Wednesday, 1 April 2026

Wednesday, 1 April 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Debates

Member Fees—Fire and Emergency New Zealand Board

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (14:01): Members, I’ve received a letter from Lemauga Lydia Sosene seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the decision to increase the board member fees for the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Board. This is a case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made, even though it may be important. There must be an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business: Speakers’ rulings 224/4. The subject of the application is the result of a fees framework set by the Cabinet last year. It doesn’t warrant setting aside the business of the House today.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:01): Two petitions have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:01):

Petition of Gary Chiles requesting that the House repeal and replace the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 with health-focused harm minimisation legislation

petition of Russel Norman requesting that the House urge the Government to condemn the military attack by the United States and Israeli Governments on Iran.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER (14:02): I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Department of Corrections: Planning for stable housing outcomes. That paper is published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:02): Five select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:02):

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Standard Estimates Questionnaire 2026/27

interim report of the Health Committee on the briefing from the New Zealand Drug Federation on methamphetamine consumption

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Bevan O’Connor

petition of Carl Smith

petition of Newton Santos.

SPEAKER: The report on the Standard Estimates Questionnaire 2026/27 and the interim report on the briefing from the New Zealand Drug Federation are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:03) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:03): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which regions will experience fuel shortages first, and has the Government modelled the impact on rural and Māori communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member will well know, we are in what we call phase 1, which is watchful, and that just means the market is operating effectively and fuel is available nationwide.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Prime Minister release all internal modelling on fuel supply risk so New Zealanders can see the full picture?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what we did last Friday was we outlined the four phases of our national fuel response plan. We are very much in a place where we have sufficient stocks and sufficient supplies, and so there is no significant supply disruptions. All we are doing is preparing for the eventuality that that may possibly happen in future months. That’s why we’ve laid out the four phases.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the National Fuel Plan been operationally tested, and what role do iwi have in its execution?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are meeting with officials every morning, and many times through the course of the day. But, at this point, our major focus, as you know, is to secure fuel supply; without it, that is the thing that can do the most damage to incomes and jobs. That is why we are doing everything we can to secure fuel.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Government commit to using the extra $11.8 million in GST revenue per week that they are making off the back of this fuel crisis, to increase mileage subsidies for essential workers; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I heard the Leader of the Opposition say something similar last week and I just want to say to the members here that there is no windfall gain or benefit from higher fuel prices for the Government. Petrol excise tax, as everyone will understand, is fixed. While there may be a slight increase in GST theoretically increasing, there is an offset as people spend less money on other categories other than fuel.

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Um—Rawiri Waititi.

Rawiri Waititi: How could you forget me that quickly, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yes, quite; you’re not exactly forgettable!

Rawiri Waititi: Will the Government be harmonising our fuel excise tax with Australia by cutting it by 50 percent, just like they have harmonised our fuel requirements with Australia?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As we’ve said before: actually, for us, in our response to supporting New Zealanders at this time, it is important that we have timely, targeted, and temporary support. Obviously, making reductions to excise tax is not particularly targeted. It often benefits higher-income people and, importantly, can also drive more consumption. For us, it’s not meeting the criteria of what we need, which is timely, targeted, and temporary.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Will the Government consider freezing road-user charges during the fuel crisis to support whānau in Hauraki-Waikato, who are frequently impacted by the closure of the Karangahake Gorge, have limited access to public transport, and are paying more than $230 to fill a diesel tank?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We well understand how important diesel is, particularly for the New Zealand economy. Again, that’s why our focus is very much on securing extra supply.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: What support, beyond the limited package announced last week, will the Government be giving to whānau in Papakura, who commute daily to mahi with no option to work from home, who are paying over $170 to fill up with 91, and who are trying to keep up with the rising high prices?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the criteria for this Government, as we’ve outlined from day one, is to make sure that we are offering temporary, targeted, and timely support to our most vulnerable New Zealanders. We’re freely admitting that we will not be able to alleviate the pressure for everybody, but we have also learnt the mistakes from COVID, which is to make sure that we are also being economically responsible and not creating more of an impact on rising inflation and also growth. That is very much our frame. We’re very pleased to say that we’ve been able to extend support to 143,000 working families, as we announced last week—an extra $50 per week. That comes to about $375 million of total cost for the Government. We will continue to look at what more we can do, but we’re doing it through that lens. It’s important that we don’t repeat the mistakes from COVID.

Oriini Kaipara: What assurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau that fuel security planning is keeping pace with escalating global risks, and why has there been no clear public communication about what a level 3 and 4 escalation would mean for households, essential workers, and Māori communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because, as we’ve been reiterating many times in regular media engagements, New Zealand does not have a fuel supply problem at this time. The market is operating effectively. There is plenty of supply and stock in country. That’s why we’re working so hard to make sure we work on phases 1 and 2, so that we never have to get to phases 3 and 4.

Oriini Kaipara: What impact will the fuel and cost of living crises have on homelessness in Tāmaki-makau-rau and Aotearoa, and what real solutions does his Government have for homeless whānau beyond his cruel move-on orders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member—and we’ve discussed homelessness in this House before quite significantly—it’s a very complex issue. This Government is supporting, with $550 million a year, agencies and organisations on housing—$5 billion a year. We’ve opened up 300 extra Housing First places. We’ve put $10 million into rough sleeping. Auckland Council now are doing a daily count of homelessness in the Auckland CBD, and typically the numbers are running at 24 to 30 people.

Finance

Question No. 2

NANCY LU (National) (14:08) to the Minister of Finance: How is conflict in the Middle East affecting the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:09): The most immediate and noticeable impact of the Middle East conflict has been on the price of oil and, therefore, on the price of refined fuels in New Zealand. Prices have risen markedly since the start of the conflict. Petrol has gone up 34 percent and diesel has gone up 86 percent. Petrol and other fuels make up just under 4 percent of the basket of goods and services in the Consumers Price Index, so these price rises will have a direct impact on overall inflation.

Nancy Lu: How do fuel prices affect inflation more widely?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As members know, fuel is a key input for a whole range of industries. An increase in fuel prices will tend to flow through to higher prices for other goods and services in the economy, to the extent that producers pass those costs on. That won’t just happen domestically; we will also import inflation from overseas. Food prices, in particular, will be affected by the present conflict as food production depends on both fuel and fertiliser, both of which are impacted by oil and gas prices. We can anticipate that inflation forecasts will be higher than previously expected, at least in the short term. The Reserve Bank will release its next set of forecasts on 27 May, and the Treasury will follow suit the day after, in the Budget update.

Nancy Lu: Given the importance of fuel, is there enough supply in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Current advice is that fuel supply remains sufficient. New Zealand has 58.7 days of petrol, 52.2 days of diesel, and 46.2 days of jet fuel in country, within our exclusive economic zone, and on the water heading here. That data is updated twice-weekly using maritime tracking and cross-checked against shipping information, giving us a high level of confidence in its accuracy. Overall stock levels remain within normal operating ranges, and there are still no indications of supply disruption. We will continue to monitor fuel stocks, shipments, and international developments closely, and act, if needed, in a measured, targeted, and evidence-based way, ensuring New Zealand remains well supplied and the economy keeps moving.

