a consensus to have bipartisan support for this bill because of its importance, but I do think a later commencement would allow the changes to bed in and allow everyone to be able to assess those changes and get to grips with them. And, of course, if there was a change of Government, it would also give the next Government an opportunity to assess them.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (20:54): I noticed a little smile on the member’s face as she sat down. Look, I think it’s pretty clear, and my colleague the Hon James Meager said previously when he was in the chair on my behalf during the debate on Part 1 that the long-term thinking can be provided through a range of other channels and regular advice.

We don’t need 34 different long-term insights briefings to overlay and duplicate everything. I certainly know that some of our smaller agencies for which I’m the Minister responsible find this a hugely onerous task for them to undertake, and I would rather they got on with their jobs and let the Ministers know in their weekly briefings about issues that are coming up and also to be thinking about these rather than putting the enormous amount of effort into it. The fact is that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is going to be undertaking all of these for them. They can collate what the thinking is and put it into one rather than every one on its own.

In relation to comments around the date of commencement—well, good try, Ms Belich, but no. There is no reason to delay this. This amendment bill has been in the works for well over a year. The provisions do not impact individual rights or impose significant compliance costs. Most provisions are enabling provisions that will be utilised as and when relevant, and they don’t require immediate practical action to implement or anything like that. The Public Service Commission has also appraised the Public Service of the content and the intent of the amendments. The agencies have been brought along with this process. This is not a surprise to them. They are fully aware of it and they are ready for it.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (20:56): Thank you, Madam Chair. I need to stop taking leave because the presiding officers clearly forget my name when I’m around the country, but thank you for the recognition, Madam Chair.

Before I begin my questions I just wanted to thank the Minister for the Public Service for engagement during this stage of the bill. I suspect this might be the last committee stage she will be doing as Minister and we’ve appreciated the engagement on this.

I want to turn to the points that my colleague Camilla Belich has raised. This is indeed a constitutionally significant bill, and we in the Greens do support the various amendments that she has proposed, and we have some of our own as well. The constitutional significance of this bill shouldn’t be understated. To quote the words of Professor Jonathan Boston: ”Changes to legislation of constitutional significance, such as the Public Service Act, should ideally be based on a careful, independent analysis of the issues and options, in-depth public consultation and broad cross-party agreement.”

Now, I will give the Minister credit where credit is due. I think two of the three criteria in Professor Boston’s analysis have been met. There has been careful independent analysis of this bill through the select committee process, and, again, I commend the Minister and the Government for, at the very least, not rushing through these changes under urgency. There has been quite extensive public consultation and quite extensive public submissions and we had a chance—I was a guest on the Governance and Administration Committee—to ask those many expert witnesses what their opinions are.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Does the member have a suggestion or a question?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Yes, yes—I’m about to get to it, Madam Chair. There has not been broad cross-party agreement on this. Every single political party in the Opposition is voting against it, so my amendment, which is, I think, labelled “4.25 p.m.” tabled on 10 March 2026, is on the second-to-last page and it proposes a change to clause 2. So instead of the Act coming into force on 1 July 2026, which is just four months away, I proposed replacing it with “this Act comes into force on with 7 December 2026.”

I have changed that because, as people will recognise, that is one month after the general election. What that basically does is this gives an opportunity for it to basically go on the ballot, so then there can be no doubt—if the commencement date is delayed to one month after the election—that this will definitely have a mandate for it. As experts such as Jonathan Boston have already articulated, this is a bill that does not have cross-party support, and this is a bill that is constitutionally significant, so there ought to be an extra layer of checks and balances associated with it.

If it’s impractical to do 7 December 2026—of course, negotiations might still be ongoing at that stage to form the next Government—I’ve put an alternative date of 1 January 2027. I’m presuming that the negotiations will have concluded at that stage. Again, for the reasons that we’ve already articulated—the constitutional significance of this bill and the lack of cross-party support for it—we respectfully ask the Minister for the Public Service and also the Government benches to consider our amendments to delay the commencement date for this bill

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (21:01): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to “Privatising the Public Service Amendment Act” is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert ”Merit-based appointments and role clarification” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert ”Capability enhancement and role clarification” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert ”Public Service Role Clarification and Performance” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert ”Security, capability and clarification” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2, “to commence after a commission of inquiry has been held”, is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminate event and not providing sufficient certainty.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to stagger the commencement of Parts 1 and 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to 24 months after assent be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for clauses 10 to 34 to come into force 18 months after assent be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for clauses 45 and 46 to come into force 18 months after assent be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 7 December 2026 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 1 January 2027 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Online Casino Gambling Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to the Online Casino Gambling Bill. We begin with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 7—”Preliminary provisions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (21:14): Thank you, Madam Chair. It gives me great pleasure to talk about this bill, especially the provisions that are before us, the preliminary.

I do want to talk first about the purpose. We’ve gone through the first reading and second reading with the Minister of Internal Affairs. We do agree with the intent. However, what we do disagree with is the provisions in the bill, and so, I just want to talk about the third provision—the purpose. We had a number of submitters who put forward the reasons why they were submitting on this Online Casino Gambling Bill, and whilst it’s important to recognise those submitters, we heard over and over and over again about the reasons why we need to have a regulated system in Aotearoa. The purpose of this bill is really important to get it right, in terms of the Online Casino Gambling Bill. From this side of the Chamber, what we want to highlight is in terms of the purpose, which must be right.

Establishing a licensing regime of the Online Casino Gambling Bill: there’s going to be a huge change, and we heard that over and over again from submitters. I do have an Amendment Paper, which I’ll speak about shortly, but it’s to prohibit the conduct and advertisement of unlicensed online casino gambling, and, more importantly, is to prevent and minimise harm reduction. One of the things we heard from many submitters was, in particular, those from our vulnerable communities—in particular, our young people, who, as we understand it, when they came through the submissions, was to talk about, even though we don’t have a regulated online casino gambling Act or system at the moment, however, it needs to be strengthened; it needs to have the provisions of harm minimisation but, also, protect consumers with the online casino gambling.

One of the things we did hear, and the question that I have, is: is the Minister confident that the regulations before us, or the provisions before us, will actually tackle harm minimisation and consumer protections? Because we heard that whilst the wording is there, Minister, it is not enough. The question that I have to the Minister is, we heard from many of the submitters with regard to consumer protection and, in particular harm minimisation. How will our young people, who, on their current devices, are being saturated with advertisements, etc.—I want to ask the Minister: what advice did she get from the officials with regards to harm minimisation provisions and consumer protections?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (21:17): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have many, many questions for the Minister of Internal Affairs, coming at it from a slightly different angle, which is as the mental health spokesperson for Labour.

Just to provide some context to the questions that I will be asking—it’s really around the right and the left hand. So, we’ve got the Internal Affairs department, but we also have the Ministry of the Health that was—that is—responsible for the harm minimisation strategy. This does relate very much to the purpose that is specified in clause 3(a) to (e). My questions are around the architecture of why, for example, is establishing a licensing regime for online casino gambling listed as (a)? Are these all equal in hierarchy? And, if it is about preventing and minimising harm, why is that done is subclause (c), and then we have community benefits in subclause (e)—and I’ll ask specific questions about them.

I preface my questions by referring to an Official Information Act response, H2024049689, where—and I quote Michael Woodside, who was the then-group manager, mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention—it was in the first half of last year where it says, “The Department of Internal Affairs has work under way to regulate online gambling, with the goal of preventing and minimising the harm it causes, whilst work that the department had under way to develop a regulatory framework to address online harms is no longer progressing.”

This is about the architecture, and the question of how we are to read the purpose when we have clauses—and if I look at the purpose, and then we read it against clause 39, which is around harm minimisation; clause 75, levies for regulation; and then, clause 78, fees; and then, clauses 80B and 80C, which raises duties associated with licences from 12 percent to 16 percent, and provides a ring-fence of 25 percent for a Department of Internal Affairs bank account. All of that looks to be very much about the establishment of a licensing regime, and very little about protecting those who have gambling issues from further harm or, indeed, from falling into harm.

When we look at the architecture, we can see that consumer protections further on in the bill are also enforced or reinforced. Then there is an amendment that came in late in the piece, which I’m sure colleagues will have questions about, regarding community benefit, but there is very, very little that is around the online harm prevention. My specific questions are, with that architecture, is it deliberate to put establishing the licensing regime first? Does that reflect her priorities? What measurable harm reductions will be available when the bill is enacted, and if there are no regulations enacted, will the bill still be able to come into force—will the market still exist? That is like the litmus test of what the purpose of this bill really is. I would contend that this is much more about creating an online casino gambling market and expanding it, while then also purporting to reduce harm, which provides a real tension.

A third question is why does the bill contain a detailed framework for regulations by 1 December 2026 but no explicit deadline in the bill for harm minimisation? Again, this is relating to the purpose and the prioritisation in the purpose. Does she accept the optics that the advertising settings, which are provided for in so much detail, versus health protection, which has so scant detail, is not a good look when it comes to the stated purpose of harm minimisation—that this is much more about creating a market?

That really comes to another question of what, in her opinion, is the core purpose of this? Are these all to be given even weighting? The bill certainly doesn’t do that. If they are to be, then will she be looking at some of the amendments that we intend to introduce to bolster some of the other purposes that are listed there?

Just signalling, Madam Chair, that I have some more questions just on this particular provision.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:22): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’ll try and tidy away two of the contributions already today, because I think Part 1 of this bill is actually quite narrow in its scope. I note that two of the questions so far have just related to the overall purpose of the bill.

Then, firstly, to Ingrid Leary’s question about why it is that the bill actually has five different distinct purposes. Well, I hate to say it, but I think it’s quite self-explanatory that in order to have harm minimisation standards and prevention of harm from online casino gambling, there is a need to establish regulations and a licensing regime in order to do that, so they all kind of follow on from each other. It’s not that there is a particular hierarchy in any of the purposes, because you’d see that it’s “establish a licensing regime for online casino gambling; and prohibit the conduct and advertisement of unlicensed online casino gambling; and prevent and minimise harm from online casino gambling; and”—and I could keep going on, but you could easily just flip them around and they do the same sort of thing with the overall purpose. I think it’s quite an arbitrary distinction about which one in particular comes first. But if you want to have harm minimisation standards, we need to pass this bill, which has a regulatory licensing regime, in order to have those regulated standards.

In terms of the question from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about the advice that we’ve received around advertisements, look, once again, this purpose talks about prohibiting the conduct and advertisement of unlicensed online casino gambling. It is true that we are prohibiting unlicensed advertisements and allowing for prohibited advertisements, but I’d also just point to the fact that a lot of the detail, then, about how we limit harm through this bill is not actually referenced in this part; it’s referenced further in the bill as we start talking about harm minimisation and actual details of the bill.

I’d also highlight the fact that throughout the policy process, when we were developing this policy with officials, we walked through quite a lot of regulations that will also come into force. The regulations have been approved by Cabinet. So to the second question from Ingrid Leary, there will be regulations that come into force with this bill for the licence regime.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to be able to address Part 1 of this bill. The question I have in relation to the purpose clause—and I appreciate the Minister’s comments around Part 1 being narrow, but it does set up the framework for this entire bill, and so it is very relevant to have some substantive discussions about it. Not only does it set up the framework for this bill; it has all the definitions that therefore make the bill workable.

I’ve got some questions in relation to clause 4, but I just wanted to ask, around the purpose, is this bill an improvement on the status quo for New Zealand? If the purpose of this bill is—

Tim Costley: Oh, yes.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, that is a genuine question that I have—and I’m very happy to elucidate on that a little bit more for colleagues—because at the moment we have a system where, of course, we’ve got online casino gambling which is not regulated. As my colleague said, the purpose of regulation in and of itself is not objectionable, but the purpose here, as outlined in this section, talks about all of the different factors that go into establishing a licensing regime. It also, as mentioned, talks about important regulations that will come into effect around minimising harm.

Now, the Minister has brought those regulations into this debate and has said that they’ve been approved by Cabinet. I wondered, because we are debating this now in the House, if she’s willing to make those regulations available, because one of the big concerns I have about the purpose of this bill is will New Zealand be in a better position having gone through this regulatory regime than it is at the moment? At the moment, of course, we have this happening in an unregulated manner, but very importantly—and this is important in relation to the purpose clause in 3(b)—we don’t have legal advertising.

This is a really key point in this bill, because if we have advertising for online casinos—now, we know that everyone is in an online environment, that they’re utilising their phone, that they’re picking up their phone, and if they see something which is potentially addictive, like gambling, there’s a high chance that they’ll participate in that. We have real concerns that the regulations around managing that and making sure that those advertisements as listed in the purpose are sufficient. As colleagues have said, an issue with this bill is a lot of the stuff that protects New Zealanders is contained in the regulatory regime, which is separate to this bill. In select committee and during this process in the House, that is somewhat frustrating, because, of course, we can’t balance the fact of seeing the regulation as a part of this bill with seeing whether the benefit of regulation would be put forward.

The last thing I want to say on purpose is that clause 3(e) was inserted by the Governance and Administration Committee after the Minister and the Government changed their perspective in relation to community funding. I know that, obviously, we’ve had this back from select committee, but I think because this is a new purpose and it was not in place when we had the regulatory impact statement, it was not in place when we had the departmental disclosure statement, it was not in place when we were able to call for submissions; it is important to make sure that (e), “ensure that money from online casino gambling benefits the community”, is properly interrogated. Now, we have concerns that it isn’t sufficient, that the amount, although we support the idea of a community benefit and money going back to the community—whether that percentage is sufficient. I’d like the Minister to answer, really, is she satisfied by this purpose, because it has to be sufficient.

I do have some questions in relation to clause 4, which I will ask possibly in a different call. But overall, is the Minister satisfied that New Zealanders will actually be in a better position and there won’t be a huge influx, which we are genuinely concerned about, in online casino gambling because of the legalisation of advertising?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:30): I thank the member for her questions. The member asks whether or not this bill is going to be an improvement of the status quo, and absolutely it is because it’s not a shock to anyone that this Government cares about regulating the online casino market and we are acting on it more so than the previous Government did, who recognised that there was an issue but never actually passed any legislation to deal with this issue. So that’s what this Government is doing, which is that we are going to regulate a currently completely unregulated advertising online for casino gambling issue that we face at the moment.

This bill will actually restrict advertising and it will restrict quite a lot of what is happening with online gambling at the moment. The difficulty is that in order to have a licenced regime that is legal, there also needs to be some incentives for people to want to participate in the legal market which means that you can allow for controlled advertising that will raise consumer awareness of who is a licenced operator in the online gambling space, and that provides choice to people who genuinely do want to gamble, who want to participate in that market.

That will actually help when people are faced with online gambling into the future, that there will be a prohibition on advertising for any unlicenced operators, but for those who are licensed, there will be very strict advertising requirements. I’m surprised that the member hasn’t seen it because I think it’s been online for quite a long time, but I’ve proactively released the Cabinet decisions about regulations and I think those went up, potentially, last year. But the final approvals will go through Cabinet with the intention of May this year. So, there’s that.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (21:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to also touch on clause 3, as well, because I think it’s a really important topic. My call will probably be short because a lot of it has been covered, but I guess it’s focusing on clause 3(c) as well, and the actual prevent harm from online casino gambling.

It’s a strong word, “prevent” ; to stop. I guess what you just said earlier was how do we limit harm? The Minister said “how do you limit harm.” So, immediately we go into that, basically, we can’t prevent it. So I’m just wondering, when I read through this, I can’t see how we actually prevent harm. So I’d love to know the Minister’s thoughts on actually how we prevent harm based on clause 3(c), especially when the Minister just said how do we “limit” harm.

Also, I just want to talk to an amendment that I have on clause 3(c), which is actually to add sixth purpose, which was a suggestion from Lotto NZ, and that was just to seek to control the growth of gambling. So that Amendment Paper 539 was to add another clause to limit or reduce the growth of online casino gambling. Because I think it’s really important that, actually, if we want to truly reduce harm, we don’t want to keep expanding online casino and gambling. I’d love the Minister to consider that and also talk to actually what is meant by “prevent harm”.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (21:34): Thanks, Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to ask further questions. Minister, you’ve talked about advertising and minimising harm, etc., and it’s really helpful that you also remind members where the information is online to help us further understand.

Minister, I want to focus my questions on advertising because I appreciate that you’ve pointed us to the information in terms of advertising but I want to question, firstly, how the officials provided the advice around advertising, because advertising is one word but can mean a lot of things. I want to ask in terms of things like standards, in terms of the targeted advertising, in terms of having an unlicensed forum at the moment, moving into the online, what’s been taken to Cabinet and also what you have provided in terms of select committee questions.

Advertising is a big area and the concern that I have is if we don’t get it right—particularly offshore advertising—young people have told select committee members that they are getting bombarded at the moment and saturation. I want to ask around the officials and the advice that they’ve given and the controls, and how will there be specific wording, specific tools, specific regulations on advertising? Because when the approval goes out, in terms of this bill, up to 15 licences from offshore companies will have the ability to move their product through advertising. What controls are in place? What is the formula that will be used for advertising and how will restrictions on online casino gambling—because the concern that we have is, at the moment. you’ve got a difference of land-based casinos in Aotearoa.

With online casino gambling, it is going to be a product that is available 24/7 in the leisure of your own home, individually. You don’t have to go physically, so it’s important that the restrictions and regulations for advertising—and specifically targeting what are the controls that are going to be in place and how stringent will they be? I appreciate that it has in the provisions and interpretation, but what does that mean and what advice did you receive?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:37): Look, I think we’re already starting to get off track in terms of the parts of the bill that we are talking about. You’ll note that Part 5 deals with the regulations and the minimum standards, with specific mention and reference to regulations relating to harm prevention and minimisation, and regulations relating to advertising and marketing.