Nancy Lu: How will the conflict affect growth in the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The conflict will have a negative impact on the economy, through prices, but also, potentially, through other channels like shipping disruptions, freight costs, reduced demand for New Zealand exports, financial markets disruption, and greater uncertainty. The Government can take the sharpest edges off for vulnerable New Zealanders, and you’ve seen that with the $50 a week increase in the in-work tax credit, but there is a real cost from this conflict: New Zealand is poorer because of these global events. How big that impact is depends on how the conflict evolves and how it gets resolved. Again, the Reserve Bank and Treasury will release their updated forecasts in May.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:12) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:12): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has the Government prioritised an almost 80 percent pay rise for the directors of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, while front-line firefighters are getting no pay rise and have to continue to work in unsafe conditions with equipment that keeps breaking down?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as we’ve previously discussed in this House, obviously, our new Government framework on director fees is designed so that we can attract good talent to make very important decisions on governance. There is about $60 billion worth of Government spending, and as that member knows, having lost half of the $66 billion of COVID spending, it’s important that it’s well-governed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government decide that many families with children who work part-time won’t be eligible for the extra $50 a week fuel payment his Government’s offering?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because, again, we’re working through the lens of being timely, targeted, and temporary. We’ve got 143,000 families and households that have $50 a week extra to support them. We continue to monitor the situation as to how much more we can do, but we’ll continue to look at it through that lens.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if the support is timely and targeted, why is it not targeted towards the families on the lowest incomes with children, who are facing the same fuel price increases as every other family?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, it is. That is why we’ve gone through the in-work tax credit where 143, 000 families are earning $50 a week. We have been up front: we are not going to repeat the mistakes of COVID that that member created when he was the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions weren’t about COVID-19 or the previous Government; they’re about the decisions that this Government has made. They’ve said that they’re targeting support to families; all I’m asking is why they have chosen to target the support in the way they have. It’s nothing to do with the previous Government. New Zealanders aren’t getting this support, low-income New Zealanders with kids, in work, aren’t getting this support, and I’ve asked the Prime Minister why that is. It’s not unreasonable to expect an answer that doesn’t attack the previous Government.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I was about to say that the Prime Minister would do well not to reference the previous Government in a way that’s not related to the immediate question. You can sort of say, “Well it is related because of this or that.”, but the particular point that a member was responsible for the actions of a whole Government is also quite unreasonable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government decide that low-income workers who don’t have children won’t be eligible to receive any additional financial support, given that in many cases they will still be facing the same increase in fuel costs as New Zealanders with children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I have previously explained, this is a Government that recognises there is huge pressure on households and businesses up and down this country because of this fuel crisis. We are doing everything we can to support Kiwis, but we are also not going to repeat the mistakes of COVID that led to a 32-year high in inflation and $180 billion worth of debt, and so the frame is very simple. We need to be economically responsible so we don’t drive, and have a further impact on, inflation and debt, which ends up causing huge pain and suffering to New Zealanders, which is what they’ve experienced. On the other hand, they need timely, targeted, temporary support, which is what we have done through the delivery of relief to 143,000 families.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Government have a finite amount of money to spend, or does he subscribe to the economic philosophy of Fred Dagg that we can always borrow a few billion more?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the learning from COVID, as talked about in the royal commission of inquiry, was that it’s all very easy to fire a cash bazooka around. That creates lots of short-term gain, but it creates endless long-term pain. We only have to look at the last two years to see the pain and suffering that low and middle income working New Zealanders have endured because of reckless economic management through the COVID period.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Government believe that low-income New Zealanders with children and who are working part-time are less deserving of additional support than low-income New Zealanders with children and who are getting the support?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member, this is a Government that will continue to look at what more we can do to support vulnerable New Zealanders in this difficult time. The first initiative that we have supported is that of 143,000 working families with children having $50 per week. That’s a temporary increase, it’s targeted, and it’s very timely.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government now considering extra financial support for care and support workers; if so, does he regret unilaterally cancelling their pay equity claim that could have seen them getting that support two years ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member, it has been well canvassed. The Minister has been taking advice on that particular topic about healthcare workers—we’ll have more to say about that very shortly. But with respect to pay equity, there is still a pay equity regime in this country.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You cancelled it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. What has happened is that it was unworkable and it was unaffordable, and I look forward to the member saying whether or not he will reinstate another $10 billion to be able to go back to what he previously put in place.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If a pay equity regime is still available to care and support workers, why did his own Government pass a law that specifically prohibited care and support workers raising a new pay equity claim?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a pay equity regime in this country that is now workable and affordable. We encourage members to actually launch claims. We have put money aside to support those claims. But I just say that the member needs to be very up front with New Zealand about where he is going to find the $10 billion to $11 billion to support his policy and the reversal of that change.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he not aware that his Government specifically passed a law that prevents care and support workers raising a new pay equity claim?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m well aware that our Government passed a law to make sure an unworkable system and an unaffordable system is now workable and affordable.

SPEAKER: Question No. 4, Tim Costley. [Interruption] Tim Costley, just wait for a minute while everyone settles.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 4

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (14:18) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes to welfare supports will come into effect today to help respond to cost of living pressures?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:19): As global fuel price challenges continue to impact Kiwis, from today more than 1.5 million New Zealanders will receive extra support in their pockets. The increased support will come from the Ministry of Social Development’s annual adjustments. The people who will benefit include students, working-age beneficiaries, and superannuitants, as well as non-beneficiaries getting supplementary assistance. Our Government is determined to keep progressing sensible, measured changes that provide some relief to those impacted by the cost of living challenges.

Tim Costley: How will students be better off as a result of these changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: From today, students will receive a boost in support for living costs. Around 52,000 students receiving student allowance and loans will get an increase in financial support—for example, a single person over the age of 24 receiving the student allowance will gain an additional $22 a fortnight.

Tim Costley: How will seniors, like those in Kāpiti, be better off from today’s changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Speaker, 960,000 Kiwis receiving superannuation and veterans pension will get more money in their pockets. Superannuation for a married couple who both qualify will lift more than $50, to $1,708 a fortnight. This is an increase of over $180 since the 2023 general election, which, of course, has helped to ease the cost of living pressures.

Tim Costley: Who else will benefit from these changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Speaker, 435,000 working-age beneficiaries will get increased support for the cost of living, and approximately 67,000 non-beneficiaries will get an increase in their supplementary assistance. A couple with children, receiving jobseeker support, will receive an increase of more than $40 a fortnight. A sole parent receiving sole parent support will receive an increase of more than $30 a fortnight.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim that this is a new cost of living measure when this happens automatically every single year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I haven’t.

Prime Minister

Question No. 5

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:21) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:21): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement from question time yesterday that “We care about working New Zealanders and we’re making sure that we can support the most vulnerable as best we possibly can.”, and, if so, what will he do today to address the impacts of rapidly rising fossil fuel prices on care and support workers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he think the impact is on people who are sick or need health support when care workers are reporting, “I had to call in sick on Monday because my car was too low on fuel and I had to wait on my partner’s student allowance so I could put fuel in my car and go to work the next day.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s why the Minister’s taking advice on it. We’ll have more to say about it shortly.

Hon Marama Davidson: I seek leave to table a document that is not publicly available, with feedback from providers under the Home and Community Health Association.

SPEAKER: What’s the source of it?

Hon Marama Davidson: It is feedback from the Home and Community Health—correspondence.

SPEAKER: Where did you get it from? Where does it come from?

Hon Marama Davidson: Correspondence, Mr Speaker, that is not publicly available.

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

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

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you. Is he comfortable with care workers having to use Afterpay to recover their fuel costs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to my first question, the Minister has been taking advice with respect to care workers, and we’ll have more to say about that shortly.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he comfortable with reports of support workers reducing or refusing visits to remote clients because they can’t afford to fill up their cars?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said, we are a Government that is freely admitting we will not be able to alleviate the pressure on everybody across the country. We know it’s an incredibly difficult time for households and businesses, but our frame is very clear. We need to be economically responsible so we don’t hurt working New Zealanders with higher levels of inflation and more debt, but, equally, we need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to give them timely, targeted, and temporary support.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to providing temporary, targeted, and timely relief to care workers by implementing immediate, short-term, in-between travel funding increases to cover the gap between current fuel prices and existing reimbursement rates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve already answered that with my previous answers. [Interruption]

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Just before you go—when a question is being asked, all the way through, the House listens to it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table two letters addressed to the Minister of Finance, both from the Home and Community Health Association, requesting the Minister consider urgent fuel cost relief for care and support workers, and neither of these letters are available publicly.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but they’re not—whose letters are they?

Hon Marama Davidson: Correspondence from the Home and Community Health Association.

SPEAKER: Copied to you? Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you.

Finance

Question No. 6

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:25) to the Minister of Finance: Has Treasury revised its inflation “worst case scenario” on 16 March of 3.7 percent; if so, what are its latest inflation forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:25): In answer to the second part of the question, Treasury’s latest inflation forecasts are in December’s half-year update, but they are clearly out of date. Treasury is developing its next set of forecasts for the Budget update in May, and I anticipate that alongside their central forecast, they will present another of upside and downside risks to those forecasts. That, of course, reflects the uncertainty around how the conflict in the Middle East will evolve. In terms of the first part of the question and the 16 March scenario referred to, I can confirm the Treasury has subsequently developed further stylised scenarios to highlight possible macroeconomic impacts associated with the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. These involve a number of judgments and assumptions about how severe the disruption will be, how long it will last, and how oil prices will respond. These do not describe a worst-case scenario but, rather, the worst among a group of illustrative scenarios. They are not forecasts.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why can’t she share the latest stylised, high-level, and general scenarios and assumptions given that she has just confirmed that she has received some?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I will absolutely present the forecasts in May, and I expect that they will be significantly worse than the forecasts previously presented. I’m not going to give a running commentary on all the discussions Treasury has with me as they develop their understanding of how the conflict will impact the economy. The member will be well aware that a number of economists in New Zealand and across the world have developed varying views on how the conflict will unfold and its impact for macroeconomic conditions. It is fair to say, as I said in my answer to the earlier question today, that events in the Middle East have made New Zealand poorer, they will be negative for our inflation rate and for the cost of living, and they will be destructive of growth.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with ASB’s forecast of inflation reaching 4.2 percent by the middle of the year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s not my responsibility to agree or disagree with a particular forecast. As I just noted in my earlier answer, there are a range of forecasts from bank economists and others that predict a higher rate of inflation this year than would have been the case without the Middle East conflict. It is my view that I concur that inflation will go higher this year as a result of the Middle East conflict. How much higher it goes depends on the decisions and judgments of leaders in countries on the other side of the world. I join the Prime Minister and our Government in wishing for a cessation to the conflict, a negotiated outcome, and the resumption of the normal passage of oil and refined fuels in the world, because that is what is required to bring down the price of fuel in New Zealand and to strengthen our economy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis, Opposition Finance Spokesperson in May 2022, who said, “it can’t simply blame these issues on overseas factors”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Absolutely, I do. It’s not enough to just say, “overseas factors meant I had to throw out the rule book and take bad decisions”. The grave responsibility we now have as a Government is to take these world events and control our response to blunt the impacts, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are making sure that we have a plan for responding to disrupted fuel supply. We’re making sure that our own spending decisions don’t make that inflation spiral more vicious than it might otherwise be. We have choices, and we will take our choices responsibly. I remain of the view, which the royal commission shares with me, that the last Government did not take those choices responsibly, made our inflation spiral deeper, and our debt hole deeper than it need have been.

Hon Chris Bishop: Would the right policy response to this crisis be to borrow billions to spend it on things “that we were going to do anyway”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am aware that that is the position of some members of this House and the way they responded to previous global events. What is the case, and I’m sure that members opposite would quite agree with me on this, is that our world is more fragile today than it has been in some time. In the midst of that fragility, our Government has a responsibility to ensure that New Zealand is as strong as possible, to see its way through not just the next few weeks and months, members, but potentially the next few years. Putting us in a position where we are highly indebted and fragile, subject to global interest rate fluctuations, and unable to finance public services is not a position I am prepared to take. It is also the case that we need to be careful that our choices don’t inadvertently add to the inflation fire.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Only one person speaking when a question’s called.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How will she “blunt the impact” on care and support workers who are reportedly having to refuse jobs because they cannot afford the fuel to get there?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government will make an announcement on that tomorrow.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How will she “blunt the impact” on a net 93 percent of businesses who are expecting costs to increase?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is not within my power to end the conflict in the Middle East. However, I know that to blunt the impact on New Zealand firms, it is essential that we do everything we can to ensure they continue to have the fuel supplies needed to support jobs, incomes, and economic activity. It is also the case that the Government must take a measured and careful fiscal response, which should include temporary, timely, and targeted measures to offer support where it is required, and which should include engaging extremely closely with business and industry to make sure their views are at the fore as we continue to execute our fuel response plan.

Transport

Question No. 7

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (14:32) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding Cyclone Gabrielle recovery work in the Napier to Wairoa corridor?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:32): As we know, transport infrastructure across the North Island was hit hard in recent years by intense rainfall and events like Cyclone Gabrielle, which caused widespread damage, triggered slips, and forced the temporary closure of key State highway connections, which I know the member will be well aware of as the local MP. Our priority has been restoring these connections as quickly as possible. Yesterday, we announced that recovery work on the Napier to Wairoa corridor following Cyclone Gabrielle has been completed. The final asphalting is now done, meaning the 4-kilometre road rebuild at State Highway 2—known as “Devil’s Elbow”—is once again open to traffic. It’s a major milestone in recovery works in Hawke’s Bay and will mean a more efficient connection between Wairoa and Napier.

Katie Nimon: What was involved in the rebuild of State Highway 2, Devil’s Elbow?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There were crews from local contractors working alongside Transport Rebuild East Coast (TREC) since 2023 to repair that extensive damage. It’s a particularly narrow and winding section of the road—very challenging conditions—and I want to thank all the contractors who have worked hard on that. Since Cyclone Gabrielle, there have been 11 recovery projects along this corridor. Major underslip repairs include a 12-metre-high retaining wall where a 40-metre long and 10-metre high underslip took out the southbound lane. They’ve also completed a full culvert replacement and repair programme to improve stormwater management, helping ensure the impacts of any future adverse weather events are minimised.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: “Waste of money.”

Katie Nimon: What progress is being made on other Cyclone Gabrielle works required for Hawke’s Bay?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Quite to the contrary of mutterings from the other side that these projects are a “waste of money”—the local residents of Napier and Wairoa and the Napier electorate will be interested to discover that members opposite consider these projects a waste of money—we are, in fact, making good progress. The final repairs are under way on Rail Bridge 217, the rail line between Hastings and Napier, expected to be completed by the middle of the year. Crews are also still working hard on underslips at State Highway 38 between Lake Waikaremoana and Tuai. Repairs will help restore the road to its original width, improve resilience, and keep communities connected. Work on these projects will continue into the middle of this year and will be the final TREC projects delivered in Hawke’s Bay.

Education

Question No. 8

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (14:35) to the Minister of Education: Will she commit to maintaining at least the current level of delivery for school transport and access to learning during the fossil-fuel price spike?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:35): In the face of increasing fuel prices, the Government is committed to students being able to access and attend school. It is this Government’s priority to ensure that students are learning in school as learning was significantly disrupted by COVID, and our Government will be prioritising making sure children are learning in classrooms. The situation in the Middle East is dynamic, and, as you would expect, the Ministry of Education is planning for a range of different scenarios.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Has she sought advice on options to support school transport providers—which includes specialised school transport assistance providers—with the extra costs they are facing to continue delivering current services, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I have told the media this week, at the moment the Ministry of Education, at my direction, has been out contacting individual schools and working with school transport providers to understand the range of different challenges in different situations. We’re gathering all that data and information, and, as you would expect, we’re planning for a range of different scenarios, depending on what happens in this very dynamically shifting environment.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Will she commit to increasing the specialised school transport assistance conveyance allowance above 27c per kilometre, given Auckland Transport has said that with current fuel costs, a typical 15-kilometre trip costs around 80c per kilometre in fuel, and, if not, does she accept that the status quo will drive some families further into hardship?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already stated, the Ministry of Education is gathering that information at the moment. All options are on the table, as of course you would expect in that dynamically shifting environment. We are planning for a range of different scenarios. There is a range of different challenges, and we will plan accordingly.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does she accept that if she does not put in extra funding for greater access to school transport, school attendance will decline when around half of all students drive or are driven to school in private passenger vehicles, and transport costs have risen by at least a third in the last month and are projected to climb much higher?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Firstly, can I say that I need to congratulate and thank parents for prioritising getting their children to school, because what we have seen is that school attendance has held at broadly the same rate as it was at this time last year. There are, as I’ve already said, shifting things happening—there is a dynamic situation happening—we understand that as these things change, we will need to change our settings. The Ministry of Education is already out gathering all that information and putting together future plans, depending on what happens.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Will she make a temporary and targeted and timely relaxation of school transport eligibility requirements to allow currently ineligible students to catch school buses to get to school during the fossil fuel crisis, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve said in every answer to every single question today, everything is on the table, depending on what happens in a dynamically shifting environment. We’re gathering together a range of options. We’re responding to this, and at the right time, we will be able to announce those. But my job is to make sure—as this Government has already said—that schools remain open, that children are able to get to school, and that school transport is available to them. That is my priority.

Energy

Question No. 9

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (14:39) to the Associate Minister for Energy: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (14:39): Yes, especially when the Minister gave her consent for the decommissioning of the refinery.

SPEAKER: No—sorry, Mr Jones. We’ve been through this yesterday and the day before—

Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to a point of order—

No, no, I’m speaking, so I’ll give you a point of order in a minute. So it’s not appropriate for a Government Minister answering for the Government to make an interpretation of a Cabinet paper which is of a type not unusual for Cabinets to consider.

Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order. It falls to me to educate the House—

SPEAKER: You don’t do that by way of point of order.

Hon SHANE JONES: Figuratively, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, a point of order has to be about order.

Hon SHANE JONES: OK. The point of order that I’m raising is my reference to a statutory consent issued by that member pertaining to her role where she agreed with Ampol purchasing the refinery and agreeing with the continuation of the decommissioning of the refinery, which would not have happened had she not issued her consent as an overseas investment officer.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m in a position now where I don’t know what that procedure was, and that puts me in a difficult position. [Interruption] No, no; it’s all right, I don’t need your help. I would just suggest that if you’re answering something in the nature that you were, make it very clear what its relationship is to the Government’s response to the topic of the questioner.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Did he see advice that it was possible to fund a 70 million litre strategic reserve of diesel with the surplus built up in the Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring levy fund account?

Hon SHANE JONES: It is time for us to strip the fiction away. At no point had Megan Woods either sought a budgetary allocation, nor did she have the necessary permits.

SPEAKER: Hang on. You can’t talk about what a previous Government did.

Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: No, no. it’s not a point of order because I’m still talking. And so the question was—[Interruption] No one else is talking while I am. The question was had he received information. And anyone’s welcome to come to the Standing Orders and change the way we do things. But at the moment, it has to relate to the Government’s activity. That’s what question time is for.

Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order. In actual fact, in seeking the information and seeking advice, I was advised about the proposal pertaining to additional storage, pertaining to advice that the Crown spent money on adding to storage capacity in New Zealand, and I was advised that the former Minister had no budget, no necessary statutory consents. So I can’t answer the question unless I share with New Zealanders what is the truth. After all, I said yesterday that I just represent righteousness and truth on this issue.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for the point of order. It has been interesting for the House. Now, to the question; what’s the answer?

Hon SHANE JONES: Could she ask it again.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Did he see advice that it was possible to fund the 70 million litre strategic reserve of diesel with the surplus built up in the Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring levy fund account?

Hon SHANE JONES: Ah, yes. I have sought advice on this issue and I have been advised that the 960 million litres worth of fuel we may have access to by dint of international options was paid for by money in a levy account. That money has been well spent, and, of course, it could not have been spent on an imaginary, non-existent dream.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Did he see the advice that the accumulated surplus in the levy account fund would grow to $74.4 million by 30 June 2023 and $110 million by 30 June 2025?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. I’m very happy to report that the funding, having gone into the levy account referred to, has enabled us to secure 960 million litres of fuel. Had that money been squandered to meet the threshold of some scribbling left behind by the member as she fled from her office, we wouldn’t have access to the 960 million litres.

SPEAKER: The latter part of that is not at all helpful. The authoritative part at the front most certainly is of use to the public, but the last part not at all.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What is the current balance of the levy account?