This is Part 1, which is dealing specifically with the purpose and the preliminary provisions, so I would prefer if we could keep that to Part 5. In reference to Mike Davidson’s comment about whether or not we should have a new provision within the bill about limiting or reducing the growth of online casino gambling, I don’t believe that is necessary because ultimately the online casino gambling market, at the moment, is completely unregulated. The overall purpose of this bill is not to increase online gambling; it is simply to put ring-fencing around it, and safety provisions and consumer protection standards that don’t currently exist on that online space.

I think as we go through this debate, it also must be said there are genuine Kiwis who do wish to gamble online, who should be allowed access to that provision under the law because they are not problem gamblers. But, where people do have issue with gambling, that’s where the harm minimisation standards and the consumer protections do come in. This is not about prohibiting online gambling. It’s about a safer, regulated space for it to occur. That is not part of the overall purpose of the bill—to increase online gambling—so therefore, I don’t believe it’s necessary to also have a purpose to reduce the growth.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, before I take the next call, can I just alert you to the fact that we have had five questions on clause 3. They are explored in a huge amount of detail further in the bill, so I’m looking to move on from clause 3.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (21:39): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I just want to respond to a couple of things that the Minister has helpfully provided. One is, Minister, you have said that there is no hierarchy in the subsections (a) to (e), which is very helpful—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you on clause 3?

INGRID LEARY: I am on clause 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): After I’ve just explained that the detail is explored further in the bill.

INGRID LEARY: Madam Chair, if you will indulge me, the Minister, herself, has just said there’s no hierarchy, and what I would like to ask her about is why there is so detail in some of the definition sections about things pertaining to consumer protections rather than the harm minimisation, because, she, herself, has also just talked about consumer protection and harm minimisation interchangeably. I would like to understand, from the Minister, what the difference is in her mind and what evidence she has received about the difference between consumer protection, which is certainly set up in this bill, versus harm minimisation, which has been the subject of many of our questions.

This is highly relevant because what we are seeing here is a bill that simultaneously regulates a market while trying to expand it. The territorial provisions in it, which we will be coming to next, are very difficult to enforce, which, again, goes to the question of: what is the purpose? This is why we are so interested to find out what the authentic purpose of the bill is. The definitions are narrow and operator focused, and so, again, that speaks to the creation of a regulated sector more than the harm minimisation that she, herself, has said is equally as important in clause 3, in the “Purpose”, and the ecosystem that drives gambling may be left, largely, untouched. We’ve heard that from the Minister, where she is saying, “This is going to be better for New Zealanders.”. and she has refuted the suggestion that by creating a competitive, regulated market, which will incentivise people to advertise in New Zealand, that harm minimisation will not increase as a result of increased gambling.

Now, these are all really important and significant questions, and I could draw the Minister’s attention, if you like, to the definition section where were look at “advertisement” and we see how narrow it is. Why are influencers or streamers not included in that definition? Why is there is no reference to affiliate marketing? Why is it all about direct marketing? We know that technology and gambling marketing is becoming increasingly diverse and sophisticated. By keeping that definition really narrow, again, it speaks to a regulated industry more than it does to harm minimisation. It’s very much about the inputs and outputs of the regulated sector rather than what the outcomes will be of this bill. That is why have questioned so thoroughly on the purpose.

The other thing, just as an aside, while we support the community benefit in paragraph (e), I’d like to know, from the Minister, whether she perceives that there are perceptions that this could, therefore, look like a normalisation of gambling for the purposes of generating tax revenue. Certainly, that is one interpretation that I have seen in the submissions that went to the select committee, even though I didn’t sit on it.

The other questions I have are just in terms of the territorial part, which allows operators to operate in New Zealand from offshore—

Tim Costley: Which part are we on, Tom?

Tom Rutherford: Part 1.

Camilla Belich: This is the next section, which we haven’t discussed at all.

INGRID LEARY: I’m talking about clause 4. I mean I’ve got heaps more questions on clause 3, but I’ll take Madam Chair’s guidance.

On clause 4, which is about the territorial application, how does she expect this regime to be enforced when operators will have no legal presence in New Zealand? What are the specific enforcement mechanisms, given that her colleague, the Hon David Seymour, said on Radio New Zealand—inaccurately, actually—that the bill would contain technical blocking mechanisms, which is just not true. Did she give any consideration to things apart from blocking ads or payment that make it easy to bypass the system?

I’d like to understand much more clearly from the Minister how she is going to enforce these provisions, both for the regulated licence holders but, equally, for those who are not regulated, because the net result of creating this competitive market is that all operators will be incentivised to advertise in New Zealand.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (21:44): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I want to speak to my Amendment Paper 542, which is in relation to clause 5. I don’t know if anyone else other than myself and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan are gamers—and Fran—well, right now, in the Chamber but I generally want to engage in this amendment constructively with the Minister, and I’d love to get her view on expanding some of the definitions to include “loot boxes“. This is an Amendment Paper 542. It changes the definitions in clause 5 to include “loot boxes”.

Now, if the Minister is not a gamer, loot boxes are—I don’t know if she is. Is she? OK, great. Well, that’s good. If she is, that’s great. Maybe she’ll understand the subject matter. Basically, the idea is that expanding clause 5 to include “loot boxes” will allow the incorporation of a really problematic element in video games that relies on people, basically, relying on chance to be able to acquire in-game items that can only be acquired through in-game purchases. Now, loot boxes can often be a way to prey on gamers, particularly young gamers, to entice them into making microtransactions to acquire rare items, often with a very minute chance of them being able to get them. We have received feedback from concerned gamers, as well as parents, that these microtransactions and loot boxes can lead to addictive behaviour, and it’s, effectively, a form of gambling. It’s quite a genuine issue within online spaces, and it is a very form of modern online gambling.

This amendment would allow for loot boxes to be incorporated into what we considered online casino gambling technology, and I have provided in that amendment specific definitions of what a loot box would be considered to be, as well as the definition of a video game, with the intent of genuinely engaging constructively with the Minister to see whether she’s received feedback or heard about the damage that loot boxes can create in families and young people as a relatively new form of online gambling.

In my amendment, I have put two quite narrow lines to define what we consider a “loot box”. It talks about how it “in relation to a video game, means a virtual container, however described, that—(a) can be purchased or unlocked within the game; and (b) rewards players with an in-game digital item, where the exact reward the player is to receive is not disclosed to the player prior to purchase”. This is particularly where the harmful components are. In video games, often, you’ll be told that there’s the chance that you could get an item that is considered rare, very rare, or legendary, and that will be a way to actually invite people into spending money in these microtransactions. Because this is set by chance, this is where the gambling component comes into place.

Without adding loot boxes to the definition of “online casino gambling technology”, I’m worried that we’re leaving behind a growing area of harm in our communities, one that is actually quite broadly spoken about in online spaces and particularly within parent circles that have children who are gamers. I’ve seen firsthand within the gaming community how, particularly, young people end up getting drawn into gambling by starting off with loot boxes as the first point of contact into gambling, which can then mean that they end up participating in other forms of online casino gambling.

I wanted to ask if the Minister would be supportive of the idea of incorporating “loot boxes” as a definition of what we considered online casino gambler technology and as a genuine issue that our communities are facing—one that is genuinely creating harm and addictive behaviour in our communities and one where we would have the genuine opportunity to actually have this piece of legislation reflect the modern behaviours that we are seeing in online spaces, including within the gaming community. Loot boxes genuinely cause harm, and I want to bring this amendment forward in the best good-faith approach possible in the hope that we can modernise our definition of “online casino gambling technology”.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I thank the member for his contribution. I was a little distracted while I did some research with the Clerk about what a loot box was. Thank you for that education.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:49): Madam Chair, I wouldn’t want to excite too many members of the public about my knowledge of gaming, so I’ll try and keep my personal life to myself in this contribution. However, my understanding of the issue is that this relates to potential regulation of video games, which would be outside the definition of online casino gambling that Cabinet had agreed to, so therefore it would actually be outside the scope of this bill. For that reason, I don’t believe it’s appropriate to ban these products through this form of legislation, which is setting up a licensing regime for 15 online casino gambling licences. It’s not touching gaming.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to make a contribution in relation to clause 4, ”Territorial application”. This is really important, and the reason this is so important is because, under this bill as I understand it, there is no necessary benefit that will flow to New Zealand companies from the regulation of this market. This is something that did come up in the Governance and Administration Committee a lot—and, in fact, was one of the primary submissions from BusinessNZ. They concluded, in relation to this bill, that ”given that the bill, as it currently stands, envisages up to 15 licences”—which is still the case—”could be granted to allow the operator of online gambling casinos in New Zealand, without any requirement for the licensees to have a physical presence in the country, it is difficult to have confidence that its aims and goals will be fully met.” This is BusinessNZ saying that there should be some element of New Zealand companies benefiting from this change.

Whatever we all think about gambling—and I happen not to be a particular fan—if we are going to make a regime that benefits companies, and these 15 licensees will have a benefit, there could be, as BusinessNZ has advocated, myriad options that could mean that there is more likely to be those returns coming into New Zealand. The Minister of Internal Affairs has obviously decided not to have that as a particular part of this bill, and I’d be interested to know why that is the case. She may be able to confirm that the majority of online casino gambling that happens now is from overseas. Of course, we’re going to be clawing a little bit back with the community buy-back, but generally, as far as I’m aware, this could be all overseas companies that gain these 15 licences, and the majority or all of that money, mainly from vulnerable New Zealanders, will go overseas.

Clause 4, in relation to its territorial application, is important because it does set out who it applies to in terms of the fact that it applies to people, whether or not they are outside New Zealand, engaging with one of the licensees that have this, but there’s no requirement for the owners of those companies to be here in New Zealand. The Minister said to me, in the last contribution, that all of the details of the regulations are online. I’ve had a good look for those; I don’t know if she’s referring to the overall policy decisions that were in 2004, prior to the inclusion of community buy-back, that don’t in fact detail a lot of the areas that we’re interested in, which relate to the minimisation of harm. It could be that, I don’t know, I don’t have the correct link, but it would be good to know that.

Certainly, we were not provided with information about the details of regulations at the Governance and Administration Committee. That is my role in this; I’m not the spokesperson for this area, but I was on the select committee, and we were not able to see details of those regulations in advance. It could be that it’s published somewhere and I just haven’t found it, but I think it would be helpful to know that, and also to know why the decision was made not to have a New Zealand base or more of a New Zealand connection for these particular online casino gambling operators, because that is a particular concern of the business community and could bring benefit to the country.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (21:54): Madam Chair, thank you. I think I might be taking the last contribution for the night, potentially.

Look, I don’t know what information the member was referring to about information from 2004. I’m not sure I have read that one.

Camilla Belich: Sorry, 2024.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Oh, 2024. As far as I’m aware, the Cabinet decisions about the regulations have been uploaded online. I’m happy for you to chat to my officials afterwards to try and find the link—that’s no problem at all.

In terms of the licensed operators being from New Zealand or having a New Zealand base, there’s kind of two different distinct points to this. Firstly, the bill does enable both offshore and domestic operators to apply for a licence because it’s reflecting the reality of the status quo, which is that most online casino gambling in New Zealand is currently provided by offshore operators who operate outside of New Zealand law. I know there will be a number who will potentially be interested in being part of a legal regime. At the moment, there are people spending money online with those overseas companies, but there is also an international obligation that comes into play, which is that some of our free-trade agreements actually restrict us from prohibiting the licences to be only offered to domestic operators. It’s really important that we are upholding our international obligations in that regard.

In respect of the actual New Zealand addresses for New Zealand companies or for offshore companies, it’s also just a reflection of the way that the modern world operates. Modern online gambling markets operate across borders. Requiring a residence here in New Zealand does not prevent offshore providers from offering their products to people in New Zealand via the internet currently. It seems like a strange restriction to say that in order to do something that happens on the internet, they need to have a location in New Zealand. A market that is currently domiciled in New Zealand would shrink the pool of applicants; it would reduce competitive pressure; it would reduce consumer choice; and that would potentially channel consumers to more attractive options in an unregulated market. We also have to provide for a competitive online market that’s regulated.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. for the extended sitting. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Extended Sitting

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

Bills

Online Casino Gambling Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good morning, members. When we finished last night, we were on the Online Casino Gambling Bill, Part 1.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:00): Thanks, Mr Chair, and good morning to you all. We did begin Part 1 last night in terms of the online casino gambling, and my colleague who will join us shortly spoke about territorial applications. She covered a lot of questions just in terms of the fact that it is important that the licences will be undergoing an auction process.

I wanted to ask the Minister: in terms of the applications that would be considered under the process with the secretary for Internal Affairs, there was not, in the bill, the requirement to be domiciled in New Zealand—I’m focusing on clause 4—so the provisions apply regardless of whether the person is in or outside New Zealand. So what that basically means in terms of the licence, as I interpret it, is that the licensee, or the persons that will be setting up operations, will have the opportunity to make that decision based on operations, based on their industry, etc.

My question to the Minister is: what benefit will that have for New Zealanders in terms of this new online casino gambling? The concern is, and we heard this through a number of submitters, that if that requirement is that you do not have to be located in New Zealand with your operations, where is the economic benefit, or further economic benefit, for New Zealanders, particularly around employment? We know from statistics, and from a number of contributions in other bills, that a number of roles have been lost. So my question to the Minister is: what advice did she receive from officials in terms of that aspect or that component under this provision?

Secondly, I have quickly read the Cabinet papers, and there was a discussion—the reason I ask this question again, or want to reinforce this specific provision, is that in these economic times it is quite difficult for many Kiwis across the board. So, through the submission process, where we heard oral submissions on that specific requirement, what does New Zealand get out of it—not just the taxes and the levies that will be paid by the licence holders once they go through that whole process. I’d like to ask the Minister that.

Secondly, in terms of the provisions, how does that attract the dollars to remain in New Zealand if you’re going to be a licensee—I’m just going to quickly talk this through. So why was that decision made—on the basis of what New Zealand gets out of it. So we will receive the tax dollars and the levies, etc., in terms of that economic equation, but what about the relationship, especially when licence holders are going to be coming in from overseas—obviously they’re a big industry because they can make those decisions economically for their operations. I want to know what advice was received, and specifically around further operations located in New Zealand. So it’s not just that you’re coming through to set up your business but what about the other spin-offs, the good spin-offs—what advice did the Minister receive?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:04): I hate to say this because it’s the first contribution I’m making today, but a lot of that contribution was already made by me yesterday, and I’ve addressed quite a lot of the member’s questions in response to her other colleague.

But just to flesh it out further, the overall benefit of doing this is that we end up with a regulated market, whereas, at the moment, it is completely unregulated. Once again, I just reiterate that last night I said that our free-trade agreements restrict us from prohibiting licences to be only offered to domestic operators. Then the question is: well, will some of them who go for a licence through the auction potentially be based here in New Zealand? Possibly, possibly, but if that’s what the rules, through our free-trade agreements, wish us to do, I’m sure there will be some New Zealand - based companies that would like to put themselves forward for an auction.

But the important point is that we need a competitive market, and if there are thousands of offshore unlicensed operators currently active in the unregulated market, it is important for us to retain a competitive market, because the difficulty is if you just allowed for a number of small New Zealand - based licence holders, a lot of people would not find that competitive and have the range of offerings that would happen because there would still be thousands of black market offshore operators around.

So it’s about channelling people into a market that they’d actually like to participate in, but putting those harm minimisation and consumer protection standards around it so people are better off than they are now, following no progress made by the previous Government for six years.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:06): Thank you. I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, it is important to recognise that when you’ve got some information through the bill—you know, we’ve gone through a whole process—there’s a lot that we don’t know, hence the questions that I ask. I appreciate that you’re elaborating in terms of the fact that some of the licence holders, once they go through the auction process, possibly could be locating their operations in New Zealand. But that does not give me comfort in terms of the requirement.

So it’s going to be up to an overseas industry company that’s been successful overseas, and they’re going to choose to go through the auction process, and they may be successful. The point I want to stress is that there should be accountability—and, yes, I’ve seen the provisions that are outlined here, but to attract some of the companies that will be going through the auction process, there needs to be a stronger requirement to New Zealanders that if you’re going to do these operations and you’re going to set up shop, that’s a good thing, but what we don’t know is how much capacity you are going to bring through New Zealand doors. Sure, you’re going to have to be paying taxes and levies, with all the different laws that are going to be set up under this bill, but you don’t actually have—or we don’t know that you’re going to have—a relationship in person with your company, etc., and your set-up, and that you’re going to help New Zealanders through this very large process. There’s a lot that we don’t know.

So I’m asking the questions on behalf of the submitters that came to see us, or came through the submission process: why are the successful licence holders not having to be located here in New Zealand? It’s not just about their online operations; they’ve got a commitment to New Zealand consumers.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:08): I do hate to state the obvious, but in a modern online world, a lot of people don’t need to be based in the physical world in order to have a relationship within one country. A lot of countries are across borders, or multi-jurisdictions, and we do have the ability to have online meetings to hold people accountable—not necessarily face to face; we can do this in the online world. So I don’t necessarily believe it is important for us to have a physical presence in New Zealand when we’re dealing with a completely online market.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. I just need to say, members, that a new day and new speakers does not mean that the material we’ve done yesterday is somehow disregarded. We are starting to get a little bit repetitive and we’ll be looking for some new information, bearing in mind that the debate did go on for some time yesterday.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (09:09): Thank you, Mr Chair, for that direction. I have a question for the Minister regarding subclause (6) of clause 4, and then I’ll move on to clause 5 in terms of the definition.

Minister, yesterday you mentioned the free-trade agreement (FTA), and I think that’s a really important question I want to ask in relation to clause 6. But I guess the broader question is while some of the new agreements, for example, like the New Zealand - United Kingdom FTA, the New Zealand European Union FTA, and the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) don’t necessarily have investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses, some of the older ones, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, do have some of those clauses.