Hon SHANE JONES: If the member would write me a letter, I will respond appropriately.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. The Minister can’t possibly stand by the previous answers that he’s given if he doesn’t know what the balance is. Megan Woods’ question was specifically about the surplus. Shane Jones has said that the surplus wasn’t available to fund the storage that the previous Government had committed to, yet he can’t say whether the surplus even still exists. How can he have given the previous answers if he doesn’t know that answer to that question?

SPEAKER: No; in sequence, he said that the money had been used to buy some 900 million litres of fuel and is therefore spent. The question asked, “What is the balance of the account?”, and that would obviously change on a day-by-day basis. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say a written question might get an answer that tracks it over time.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is he still making claims about Labour and Marsden Point because he scrapped Labours fully funded plan and is now trying to cover up his own failure to prepare our country in a fuel crisis?

Hon SHANE JONES: Far be it for to add to such tawdry discussions. This is a serious issue where Kiwis are deeply concerned about the cost of living, the security of fuel, and options going forward. It really doesn’t uphold the status of the House—that tawdry contribution.

Health

Question No. 10

SPEAKER: The question has been called and we don’t talk after that—to the naughty people in the front row there.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (14:47) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on health infrastructure in South Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:47): Last week, Health New Zealand began the next step towards delivering a future hospital for South Auckland, with a targeted process now under way to identify and acquire land in the Drury area. This is about getting ahead of growth, ensuring we secure the right site early, and laying the foundations for a major new health precinct that will serve its surrounding communities for decades to come. We’re getting on with the job so Aucklanders can have confidence that their health services will be there when they need them.

Rima Nakhle: Why is South Auckland a priority for future development?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: South Auckland and North Waikato are some of the fastest-growing regions in the country, whilst also having some of the highest health needs in New Zealand. These communities experience higher rates of infectious disease and long-term conditions, while existing hospitals like Middlemore and Auckland City are already faced with increased demand. The next step recognises both the scale of growth and the need to ensure access to timely healthcare in this part of Auckland.

Rima Nakhle: What will new health facilities in South Auckland mean for patients?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: A new hospital in South Auckland will mean better access to care closer to home. Drury was identified as a strong location due to its proximity to key transport corridors, including our roads of regional significance and planned public transport connections, making it easier for patients, staff, and visitors to access care. Over time, this will reduce pressure on existing hospitals, improve wait times, and ensure that Aucklanders can have confidence that high-quality healthcare will be there when they need it. This is all part of our wider plan to improve health infrastructure across the country.

Rima Nakhle: What are the next steps in this process?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Health New Zealand has issued a request for a proposal to landowners identified following an earlier request for information, released to market in October 2025. The site of the land being sought would enable a wide range of future health developments, including a major general hospital. This is a critical early step that allows us to plan with certainty, ensuring the future investment is well located, properly scoped, and able to meet the needs of a growing population.

Emergency Management and Recovery

Question No. 11

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (14:49) to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 10 on Tuesday, 31 March regarding civil defence and emergency services, “they’re already well prepared but there is a lot of contingency work going across all Government agencies because we have to take a responsible approach to this as a country”; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (14:50) on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: To the first part of the question, yes. To the second part of the question, because the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) is leading work to coordinate with Government agencies as well as non-Government entities to consider coordination in the future hypothetical event of fuel shortages. Of course, at the moment, it’s business as usual for them to be planning for emergencies of various types, including the possibility of concurrent emergencies of a natural disaster type, but also in the event that an emergency of one category coincides with any future fuel shortages.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: How will he ensure civil defence and emergency services can access critical fuel in the event of a shortage?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I’m very comfortable and confident that NEMA is leading work among emergency response - type agencies, including Police, ambulance services, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, as well as various responding and recovering entities in the communities, including iwi and hapū but not limited to them, of course. I’m comfortable that work’s taking place. Of course, NEMA is in the business of understanding what prioritisation decisions would need to be made in the event of an emergency, and I’m encouraging them to continue that work.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Will there be an all of emergency services response or a response for each of the emergency services in each of the National Fuel Plan’s phases?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The Government’s consulting on what some of the detail of further phases might look like, in particular phases 3 and 4, and so it’s the Government’s advice to submit to its process of understanding critical activities across the economy and society, including but not limited to emergency response. Of course, if, in the circumstance where fuel shortages were to occur, then there would be rationalisation or coordination or prioritisation decisions that would need to be made then in response to those unique and particular circumstances. In the meantime, effort to understand what those decisions might need to be based upon is exactly what’s occurring now.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specifically in relation to whether there would be an all of emergency services response or a response for each of the emergency services. He explained process that might go around making that decision, but it was very specifically about whether it’s all of emergency services or a response for each of the emergency services.

SPEAKER: Yes, but the member knows that you can’t expect answers in the nature of a yes or no, and when the Minister said that this is under discussion at the moment, then, clearly, there can’t be an answer as strong as that.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Who has the authority to trigger priority access for emergency services in the event that diesel stocks decline faster than forecast?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, as with the previous question, the fact of a consultation taking place as to what might take place in a phases 3 and 4, should we need to reach those levels, decisions will be made, no doubt, about the prioritisation of fuel but also the command and control aspects of who would make what decisions and at what junctures in terms of any fuel shortage. So it’s impossible to answer with clarity at that point, but, suffice to say, the considerations that the member’s raising, I think, are good ones but are being contemplated as part of the Government’s planning and submission process for those phases 3 and 4.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: What is the trigger point at which the Government would formally activate priority fuel access for civil defence and emergency services?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, it’s not clear to me that it would necessarily be within my ministerial remit to make such decisions.

Food Safety

Question No. 12

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:54) to the Minister for Food Safety: What advice, if any, has he received on the potential impact of the current global fuel supply disruptions on food safety in New Zealand?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Food Safety) (14:54): The availability of hygienic, food-grade packaging underpins New Zealand’s world-class food safety system and relies on the supply of both oil and fuel. Businesses report that sufficient packaging is available. We are working closely with domestic and export-focused food businesses to ensure their on-hand stocks of packaging are sufficient. We are monitoring medium- to long-term availability as part of the work of the Government’s ministerial oversight group.

Laura McClure: How can New Zealand’s food safety regulatory system respond if needed?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Our regulatory system is well placed to support companies to meet any availability challenges because it is not prescriptive about packaging. The legislation is focused on outcomes and is flexible enough for food producers to pivot to alternative supplies without a whole lot of red tape. Food producers will just need to continue to ensure that packaging protects food from contamination, that it is not a source of contamination itself, and that it preserves food quality and advertised shelf life.

Laura McClure: What has he heard from food suppliers about the availability of inputs?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I’ve had a number of farmers contact me with concerns about the availability of both fuel and fertiliser. While I understand there have been some local challenges with getting diesel delivered, overall fuel supply remains sufficient, with good levels of fuel in the country and more on the way. I understand from the fertiliser industry that there is enough product both in New Zealand and ordered to meet demand until spring, and our co-ops have options for securing future supply that they are working through now. Having said that, of course, we are seeing the price of both fuel and fertiliser go up. I just want to say to farmers that at this stage, we just have to keep calm, plan ahead, work closely with suppliers, and make sensible business decisions about the use of inputs, just as we have always done in the past as costs go up.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds before we move to the general debate.

Debates

General Debate

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries) (14:57): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Today is 1 April. Apparently, April Fools’ Day stopped at 12 o’clock, but the fools are still sitting over there, fooling themselves that they’re not responsible for the degradation of fuel storage in New Zealand, and fooling themselves that they’re not responsible for the loss of Marsden Point, the erosion of economic resilience, and the weakening of national security. They can dance on the head of a pin, but it was Megan Woods, when she let the foreign investors come into the company owning the refinery, who signed off, as an overseas investment Minister, the decommissioning of the refinery. That fact cannot be eradicated. It will be understood. It will be repeated until midnight before the election as to where true blame lies for this terrible situation that we have inherited.

Of course, there’s something worse: there is the confusion, there is the ambiguity, and there is the running and hiding from accountability and responsibility related to all of the perfidy of COVID. Now, Ayesha Verrall, where did this woman come from? How come, from utter obscurity, Jacinda Ardern plucked that individual and appointed her as the cleverest person in the history of New Zealand on public health? Then, when she is challenged by my leader in recent times, she’s skulking, hiding, and refusing to stand up and explain to the public why she and the current Leader of the Opposition refused to stand up for the parents and the children who were unnecessarily vaccinated against scientific advice warning the Government of the time “do not endanger the lives of our children.

No. We have something as authoritative as the Royal commission, who has clearly identified where that blame—where that culpability—lies. But, no, this hitherto unknown personality of obscure origins plonked in here by Jacinda Ardern now won’t say a word. I doubt whether her public health qualifications actually enable her to hold that position. Fortunately she’ll never be the Minister of Health. I see a Simeon Brown long arc of leadership and responsibility in health.

I can’t go much further without sharing good news such as the tremendous response that my leader and I have had about minerals policy. I look forward to advancing the prospects—with suitable partners, indeed the United States of America—so we can open up, we can exploit, and we can create value out of, our critical minerals, and I don’t want to hear all these Green fairytale luddites who don’t understand economics, people who hate fossil fuels but every day demand to know how the Government’s going to find more money to pay for fossil fuels. None of them has arrived on a 10-speed, because, at best, they’ve got one-speed minds.

No; mining, digging, drilling—if there’s one thing that the Iran war shows us: we must use our own resources. Sadly, I’m going to be proven right. It’s actually quite a common experience in my whānau. We see an ongoing need for the utilisation not only of gas but also of coal. Who on earth are these CEOs of gentailers of New Zealand—who are for the knacker’s yard, as I’ve said on earlier occasions—to try and undermine our Minister for Energy and make fun, parody, try and get a cheap laugh out of the audience about his policy of proceeding to bring to us a commercial proposition pertaining to the building of infrastructure to receive gas? What do they do? They try to parody; they try to belittle.

Gentailers, a message from the Matua: your days of gouging, your days of bullying—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: You’re doing nothing about it.

Hon SHANE JONES:—your days of corporate thuggery are coming to the end. Wait until the end of the year—no, please don’t listen to all these fairytales of those who have had every opportunity. We are not going to be driven by Green Luddites or ill-informed people about energy security.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:03): No New Zealander would want to be facing the challenges that we are facing now as a country; conditions that have nothing to do with any decisions any New Zealander has made. It’s very clear that we can’t control oil prices, we can’t control the conflict in the Middle East, but what we can control and what we can do as a Government is respond in a very considered and deliberate way.

I’m really proud of the work that the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and the Minister of Finance Nicola Willis, and other senior Ministers are doing to ensure that New Zealand gets through this challenge in a way that doesn’t scar our nation for years and years and years. You imagine if we were coming into this challenge around fuel prices with inflation at 7.3 percent. Think about that for a moment; think about what fuel prices would be doing right now. So what is really important is that a Government rises to the challenge of whatever it confronts, but having made sensible decisions to get inflation under control, we are in a much stronger position to confront this.

Also, this is a Government who has absorbed and listened and read through the Royal commission report into COVID to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes that the other side made. Because who has been affected the most deeply by high inflation? Those on low income; those on low incomes with fixed incomes.

So that’s why every decision our Government is making is taking into consideration the need to respond and the need to provide targeted, temporary, and timely support, but not getting the firehose out and splashing the cash around so the very households that we’re trying to support right now are damaged for years and years to come. That’s why our Government has provided relief to 143,000 families to ease the pressure of fuel prices—as of today, 143,000 families. Yes, we have targeted those working families with children, because we know the additional costs that they face.

What we do know also from 1 April is that 1.5 million New Zealanders—whether they are superannuitants, whether they receive the veteran’s pension, whether they are students, whether they are main beneficiaries, or actually whether they are non-beneficiaries who get additional support—also will see a lift today on 1 April to support the cost of living challenges. Our Government is responding in a very sensible way.

One of the other stark differences between our Government’s response in this challenge and the previous Government’s was to COVID is we’re actually listening to industry. We are listening to the experts. We are working with them, we are getting their intel, we are using that on a daily basis to ensure that we are very lined up in terms of our response, because it is not something the Government can solve on our own. Working with industry is going to be absolutely critical in terms of how we come through the challenges that we face in the weeks and months ahead.

The fuel plan: considered, sensible, designed with industry. That is where I’m incredibly confident about the response that our Government has to what will unfold—and it is unpredictable—but I want New Zealanders to be very reassured that our Government has a plan. We have laid it out and announced that for the public on Friday, but we are very connected to the very people that we need to be—whether it’s overseas, whether it’s diplomatic connections, whether it’s industry here, we are planning for what might come. Also, we have responded: 143,000 households will get support for their fuel bills, and 1.5 million New Zealanders get additional support today.

I want to assure the New Zealand public that the coalition Government is working incredibly hard, staying very close to what is shifting and changing with these unpredictable times, but we will guide New Zealand through these challenging days. I want to finish my contribution with a tribute to my member and friend, the Hon Judith Collins, who has provided a great service to our nation and our country and to wish her well in her future career.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (15:08): For at least the past three decades, the Greens have consistently set out a pathway to better protect our people and our living systems against the inevitable topple of fossil fuel dependency—a stable planet that we can all be proud of passing on to our mokopuna. In 2001, Rod Donald set out the Green Party’s vision for Aotearoa: “A crucial part of our vision involves New Zealand becoming a world-leader in ‘fossil-fuel proofing’ our economy. We are already seeing the high cost of car dependence as fuel prices accelerate.” That was 25 years ago. In 2024, the Greens put out He Ara Anamata, our plan to reduce climate emissions five times faster than this pamphlet plan of this current Government, to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel dependency and improving peoples’ quality of life at the same time.

The best time for Governments to have listened to the Green Party would have been over 30 years ago; the second best time is right now. I have my colleague Hūhana next to me, who has just returned from the North, where the Hokianga in the North and other parts of the country have been facing, at the front line, the climate change weather impacts that are seriously impacting on people’s life, livelihoods, and their daily stress.

I want to acknowledge Hūhana being on the ground with our people in the North, including in my valley in Hokianga, Te Hikutū hapū in Whirinaki, where we have lost houses, we have lost māra kai [food gardens], we have had to face the silt clean-up, the pollution that is to come, where people have lost their livelihoods, where our marae have had to open up to be able to house people and care for them, and where people are living on the edge and with the stress of not knowing what the future—the immediate future and the long-term future—for their life is.

We asked the Prime Minister and all of his Ministers to make sure that they are properly funding and resourcing local government to get on the ground urgently. There is no civil defence payment opened up for Hokianga and the North right now. Why? Why is their stress not enough? We urge the Prime Minister to urgently ensure that Crown and Government departments are on the ground, supporting these people; that local governments and regional governments can do the work that they want to do, and to better support these people who have been plunged into these crises and climate disasters.

At the same time this Prime Minister is locking us in to further dependency on fossil fuels. How absolutely maddening is that? The very people who are bearing the most right now, who are paying for the results of a war that they did not decide to have—a war that this Prime Minister refuses to condemn even while it still continues to have a very real impact on our people right now. The Clean Car Discount wound back, the billion dollar liquefied natural gas terminal, the $200 million for fossil fuel companies, a range of energy funds and efficiency funds that have been pulled back, and $20 billion a year on fossil fuels—$29 million a day. Imagine what we could do—to instead invest that to our people and an Aotearoa that is truly resilient; for a planet where everyone has their needs looked after, where we can live with dignity, where our living systems continue to provide the life that we all depend on: our clean water, our clean oceans, our clean soil, our healthy air. The actual basic human needs that we depend on instead of the climate-destroying and environment-destroying policies that this Government has put through.

I stand today to link all of the things that are happening today that the Greens have always understood were connected: our people living well, our energy systems, looking after our climate, making sure that we are sharing wealth in a way that is just what our people deserve. Where is the action and the actual plan for moving us away, for generational thinking, and for ensuring that our mokopuna are still not clinging on to the fossil fuel - dependent systems that this Government is putting into place with even more concrete.

Meanwhile, the Greens continue to put up the solutions and the pathways to ensure that we are resilient and that what is in our control prioritises the wellbeing of our people and our planet. Thank you.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (15:13): For me, parliamentarians who are parents, and also for those that were brought up in the late 80s—I think they’re called millennials, which I think I am actually; just—there is a very famous series of children’s books called Where’s Wally? Now, Where’s Wally? is a book. it’s a brilliant illustration, and there’s a lot of things happening in the picture. The whole point of it is just being able to spot where Wally is. At school, I remember it was one of our favourite pastimes to sit down with a Where’s Wally? and try and find Wally, and it wasn’t actually that hard because you just had to find his glasses. That was the key.

But it reminded me very much of where’s the Prime Minister? Where is the Prime Minister? When he was asked just a couple of days ago in the media where is his leadership in relation to this Middle East conflict and the fuel plan that supposedly is needed for New Zealand, his response was, “Well, I’m the CEO.”. No, no, no—the book’s not I’m the CEO; the book is Where is the Prime Minister? He is the leader of our country and has been remarkably missing from this fuel crisis. At a time when we have care and support workers who cannot afford to go to their jobs, who are having to decline jobs because they cannot afford the fuel, where is the Prime Minister? At a time when it’s going to cost, for some families, over $170 to fill their tank, where is the Prime Minister? That is a question for the National Party MPs, because it’s quite clear that, given the current polling, there may be other discussions that are happening and there might be a new Prime Minister. But coming back to the fuel crisis, there are some serious questions that need answering about how prepared that Government is for what we are facing. The entire economy relies on the Government getting this right, from our food packaging to our threads, to any of the compartments that are needed for microchips. It is all interrelated and it all comes from the feedstock that comes through that strait, that goes to those Asian countries, which are therefore exported to New Zealand. It’s not just about refined fuel—it’s not just about refined fuel.

I acknowledge the Minister Andrew Hoggard, who tried to give assurances today to suppliers, because what I’m hearing from suppliers is they are concerned around food packaging. This isn’t a niche issue; the whole economy depends on fuel. Members know—tradies, farmers, care and support workers, our nurses, our teachers, our students who need to get to school. The interesting thing is the possible closure of this strait wasn’t just happening this year; it was actually initially happening last year, in June 2025. So when the Government saw that that was happening, because they get good advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, what were you doing? Where was the Prime Minister? Why was he not thinking about the plan for if that strait had closed, or what is happening now, which is barely a trickle coming through that strait?