Minister, you mentioned in terms of the FTAs—has there been any advice been given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade around whether limiting the number of, potentially, offshore registrations for online casino gambling to 15 would imply that there is anti-competitive behaviour, which is what the Minister also mentioned yesterday, that would potentially trigger an ISDS clause in one of our FTAs—if that’s been a consideration?

The second question is specifically on clause 4(6), which is the requirement to provide information regardless of whether it’s in or outside of New Zealand. Do we know if there’s any analysis being done on whether that potentially interferes both in terms of the e-commerce chapters of our free-trade agreements and Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, CEPA, or whether other information sharing and privacy jurisdictions of other countries will also play into that? I’m asking this specifically from the angle of subclause (6), noting that the ability for the Secretary for Internal Affairs to request information is further along in the piece. This is the specific overseas angle I’m looking at.

Into clause 5, I want to start with a couple of questions around the definition for “advertisement”. I want to pick up on a question last night from Ingrid Leary that I don’t think we got a response to yet around the idea of streamers and also influencers, and I want to check with you, Minister, on whether those people would be encompassed under the definition, under (a), of “advertisement”, under “sponsorship”—would “sponsorship” capture these other areas, if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating the House? That’s my second question.

My third and final question for the time being is around clause 5(b)(v)—this is “advertisement”. I’m curious about this part. This is an exemption to what is considered advertisement: “any communication described in paragraph (a) that is made in the course of broadcasting a physical sporting event that is held outside New Zealand”. Let’s take the Winter Olympics as an example. Congratulations to our medal winners. If—oh, I’m blanking on her name.

Francisco Hernandez: Zoi.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Zoi. Yes. Zoi got two silvers. I was like, it’s “something-o-i”; what’s the first consonant?

Now, in terms of the physical sporting event, can I just check, when we’re talking about “the course of broadcasting”, it is, for example, while people are watching the live stream of the Winter Olympics, and the online gambling ad appears as a physical form in the background of an event or is part of the streaming in itself, that is exempted, because we have no control over that, but this does not extend to, for example, if they intersect or interrupt the live stream or the broadcasting of a physical sporting event overseas with an online gambling ad—would that be a correct interpretation of it? Let’s say you go: sporting event; interruption; ads, ads, ads; sporting event. Are the ads part also exempted under 5(b)(v), or is it not? Those are my three questions.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (09:13): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to look at clause 4(5), and I want to ask some questions about the practicality of actually pursuing an offence under this Act. Now, the first thing I want to ask is—in that clause, we have the use of the word “person”, and when I look at the definition section, there is no definition. Is it intended that “person” would include any entity, and would there be personal liability? In difficult situations, we often choose to make people personally liable, even if they’re sheltering behind a company. This seems to me to be one of those instances where that is extremely important.

When I look at the subpart on the offences which relates to this, I can see that the offence is actually going to have a fine attached to it. I want to know whether it’s intended that for each offence, there would be a separate course of action. You’ve got in this situation, where you’re looking at participating in online harm on behalf of a person under the age—if there is more than one person, is there more than one penalty that is possible under that?

I’m also interested in the limitation that comes into place here of two years. Usually, when we have offences, we limit at six years at the very least, or we have no limit on a criminal offence. I’m not sure about the logic here when I can see that it’s very difficult to prosecute people outside of a country. Wouldn’t we be better, in this situation, given subclause (5), to make that as broad as possible, to cast that net, and to make it uneconomic? If you’ve got people in a different jurisdiction already, you’re going to have trouble, and then you’ve got people sheltering behind a company, if that is the person in this case. It seems to me worrying that we are not broadening this as far as possible, and in fact we seem to be limiting it to two years. I’d be really interested to know about that.

The general question behind this, Minister, is my concern that what we’re dealing with is rogues, and they are outside of our jurisdiction. There is a purporting clause here that says we’re going to catch people even if they’re operating off our shores. The Minister is saying we’re doing this because it’s the Wild West, but how attentive have we been to it being the Wild West? How creative have we been about making sure that we’re casting the widest possible net?

Practically, I think New Zealanders would like to know how the Minister intends to make sure that people who breach this law internationally are going to be held to account. What I can’t see are ways that are very practical in terms of—it’s a sort of ambulance at the bottom of the cliff issue, because it doesn’t seem that practical in terms of how we would do that. Pursuing debt outside of a country, or a criminal offence for people outside of the country, or people obscured, is difficult. I’m not saying it’s easy, but there are ways we could do this—through technology, for example. We could block people, etc., and it may be that that’s a wider issue. We could stop them operating in some ways. We’ve done that in other areas of the internet.

Why have we gone down this track? How confident is the Minister in terms of how we are going to catch people? Why did we set these limits and these amounts in particular, and who do they apply to? Those are the questions. Thank you, Minister.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will firstly respond to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions about our free-trade agreements just to say that the advice that I have received is that we are compliant with our legal obligations and free-trade agreements.

There was also a question about physical sporting events that occur overseas and the advertisements within them. Look, this exemption is because we don’t have jurisdiction over broadcasting that is sourced from overseas for overseas events. Therefore, if an unlicensed company in New Zealand is potentially advertising in a country where they do have jurisdiction and they are allowed to advertise, it could fall that we start banning the ability to see Olympic Games or other events. I don’t think that would be the purpose of this law.

To the question, then, from Helen White, the definition of a person and an operator will be used interchangeably in prosecution matters. Ultimately, it depends on liability and on whether a person or an operator is penalised, but she also had questions about the enforcement powers that we do have in overseas territorial applications. The bill itself provides for a range of enforcement tools to ensure that the regime is effective. The Secretary for Internal Affairs will be able issue take-down notices and formal warnings; use enforceable undertakings; apply pecuniary penalties, including fines of up to $5 million; and cancel licences where operators fail to comply.

The Department of Internal Affairs is already the regulator for gambling in New Zealand, and I’m confident it is well positioned to enforce this new system as well, but given that there is, essentially, a very borderless nature happening in the online environment, the bill does include specific information-gathering and information-sharing powers that do allow the secretary to obtain the information needed to regulate effectively and share relevant information with overseas regulators where appropriate as well. The extra-territorial application will apply to enable the take-down notices and enforceable undertakings even if the operator is based overseas.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (09:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister has raised the issue of competition, and I’d like to do a back-and-forth exchange if you will indulge me. My first question is: how does the Minister see that a competitive environment will impact on gambling uptake in New Zealand? Will it increase or decrease gambling?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:21): It’s quite simple. We are allowing for 15 licences. At the moment, due to previous Governments’ failure to act in this space, there are thousands of unregulated companies that people can use in the online world now, so it’s not that we are adding to the competition. We are quite simply putting competition inside a regulated market.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (09:22): The Minister previously talked quite eloquently about the virtues of competition, and given that she gave a circuitous answer to my question, I would say that the answer is that competition will increase gambling, and, therefore, I would like to understand how increasing gambling within this regulated market is going to decrease harm. What evidence does she have of that?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:22): The whole purpose of competition within the bill as it is drafted is for choice for people who want to participate in a regulated gambling market online. At the moment, there are thousands of unregulated companies that are offering in the New Zealand market. We are constraining that to 15 licensed providers. However, if you went too low and made it a smaller regulated market, the real trade-off there is that people who do want to gamble online—where it is legal and they should be able to—would have less competition, less choice, and, therefore, there would be more ability or more desire to use the black or unregulated market. Putting 15 companies into a regulated market makes for a safer market.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (09:23): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’re getting close. Keep it tight and specific and refer to a section, please.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have some new material to go over, and I just wanted to clarify that Part 1 is also covering the first schedule. I believe it is, but I just seek some clarification on that, because that’s obviously an important schedule for us to look at as well. I have some questions around the definition section, which we haven’t—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Yes, it does cover the schedule.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you. We’ll need to cover that in this debate as well before we move on. The questions that I have really were around whether the interpretation clause, clause 5, which is part of Part 1, is sufficient to be able to properly be futureproofed in the sense of how quickly technology in this area is moving. Specifically, I wanted to refer to the definition in clause 5(a). Artificial intelligence isn’t specifically listed here, and I wondered whether that would be something that may mean that the definition of “advertisement” is too narrow to cover some of the new technologies that might be emerging. I appreciate that it is intended to be written in a broad way, but I do think one of the issues that we will have with a bill like this is the fact that we’re regulating an online space that is changing every day, and it’s not desirable for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation—despite the fact that we disagree with this legislation—that will soon be outdated and will need to be updated.

Additionally, I have a question around a change that was made at select committee, and that was clause 5(b)(iv). This states that any communication for administrative purposes is not considered to be an advertisement. That will, hopefully, be read in a very narrow way but I would appreciate the Minister’s confirmation of that, because I don’t think we would want a situation where someone was an existing customer of an online casino gambling platform and they were already in communication and actually the administrative purposes for the company were to actually remind that person that they in fact were an option for spending their time and money on. That is a change that has come in at select committee. I just wanted to double check that the Minister feels that that is sufficient. Also, I think it would be helpful to be on the record. My understanding is that it’s narrow and it is purely for transactional communication, but it would be good to get the Minister’s view on that.

I have another question in relation to the interpretation clause and that is on the definition of “communication device”. This literally defines a communication device as “machine, device, or thing”—or just “a thing”. In many ways, maybe having a broader definition will allay some of my concerns in relation to the outdatedness of it, but also it appears to be so broad that it could be “a thing”. Those are the questions I have on the interpretation clause.

I do have some questions in relation to Schedule 1, which is, essentially, putting in place the time limits for when this particular bill will come into effect, and we can see that because of some, perhaps, delay or view that this would have gone through a little bit faster, some of the dates have been updated in the version I’m looking at, which is the select committee version, and you can see that what we thought would happen in July 2026 is now happening in December 2026.

You will note, Mr Chair, that the question I have for the Minister is: given the fundamental changes in this bill, would the Minister not consider extending those time lines out to make sure that we have all of the regulatory harm minimisations in place and that we have everything set up in terms of making sure that everything is in place before we allow these online casino gamblers to advertise, which may indeed cause them harm?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:28): Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking to all of those questions, I’m also interested in futureproofing for new technologies, and artificial intelligence (AI) is one of those areas. The regulations do actually allow for the regulatory framework to respond quickly to changes in technology, which is why we haven’t been so explicit within the law but we are becoming more explicit within the regulations so that we can adapt to new technology over time. AI is one of those areas where the regulations can give the member some comfort.

There was a question about a change for communications for administrative purposes. The answer to this is yes; it is only for administrative purposes, so the member is correct. She had a concern about the definition of “communication device” being quite broad and referring to any other communication or things, and that, once again, just goes back to the overall issue of AI. It’s intentionally broad to deliberately futureproof for new technologies.

In terms of the question regarding the timing of this bill coming into force, I do consider that the time frames are reasonable because the regulations will be in place before people can advertise.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT) (09:30): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 3 as set out on Amendment Paper 539 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Mike Davidson’s amendment to insert new clause 4A as set out on Amendment Paper 540 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 541 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 533 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 544 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 543 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 5 as set out on Amendment Paper 542 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Part 2 Online casino gambling

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 8 to 36, “Online casino gambling”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (09:37): Thank you, Mr Chair. This, Part 2, is really the part that sets up the regulated regime. I’m going to try a different tactic to try and get through all my questions in one hit, so that I can get some answers. I note that we’ve heard a lot of ideological responses from the Minister about why she thinks certain things will or won’t happen, but the questions have been very much about asking for evidence and modelling.

So I will ask in relation to this section, on clause 9 of Part 2: why has she opted for a cap versus a public health framework? If the public health and power minimisation is indeed one of the core purposes of this bill, which she has reiterated many times, then surely it would have been better to limit the scale, availability, and intensity of the online products rather than simply focusing on the regulation.

So if she could please explain what evidence and briefings did she have from officials when she looked at this part, to determine what was the right model: a cap on licensing versus other approaches which would have reduced the scale, intensity, and availability of online gambling; or did she even undertake that exercise?

When I say that, it’s with a bit of cynicism because I can see from a note on 16 January—official advice to Minister van Velden—there’s a whole lot of things here around revenue focus of the briefing that she was given. There were discussions around advertising regulations; there was advertising discussed prior to harm minimisation; there were consumer protections discussed but there really wasn’t any discussion until much later on—I think it was around March— that the harm minimisation piece came into play.

Further questions I have are: if harm minimisation is a function of this bill, why is she allowing multi-year licences rather than having the ability to monitor what is happening in terms of harm and then being able to make a final decision about the licences? Under clause 12, the secretary can invite expressions of interest, and there are public notices that must specify a number of things. That includes the number of licences, the minimum amount of capital, and the date by which an expression of interest must be submitted. Why is there nothing in there about the track record of the licence applicant on harm minimisation, and what would happen if they had a bad track record of minimising harm? Clause 12 seems to be completely silent in that regard.

When we look at clause 14, paragraph (ca), which was added—and I believe that was after the Governance and Administration Committee received a lot of submissions around community purpose—it says: “information about any contribution that the person makes or intends to make for community purposes in New Zealand”. Can the Minister please explain how that will be weighted, and, more importantly, where is the accountability for that? If somebody offshore states that they’re going to do a number of beneficial things for New Zealand with their licence, how does she make sure or how does the Secretary for Internal Affairs acting on her behalf make sure that that has indeed happened, or is there no accountability in this bill, which seems to be the case? If there isn’t, should she consider, in the very many regulatory-making powers that are contained later in this bill, something where there could be an accountability mechanism for that? What we see is all these promises of community benefit that have been added, but, like many other provisions in this bill, there doesn’t seem to be any true accountability.

We also look at clause 18(1)(a)(iii), where “harm prevention and minimisation strategy” is one of many criteria that can be considered in information to accompany the licensing application. There’s no mention again of weighting. It just seems to be in a long list of things that could be considered. There doesn’t seem to be any requirement for that information to be released publicly. Would the Minister consider making regulations so that the public can see what paperwork has been provided around that?

In my last few seconds, it would just be good to note that the Minister talked about information sharing. Later on, we’ll be asking questions about what information will be going to public health officials to help minimise harm.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:43): Thank you. I will kick off with a couple of the answers to Ingrid Leary’s questions, starting with why we considered a licensing framework. Look, the licensing framework was seen as the best way to limit the unregulated market. Capping the number of licences at 15 struck the reasonable balance between providing choice for consumers and ensuring a reasonably competitive market. With managing regulatory complexity and cost, harm minimisation is a core purpose of the bill, and operators will have to comply with harm minimisation regulations.

The next question, in relation to the licence, was: why are we allowing for multi-year licences? There’s a couple of really simple points for this. Firstly, most overseas jurisdictions that do allow for online gambling markets have a duration period ranging from one to five years. The proposed licence duration balances the need to provide certainty for licensed operators investing in the market with opportunities to possibly have new market entrants while managing the regulatory costs. It’s a balancing act.

There was also a question about why we do not need a track record of companies and their compliance. The answer is, yes, we do. They do need to know a track record as part of the licensing process. There is a three-step process for granting the licences, and the Secretary for Internal Affairs will be looking and considering a company’s track record.

To the question of why is it that we haven’t weighted any particular harm prevention strategies over and above other requirements of the law: the strategies must show that they follow regulations as a company and would be suitable to hold a licence, and so that is all part of a suite of information that is required for a company to apply for a licence and meet the criteria for licensing. It’s important that the Secretary for Internal Affairs has access to the information, but, ultimately, all of those bits are up for consideration.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (09:45): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank you for the answers, Minister. I’d like to go back to clause 8, “Functions of Secretary”. I do have an Amendment Paper in that will go through, and I specifically want to look at clause 8(e), “to maintain a public register with details of operators and licences.” My Amendment Paper wishes to add: “to maintain the register of persons for online casino gambling established by regulations.”

Minister, we had a number of submitters that came through, in terms of the oral submissions. One of the things that this bill will do, and I have heard the reasons you have put forward specific provisions and are working with the secretary in terms of regulations. What I do want to highlight is that we’ve heard from a lot of students—university students over the age of 18—about the saturation of advertising. It’s become quite normalised in terms of gambling advertising. You’ve also elaborated on unlicensed operators, which is why we’ve got the bill before us. However, I do want to ask specific questions as to when the secretary will be considering—and there’s a process that will have to be gone through—and what are the components of the considerations for licensed operators that are coming in from overseas?

I’d like to draw your attention to one of the submissions that we received from Te Rangihaeata Oranga Trust, which is located in the Hawke’s Bay region. One of the things that the submitters raised in their written submission was the threat of addiction from more gambling, and while you’ve addressed the number of unlicensed operators that operate currently, we’ve then also got the issue of social media influences. This specific trust wanted to highlight to the select committee that gambling addiction is a significant public health issue in New Zealand as we speak. They also wanted to raise in their submission that the Online Casino Gambling Bill must “uphold its duty to protect and care for whānau … preventing further harm.” What will be the assessment that the regulator or the secretary makes, specifically when you require a public register so that the public can understand who is responsible for a licence? How can we contact them? We have significant concerns that the harm minimisation or harm reduction plans that will be registered under licensees just don’t go far enough.