The Government published its own criteria for moving between phases. The interesting thing about that is it took them a couple of weeks just to give us more clarity on what the triggers were for phase 1 and 2, and they’re still considering stage 3 and 4. This has been four weeks since that strait has been closed. One of the important things is around the restrictions from source refineries. We should be concerned in this country if the countries that we source our refined fuels from are bringing in restrictions, we should be paying attention. Other countries all across the world are looking at restrictions, they are looking at packages to support their workers to ensure the economy runs. But this Government, because of their poor mismanagement of the economy in the last two years, where they borrowed more, they lost the fiscal headroom, we are now in a position where they can only help 7 percent of households, where 93 percent of household—“Too bad for you”, according to this Government, “Too bad.”

Tomorrow, we will finally hear how this Government, if the Prime Minister turns up, will support care and support workers. And that comes down to the advocacy by those care and support workers and the people on this side of the House who have been asking the right questions. Those Ministers need to ask more.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (15:18): I know it’s April Fools today, but I just heard what I thought was a speech from the Labour’s finance spokesperson. I was fooled, actually. But let’s turn to the seriousness in the Middle East. I do want to acknowledge the uncertain times facing this country and New Zealanders right up and down, and to acknowledge the speeches in the House.

There are many things outside of our control, and some things that are inside. The war in Iran is something outside of our control. As finance Minister Nicola Willis said, this is not our war. We did not sign up to it, and we want the hostilities to end as quickly as possible so that oil can flow as freely as possible. But we have no say in control over that. What we do have control over is our own response. We heard from the Reserve Bank Governor—she made a speech a few days ago—and her view was very clear on the economic effects from the Middle East: higher inflation and lower growth. We cannot control those impacts, but we can control New Zealand’s response to that.

I want to talk about three aspects of our response for this crisis. The first is around fuel security. I heard the member saying, “Where’s our Prime Minister?” Well, he is on the phone talking to foreign leaders, making sure that we secure the fuel that we need to power up our economy. The good news is that New Zealand is well positioned. We have far better fuel stocks than other comparable countries, like, take our neighbours across the *Ditch. We’ve established a ministerial oversight group that is getting briefings twice daily—twice daily—from a talented group of people that are monitoring the situation.

The second is cushioning the negative effects from inflation on those that are most vulnerable. Today is a good day for those, because we have got timely, targeted, and temporary support coming to over 143,000 people right up and down New Zealand. That is through the targeted tax changes that will help provide support for families—up to $50 a week for those across the country.

The third area is: maintaining our strong fiscal position. This is not a time for splashing around the cash. It is about maintaining the fiscal prudence to ensure that any support is timely, targeted, and temporary. That is from the lesson from COVID, as articulated by the New Zealand Treasury.

We have debt levels—nominal debt—of nearly $200 billion. The interest on that debt this year alone is nearing $10 billion. If we borrow more, like the other side were wont to do, what’s going to happen is the interest cost for servicing that debt goes even higher. We already had a downgrade by Moody’s, who have put our economy and Government on negative watch as a result, so there is no alternative to our approach. The only alternative that I’m hearing is to tax more, spend more, borrow more, and hope more.

I know that the next few months will be extremely tough for this country. There’s no doubt about it. We cannot sugarcoat that we cannot get away from the effects from the Middle East, but this too shall pass and I remain optimistic in this country. Brighter days will return, because this Government has a good plan.

I do want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis. She’s doing an outstanding job to articulate the Government’s plan. The phases—we’re not in COVID 2.0. You’re not going to be going home to make sourdough. This is a different time and a different crisis, but I do want to acknowledge the leadership of our Government, and they’re doing a tremendous job to provide stability through this time.

I just want to finish with a quote from Victor Hugo: “Even the darkest night will end and the sun will rise.” I’m optimistic about this country. We’ve got a good plan. Brighter days will be coming ahead.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (15:23): If someone is trying to clear things up to explain why everyone has got it wrong and he should be believed, no matter how implausible that might seem, given the evidence available, well, it always pays to check the record against the latest version of events. So it has proved with Chris Hipkins, who wandered across the parking lot last Friday to waiting reporters and told them he had “refreshed his memory on the COVID-19 vaccine advice timeline”.

Yes, a paper that he took to Cabinet in late March 2022 contained advice from the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group on the “unnecessary risk of teenagers getting myocarditis if they received a second but dose of the vaccine”. He couldn’t recall it, but, yes, he took that to Cabinet and, yes, that advice was originally in a paper dated 9 December 2021, but, of course, he never saw that. He says it was never put to Ministers.

He also moved, during Friday’s stand-up, to distance himself from ever really getting involved in the issue of medical advice or vaccine safety when he was the COVID-19 Minister. That wasn’t appropriate. He left that stuff to the health experts. His new version of events was, “All of those 1 p.m. press conferences were fronted by a Minister and a public health official, and I, certainly for the ones that I was fronting, always left the advice on vaccine safety, health advice—I always left that to the relevant health officials at those meetings and I think that was appropriate. I’m not a health practitioner. I think it was appropriate that we left that to the relevant health officials.”

So to be clear, Chris Hipkins didn’t get advised about myocarditis risk in young people from vaccinations, even though, on 5 November 2021, the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group provided advice to the Ministry of Health that says that younger groups are “more at risk than older age groups of myocarditis after the second dose” and it recommended consideration of one dose for those 18 and under for the education mandate.

Then on 9 December, even more advice was issued. It upgraded advice to say that two doses of the vaccine “may add unnecessary risk to increasing the likelihood of myocarditis”. The paper recommended considering one dose for under-18s for all vaccine mandates.

Chris Hipkins’ position today, as of last week’s memory refresh, is that in December 2021, he wasn’t getting specific advice from anyone about myocarditis risk from COVID vaccines, and he certainly would never give public health advice about vaccine safety or even health advice. He’s not a health professional; it’s not his job. It wouldn’t be responsible.

Here’s the problem with this story so far: only 12 days after 9 December advice that he never saw, he was fronting the media next to a public health official, and he was speaking about the death of a young man who recently died of myocarditis following a COVID vaccination. He wasn’t just speaking broadly about it; he seemed to be well briefed on the medical risks of the vaccine. The One News headline read, “Risk of COVID far outweighs the risk of myocarditis - Hipkins” “Chris Hipkins has assured the COVID-19 vaccination is very safe after a Dunedin man’s death from vaccine-related myocarditis.”, the story says.

He then went on to do precisely what he said last Friday that he never did at a 1 p.m. press conference: “My overall message to all New Zealanders: the vaccine is very safe, that any small risk associated with the vaccine is by far outweighed by the risk of getting COVID-19 and so vaccination’s absolutely the best course of action.”, he said.

Well, thank you, Dr Hipkins. You managed to get vaccine safety and health advice into the same sound bite. His claim about something so important as the safety of young people and whether they should be legally mandated to have a second dose of the vaccine wasn’t brought to his attention simply defies belief. They were developing advice. They were issuing advice. He was clear he wouldn’t go in front of the media and speak so forcefully about it just 12 days after the paper he never read, or would he?

Fundamentally, there are only two possibilities here. Either he really did manage to avoid reading anything through this whole period, and when he spoke to the media doing the thing he now says he never did, he was doing it without having read any of the advice. Or when he did it, the Ministry of Health, who were issuing that advice didn’t think to get on the phone and say, “Excuse me, Minister. Given the advice we’ve sent you lately, you shouldn’t have said that.” I don’t think that that is remotely credible.

Here we have yet another contradiction of Chris Hipkins. He did it with Charlotte Bellis. He did it with the two women who were going up north, accused of being prostitutes. This is somebody who wants the trust of New Zealand just to be Prime Minister and here is yet more information as the story unwinds that he does not deserve that trust.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, Mr Seymour, in general debates, generally we don’t read the whole speech. It’s unusual for you, but just a general warning that in general debates, reading speeches are a no-no. We expect there to actually be ideas here.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (15:28): Well, Mr Speaker, I’d like to present you with my blank page of no notes that I’m about to not read from. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the general debate—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I love it when people listen to me.

KATIE NIMON: —to speak about the fuel crisis that we’re in front of at the moment. It’s very clear to me, from the speeches that we’ve heard from members opposite, that what they see in leadership is seeking the limelight in the theatrette, rather than quiet work in the background to secure fuel supply.

Now, if you talk to the people out in the community, as I do in Napier—and I’d just like to remind everyone, as I always do, that Napier goes from Hastings all the way to Gisborne—the people want us to be working hard for them to make sure that next week, the week after, and the week after that, they don’t turn up to the pump or they don’t go to their bowser on the farm and find it empty. In fact, that is the work that our Prime Minister is doing day after day, working with international leaders to make sure we have the supply.

Now, actually, it doesn’t matter to us who stands in front of the community to give them the message. The message is the message.

What I want to talk about is what we are doing. We are doing a number of things to give the community certainty and stability. We heard about the targeted, timely, and temporary response of funding and support to families. We’ve heard about the adjustment to incomes for those on benefits and pensioners. This all makes a difference. Now, yes, this happens every year, but, gosh, isn’t this a good time for it to happen. It all means more money in people’s back pockets—the adjustments necessary to cover the costs.

Now, aren’t we so lucky that, in fact, the work that this Government has done has put us in the best possible position we could be in heading into this crisis—a crisis which, we are reminded, is outside of our control. Something that we can control is our response to it—now, our leader is out there securing fuel so that we aren’t in the worst-case scenario position and so that we don’t have to get to phases 3 and 4.

The rest of our leaders are working very hard to communicate with the public, to talk to industry, and to make sure we are doing the right thing. Yes, you could stand up and make a convoluted announcement on day one without talking to anybody. What’s that going to achieve? Now, actually, these people are at the table, speaking for their people—whether it’s farmers, whether it’s manufacturers, whether it’s transport providers. All of these people need to give certainty and sustainable responses to our community.