There is also the issue around addiction. We have heard a number of submissions that have come through specifically around how the bill will strengthen harm minimisation and protect New Zealanders from online gambling harm. The worry is, Minister, that while land-based casinos are currently a thing that you go into, online gambling through this bill, through this legislation, will be available 24/7. What protections will the secretary take into account for consumers in terms of what a number of vulnerable communities have raised through this bill? One of the good things about my Amendment Paper that I’ve put through is that it addresses the situation where you’re trying to get a balance of an economic benefit versus social harm minimisation and consumer protections. We’re going to keep asking those questions—because for vulnerable communities that are already being exposed to this type of marketing in terms of saturation, how strong are those protections going to be? How will the public—through these licences once they go through the processes—be protected, Minister? How will the issue of young people who are at universities up and down this country and the issue of the saturation of advertising that is already coming on their phones be addressed? I would like to ask the Minister those specific questions.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (09:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to take on and extend those questions so the Minister can, hopefully, answer my questions at the same time as she answers the questions that were just asked by Lemauga Lydia Sosene because they’re really coming out of my portfolio. I have the community and voluntary sector as one of my portfolios, and I also have the sexual and family violence portfolio. I visit organisations that are at the pointy end of this—for example, Asian Family Services would be one—where I hear stories of addiction that is actually really harming families. It’s also difficult to capture in data the damage of that, and that’s because communities are quite scattered.

My question for the Minister is: how confident is she that we have a capacity to measure the harm cause by this type of gambling versus other types of gambling? The communities that are affected are often younger, but they’re also culturally diverse—so people coming in with a different culture in terms of gambling and with a level of isolation, quite often. The stories that I’ve heard from somewhere like Asian Family Services are completely heartbreaking. They’re about families just totally devastated by a problem gambler in their family, and often that behaviour has been part of their lives even before they’ve come to New Zealand because of the culture that they’ve come from. What I want to know is how much investigation there has been of that aspect and how much confidence does the Minister have that she knows the cost that the New Zealand taxpayer, for example, but also the families are paying for an extension into this area.

Then there’s the issue of youth, and it’s been raised a few times, but I don’t think we’ve been specific enough yet on that. Ricardo Menéndez March talked yesterday about a particular pathway in through gaming, but we know this world of the internet is playing out really differently for younger people because they’re completely acclimatised to it. There isn’t the attraction to going somewhere where those limits are; there is the blending of this with other parts of their online existence. How much did the Minister find out about that changing phenomenon?

We’ve just had an inquiry, which was cross-party and widely supported, into the issue of online harm. What I would like to know from the Minister, in addition to what I’ve asked, is how much crossover was there in terms of that report and that investigation? I think some of the submitters in that inquiry changed the minds and the understanding of those listening to those submissions to the extent that there was a wide consensus across the crisis that we face in this issue and a desire to really take leadership in this area. What I’m worried about is that this area is actually subject to almost a counterforce in the area of online gambling as we open up to those vulnerabilities and the very same people are being affected in this way.

These are genuine questions. I’m very, very worried about the influence that an international online lack of involvement is having, and I would like the Minister to go further than simply saying that she is regulating, because she is also making money out of these things. This does look like the Minister is going to make money out of it—sorry, not the Minister. It is a motivation here that there will be money made, but if the money, even at a very selfish level of—[Time expired]

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (09:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will answer some of the queries that have come up so far, but I do just want to make it absolutely clear for anyone who’s listening that I am not profiting off this; I am simply the Minister passing through this law. It would be very improper if I was making a personal fortune, and so please refer to the Minister and the Government, rather than myself.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene has concerns about advertising for young people and the harm that it can cause. I also share some of those concerns. This bill goes some way to addressing, I believe, the concerns that she has raised because the bill specifies that the regulations will set out arrangements for operators and what they can and cannot do in terms of advertising and sponsorship. The Government has already agreed to the prohibition of sponsorship as part of the regime and, in the regulations, the prohibition of using endorsements for licensed operators’ products. This covers things like social media influencers—people who would be personally profiting by endorsing a licensed operator’s products. I know that concern comes from young people seeing influencers and potentially thinking that could be seen a good thing if someone is getting paid for an promoting a product. That is why we are limiting social media influence.

One of the other things that I have heard, though, which I think would be useful to address, is quite a lot of the concern about young people and the ads that they’re receiving on social media for gambling are actually outside of this bill. This bill doesn’t go into sports betting, and I’ve seen a number of articles and concerns in the community relating to sports betting ads, and those are actually external to this regime, because this is not about sports betting. That’s actually a different part of the law.

There was a concern about maintaining a register where people can go to get information. The information about operators will be available on a website, and this is likely to be one hosted by the Department of Internal Affairs. There was also a question about what the Secretary for Internal Affairs will consider when they’re weighing up all the information. The secretary will be evaluating all of the information that they’re provided as part of the application process, as per the purposes of the bill and the licensing information required from the companies.

Helen White also then asked how confident I am that this will in some way minimise harm. Well, it’s got to be better than the six years that Labour did nothing to regulate this space. It is a completely unregulated market at the moment. One of the really important core components of this law is that, at the moment, the companies that are online are not paying into the problem gambling levy. As part of this law, the licensed companies will be paying into a problem gambling levy that will go some way to helping harm prevention activities. It will fund treatment and support services, community-based interventions, and research and evaluation to limit and prevent online gambling harm. That’s got to be better than the status quo.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next call, there are six parts to this bill. Obviously, each part is not a new opportunity to revisit the broad issues. They were very much covered in the first part. This part of the bill is very much the mechanics of the bill, so, really, what we won’t be able to do is revisit the broad issues around this in each part. If we can concentrate on the part, please.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (09:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have some specific questions in relation to Part 2, Subpart 1. My first question is in relation to the functions of the Secretary for Internal Affairs. In this bill, the Secretary for Internal Affairs is given, essentially, almost the entire responsibility to administer this new regime. They have to administer the licensing regime and investigate breaches. They have to monitor, they have to investigate complaints, they have to maintain a public register, and they have to prescribe minimum standards and approve forms. This is a significant amount of work that the secretary is being provided with.

What I wanted to ask the Minister is what Budget bids has she done to ensure that the Secretary for Internal Affairs will be able to perform these tasks above and beyond what it is doing at the moment. What plans has the Secretary for Internal Affairs provided her with on how this will be run within Internal Affairs? Have any steps been taken in order to allow this regime to be initiated at the time? We’ve already discussed that there’s a relatively short time frame for such a complex bill, so what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that her ministry is in a position to be able to fully implement the tasks, which are far-reaching?

The other question I have in relation to that is expertise and skills. This is obviously something which hasn’t been specifically done within New Zealand before, so what assurances has she had from the Secretary for Internal Affairs that those setting up this regime and administering it will have the skills and expertise to be able to make sure that this is done effectively? I’m sure that the Minister would have taken those steps and will be able to respond to me about the steps that she has taken.

The second specific question I have, in relation, again, to Subpart 1 in Part 2, which we are on, is on the interaction between this regime and New Zealand lotteries. Now, this is something that came up very regularly in submissions. Although there was generally an overwhelming feeling from submitters that gambling produced social harm in New Zealand and there was a feeling that we did not want to see a proliferation or increase in gambling, there was also a lot of understanding about the fact that lotteries provide a lot to the community within New Zealand and there isn’t another option in terms of providing support to a lot of these community organisations and a lot of the good work that the lotteries does.

You’ll see that that’s reflected in a lot of the changes that the Governance and Administration Committee made to this bill, specifically in relation to clause 9(1)(c). It was specifically excluded from New Zealand lotteries. Then also we see in clause 9(2) that the Lotteries Commission is excluded, so I wanted to ask the Minister what assurances she has had that the cumulative changes to maintain lotteries as a separate regime will be maintained.

Additionally, even though the select committee did quite a lot of work to ensure that lotteries will be excluded from the ambit of this bill—I think that has been really, really, really clear, and I want to acknowledge the committee and the officials for the work that they’ve done to make sure that that is specifically stated—there was an additional concern that submitters raised around the impact on lotteries that may occur due to more people potentially participating in online casino gambling. So I wanted to ask if she’d had any specific advice that there would be any impact on the existing regulated gambling that we do have in New Zealand. Obviously, of course, we have a lot of goodwill that comes from that.

There have been a few comments on the harm of online gambling. I wanted to specifically ask: what in the regulations in relation to clause 10 will prohibit or protect children from being exposed to advertising that is for online gambling?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. I guess the first question is that in clause 8, the Secretary for Internal Affairs performs both the function of the regulator but also the enforcer. I wanted to check whether the Minister has received any advice around the idea of one person or one agency performing both roles. As the Minister would appreciate, evidence of good governance is that the regulator and the enforcer often don’t sit under one particular agency. The reason for that is that it’s hard for them to, essentially, self-regulate and self-assess based on rules that they have determined. We see that throughout various other agencies as well, so I just wanted to check if that has been a consideration.

I do want to move on to clause 13 and the start of clause 14. We’re looking at Subpart 2 in terms of licensing process. In line with the first question I asked, clause 13(1)(b)—and I know that this appears a couple of times later on. If there is a specific requirement for the public notice, and there’s a specific requirement for a person to express interest within 20 working days of the public notice, what circumstances would permit the secretary to grant a longer period beyond the 20 working days? Is the ability for the secretary to extend that also going to be available as part of that public notice so that way everyone will be able to be eligible to have a longer extended period of time, or will it be a case by case process, in which case how would that be made transparent and made equitable for all of the people who are applying to submit an expression of interest? That’s my second question.

My final question for the time being is a new addition after the Governance and Administration Committee process in clause 14(ca), which is information about any contribution that a person makes or intended to make for community purposes in New Zealand. I wondered, when we’re looking at this in conjunction with clause 14(b), which is each key officer’s full name, position, title, physical address, and contact details—we’ve already established previously that a person can be both within New Zealand as well as overseas, so it would be understandable that the physical address could be an overseas address.

But if we’re looking at information about any contribution that the person makes or intended to make for community purposes, would that mean that the person will also need to set up an incorporated society in New Zealand for any of those community-based purposes? Is that a requirement that’s needed? Under the Incorporated Societies Act, it requires at least the director of the incorporated society to have a physical address in New Zealand. I would be interested to know if that’s a likely scenario or interaction that is likely going to happen. Those are my three questions for the time being.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (10:08): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I don’t think we’re quite ready for that motion. Good try, though.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (10:08): Oh, thanks, Madam Chair. I have some questions around the provision in clause 10, and I do have an Amendment Paper on the Table.

I’d like to ask the Minister in terms of this—and you’ve touched on some of the prohibitions for those young people under 18. My Amendment Paper speaks to the fact that I want to add in that the operator is enforced with monitoring systems to prevent people under 18 years old from participating in a platform consistent with an obligation in clause 38, which is around consumer protections to ensure gamblers are at least 18 years old.

What I’d like to ask the Minister is what advice from the officials in terms of actually identifying and protecting our young people, specifically those that are under 18 years old—we know a number of young people under the age of 18 years old do carry around their devices for education purposes, also for contact with parents and the like. A number of them have devices or their phones. How will the regulator ensure that around the limitations around identifying that there are going to be very strong protections to protect children? In earlier contributions, there was a real concern from those who actually don’t gamble, because they come across these advertisements pretty much daily.

What I wanted to know is: what advice was given to the Minister around consumer protection, specifically protecting our young people under the age of 18, but also around saturation on devices, etc.? It’s really important that the regulator’s obligations are intact. Will there be restrictions around content? Will there be stronger enforcements around advertising? I recognise that licence holders, once they go through the process, won’t have to be located in New Zealand. Minister, you’ve talked about how a lot of operations can be done online, but in terms of protecting our young people, which is the basis of my Amendment Paper, how will this be done? Has the regulator got strong conditions? If you could explain that based on evidence rather than having ideology, policies, or provisions—how has that been done, and based on what evidence was that provided to internal affairs? Then, moving forward, what will be the review process in terms of the secretary having very robust systems in place?

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (10:11): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions. The first one actually relates to an amendment I have, and it’s Amendment Paper 556. It inserts a new clause, clause 8A, to go after 8. It’s to actually ensure that the Secretary for Internal Affairs is obliged to have effective means of seeking the views of others, especially people that are obviously impacted by the harms of gambling. This amendment replicates section 13 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Act. It imposes that obligation to seek those views, just to ensure that there is meaningful consultation. I actually think it’s a really important component for this Act to ensure that we do try and minimise and prevent harm as much as possible. I’m just wondering whether the Minister has actually sought any advice prior to me putting this amendment in about how the secretary will consult with those affected parties that actually do suffer more from gambling harm than other demographics.

I also have a question around clause 29. It talks in clause 29 about how, if the secretary was to propose to suspend or cancel a licence—in 29(1)(b)—they need to give at least 20 working days to respond. I was just wondering what the mechanisms are, actually, if there is a licence holder that is creating significant harm and how that can be shortened so that, therefore, there is not a 20-day working period and so that it can be revoked immediately.

Also, I just want to quickly touch on the amendments that I’ve put relating to clause 10, because I did notice earlier you talked around the impact of sport betting in social media, and that’s been seen quite a lot. Once we have these 15 licensed operators, then social media is going to not just have sport betting; it’s going to have these online casino gambling sites as well. That’s just going into people’s pockets 24/7. My amendments around clause 10 are to actually prohibit all forms of advertising to really reduce and prevent that harm coming from gambling. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:14): Thank you. Look, I will go some way to answer many of the questions that we’ve had this morning. Camilla Belich has asked about the impact that this new regime will have on Lotto. The overall point is that the clauses specified in here about Lotto are that operators will not be able to offer Lotto products, for the reason that Lotto provides a community benefit. It is hard to know what will happen in the future with Lotto, but one of the things—and I’m sure my other colleague in the House Lemauga Lydia Sosene will be able to also talk to her about—is the fact that for the past two years, Lotto has had record level profits and it’s doing better than ever, especially as it has actually moved to its own online or app-based version of its products itself. It’s very much set up for the modern world and competing with people who like to gamble.

Camilla Belich also asked about functions of the Secretary for Internal Affairs and what Budget bids I had done. Look, the operators themselves will pay levies to recover the costs of running the regime. That’s part of the regulations. There are not going to be ongoing, ongoing, ongoing Budget bids in order to keep the regulator working.

Camilla Belich has also asked about the expertise and skills within the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and if I have confidence in the staff within DIA to regulate the new market. DIA is already an experienced regulator in gambling as well as online environments, because they deal with child sexual exploitation content as well as online terrorism content. Within the money side, they deal with anti – money-laundering, and they are the regulator for that across Government. DIA is the appropriate place with the appropriate skills.

Camilla Belich also asked about the protections for people under the age of 18, which came up with a number of colleagues. The bill does require operators to ensure and verify that gamblers are at least 18 years of age, and it is a breach of licence conditions to allow someone under the age of 18 to be using those platforms.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also then asked about independent regulators, once again bringing into consideration the skills and expertise of DIA and whether or not it’s the appropriate place. I did consider some other places for it to be held, but, on balance, I decided that DIA was the appropriate regulator, given its experience in regulating gambling in other forms of gambling in the physical world at the moment as well.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked why the secretary would grant a longer period than 20 days. Look, extending the time frames is at the discretion of the secretary, and that would take into consideration the time frames needed for an applicant to apply.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked about clause 14 and the contribution to New Zealand and whether or not someone needs to set up an incorporated society. No, they do not.

There’s also questions then from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about the operator and advertising—preventing people under 18 being advertised to. Look, the details of how people under 18 are protected in the regulations, which I understand can be seen online through proactively released Cabinet papers.

Mike Davidson—I’ll knock off quite a few here—we’ve got: should the secretary consult with relevant groups before making the regulations? The existing consultation provision is consistent with the Gambling Act, and there are no restrictions currently on who should be consulted, but that doesn’t need to be detailed in the legislation, so the Government will not be supporting that amendment. Should we suspend or cancel licences? Why do you need 20 days to respond? That time period reflects natural justice processes.

There’s also a question about advertising harm on social media and saturation. Look, I totally get it. There are a lot of ads out there, but there are more abilities under the law that we are creating to put in place enforcement to get rid of illegal advertisements and focus people who are in the licensed regime, which is up to 15 potential competitors, to have very specific harm minimisation standards and controls around the ads.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:19): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’ll just remind colleagues on the other side of the Chamber that, although we appreciate—

Hon Simon Watts: Don’t give us a lecture.

CAMILLA BELICH: We would appreciate their engagement, Simon Watts, so if you’d like to take a call, I think some views from the National Party in this debate would be interesting.

I want to talk about licensing. This particular part that we’re looking at, Part 2, has the entire licensing process, which we haven’t gone into in any detail at all, and that’s just in the first part of it. We also haven’t talked about Subpart 3 at all, and then we have an appeals process we haven’t touched on at all. So I’d just note that.

But my questions are in relation to the licensing regime, which is quite detailed, and I have a few questions around how it will be implemented. My understanding is there are a few different tiers of licensing. If we look at clause 11, there is an overview of the process, but then, at clause 11(3), the clause states that the proposed legislation, for the purpose of this, will only be a “guide and effect of this subpart.” I just wonder, really, how strictly the Minister would be expecting adherence to that, given that that is essentially a guide provision, which is relatively unusual in legislation.

The next step is then the expressions of interest that will be asked for. I note that in clause 13(2), there’s potentially a prescribed fee, and it states there: “the prescribed fee (if any).” I wanted to ask the Minister if there will be a prescribed fee under clause 13(2)(c) and what that prescribed fee will be, because that’s not a fee for a licence; that is a fee for an expression of interest almost prior to the licensing regime. Then I have some questions around clause 14(b) and the key officers, which are defined in the interpretation section. Especially if these key officers are, in fact, overseas individuals, to what extent will the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) be checking the validity of the information provided? I think that probably in relation to licensing, making sure of the identity of those individuals and a way to get in touch with them—especially if they are overseas—is important.

I had a question in relation to clause 14(d). This talks about existing licences. Now, in New Zealand, we will not be in a position where they have an existing online licence, and so I wanted to understand whether, if that was in the future, when there are future applications for licences, that refers to New Zealand licences or whether this would extend to cover overseas licences that may be held, or, additionally, any other types of gambling licence. So I really wanted to know the extent of clause 14(d).