Now, very fortunately for me, tomorrow me and my colleague Mike Butterick and my other colleague Catherine Wedd are going to be at the Hawke’s Bay Primary Sector Awards. What an amazing event this is. It’s actually the highlight of our year, isn’t it, Mike? We get to sit around a table and celebrate the success of our primary sector. Now, our primary sector—these ships are actually leaving our country, leaving our port, and going to the rest of the world; it’s not just the ships that are coming from the Middle East and Asia and coming to New Zealand with all the supplies we need—we are actually an export nation. Isn’t that amazing? These free-trade deals that the Hon Todd McClay is going around the world and securing for us are another part of the leadership that we require to make sure that we can keep fighting the good fight and be a viable and great-representing nation around the world.

Now, these farms, these growers, these amazing primary production leaders, are continuing to work. What they need from this Government is a sense of certainty and assurance that we are not going to freeze. We are not going to stand there in front of them and say, “We don’t know what we’re doing; we don’t know what to do.” Well, in fact, we do. We have given certainty every single day of this crisis, and the people appreciate it, and we listen. We listen, and we make changes, and there is nothing wrong with that. I get sick and tired when I hear members of the Opposition stand up and say, “Oh, they’ve U-turned; oh, they’ve changed their mind.” You know what? Isn’t that amazing leadership. To listen to the people and adjust our response to make sure that we are delivering for Kiwis and what they want.

Ryan Hamilton: Like fisheries.

KATIE NIMON: Like fisheries. That’s a great example, Ryan Hamilton. Didn’t we see a wonderful result in that amazing case of listening to the public, right? This is exactly what we’re here to do.

Once again, 1 April comes around, and there’s more money in people’s back pockets to be able to deal with the consequences of global crises that continue to occur. A strong, stable Government that’s out there delivering for New Zealanders, listening to them, communicating, not seeking the limelight in the theatrette and making a big song and dance about it—strong, stable leadership, getting the job done, listening to the people, and giving them a sense of certainty so that when Mike and Catherine and I go to the Primary Sector Awards tomorrow night, we are going to be able to celebrate an industry that’s able to listen to the people, work really hard, and deliver in growing our economy, in continuing to grow our economy, which is what we’ve set out to do and will continue to do.

We will not freeze. We will not sit back and think we’re going to do nothing and spray the cash around as we’ve heard. We’re going to continue to grow this economy despite international effects, and that is why we are the Government.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (15:34): At a time when this country is facing a crisis, David Seymour spent his time in the general debate raking over events from four years ago—very complicated events—using the death of a 26-year-old to talk about the mandate for 12- to 17-year-olds, whether they should get a second dose of the vaccine, ignoring the fact that if you get COVID, you have a greater risk of Myocarditis than there ever was from the vaccine. That was what David Seymour spent his time on, and that shows why the ACT Party is losing in the polls at the moment.

Let me set some of the record straight on what is going on with the crisis that is affecting our country at the moment. We need to remember that the parallel crisis when we were in Government was COVID, a completely unpredictable virus where no one knew what might happen in the world. In response to that crisis, when we saved 20,000 lives in New Zealand, when we saved businesses, and when we saved jobs, they say we got it wrong. Well, that’s absolutely ridiculous.

Here is the comparison with the current crisis. Although this crisis might be beyond our control, its consequences are highly predictable. We know what will happen if this country and other countries run out of fuel. We know the consequences. That Government, through its own reckless actions, has made those consequences even worse for us.

Let me talk about the reckless actions of this Government. When they first came into Government, they cancelled the Clean Car Discount, and what happened as a result of that? The number of electric vehicles (EV) being bought and put into circulation on our roads in this country fell dramatically. That’s a real shame because the more cars we got into the fleet three, four, five, and six years ago, the more electric second hand vehicles there would be available now. That was the first mistake. The next mistake they made—and they did this in March 2024—they removed the exemption for light electric vehicles and for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. They have removed the exemption for road user charges. So they made it more expensive to own an EV. They made it harder to own an EV. They further discouraged the take-up of electric vehicles. Then, in November 2025, in another absolutely reckless action, they decreased the clean car importer standard. What does that mean? They have incentivised car importers to bring in many more internal combustion cars than electric vehicles.

In the last week or two, there has been an absolute run on electric vehicles. Dealers are sold out because, in this current crisis, people are seeing that the way to get around this country, that the way to preserve their access to all the things that are good in New Zealand, is through electric vehicles. But, step by step by step, that Government has removed all the advantages of electric vehicles. Step by step by step, they have taken away the incentives to own an electric vehicle. That is so short sighted. It’s short sighted in terms of the climate, and it is very, very short sighted in terms of New Zealand’s energy independence. The reason we are in trouble now is because we are dependent on overseas sources for the great majority of our energy, and they have actively worked against that.

Shane Jones—I think he’s the only one who calls himself Matua—said, in his speech, if there’s one thing that the Iran war shows us, it is that we must use our own resources. How right he is. We must use our own resources of wind. We must use our own resources of solar. We must use our own resources of hydro. We must use our own resources of geothermal. We must electrify our transport, and we have the resources to do it right here.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Tai Tonga) (15:39): Our oceans and the resources that are bound in our moana are a precious resource to all of the people in Aotearoa, and the people of Te Tai Tonga have some serious reflections to consider. What the people need at this point in time with regard to the reforms and what they expect out of a Minister, is to put the people’s interests first. To have the people’s needs foremost: sustainability, kaitiakitanga, and the longevity of the kaimoana, the moana, and its resources at the heart of regulations, as we consider how to preserve those things going into the future. To ensure that our tamariki and mokopuna have got kaimoana in the moana going into the future—that’s not something that we can just hope will materialise; we have to be intentional.

What we don’t need is a Minister who puts the interests of the commercial crowd in the front—short-term gain and short-term profit over long-term sustainability and leaving something for the future. Unfortunately, the reforms that are before Parliament failed to address the root cause of our declining fisheries: namely overfishing, over allocation, destructive fishing practises that have persisted for far too long. And in the meantime, instead, he’s chosen to privilege these practises and risk worsening the problem; leaving a mess for our tamariki and our mokopuna to pick up and clean as we move forward. So we can’t afford to put short-term financial gain ahead of the long-term sustainability of our moana.

For decades now, our fish stocks have been in decline—serious decline. The evidence is undeniable. If we think about our deep-sea species like hoki and orange roughy, they have almost been pushed to the brink of extinction. Our local fish in the South Island; the blue cod fishery in peril, right now, as we speak. We think about things closer to everyone around the country; our scallops, our pāua, our crayfish have all been in decline for years and we have failed to take the steps to look after their longevity and ensure that they are there for the future. As we continue down this road, many of these species are being completely closed off. Scallops: off the menu; crayfish: off the menu. This is the reality for many places in the country, and it’s time for us to wake up. We must take steps that look after our fish stocks and leave something better for the future. Not just dwindling stocks; thriving stocks—this is what our children and our grandchildren deserve.

Yet here we are, giving more fish to commercial interests, making it easier for them to catch more with less oversight, blocking camera footage on boats, legalising the dumping of fish. All of these things only serve to undermine the fish stocks that we currently have. Allowing quota to be carried over for successive years; thinking that somehow a stock is going to miraculously recover itself—I tell you: it is a recipe for disaster. And not to mention the proposal of removing minimum size limits, catch limits for commercial fishing—I tell you: we really need to get back to the drawing board.

All the while, the Minister has managed to ignore the Māori customary rights and ignore the recreational interests. Those are the people’s interests. Whilst the Minister might also talk and speak about the prevalence of the use of scientific data and the management of the stock, it’s been that same scientific management that has got us into the predicament we’re in right now. I doubt that it will be that same scientific management that will get us out. In fact, it could be time for some tangata whenua management. There are plenty of examples all around the country—all around the country. So rather than prioritising short-term commercial and financial gain, we need to make sure that there’s true transparency across the industry, that our children’s legacy, that our grandchildren’s legacy are looked after. It’s our tamariki and mokopuna who stand to lose the most under the current reforms.

So Te Tai Tonga has a simple message for the Minister: leave some fish for the mokos, Shane—leave some fish for the mokos. That’s the message from Te Tai Tonga: be a good kaitiaki—be a good kaitiaki. Māori have always stood in our power as kaitiaki and we will always look after the resource. We have to do better. We have to ensure that our people have access and that the resources are left in better condition than the one that we inherited. Kia ora tātou.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (15:44): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to stand and speak in this general debate today. With the fuel crisis going on at the moment, it’s started to, I guess, trigger a few of us into those hauntings of COVID. When you’d wake up and feel controlled, you’d feel misled by the Government of the day; we’d hear about the “podium of truth” and now we see so much deception. We heard from David Seymour talking earlier about the papers that Mr Hipkins read or didn’t read or remembered or couldn’t remember until his refresh. And the Opposition might say, “Well, why is that important?” It’s important because it’s about trust. The Government is responsible for leading and communicating to people in times of crisis. A lot of that trust has been damaged—a lot of that trust has been damaged. So while we remember the “podium of truth”, like my good colleague Tama Potaka, we’re more interested in the crucible of outcomes—the crucible of outcomes. We’re interested in reality; we’re interested in pragmatic solutions.