The other thing that I wanted to know is this. In clause 14(h), there’s extensive information which has to be provided around the criminal history or lack thereof of the key officers. I wanted to know to what extent will this information be publicly available and the steps that the DIA has taken, because they are relatively onerous requirements, which I think is—I’m not questioning that, but the fact of whether or not that will be made public, and that is, in fact, even before they are invited to ask for an expression of interest. So I think it’s probably asking for the validity of whether they could even be in the process.

It is a complex process. Those are the first questions that I have. I do have some more questions around clauses 15, 17, and 18, but I’ll leave those for later.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 15, and I have two very discrete questions around clause 15(2) and (3). But just to, I guess, provide another angle to what the previous speaker Camilla Belich mentioned in terms of verification process, I would just like to ask further how the Secretary for Internal Affairs would verify “source and amount of capital available” as a part of that criteria process.

But on to clause 15(2). This is an interesting clause, and I would be interested to know if the Minister wouldn’t mind providing an example of where an expression of interest would be likely to be declined because it would prejudice trade or maintenance of the law. Noting that we have the idea of the competitive measures, or any competitive measures, in some of our trade obligations, I just wanted to check if the Minister wouldn’t mind providing an example of that.

My final question is on clause 15(3), which is around crimes involving dishonesty. This is actually a very significant clause, and it does come down to the competitive nature as well, because the definition that the Minister has given is a New Zealand jurisdiction definition under the Crimes Act, but, as we all know, a person who is expressing their interest can be an overseas person as well. I want to check: do we consider crimes involving dishonesty, and make sure that we know what the overseas equivalent is of crimes involving dishonesty, as well, when we’re assessing overseas applicants, because they could have crimes involving dishonesty in an overseas jurisdiction that doesn’t potentially match up with the definition in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act.

So I want to check with the Minister how would the secretary assess that particular aspect in relation to overseas applicants, and whether there’s any other way of understanding or checking the validity of the submitters when it comes to overseas applicants. That, potentially, will unfairly prejudice—we’re talking about prejudice—New Zealand applicants, because they will be subjected to much greater scrutiny in terms of the ability to track and also align with our crimes law.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (10:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to turn to Subpart 3, which I note we’ve only had about half a question on, I think, some time ago, and it’s quite a big section. I really want to frame these in terms of the risk of regulatory capture, because what we can see from this licensing regime is that there are a number of purposes, including competition in a commercial market, but also revenue gathering for the Government. I’m aware that there will be a tension once this is created between harm minimisation and the ability of the Government to gather revenue, and also the licences that are issued will become valuable assets.

Now, we know that a lot of the devil in the detail will be in the regulations, but has the Minister received any legal advice for the whole bill but specifically for this part, from section 22 onwards, about the impact of trying to change and tighten harm minimisation in the regulations once these valuable assets have been given to operators? What modelling or advice has she received about the type of lobbying and pressure that will be upon the Government and the regulator, in particular, to keep the regulations narrow or even to narrow them further, and does she accept that it will be really difficult to change the regulations in that environment?

When I turn to clause 27, “Decision on renewal of licence”, the Secretary for Internal Affairs can decide not to renew a licence, but what is the threshold that’s to be applied there? There seems to be silence on that matter. Is the Minister comfortable that in this environment, where there is likely to be intensive lobbying and regulatory capture, the absence of a threshold in statute is safe? Would she either consider telling us for the Hansard what she considers that threshold to be, or even consider putting in an amendment, which we could draft for her?

The other one is that where a licence is not renewed, again, there are questions of transparency: will that information be made public? It seems to me there are many opportunities in Subpart 3 where explicit requirements to make information public would be really helpful in terms of creating social licence for this creation and simultaneous expansion of a regulated market, and so would she consider making those requirements transparent?

Then I look at section 30, “Surrender of licence”, and the secretary can “request the operator to provide any information that the Secretary considers necessary”. That seems to be an unfettered power. It isn’t any reasonable information and it isn’t any information relating to the issue at hand. We would expect a rational secretary to be asking for appropriate information, but in an environment of intense lobbying, that does expose the secretary, potentially, to allegations of bias or impartiality, and so, for the protection of the secretary, perhaps that power could be limited.

We also look at the secretary being able to get outstanding fees. How does she envisage that that is going to happen? If there’s an offshore operator whose licence is not going to be renewed or has been revoked and who owes substantial fees and has benefited substantially from the pockets of Kiwis who don’t have gambling problems and Kiwis who are very vulnerable and do have gambling problems, what is the mechanism for recouping those fees, or does she expect that those will be written off? If they are written off, will there be regular reporting to the public about how much money is not recouped by the secretary in this environment of offshore licences?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:31): Thank you. I’ll respond, firstly, to Camilla Belich. She had four separate questions; one in relation to Subpart 2 clause 11, having the overview of the licensing process. I just want to make it really clear that that is just an overview and the whole process in the legislation must be followed, which is set out in more detail, subsequently.

The second question was: will there be a fee? That was to do with clause 13(2)(c). Yes, there will be a fee, but that fee will be a part of the regulations. Ultimately, we’ve put in a fee there because if we didn’t have a fee, there is the possibility that people who don’t actually have true ability to be part of the competitive process might vexatiously attempt to apply, and the poor secretariat and staff would be spending a lot of time going through applications that were not actually as valid as you would hope. A fee is there to dissuade those who are not legitimate from being part of the auction.

Question three is: to what extent would the Department of Internal Affairs be checking the validity of the information? It is the role of the regulator to assess the applications.

Question four was: why have we got a part in here talking about how much control someone has over existing licences? Yes, the member is correct. That is for the future allocation of licences.

Camilla Belich also then talked about whether or not we could have publicly available information during the application process for the licence. No, that’s unlikely as a lot of the information that’ll be sent to the Secretary for Internal Affairs should be commercially sensitive and we want to ensure they are having a fair, standard process.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked about clause 15(2). That, in part, was to do with—let me just find that here—“not [accepting] an expression of interest from a person if the Secretary considers that doing so is likely to prejudice New Zealand’s international reputation”. That is to ensure that we don’t accept applications from countries that have sanctions against them.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked about clause 15(3), I believe, about the honesty of overseas applicants. All applicants’ histories and how they’re evaluated in equivalent jurisdictions will be taken into account.

Ingrid Leary then also asked about the flexibility of regulations and whether or not we needed to have more, I guess, in detail in the bill because the regulations might be too flexible. I disagree because, as we’ve been referring to, earlier today, some of the concerns from her colleague Camilla Belich about the use of artificial intelligence, having flexible law that allows for modernisation and technological changes, as well as some of the regulations to be updated with the changing dynamics that might happen on social media and the online environment, does require the bill itself to be flexible in nature so that we can adjust to technological developments without needing to go through an entire new Act and law of Parliament. I think that’s just being sensible for the future.

Ingrid Leary also asked about the threshold not to renew a licence. Licence holders must meet requirements of a licence to be able to get a renewal. If they no longer hold a licence, it will be known that they no longer hold one, as they won’t be on the register, and there are provisions for review of any decisions made by the secretary, because I know she was concerned about whether or not the secretary might end up being a bit dodgy—I find that less concerning for the future—but the operators will also be able to appeal some of the decisions through the High Court if necessary.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (10:35): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks, Minister, for going through all the replies to the questions. I do have some questions that relate to Subpart 2, clause 19, “Criteria for granting licence”, because I have a group of Amendment Papers that make some suggestions on subclause (3)(b).

In terms of the licences that will be granted, Minister, you’ve talked about process and criteria; one of the things I do want to put on record and for those that are at home listening is that these are overseas companies, and there’s an assumption that they actually understand Kiwis. I’d have to question that because we won’t, in terms of the public, know about who actually will be successful in getting licences, what background they will bring—sure, they’ll meet all the economic, paying-tax, and meeting-levy, obligations—and what actual relationship they will have with Kiwis in terms of our consumers.

You’ve also talked about, Minister, the flexibility and modernisation of the bill. One of the things we heard very strongly through the select committee process was: why so many licences? Why 15? Why couldn’t there be a trial period with maybe three licences or five licences so that there’s a testing of the market in terms of this bill? I’d like to know what advice the Minister received with regard to the number of licences. I do recall that there was a formula in terms of Inland Revenue information that was provided to the select committee, but why did the Minister land on 15? What was the formula used for that?

In my Amendment Papers asking for consideration of a reduction—through the select committee process, we heard many submitters talk about why and how you got to 15; why couldn’t there be a trial period? Will there be a review? I understand that, but in terms of gambling harm minimisation and in terms of putting New Zealanders through a number of risks, this bill, in our view, just does not go far enough to protect Kiwi consumers. I’d like to ask the Minister that question.

You have stated that there will be very limited information in the public arena because it’s commercially sensitive, so even though the bill will be passed, probably, this year—in terms of the timeline of that, when will the public know what decisions are being made, and will there be further processes where the public can question the Secretary for Internal Affairs in their role?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Look, before we move on, I’m just starting to hear repetition. I’m encouraging members to bring up new material. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (10:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to Subpart 3, the “Renewal, suspension, cancellation, and surrender of licences”, I just want to check with the Minister in terms of the interaction between a few of these areas, noting that if you’re looking at clause 29—which I know that my colleague Mike Davidson has an Amendment Paper on—clause 35 detailed one pathway for an operator who’s had their licence suspended or cancelled to challenge that decision via the High Court, but, usually, there’s a step before that, in some instances, where, within the organisation itself, there is the ability to review a particular decision or a review board that, potentially, may look at that decision as well. I want to check with the Minister if, unless I missed it in the bill, that an option that’s available to operators who are having their licence suspended or cancelled, rather than going directly to the High Court or through a judicial review as a particular resolution. The reason I ask this question is that, clearly, there is an option or pathway being laid out in terms of clauses 32 and 33, but that’s in relation to, specifically, the addition or changes being made regarding further conditions to the licence, but it doesn’t specify in terms of the suspension or cancellation. That’s my very discrete question that I have right now.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will respond to the questions from Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who questioned why we’ve landed at a cap of up to 15 licences for the online gambling market. Look, when the cap of 15 licences was set, the Inland Revenue gambling duty data already showed a highly concentrated market. While more than 15 offshore operators paid gambling duty, the vast majority was revenue was generated by the top 15 operators. Similar patterns were reflected in the 12 months to 30 June 2025, where 26 operators paid the duty, but the top 15 accounted for 99.8 percent of the total revenue. Capping the number of licences at up to 15 for the first licensing period is expected to limit the total regulatory cost, but it also provides a good base for testing whether the settings are working and whether consumers do migrate from an unlicensed operator to a licensed market.

We had further questions from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about how the overseas operators will be relevant to New Zealand. Well, it will be up to the companies themselves to be relevant to the consumers here in New Zealand, because if they’re not relevant to consumers here in New Zealand, New Zealanders may not choose to use them, and so that’s just business.

She also asked about the timelines for the bill. The bill will come into force from 1 May this year. At this point, there will be prohibition on advertising unlicensed online casino gambling. Providers already offering online casino gambling in New Zealand may continue their existing operations until 1 December, but on 1 December, online casino gambling providers will be required to cease conducting online casino gambling if they have not applied for a licence. On 1 January 2027, amendments made to increase the online gambling duty in the Gaming Duties Act from 12 percent to 16 percent will come into force.

We also had questions and queries from Lawrence Xu-Nan about Subpart 3, regarding challenges through the High Court of a licence cancellation. Yes, operators can request a review by the Secretary for Internal Affairs—that is in clause 32(1)—and it can also be judicially reviewed. I believe that is everything for now.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:43): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for her engagement in this committee stage. I just had a couple of follow-up questions, and then I want to talk about the competitive process—which I don’t believe has been covered yet—and the process of applying for a licence.

This has come up a few times, and the Minister has said that the regulations have been released through a proactive Cabinet paper release, but the question I specifically had was what the fee was. Is that detail or is an actual copy of the exact regulations that will be in force available now publicly, because the question I had related to what would be in that process. Additionally, she said that matters would not be released if they are commercially sensitive, and so for matters that are not commercially sensitive, I would expect—and it would be good to have her clarification—that information would be available to be obtained by the public under the Official Information Act. I ask if she could confirm that in relation to the application to be part of the competitive process.

But I did want to move on. My colleague has covered clause 15. I did have a question on that, but I won’t ask that. I’ll move on to clause 16, which is about the competitive process, and so that’s once everyone has gone through the process of ascertaining whether they’re able to participate, then the Secretary for Internal Affairs will hold a competitive process.

I did want to additionally mention this, though. The Minister has made a few comments around whether staff have the appropriate skills and capability, and I wanted to assure the Minister—and I’m sure I speak for those on this side of the Chamber—that those questions are meant to be about us, as the Opposition, ensuring that the key steps in relation to make the funding and expertise are available. It’s not a reflection at all on the existing, very competent staff that work in the Department of Internal Affairs.

The question I have in relation to clause 16 is, again, a question around the amount payable for the licence—that is in clause 16(1)(b), and that is once the competitive process has been decided. Now, the competitive process clause is a clause that does have a certain amount of leeway for the secretary to determine what it could be—it says here, “(for example, an auction or a tender);”. Are those the only two examples that she can think of for how the secretary would run that competitive process? Are there other methods of running that competitive process in addition to an auction or a tender? If there are not, then perhaps this could be worded as an exhaustive list rather than an example, but I do wonder what that competitive process will be.

Then we move on to clause 16(2)(b), and it’s also available for the secretary to determine how that process will be run. I did want to know if the Minister would be informed of this, especially the first time that it occurs, and the decisions that the secretary may make in relation to whether, if it is an auction or if it is a tender, how indeed that competitive process will be run. I wondered if the Minister had, in fact, had those discussions with the secretary and whether she would be able to inform the committee of the nature of that competitive process, because that is quite key in relation to how this will be run.

Additionally, I had a question around clause 16(1)(b) about the amount payable, and I also have a question around clause 16(4)(b), which requires another fee process. There are quite a few different fees that apply here, and additionally in that process, where, as the Governance and Administration Committee has said, some part of the amount of that licence should be retained if they withdraw their application. I did ask the Minister whether she had requested any money in a Budget bid, and she indicated that she had not because it would be self-funding. But because this is the first time we’ve done that, there will be some set-up costs, and so is the Minister saying that there will be no additional provision made to the Department of Internal Affairs prior to this scheme being paid for through levies—is that what she is telling the committee today?

There are a few questions around that. I do have some further questions around once the licence is actually put forward, which I think will be important to get answers to.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (10:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a very quick question for the Minister, picking up on something that she provided to the House, which was her response that she had considered other organisations to be the main body Government agency apart from the Department of Internal Affairs. I’d like to understand which agencies in particular or Government departments she considered and whether the Ministry of Health or some part of the public health system was included, including the Ministry of Health.

I say that referring to a Budget-sensitive document that was furnished from the Minister for Mental Health on 24 September 2024, where, in the drafting of their strategy around gambling harm, that was done before the bill was introduced into the House. In point 25, it says, “The strategy also acknowledges the growth in online gambling and the Government’s recent decision to regulate online offshore casino gambling through a licensing system expected to take effect in early 2026.” That tells me that the strategic framework set up in here, which is all about increasing access to gambling harm support, growing the gambling harm workforce—all of that stuff was done after the decision to regulate the system.

My question is: was Health considered as one of the alternative organisations that could have been the main body to regulate this, and, if it wasn’t, what lines of communication and reporting, and so on, does she see between the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs? This relates to questions also around whether the harm minimisation strategies will be shared with Health officials, and also whether the data and monitoring that is done in the sections that set up consumer protections will be shared with health officials in a way where harm minimisation can be effectively tracked. Just quick questions on that, and it would be really helpful to get the Minister’s response.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (10:50): I will just touch on a couple of questions that came from Camilla Belich about public details on the regulations. Look, only the policy proposals have been released. I did mention last night, I believe, that drafting instructions can’t be shared, but the Cabinet decisions have been shared proactively. I also referred to the fact that it still needs to go back through Cabinet in May.

Camilla Belich also asked about what other options we used for competitive processes. Ultimately, Cabinet decided on an auction. That provides for a competitive process to determine who may apply for a licence.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (10:51): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s amendment to clause 8, as set out on Amendment Paper 534, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Mike Davidson’s amendment to insert new clause 8A, as set out on Amendment Paper 556, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s amendment to clause 10, as set out on Amendment Paper 535, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 10, as set out on Amendment Paper 544, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Mike Davidson’s amendment to clauses 10 and 18, as set out on Amendment Paper 543, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clauses 13 and 15, as set out on Amendment Paper 507, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 19 as set out on Amendment Paper 545 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Mike Davidson’s amendments to clause 19 as set out on Amendment Paper 546 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(a), replacing “15” with “5”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(a), replacing “15” with “8”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(a), replacing “15” with “10”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(a), replacing “15” with “12”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment to clause 19(3)(b), replacing “3” with “1”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Part 2 agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Part 3 Duties and requirements

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 37 to 49, “Duties and requirements”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:06): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will turn straight to clause 37, which is the duty to ensure the gambling platform is operating and available. My question to the Minister here is that given all her assurances that she is committed to harm minimisation, why do we only have things to do with the availability of a commencement of a licence within 90 days or ensuring that the gaming platform is operating and available for at least 270 days per year, and absolute silence on minimum mandatory duties?

For example, did she consider inserting mandatory loss limits into that provision? It would seem to be an eminently sensible minimum duty and requirement that if somebody had lost a significant amount of money online, the operator would provide an assurance that they would not be exposed to further opportunities to gamble. Did she consider cooling-off periods? If somebody has been gambling online for hours on end, wouldn’t that be a good trigger for an operator to have positive duty of care towards them? What about pre-commitment systems?

I note that through this whole subpart, it talks about consumer protection, but it’s very much about the willingness of the operator recognising and responding to harmful gambling, rather than it having a positive duty of care to people, and does the Minister accept that there is a conflict of interest in the operator having that role? Why didn’t she put in minimum mandatory duties? She could still regulate, as she has said previously, to prescribe what they are, but having the duty bound in legislation would be a real indicator of a genuine commitment to harm minimisation under clause 37.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:08): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of amendments to this part and I just want to talk to a couple in a moment, and maybe then I’ll talk to some others a little bit later on. The first one is Amendment Paper 547, and it’s around increasing the minimum age from 18 to 20. I’m just wondering what advice the Minister did get on setting it at 18, which is at odds with land-based casinos, where it’s 20 years. It does seem a little bit strange that we would allow an easier form of gambling, where it’s on your phone or on your computer in your home for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to be available to 18-year-olds. I ask whether there has there been any advice on the actual long-term harm when we enable 18-year-olds to gamble.

Also, in relation to that, is my other Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 548, on the use of the term “take all reasonable steps”, which features in clauses 38, 39, 40, and 44. It feels like it’s very week language. We only have to look at the e-scooter hireage that you see around, which is meant to be limited to over-18s, and the number of younger children who appear to be a lot younger than 18 on those e-scooters—often, many of them on one scooter at a time. I would be guessing that those companies have to take all reasonable steps, and so I would like to know from the Minister what the definition of “all reasonable steps” is, and what advice did they get around that? Actually, would it not be better just to remove those words altogether and just ensure that the operator makes certain that any person that uses online gambling platforms is 18 years old?

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (11:10): Thanks, Mr Chair. I appreciate the ability to provide a contribution. I have questions with regards to Part 3, clause 37, “Ensure gambling platform is operating and available”, and I do have an Amendment Paper submitted. In particular, it’s with regards to gambling platforms and their hours of operation, and there should be some limitations around that. What I wanted to ask the Minister is what was the conversation in terms of getting to that specific provision when it is operating and available? Look, I appreciate that it’s an online platform, which is going to be available 24/7. However, through the Department of Internal Affairs, did they give advice in terms of operating hours specific to when young people sleep, are awake, and the activities that they do, to minimise the risk of online gambling?

We heard through the select committee process that there should be restricted limitations on what is available. I appreciate that it’s a 24/7 platform. However, if we are wanting to reduce harm and minimise the harm and protect our consumers, there should be some strong recommendations. I’m wanting to just check with Minister were those sorts of cases looked at and what questions did she ask and what advice did officials give in terms of these licences that are going to come in and do their thing, because there is not the strong requirement that they need to be based in New Zealand. We don’t want to guess what those provisions will be like in terms of limitations.

I go back to some of the submissions specific to kaupapa Māori—their concerns in terms of were there conversations with various specialists. We also heard from the Problem Gambling Foundation to do with consumer protections and their worries or their concerns—their strong concerns—as to how these provisions being put forward, how specific the protections will be for our consumers that are here, and, in particular, vulnerable communities, plus those under 18, who will be exposed to the advertising in the provisions that are provided in the bill.

In terms of Internal Affairs, how far-reaching were their—when they viewed the submissions. In terms of what the select committee process was, we had a number of submissions raise a concern around vulnerable communities. The Problem Gambling Foundation, which I heard at the Petitions Committee, raised concern and questions around viability and, in terms of consumer protections, what that will actually mean and how it will be spelt out. The bill has outlined in this provision that the gambling platform is operating and available. Well, when will it be unavailable, and how will our vulnerable communities be protected? I want to ask the Minister those questions.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:13): Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions are specifically about clause 69(4) and (5). When I look at clause 69(4)(a), it talks about how “The Secretary must give the person to whom the complaint relates a reasonable opportunity to make written comments”. What I’d like to know from the Minister, first of all, is what a reasonable opportunity would look like. I’m not at all sure what that looks like in the—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you repeat that clause again?

HELEN WHITE: It’s clause 69(4)(a). Am I in the right—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That’s Part 4. We’re in Part 3.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you—sorry.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:14): Thank you. I do have some questions. I’m disappointed I didn’t get to ask any in relation to Subparts 3 and 4 in the previous section, but on to Part 3 now. I wanted to ask, in clause 38, what the steps are in relation to verification that will need to be taken.

I wanted to ask, in relation to clause 39, in relation to compliance with the regulations, what will the procedures be that are set out in the regulations to comply with 39 to minimise online harm?

I wanted to ask about the timing of the exclusion register in clause 40. This is a very important point. This was raised also in select committee. Will the self-exclusion register be available at the time that the main bill comes into effect? We’ve heard that self-exclusion is an incredibly effective form of enabling and empowering for those who have recognised gambling problems to ensure that they are not able to participate in gambling when they themselves do not wish for this to occur, so the timing of that is incredibly important.

I wanted to ask, in relation to clause 41, about the registration icon and the nature of this registration icon and why, in fact, it is required that an operator play the registration audio mark, which is another thing. What is the registration audio mark? Will this be, for example, “This online gambling provider is regulated by the Department of Internal Affairs”? Is that what a registration audio mark is? If that is in fact the case, similarly to maybe ads you might hear overseas or I guess when you have a situation where we have to authenticate or include the address on political advertising, will it be that every advertising piece that is put forward by online casino gamblers is then linked to the Department of Internal Affairs? I’m just interested, if that’s what the effect of this will be, in how Internal Affairs will ensure that under clause 41(3), all of that information is then, if the registration lapses, taken down within 24 hours.

I mean, that seems to be an extraordinary requirement, if there is no longer a licence, for that to be taken down within that period of time, considering that could have been shared quite openly around the internet. I wondered, in that case, whether it might be prudent to include a date, as at the date of a certain point in time or registered to a certain point in time—if that was considered at all.

The other question I had was in relation to clause 42. This states that there can’t be any credit for online casino gambling. Now, I imagine that’s credit—if a particular provider wanted to say, “Please come and gamble with our online provider and we’ll give you 20 bucks to start you off.”, that would be prohibited. But what I want to know is will this also cover a situation where someone is able to, say, put in their own money, do a bit of gambling, and win a credit? Is that going to be possible under this section? I wanted to know whether that’s actually covered by that.

There’s quite a few questions under that first part. I do have some further questions after clause 43 on information collection and retention, but I’ll see if the Minister can respond to those.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will rise to take a call and respond to a number of the concerns and questions.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene, firstly, asked about limitations on the hours that should be available. Look, the bill itself aims to provide choice for consumers so that they can gamble in a safer, regulated market. Offshore operators currently are available 24/7. This ensures that consumers are not channelled into the black market by too much restriction on the regulations that we put in place as a Government. Ultimately, if things are not going to be available at the time that the consumer wants them to be available, there is a higher likelihood people may just choose to use the black market.

There’s been a question from Mike Davidson about why it is that we need to take all reasonable steps. I think, in some ways, this is aligned to the question that Camilla Belich had about steps for age and the age of 18. Look, taking all reasonable steps is a standard drafting procedure in placing obligations on regulated parties to take all reasonable steps to meet an obligation. Some events may be outside the regulated party’s controls; but, also, in response to Camilla Belich about age, there is an offence in the bill to gamble on behalf of a person under 18, and the operator must ensure that people using their platforms are over the age of 18. So those things, I think, are quite linked.

Mike Davidson also then queried age limit, in terms of why it is 18 and not 20 years old to align with land-based casinos. The true answer to this is that TAB, Lotto Instant Kiwi products, and gambling on pokies in clubs and pubs across New Zealand have an age limit of 18 rather than 20. Yes, there is an age limit of 20 to go into casinos in New Zealand; however, the age limit for land-based casinos was set in the Gambling Act a long time ago to align with what was previously the legal age for purchasing and consuming alcohol, and it hasn’t changed as the requirements for alcohol purchase have dropped. So there’s possibly a potential change that some other Minister might wish to do in the future for alignment. I’m not so fussed on that, so I see more of an argument for 18.

Ingrid Leary also asked about platforms and why they must operate within 90 days. That’s to ensure that operators are not banking their licences but they are actually using them, because it’s a possibility that someone takes a licence away from a competitor in an anti-competitive move, but doesn’t actually choose to use it if they have multiple licences. So the regulations include limits on operating, in that respect.

There is a question from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about specific protections in the law. Once again, these are fleshed out in more detail in the regulations around harm and consumer protections.

Camilla Belich did ask a question about the self-exclusion register. The self-exclusion register regulations need to be implemented by December 2027, because officials are currently working on this as it was a later edition, and so it won’t necessarily be ready when the bill passes; however, I would just suggest that, under the current status quo, there is no exclusion register. There is a completely unregulated market, and so having this regulation come into a force one year later is better than the status quo. Yes, in a theoretical world, it would be nice to have everything come into force at the exact same time; however, like I suggest, it was a later addition to the law.

There is also a question from Camilla Belich about the registration audio mark. The secretary is developing guidance on the registration icon. Whether this will be linked to a website is yet to be determined, but the icon itself will be published by public notice, so people will know what it is, and that, in some ways, just allows people to know that what they’re hearing is actually a licensed provider. Camilla also asked, “Will free credit be available if the money is not to be paid back?” That is not credit. Otherwise, no credit is allowed to be offered under the law.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to thank the Minister for answering so many of the questions. Just to point out that my question around clause 37 was not about the 90 days; it was about the minimum mandatory duties, and I’d really welcome a response to that. Also, I’d just ask if the Minister wouldn’t mind pronouncing my colleague’s name correctly. It’s quite difficult hearing it mispronounced all the time. I believe it’s “Lemauga Lydia Sosene”. If that could be afforded to my colleague, that would be really great.

My question is specifically in relation to clause 40, about excluding certain persons. We’ve already talked about taking reasonable steps, but my question is about the words “is excluded from gambling on its gambling platform”. The question I have is around: what resources or requirements will operators have to actively monitor compliance with harm minimisation obligations across multiple platforms? The bill seems to be silent on this, and we know the reality of gambling harm is that many people will spend hours on one platform and then maybe transfer to another. We have these consumer protections that are not really harm minimisation provisions, but there doesn’t seem to be a requirement for a licensed operator to have any understanding of what the harmful habits are of somebody who is going across multiple platforms. Equally, what resourcing or ability will the Secretary for Internal Affairs have to be able to monitor behaviours that show online gambling operators with licences allowing people to go across multiple platforms endlessly, causing harm to themselves, when the bill appears to be silent on that?

I wonder if the solution—well, part of the problem is because it talks about operators only, and if we go to the definition section, there was an opportunity to extend operators so that it would look at the whole ecosystem—so that’s payment providers, affiliate marketers, software providers. I would ask the Minister to consider an amendment, which we would be happy to write for her, in clause 40, that would simply—if we extended it from “operators” to others in the ecosystem and somehow found words to do that, that would then resolve the very real problem of these people who will be harmed by gambling across multiple online platforms. The alternative scenario would be to change the word “operators” in the definition section or to extend it there.

So I’m wondering if the Minister would provide answers to how we’re going to reduce the harm in that respect, and whether she would consider changing the bill to be able to take into account that very real problem-gambling scenario.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:26): Thank you, Mr Chair, and my call will be very quick, because it’s just one point. It was actually in relation to a matter that was raised earlier, around clause 42. I guess, it’s very clear that it’s quite, I guess, a vague clause, because it doesn’t quite lay out what they’re talking about when they mention “credit”. I have Amendment Paper 549 that just, I guess, removes a little bit of that doubt that actually expands on what they’re talking about. So it’s: “For the avoidance of doubt, this includes buy now, pay later services, credit cards, and any other deferred payment methods.”. I actually think it’s quite a good amendment that actually can help this bill just to avoid any of that doubt that is created from clause 42, where it just talks about providing “credit”. I’m just wondering whether the Minister would consider supporting that amendment.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (11:27): Thank you, Mr Chair, to the Minister. I do have some questions with clause 46, and I do have an Amendment Paper 536. The complaints register that is listed in the bill will be a very important tool, being a new system coming into Aotearoa, in terms of the licences—or up to 15 licences. It’s going to be quite a large operation. My Amendment Paper speaks about the requirement, because some of the language that is used in specifically clause 46(5), it talks about just the different requirements that the operator will have to do in terms of their licence, in terms of their operations—periodic information provided to the Department of Internal Affairs or the Secretary for Internal Affairs specifically around the number of complaints. Being a whole new system, and it’s going to probably have a runway of about a couple of years—two to three years before a review is held—it will be important that the public will be able to have a look at the licensing system and who’s complaining about it.

My Amendment Paper talks about specific explicit information with regards to publishing the information online and recognising that, with a new system, it will take time to bed in. Specifically, when there will be complaints, where do the public go to view the information; and, also, the operator will have, as set out, regulations or requirements to do all of those things. The public—there is an assumption that the public may not be interested; however, I would have to argue against that there will be interest around who the licensees are, the successful licensees, how many platforms do they have, what is working well, what is not working well. How does the public access that information? My Amendment Paper speaks about informing and educating the public as to what site do they go to, where do they find that information, directory, etc., because although we assume that there may not be complaints, there may be specific complaints—for example, a person goes on to a site, doesn’t find the information, or may have won a prize, and then they may come across a problem where, “How do I get that prize?”.

One of the things that the submitter the Problem Gambling Foundation raised in their oral submissions was that the system will be set up, but if you cannot find good information on the internet that’s publicly available, how will the public—particularly those who work in the space around consumer protections, around harm minimisation—get to know information that is publicly, widely available rather than having to contact the regulator all the time? The New Zealand public will want to see the specific information around operators and the licensees, and especially if they don’t have to be domiciled in Aotearoa. So the protections, the education information—how will people know their complaints have been received? “Where do I go? Is it readily accessible?”—that’s what I’m interested in, Minister.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, firstly to the comment by Ingrid Leary: as a person who also doesn’t have an English name, I totally understand when your name gets butchered, so I apologise if I’ve been doing that inadvertently and not realising. So thank you for bringing that to my attention.

To the question that Ingrid Leary actually did have about minimum mandatory duties, there is a requirement for operators to minimise harm and that is provided for throughout the regulations. Harm minimisation strategies will show how operators will minimise harm to consumers and that must be provided as part of the application process. Consumers can also block transactions with gambling operators via their own banks, and that liability should lie with operators, so that is why it is included like that in the definition and not through other industry organisations or the tech companies themselves.

Mike Davidson had a question in relation to his Amendment Paper 549 about credit. Look, the clause that’s in the bill is modelled off the Gambling Act, and it’s very clear that no credit must be offered by operators, regardless of the type of credit. Credit sourced by consumers, such as credit cards, will actually be restricted through the regulations, so his amendment is not necessary.

There’s another question about the Amendment Paper from Lemauga Lydia Sosene about whether the Secretary for Internal Affairs must publish information on complaints from operators. Consumers can raise complaints directly to the secretary. There are reporting and auditing requirements that will be set in the regulation, but nothing in the bill prevents the secretary from publishing information on complaints. So I don’t think the amendment is necessary.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene also had a question about the complaints process in the register—and just alluding more to that, Cabinet has approved details to be set out in the regulations about the complaints through the process and through the register.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Camilla Belich.

Tim Costley: Mr Chair!

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:33): Too late.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): You were loud but slow to your feet.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, he’s at a disadvantage because he’s so tall.

Anyway, I do have some questions in relation to three areas, and one I won’t focus on as much because it has been touched on by some other colleagues, but I do have a question in relation to complaints, which I don’t think has been covered.

So the three areas I want to cover are covered in clauses 43 to 49. Essentially, these clauses cover changes to a person with a significant influence, changes to key officers, and complaints. The point that I just wanted to make about complaints—because I appreciate that that has been addressed—is that there are significant requirements, as has already been discussed, in relation to individual providers to deal with complaints. There is, I note, in clause 46(5), a requirement for the secretary to require an operator to provide them with information on complaints. But what I wanted to know is: was there any thought given or will there be a separate requirement for the secretary to have its own complaints register, to be able to ensure that these online casino gambling companies are actually complying with what they need to be doing under this Act, so that that can be direct rather than through the complaints procedure of the individual entities which are registered? I think I’d appreciate the Minister’s guidance on that. It might be that that’s addressed in the regulations, but I’d appreciate that.

The other question I wanted to ask is about the process that would be put in place when there—I’m just wondering if my timing [Member checks the Speaker’s clock]. Oh, there we are. It’s like it was the longest minute of my life.

Tim Costley: And mine!

CAMILLA BELICH: Thanks, Tim. Always count on you for support. The question I have around the continuation is obvious—and I think these are good provisions to have in place in the bill. It is to make sure that when there’s, essentially, a change of ownership or a change of person who has significant influence over the entity which is regulated, that the secretary is informed of that. Also, if there are changes to key officers, the same tests that we talked about in earlier provisions are applied to those new key officers. But the question I have is: when there are these significant changes, will that operator be allowed to continue to operate despite the fact that some of the very thorough pre-registration, or even pre-registration, of interest to participate in the auction tests may not have been able to be conducted with the people who are either remaining there or if other people are there? I think that is important in terms of the ability for New Zealanders to have confidence. It appears to me that they are able to continue to operate, but I wondered if the Minister would consider that if some of these key officers or people with influence changed before the due diligence is able to be undertaken, there would be able to be a pause in operation for those entities until the secretary can be satisfied that the same standards of accountability and information checks—you know, important things like criminal record checks—have been undertaken with the new change of circumstances.

I think these are prudent provisions to have in a bill, but I just wonder whether they go far enough and whether there could be the opportunity for an actor which we would not provide a licence to being able to have influence while an online gambling provider is able to operate.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (11:38): I move, That debate on this question now close.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:38): I know that my colleague Camilla Belich does have further questions; I just haven’t heard an answer from the Minister in relation to how monitoring and compliance will occur for operators, to ensure people don’t spend hours gambling across multiple platforms—or is she comfortable with the fact that the bill is silent on that? Just a quick question, but I know my colleague has further questions.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:38): Well, it’s a difficult situation to be in because we have had important questions that haven’t been answered in this part. I’d like to give the Minister the opportunity to answer those questions, or some assurance that these may be able to be addressed in a latter part of the debate. I do think, as I’ve said, that these are sections that generally seem quite prudent, but making sure that they operate in a way which is responsible would also be important to hear from the Minister on.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:39): Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking to some of the questions from Camilla Belich: firstly, she asked whether or not there would be a separate requirement for complaints to the Secretary for Internal Affairs. Section 68 sets out the process for complaints to the secretary. There was also a question about significant influence, and the bill also suggests that there must be all reasonable steps taken to ensure that an operator or a person doesn’t have significant influence over more than three licences. If they fail to do so, they will be in breach of requirements.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (11:39): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 37(4) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendments to clause 38 as set out on Amendment Paper 547 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 38 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendments to clause 38, 39, and 40 as set out on Amendment Paper 548 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mike Davidson’s amendments to clause 41 as set out on Amendment Paper 543 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 42 as set out on Amendment Paper 549 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 44 as set out on Amendment Paper 550 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono):The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s amendment to clause 46 as set out on Amendment Paper 536 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

Part 3 agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Part 4 Compliance, enforcement, and regulatory matters

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 4. Part 4 is the debate on clauses 50 to 74, “Compliance, enforcement, and regulatory matters”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:47): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ll have a lot of questions on this part because this is where the rubber really hits the road in terms of the Minister being able to demonstrate to us how the regulating of offshore entities with no real vested interest in New Zealand—who are difficult to reach and manage—are going to be able to made to comply with the bill, how the enforcement provisions will work, and how the regulatory provisions will work, as well. I know there will be many questions regarding why such important matters around harm minimisation and advertising, in particular, are relegated to regulations.

I’d like to just mention an overview of this part for those who are listening at home. This really puts a stronger enforcement emphasis on protecting the market from unlicensed regulators, and it does not really speak to gambling harm, apart from relegating the harm minimisation enforcement measures into regulation.

My questions, really, for all of this part, but particularly around the enforceable undertakings in clause 52, are these. What evidence does the Minister have that Part 4 will actually deter unlicensed operators from operating in New Zealand, given all the enforcement issues? What additional resources will the regulator have to monitor compliance across multiple international gambling online platforms?

She has already said that she has not done an additional Budget bid, and there are real issues that we still haven’t heard answers to in relation to people who gamble across multiple platforms and operators who operate across multiple platforms. There is a gaping hole in our knowledge around how that is going to be managed, and so I’d really like to know this from the Minister. This is her opportunity to answer the previous questions but also to answer in relation to the enforceable undertakings and the meaning of “civil liberty act” in clauses 52 and 50. What additional resources does she see that the regulator will have, and where will those resources come from?

The really critical question that I have for clause 52, “Enforceable undertakings”—it also does go into further clauses which we can ask about later to do with individuals and offences—is what enforcement mechanism is linked to measurable increases in gambling harm, or are enforcement powers limited to regulatory breaches? All morning, I have been asking the Minister, and colleagues have been interrogating the Minister, about which parts of this bill meet the purpose statement in clause 3 that talks about harm minimisation. And we are yet to hear any answers that adequately satisfy us that the bill does what it says it’s going to do on the tin. Where it says that is clause 3, and all throughout the answers, we have not heard anything about harm minimisation.

So what enforcement mechanism is linked to that, and how will that be able to proceed in terms of information flows, anonymised gambling patterns, and data from operators or from the Secretary for Internal Affairs over to health officials to monitor the harm so that regulations can be tweaked and altered in response to that? All throughout the questions last night and today, we have not heard an answer to that question, so I’d really like the Minister to respond now, and I know that colleagues will have a lot of questions relating to how enforceable this bill actually is.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (11:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions with regards to clause 51 of Part 4, “Formal warnings”. In the bill, it talks about that process where a person is issued with a formal warning if the secretary is satisfied that the person has carried out a civil liability act.

One of the questions I want to ask—well, I’ve got a couple of questions—is with regards to the assumptions that have been made in accordance with the idea that everyone across New Zealand speaks English and understands English. The reason why I raise that is to do with the formal warning, which I assume is going to be in the English language. We heard a number of submitters that are not necessarily born in New Zealand and speak another language, either te reo or a Pacific language or Chinese or Indian. The reason why I ask this question, which may be quite a small question, or perhaps not relevant, is that we heard from those specific groups who lodged their submissions, and they spoke to them in the oral submissions to select committee members. With regards to online casino gambling and the harm that it causes, they spoke about some of the misunderstandings with regards to the written language and the symbols that you see in an online platform.

So it may not be relevant to the Minister that she has received some advice from the secretary or officials, but how will that transpire when this provision talks about formal warnings? There’s an assumption that people across New Zealand have an excellent command of English, both verbal and written, but I can tell you now that there have been some challenges in terms of people understanding a notice or a formal warning, because it’s actually quite different for people who are born outside New Zealand. I’ve just had a quick look at our census data. In 2023, we had, across Aotearoa New Zealand now, just under 2 million who fit in that category.

I specifically raise this because a number of submitters were from vulnerable communities. So whilst this is a completely different query, I am interested in (a) whether there was any advice given by the Secretary for Internal Affairs to the Minister; and (b) in terms of the system, there’s a strong assumption that the methodology will be reasonable and practical, and that people who are gamblers will understand what they’re doing—well, I would have to raise those questions to the Minister. It would be helpful for the Minister to outline that; it may not have come in the remit. But I am interested, because we had a number of submitters that came through about how online casino gambling is quite harmful to their communities, and, in particular, I raise again our young people under 18—some are born outside this country—and I’m very interested to hear from the Minister.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. First, speaking to the queries that came from Ingrid Leary talking about the enforcement focus, I guess, within this part, focusing on the market and not necessarily on harm minimisation. Those things are still to come in further parts, so don’t be too concerned. There was also a query about the Budget and not going for Budget bids into the future asking for more money. That’s because there will be a levy on the company, so it is cost-recovered, and the levy itself can be adjusted in regulations. So the bill itself does provide for a range of enforcement tools to ensure that the regime is effective. They’re all listed here; there’s take-down notices, formal warnings, enforceable undertakings, pecuniary penalties of up to $5 million, and licence cancellations where operators fail to comply. The law will also allow extra-territorial application to enable the enforcement of these tools cross-border.

The provisions also allow for the secretary to require information that supports the regulatory functions and to share information and respond to requests from overseas regulators, where confidentiality and privacy protections are in place. Further to the question of which provisions in the bill actually do talk about harm, a lot of that is within the regulations themselves. The bill is intentionally set at a high level to ensure that the operational details can be covered in the regulations, and like we spoke about in the previous part—and I think potentially the part even before that—it’s intentionally designed so that that can change with technological innovation and changes over time so that we don’t have to go through and change the entire law again following technological progress.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene was asking about formal warnings and information in languages. Formal warnings are to be made to operators. That will be part of the law. Operators will be conducting their business in English. The languages for consumers is an interesting point, because Cabinet has agreed that operators must provide information and services in languages commonly spoken in New Zealand.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:57): Thank you. I want to ask about the take-down notice regime. First of all, I was interested to see whether this regime is similar to other regimes in terms of take-down notices. So I’m asking specifically about clause 59 and the reliance on an order—so there’s a failure in the process if someone doesn’t take it down and it ends up at the High Court. My concern there is really a practical one. The High Court is expensive and it is overrun at the present time. So I’m worried about the speed of a take-down in that situation, because we’ve already been through quite a process by that point, and then we are in a situation where we have to wait for a time in the High Court. I’d like the Minister to comment on what the practicalities of that process would be—would there be a possibility for urgency, because it doesn’t look like it to me, or some sort of injunctive process, etc.? But it’s more a case of just speeding up the end result of being able to take it down, given so much harm is done on the way.

Then I wanted to know about the extra-territorial nature of that, because often you would be having these things coming in from overseas and there would be an issue about taking down in other places in the world. Is that what the Minister is saying would happen also in the High Court—that insistence at that point—in which case, how does that work with service in terms of an overseas operator? I’d be grateful for your answers.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (11:59): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to take my first call in Part 4. When I look at the substantive parts of Part 4, essentially what is being set out is a regime of civil liability, and the Minister just in her previous answer outlined all of the different civil liabilities that could occur, including the pecuniary penalty, as she stated, which for a company, not a person, is quite high at $5 million. There is, additionally, in Part 4, an offence—and the only criminal offence in this bill is the fact of knowingly or recklessly allowing someone under the age of 18 to actually participate in online gambling. That is the only criminal offence in this particular part that we’re looking at the moment. The rest of the offences, which are outlined in clause 50, can be quite serious: breaching all of the rules in relation to conduct, breaching advertising rules, failing to display registrations—maybe that’s not as serious. Providing credit is very serious. That is potentially very much at odds with the objective of the bill.

What I was wondering is: is it appropriate to simply have one criminal offence, in clause 66? The other offences against this bill that result in civil liability—and some of those instances may or may not be as serious; I don’t want to undermine the importance of making sure that our children don’t participate in online gambling, as outlined in clause 66—are still serious and could significantly undermine the regime. The point, I think, is why do we have to then wait for the High Court to make an order, and why is the initial step in relation to enforceable undertakings and formal warnings very, very minor in terms of the potential breaches that could be in place?

I just wondered if the regulatory regime in relation to compliance and enforcement lacked teeth and lacked, perhaps, the resources and speed. I think that’s what Helen White was alluding to in terms of the time period that it takes to go to the High Court and actually get an order to get some of these stopped may be a very long time. If these were criminal offences, obviously it wouldn’t be up to the Secretary for Internal Affairs to take all those enforcement steps in order to make sure that everything was being complied with. Those are my questions in relation to clauses 50 to 66, which others have already mentioned, and there might be some more details in there, too.

I did have some more questions around the complaints to the secretary, too, though. We did touch on this briefly earlier, in the previous part, when we looked at the fact that individual organisations who are regulated by this bill would have to have a complaints register. Additionally, as foreshadowed, there is a complaints register to the secretary as well. That is also a significant undertaking—the fact that not only will the secretary be having to decide whether to take enforcement action when there has been non-compliance but also have a register and investigations.

I wonder, around the complaints to the secretary—and this is probably not something the Minister had any involvement with, but, really, this will be where a lot of the enforcement action comes from. It’s interesting that it comes after the outlines in relation to liability. That would be my understanding, anyway. I think these are just some very important, significant questions around the effectiveness of the civil regime as opposed to the criminal regime. I know colleagues will have further questions around the complaint process that the secretary will follow.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just responding to a couple of the queries we’ve had this morning. Helen White asked about the take-down notices and practicality of going to the High Court. Look, the High Court is the most appropriate court for these types of measures, because it’s quite similar to other regimes that we have in New Zealand, such as the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act. The regulator will also work with other overseas regulators to enforce.

Camilla Belich was asking about the offence to gamble on behalf of a person under 18 and why it was just one provision. Ultimately, that’s because Cabinet agreed to one offence. The secretary has a range of other tools available to address potential breaches.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Ingrid Leary, but I’ve been watching the debate for quite some time, and I don’t want any more speeches. This is not a reference to the current member on her feet. I think we really need to home in now, because we’ve spent quite considerable time on a bill that’s already had a process of select committee.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (12:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. My specific question is on the offence of online casino gambling on behalf of a person under 18 years old, in clause 66. When we look at what that offence covers, it’s basically somebody who’s either gambling on behalf of an under-18-year-old or is reckless about that. I wonder what attention was given to the circumstances in which that might arise. We have heard that there is a harm minimisation element to the purpose of this bill. The only scenario that I can think of that would really apply in clause 66 is when the person who is doing the online gambling on behalf of the under-18-year-old has a gambling harm issue themselves. This is the only provision where there has been an offence created. We have all sorts of other potential harms happening such as advertising to under-18-year-olds or advertising outside of the regulations, which are all in the regulatory regime, yet the one single offence that seems to have appeared in this bill that is not a civil liability matter is most likely to occur when somebody has a gambling harm problem.

What advice did the Minister receive about that? Did she talk to health officials or anyone from the mental health part of the Ministry of Health? Why did she decide to only include this as an offence, which seems to be doing the opposite of what the bill says on the tin? It seems to be punishing somebody with an online gambling harm problem, and yet there is a plethora of other potential problems that should be, in our view, covered by offences rather than a civil liability regime.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take another question from Camilla Belich, because you signalled before that you had another point to make, but I’m getting very close to ending this part, so you need to keep it really relevant.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (12:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just note, I do have a question in relation to Subpart 3. Additionally, there is Subpart 4 and Subpart 5, which haven’t been touched on, before we come onto Part 5. I’ll endeavour to get as many questions in those relevant sections as I can.

The question I have in relation to Subpart 3 is in relation to complaints to the Secretary for Internal Affairs. I was reading through this quite carefully, and the question I have for the Minister is: does this give the secretary jurisdiction to investigate complaints by family members or third parties in relation to the online casino gambling operator? The reason I think that’s important is because, in many of these instances where, obviously, an improper activity may have occurred, we may be dealing with someone who has an addiction to gambling who needs assistance, and it may be that only family members or third parties are aware of the way that an operator is operating. It may be, in that instance, that they don’t have perfect information.

I wanted to just check with the Minister whether she could get some advice on whether imperfect information that perhaps maybe the individual themselves who’s participating in the gambling may have access to would be able to be considered in complaints to the secretary. I do think that that’s important, because I think it may be that family members complain to the operator, but it may be that if there are many complaints in relation to the same operator, then that gives additional reason and additional concern to the secretary to be able to investigate that. That’s in relation to Subpart 3.

I think, the other point, which is also important, is: to what extent will there be initiative taken—I’m talking to clause 72 in Subpart 4 here—when the secretary is looking to share information with overseas regulators? Will this be something that is on a request basis or whether they feel that there’s, perhaps, an online gambling operator that might be operating in many jurisdictions that may need to have information shared across borders because they are acting in a way which is, perhaps, contrary to the different jurisdictions?

Now, this is quite a complex thing and, again, goes to the additional duties that the secretary will have in relation to making sure that they comply with these duties under this Act. It’s a considerable task to assess all of the information available in relation to complaints that may be raised by the regulator and then decide whether that is to be shared with overseas operators as well. Of course, they’ll have slightly different jurisdictions, and the breaches may be slightly different, but, of course, if someone’s acting in a way that ignores all of the different provisions, then that could be that they do want to share that.

In relation to Subpart 5, this is the public register of operators and licenses, and I wanted to know, and I didn’t get to ask this question earlier, but this physical address in New Zealand—this has come up in previous sections as well, but I don’t think has been touched on; we did talk about the territorial issues in Part 1—but when we talk about the physical address for service in New Zealand, is this able to be a PO Box? Does this have to be a physical address that could actually, for example, be used to contact someone where there’s a human being there or an actual physical location; or could it just be, in fact, a PO Box that could be forwarding to an overseas address? So that provision is not only in this provision—I wanted to ask that question in an earlier stage; I didn’t have the opportunity and I wanted to know if that was the case, because that does go to the integrity of the register as outlined in clause 74 and the information that will be available to people who want to be able to hold these people to account. If we don’t know where they are, it’s going to be extremely difficult, and the high likelihood is that the majority of these companies will be overseas-based companies.

So I really want to know that specific question. Others may have questions in relation to the public register, but that was my specific one.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just tidying up a few of these queries and concerns.

Firstly, to Ingrid Leary, which was in some ways quite repetitive, based on previous ones that we’ve already had before. Ultimately, Cabinet agreed that there would be one offence and we want to make sure, as a Cabinet, that children under 18 were protected from the risk of harm from gambling and the Ministry of Health was consulted during the development of this bill.

Camilla Belich then asked about the Secretary for Internal Affairs having jurisdiction to investigate complaints by third parties. Yes, this is possible. That process, for complaints to the secretary, is set out in clauses 68 to 70.

Camilla Belich also asked about sharing information with overseas regulators: the secretary has ability to share information with privacy restrictions in place and that is context dependent.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (12:13): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mike Davidson’s amendments to clause 66 as set out on Amendment Paper 547 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Part 4 agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Part 5 Regulations and minimum standards

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 75 to 80, “Regulations and minimum standards”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (12:15): Thanks, Madam Chair. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to Part 5 provision 77, “Regulations relating to advertising and marketing”. I do have an Amendment Paper in with some specific requests—that I want to replace and insert a new clause 77(3)(c).

We have heard comments from previous speakers and colleagues with regards to minimising harm and protecting our young ones—our children. My amendment speaks to banning—inserting a new clause “any online or internet-based advertising or marketing where the intended recipient of such marketing is advertising are under18 years old”. We have to be cognisant of online platforms that are available to specifically under-18s—our children, our young people. We know, through general platforms, that there is quite the saturation in terms of advertising. I wanted to ask the Minister: what advice has she received with respect to this clause? We have concerns with advertising and marketing, given that there is little known about those applications of licence holders that they will be coming into a system, they’re obviously big companies that some of them may have board-wide operations, so they’re very skilled in their business operations as to marketing things that they do on their platforms.

Minister, what type of advice or what do the officials say, in terms of this provision? How strict will those advertising mechanisms be, given the fact that we are really concerned on this side of the committee of the harm that is going to be caused and whilst we may not get full prohibition, this is going to regulate—we know that this is going to regulate a market that has been there for quite some time.

One of the things that I do want to raise, Minister, is: what type of advice did you receive, in that these platforms are being updated all the time; it’s a real competition for overseas companies to be able to come into New Zealand, do their products, and I still have a strong concern around them not having to be located or domiciled in New Zealand.

I do have another question with regards to the marketing tools that these companies which we don’t know—there are strong provisions around the regulations; however, the type of products that they are going to be able to extrapolate across their products. In terms of how will you be assured or how will the public of New Zealand be assured that our young people, specifically our children, are going to be protected from these types of platforms or licensing holders. I can tell you now: kids in South Auckland, specifically those under 18 have access to devices. Sure, they provide good things like communication with their parents, education—they’re used for education. There are some prohibitions around there, around recent announcements by Government, but I want to ask that question on behalf of parents and caregivers who have specifically asked me around consumer protections: how will our children be protected? Thank you, Minister.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:19): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I will speak to the queries about clause 77, to the Amendment Paper 533 in Mike Davidson’s name. Look, it is not necessary that we have a new provision within the law talking about harm minimisation enforcement of age restrictions, because it is already in here. Operators will be required to set out their advertising and marketing strategies about how the operator will comply with regulations under clause 77; the effective controls on advertising will mitigate the risk of increased gambling and gambling harm through restrictions on the form, content, timing frequency and volume, location, and audience. The bill also requires that regulations must be made that minimise the risk of harm from advertisements and marketing and minimising advertisements and marketing to people under the age of 18. So it is unnecessary.

Yes, it is true that a lot of the detail is in the regulations, but the Department of Internal Affairs did consult with a range of stakeholders, including health and research sectors, with the Problem Gambling Foundation and others through this process of policy development. There are quite a few that we could go to at length, but I’ll just give you a small number. For the ones that I know are available online, because Cabinet has made them proactively released: operators must not target ads at those under the age of 25 unless the operator can demonstrate that the ads can be precisely targeted at consumers over the age of 18. Where reasonably practicable, targeted age gating must be implemented to ensure advertising is only shown to those over the age of 18. Advertising during or 30 minutes before or after a live broadcast of an event that would reasonably attract viewership of children is prohibited. Placing ads where more than 20 percent of the expected audience is under the age of 18 is prohibited. Placing ads where those under 18 are reasonably likely to be exposed to frequent online casino gambling ads is prohibited. Operators must exclude those who have self-excluded or those identified by an operator as a problem gambler from receiving direct and loyalty programme advertising. I could go on, but they are at length and publicly available.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:22): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Just focusing on an Amendment Paper from my colleague Mike Davidson, 553—not 533, which was just spoken about. It relates to clause 77. I appreciate the Minister has just outlined some of the intents of how she will intend to, I guess, operationalise this clause, but the amendment seeks to strengthen the language in clause 77(1), because, at the moment, what we have is that “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations”. We believe that this opens the door for a future Minister to, basically, leave those provisions relatively unregulated. So our amendment strengthens the language from “may” to “must”, so that the Minister has to actually take action on this. I am particularly concerned that the language around “may” could lead a future Government to just not do anything about this, and that would be concerning.

The amendment also would add additional language after clause 77(1)(e) to also insert “(including prohibiting the use of any advertisement whose intended audience is a particular cultural group)”. Now, we know that, for some of our migrant and ethnic communities, there may be specific targeting that may occur, using cultural signifiers or other means of advertisement that specifically seeks to target them on the basis of their cultural identity. We think that adding this language into clause 77 will also give the Minister an additional tool to assess whether there is that level of targeting based on culture as well.

In the amendment, we also suggest replacing clause 77(1)(f), that is on page 43, lines 29 and 39, with “prohibiting the use of endorsements, sponsorships, and similar third-party arrangements in advertising (including affiliate marketing);”. We believe that, basically, this will strengthen the ability for the Minister to prevent influencers from being able to operate in ways that seek to cause harm to our communities, particularly young audiences. So we wanted to engage with the Minister as to—and I want to go back to the language of “may” versus “must”—does she think that the language as written adequately safeguards a future Minister who may be more inclined to deregulate or take a hands-off approach to the provisions in clause 77? If she thinks that this is a legitimate concern, would she be agreeable to make sure that Ministers have to actually consider all the provisions in clause 77?

I also want to know whether she has seen any advertisement or has received feedback of advertisement that specifically targets people on the basis of culture—whether that’s something that she received feedback on in preparation of the bill, and, if she didn’t, whether she thinks that this is an oversight in how clause 77 is written.

I also want to know if the amendment from my colleague Mike Davidson would better address the use of influencer’s platforms to try and entice young people online towards online gambling. We know this is a very genuine and concerning issue that has been raised with many of us. We think that the language in the amendment that we’ve provided will help address this because of the affiliate marketing language that we’re adding in there, which is the distinction as well. So, again, we’re trying to engage in good faith with these amendments and strengthen the provisions of this bill and seeking engagement with the Minister, particularly around the “may” versus “must” language. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:26): Thank you. Speaking to Ricardo Menéndez March’s questions about changing clause 77(1) to “The Governor-General must, by Order in Council … make regulations”. Look, it’s actually not convention to require the Governor-General to do anything or to force her to do anything, so this Government is not going to now force the Governor-General to make recommendations. But if it is of any help to the member, it is not necessary to change the language to be stronger in order to try and force regulations for harm minimisation to be made, because I as the Minister am already doing that. The regulations will come into force and they’ll be there in force before people can legally advertise. So I don’t believe it is necessary, and also quite a strange change of convention.

For the Amendment Paper 553 that Ricardo Menéndez March has asked on behalf of Mike Davidson, I don’t believe this is also necessary. It talks about prohibiting the use of endorsements, sponsorships, and similar third-party arrangements and ads, and prohibiting any use of ads whose intended audience is a particular cultural group. The reason why I don’t believe that that is necessary is because the publicly released regulations on advertising and marketing restrictions include the requirement that ads must not play on people’s fears, beliefs, superstitions, or use cultural symbols, names, or imagery likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Cabinet has also agreed to prohibit endorsement sponsorships already, and that includes things like social media influencers. Therefore, there is no need to place this detail of restriction into the law.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (12:28): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 5, the regulations relating to harm prevention and minimisation, clause 75, I think it’s important that we get the Minister on the Hansard regarding what her expectation is around how those regulations will work. She has mentioned that the reason to put them in regulation is for there to be flexibility, and we appreciate that, but also we do have the issue of regulatory capture and the real risk of that with the creation of this regulated sector and the expansion of it simultaneously.

So what appears to be missing and what I haven’t heard answers from in other parts but relates very much to this section is how will she monitor the impact of the advertising? Because what we see in the bill is a very inputs-orientated regime which makes assumptions about the level of harm that will be reduced by having certain criteria around advertising. However, we haven’t heard from the Minister in response to our questions for evidence of that, so it’s based on assumptions and a theory, and it may well bear out. However, it may be that we find there is an explosion in harm in New Zealand after the advertising takes place. What are the mechanisms in this part of the bill that enable monitoring of the harm, and what is her expectation around the changes to the regulations to reduce risk and harm in the event that the advertising regime that comes in under regulations in December 2026 does not appear to be working in that respect?

It may be working in terms of consumer protection, which is something very different. I did not hear answers from the Minister to my questions last night about her understanding of the differences between consumer protection and harm, but this is where the proof would be in the pudding. It is to have a mechanism, and, if there isn’t, then what is her expectation so that in the event that we see reports of increased harm, there can be real pressure put on to change the regulations, and not to have the converse happen—which, in my view is more likely—which is that there is lobbying pressure from the sector that means those advertisement regulations won’t change and there will be a complete disconnect between the advertising regime regulatory environment and the harm that is being caused?

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (12:31): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s quite important to note that on this side, we actually support good regulation, and the problem with this bill as it stands is that the regulations are not good enough. We are trying to put forward lots of amendments to make it better than what it currently stands as.

I just want to continue talking to some of my amendments that I’ve put forward. I won’t talk to Amendment Paper 552, because that was also about replacing “may” with “must be”, and, obviously, that’s been spoken to before. I’ll skip past that one and I’ll talk to Amendment Paper 551. This is around clause 75, and it’s adding another paragraph to it, which is paragraph (ab). It is prescribing mandatory limits on the amount that may be deposited and then lost from an account on a gambling platform over a specified period of time.

I think this a really important amendment and it will achieve quite a good outcome because what we know about the harm is that it’s sometimes the amount of money that is lost in a very short period of time. While people can put money into an account, sometimes the telltale sign is actually how much they’re losing and how quickly they’re losing it. This is actually a suggestion from Lotto to do this, and I think it could really help this bill create better outcomes around harm prevention and minimisation if we were to put some limits on what people can put in and also what people can lose over a specified period of time in order to ensure that we’re taking the most care with the regulations.

I think if we can strengthen the regulations, we’re going to actually get better outcomes for people. We know that the harm from gambling is actually very, very severe and it is a mental health issue as well, and we need to be doing the most we can to try to help in this space. We just find that the regulations and this bill as it currently stands aren’t meeting those needs, and so I’d like the Minister to consider this additional amendment to try and really get some good outcomes from this bill. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, to Ingrid Leary talking about how will we monitor the impact of advertising over time? Look, Cabinet has agreed to a three-year review of the legislation to check that it is working and if any changes are needed. There are monitoring and compliance pathways as part of the function of the Secretary for Internal Affairs in clause 18. Regulations can also be changed quickly if required, but, importantly, it does require the scrutiny of Cabinet.

Amendment Paper 551, which Mike Davidson has just referenced, which is prescribing the mandatory limits—look, I don’t believe that that is necessary or appropriate as different people have different limits on how much they can afford to lose in a period of time, and the regulations will enable people to set their own limits themselves.

Cabinet has also agreed that operators must offer customers the ability to exclude themselves, and I think this is quite important when it comes to the status quo, where we have a completely unregulated online casino gambling market at the moment, where there are no set limits. If there is a mandatory limit that is set under law and it is too low, there will be less channelling into the appropriate regulated market as people may find that there’s less consumer choice and will simply opt to use the black market.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (12:35): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 75 as set out on Amendment Paper 551 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendments to clause 75 as set out on Amendment Paper 552 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mike Davidson’s amendments to clauses 75 and 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 544 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendments to clause 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 553 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendments to clause 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 554 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment replacing clause 77(3)(b) and inserting new clause 77(3)(c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment to clause 77(3)(b) to restrict the hours of television and radio advertising be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 543 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Mike Davidson’s amendment to clause 77 as set out on Amendment Paper 547 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s amendment to insert new clause 80AAA as set out on Amendment Paper 555 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

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 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Part 5 agreed to.

Committee of the Whole House

Part 6 Gambling duty and other matters

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 6, which is the debate on clauses 80A to 82, “Gambling duty and other matters”. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I just really wish to take a quick call explaining the need for the Amendment Paper in my name at this particular part of the bill. As I’m sure members of the Governance and Administration Committee and others of our community will know, through the select committee process there was quite a community outpouring of support for a community return component to this bill where the profits went back to the community. Now, during that time, it became quite a rigmarole of finding the appropriate way to draft this section of the bill to add it in, and I know the select committee did their best to create an amendment that would fit it in.

However, I have an amendment which I believe should be supported across the Chamber and which makes it better, and this is because the select committee amended the bill to require the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to pay 25 percent of online gambling duty into an account opened by the Secretary for Internal Affairs under section 286 of the Gambling Act. The Lottery Grants Board would then receive and distribute these funds to benefit the community. This approach would impose new legal requirements on Inland Revenue and incur costs to administer the payment. This approach is also inflexible and would require legislative change to make any future adjustments to the rate of the online gambling duty to be returned to the community.

The Amendment Paper in my name is intended to provide a more flexible and less administratively complex means of enabling this distribution while also recognising that we support the intent behind what was the outpouring of support by the community. The amount of online gambling duty paid in total will be set out in legislation. The amount returned to the community can therefore be increased through amendment by Cabinet rather than amending legislation. As the Minister responsible for the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), I know just how hard it is sometimes, when you have a very bespoke part of DIA to change, how very, very difficult it is to get legislative change on one provision, which is why I’ve also got a regulatory systems amendment bill tidying up other parts of DIA that have not been amended for years. I believe that this is a good amendment and should be supported across the Chamber.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (12:44): Thank you, Minister van Velden, for explaining your amendment. I have put forward an amendment to your amendment with regards to Part 6, clauses 80C to 80F, and in my Amendment Paper, one of the things that I wanted to highlight was that we had a number of submitters who came in at the first draft of the bill when there was no community return, so the fact that Minister went back to Cabinet to get that has been really well received, Minister. However, my amendment talks about the system in relation to the Lottery Grants Board system, and we had certain submitters—and I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Community Trust but also Martin Snedden, who came to the select committee with specific proposals and the request that the select committee would consider that the system in terms of the return to the community would not be chosen as the Lottery Grants Board but consider the New Zealand Community Trust, which is a mechanism and operation much closer to the community.

The select committee heard the submissions from Mr Snedden and also other organisations which strongly supported the New Zealand Community Trust over the Lottery Grants Board, given that the Lottery Grants Board is a structured process and is approved by Cabinet and the Government. There were certain criteria that submitters raised: firstly, the length of time in terms of the system and community groups and sports groups that apply to the Lottery Grants Board for those specific grants; also, the process taken is a quite an arduous process and difficult. So, many of the community groups that submitted and sports groups that submitted to the select committee through that process requested that the committee consider putting forward that there is another better system which is speedier; they would get their grants or consideration of their grants through a regional body which is closer to the ground.

I wanted to ask the Minister, in terms of the decision making in choosing the lottery grant system, what the officials advised in terms of that specific system. Did they take into account any changes, broadly, that would assist getting returns out to the community faster? Also, the process under the lottery grant system has been going for quite some time—over a few decades now—but will there be a modernisation of that system? Did the Minister receive any advice around that? Also, the Minister has just mentioned that the review would be taking place in a couple of years, which is really welcomed by myself and other members on the select committee.

I wanted to just ask the Minister those specific questions, and will there be any changes in the criteria making things faster for the thousands of community groups and sports groups that came to see us at the oral submissions? I’d like to ask the Minister those specific questions.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:48): Thank you, and speaking to Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s—I will get it right at some point—amendment and to her query about the Class 4 societies, look, it is true that I did consider where it was best placed to send the money. The Class 4 societies were not considered a viable option as a distribution mechanism, as they’re set up as a decentralised model that is deliberate to support local community purpose, but this means that there is no obvious society that would be suitable to distribute the funds. It would also require significant legislative amendment to the Gambling Act.

I also considered Community Organisation Grants Scheme funding or setting up a completely new system itself. However, it was deemed that the Lottery Grants Board, which is very used to doing community returns and does it quite regularly with a large portion of money, would be the most appropriate place for it, because collecting via tax and distributing via the Lottery Grants Board removes regulatory burden of monitoring operators to ensure that they’re distributing funding as we would actually need to do under the Class 4 system.

In terms of your Amendment Paper 538, which I know you have, about applicants getting funding from the Lottery Grants Board, and they should be able to request that it’s played from the lotteries and not from the online casino gambling—I totally understand that this is an issue that the Lottery Grants Board will need to do. However, there’s not a legislative amendment that’s needed for that, because, wearing my other hat as a presiding member of the Lottery Grants Board, I am already aware that there will be people who don’t wish to apply for money from a source of funding that has touched casino gambling. Without breaching the confidence of the Lottery Grants Board, which is separate to my role here as a Minister today, that is something that I’m very cognisant of and share as a concern with other members of that board, and they’re very aware that there will need to be changes internally to make this happen.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:51): Thank you, Madam Chair. I see that the other side is very excited to take a call already on the second call of this part, which is significant because of the Amendment Paper the Minister has introduced, Amendment Paper 530, that hasn’t gone through a select committee process, and it’s the first time we’re able to speak on it. I want to thank the Minister in terms of her introductory remarks around the Amendment Paper, and I know that I always have further questions, as well, on other matters.

In terms of the Amendment Paper, I have two very specific questions for the Minister right now, which is under the select committee’s amendment in Part 6, clause 80C. It specifies that it’s “Ring-fenced online gambling duty”, but the term “ring-fenced” has been removed by the Minister’s amendment. I understand the process burden, if it’s going through IRD and you’re having to go back to the Lotteries Commission, etc., but is the “ring-fenced” phrase considered redundant because the money is going to be held by the secretary already and, therefore, IRD doesn’t need to ring-fence for the purpose of gambling duty? Or is it now no longer “ring-fenced” specifically for the purpose of—I believe, specifically used for allocations and distribution for community purposes? If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying if, under her amendment, the gambling duty is to ring-fence specifically for allocation and distribution for community purposes?

My second question is around what the Minister mentioned—previously, it had given a specific amount of 25 percent, but a specific percentage is not in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. The Minister, again, mentioned a level of flexibility, but, I guess, the question is if the flexibility would also imply that a gambling duty—the sum of gambling duty that is supposed to be determined by the secretary at each of the financial year and pay the online gambling duty funding for that financial year—will be less or significantly less than the 25 percent that is in the original amendment by the select committee. I think if it’s going to be less or significantly less than 25 percent, we potentially also get into an issue where it doesn’t actually serve the purpose of allocation and distribution for community purposes. Is there any modelling on what that potentially could look like or a variation of that amount? Or is a percentage not specified because we are relying on the 16 percent as we see in clause 80B, which amends section 12 of the principal Act: replace “ ‘the rate of 12%’ with ‘the rate of 16%’ ”?

So, to capture the two parts of the question, the first part is: is the funding gambling duty still ring-fenced for the purpose of allocation and distribution for community purposes? The second part is: would the removal of 25 percent mean that the new amount will be less or significantly less than 25 percent?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (12:54): Thank you. To the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan, look, the funding collected from the duty for the purpose of community returns will be transferred through the Budget process and Cabinet will decide the amount. Therefore, it does not now require ring-fencing. Cabinet has decided the percentage, and, as I’ve said, the 16 percent is set out in the Gaming Duties Act, but this is better for flexibility for the future.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Public Finance Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Public Service Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Online Casino Gambling Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, and the Public Service Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day. The Online Casino Gambling Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until after 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.

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