So whilst there was so much wasteful spending—we saw the COVID royal commission inquiry and we saw $60 billion wasted, half of that and not even associated with the direct response of COVID; shovel-ready projects that were nowhere near a shovel, lump-sum payments to dead people; large-scale asset programme which left us with $10 billion in debt—a bit of a debacle. In the last two years, this Government’s been working very hard in restoring fiscal discipline and you’ve started seeing signs of growth return to the economy. We’ve seen GDP return. We’ve cut billions of dollars off the last couple of Budgets in reprioritisations and savings. And thank goodness we have, because imagine not having any buffer at all. Imagine that continued wasteful spending, that debt—we would be turning into a Third World country. I’m so pleased that we’ve got a Government that’s focused on doing the basics right.

Of course, our Prime Minister’s leading the charge in a very proactive way with this fuel crisis. Most people would have seen the four-phase fuel plan—very pragmatic; very straightforward. And, of course, the Prime Minister assures us this will be nothing like COVID, where people woke up every day in fear, wondering what the Government would say to us next; whether they’d extend lockdowns they were over prescribed and shut down Auckland; whether they’d double jab teenagers that didn’t need it. The four-phase plan that we’ve seen, that’s now in the public domain, is simple yet pragmatic, and it’s so good, even the Australians are starting to copy it.

The other thing, which is really important to note, is our Prime Minister on the proactive phase is reaching out to countries like Singapore, like Korea, like Australia, and working out how do we diversify our reliance on fuel. We know that the Gulf supplies 20 percent but there’s 80 percent of other alternatives and we’re keeping all options open. The Prime Minister is proactively looking. There’s good communication with our community—it just shows the importance of resilience and diversification.

I’ll give you a good example of resilience and diversification: when our Prime Minister came to office, he said straight away, “Let’s do a trade deal with India.” The largest populace on Earth, the largest-growing middle-income economy in the world—over a billion people. And he employed, he empowered, and he disembarked the wonderful Minister Todd McClay, who, within 18 months, essentially turned around an incredible trade deal with India. We’re just waiting when Labour’s to sign it. We’re just wondering when Labour’s going to say, “Yep, we support New Zealand, we support diversification, we support resilience.” But you know why they’re not signing it? Do you know why they’re politicking in the midst of a campaign year? Because they’re jealous. Because they didn’t do it. They had six years. Did they even go to India? Did they establish any relationships? No, nothing at all.

So we’ve got a first-class agreement ready to sign with one of the most populous countries on earth and Labour won’t do it because they’re jealous because their foreign Minister hardly hopped on a plane. She hardly picked up a phone. She was so worried about co-governance and three waters that the relationships across the globe were stranded. So our Prime Minister and our Minister of Trade, Todd McClay, have had to rebuild those relationships. And it’s good news.

So in the midst of challenging times in New Zealand, I’m pleased to report that the adults are in the room and this Government will steer New Zealand through these rocky waters. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (15:49): We’re at the 11th call for this general debate, and I find it absolutely outrageous that the Government backbenchers, with their speaking lines over there, haven’t even bothered to talk about the people that are actually doing it tough in our communities.

I want to speak to the people who feel like they have been an afterthought in this House and that’s our rural communities, because, right now, they’re doing it tough and this Government is nowhere to be seen. Fuel prices are soaring In rural New Zealand, it’s not an inconvenience; that is a lifeline being cut to our people in the rural areas. You can’t shop around when you live an hour from town, you can’t take public transport when there isn’t any, and you can’t just absorb rising costs where every litre of fuel underpins your livelihood, whether that’s farming, forestry, tourism or simply trying to get your kids to school.

This crisis was always going to hit rural communities the hardest. Kieran McAnulty knows that in the Wairarapa. Tangi Utikere, he knows that out in Ashhurst. However, the Government has no plan. Reassurance is not a plan, talking points are not a plan, and rural New Zealand knows it. While fuel prices spike, this Government is still pretending that everything is under control, when families, farmers, and small businesses know that it’s not. Let’s be clear: this crisis didn’t arrive in a vacuum. People were already struggling before fuel prices surged. The cost of food, power, and healthcare are all rising, and wages are not keeping up, and that pressure is building. The Government made choices that made things worse, and our rural communities are paying that price.

Today, I met with two remarkable members of the communities, Sandra Kirby and Anna-Grace Somerfield from Rural Women New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work that they are doing across our rural communities. It’s organisations like Rural Women New Zealand who are stepping up. They are advocating for something as basic and as critical as school bus access, because for many in rural areas, getting their children to school is not guaranteed; it’s a daily logistical challenge, and families are carrying that burden alone. They are delivering programmes like the Activator programme. This programme is about improving rural pathways for rural women to develop their business start-up ideas and build capability and confidence so they can take those ideas to the next level.

They are running the ConnectHER programme, a vital initiative to tackle isolation, support wellbeing, and build networks for rural women who might otherwise be completely cut off. Here’s the key point: the need for these services is not decreasing. It’s increasing, demand is growing, and pressure is rising, and these programmes are now up for funding renewal. The question for this Government is simple: will you listen? Will you back the organisations that are doing this important work? Because if the ConnectHER programme loses funding, it is rural women already under strain who will pay the price.

Earlier this week, I also met with Aviva, in North Canterbury, who do fantastic work right across Waimakariri and North Canterbury. They delivered a message that should concern every member of this House: when financial stress increases, so does family violence. That’s not theory; that is a reality. When households are under pressure, when bills stack up, when fuel costs surge and income doesn’t, that stress compounds, and, in too many cases, that stress turns into harm. It’s not just an economic issue we are facing; it’s a social issue and it is a community safety issue. It creates a clear responsibility for the Government to ensure that support services are funded, accessible, and ready to respond—especially in rural areas, where services are already stretched thin.

When the Government fails to manage that cost of living, and when it fails to respond to crises like the fuel shock, it doesn’t just show up in bank accounts; it actually shows up in people’s homes. Rural New Zealand is resilient; it always has been. But resilient is not an excuse for neglect, and right now, rural communities are being asked to carry too much with too little support. They’re paying more for fuel, they’re paying more for food, and they’re paying more for the basics. Instead of trying to help these rural communities, this Government is making it worse.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): It’s the first time in three years the member has done a general debate speech; I know in future, he’ll have a lot less reliance on the script in front of him.

Laura McClure: That’s why we didn’t heckle.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (15:54): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, congratulations to Lynfield College robotics team for winning—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, am I hearing a comment from my right criticising my ruling?

Laura McClure: No, not at all.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Oh, good. I’m pleased about that.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Can I start my time again?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): We’ll restart the time.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: First of all, congratulations to Lynfield College robotic team for winning the national robotics competition for the third time in a row. Well done to them.

Today, my contribution is focused on three things: support, opportunity, and the people. Hard-working families in Mt Roskill are having a tough time. The rising cost of living combined with increasing petrol prices is putting real pressure on household budgets. We understand that, and we are here to support them. From today, around 143,000 low to middle income working families will receive an extra $50 per week to help with the cost of living. This is targeted, practical support, delivered where it’s needed most. Superannuation is also increasing. A married couple will now receive $1,708 a fortnight—an increase of more than $180 since the 2023 election. This is about ensuring our seniors can live with dignity and security.

It doesn’t stop here. Family tax credits, benefits, and student allowances are all rising from today. Now, we are honest about this; we know this support may seem modest; we know it does not solve everything overnight. But we know that every single dollar counts. For families in Mt Roskill, that extra support means a bit more breathing room and a little less stress at the checkout, at the petrol station, or at the kitchen table. This is what it’s about: backing our people through the tough times.

Second, I think this is why the National Government is focusing on building our economy, making it easier to attract investment, support businesses, and create opportunities here at home. The Investment Boost: our recent survey has shown that 40 percent of businesses report increased spending on capital assets over the last 12 months due to the policy. Guess what! When business grows, jobs are created; when jobs are created, incomes rise; and when incomes rise, families in Mt Roskill are better able to get ahead.

A key part of this is strengthening our international connections. A high-quality free-trade agreement with India has the potential to significantly boost our export, opening up new markets for New Zealand businesses, from agriculture to technology and services. For a diverse community like Mt Roskill with a strong connection to India, this creates real opportunity, more trade, more business activities, and more local jobs.

We are here to unlock the potential of Eden Park as well: Robbie Williams; Tottenham Hotspur coming for a football game; State of Origin. This is not just entertainment; they are job creators. They generate employment across hospitality, even management, transport, retail, and security. Importantly, the provide flexible and entry-level opportunities, especially for our young people in Mt Roskill who are looking to get experience and enter the workforce. For many, this is the first step, a first job, a first pay cheque, and a pathway into long-term employment. When we talk about economic growth, we are talking about real outcomes for real people, more jobs, higher incomes, and better opportunities for families in Mt Roskill.

Finally, I want to talk about the people in Mt Roskill. Mt Roskill is one of the most diverse communities in New Zealand. It is home to migrants and ethnic communities who bring skill, education, and incredible work ethics. Many arrive with a strong qualification and professional experience. They work hard, contribute to our economy, and support a family, but too often, they work harder and receive less in return. Their qualifications are not always fully recognised, opportunities do not always match their abilities, and their contribution can sometimes be overlooked. This is something we must address. Also, we must make something very clear: ethnic communities must never be used as a political football. Politicians have a responsibility to speak carefully and respectfully to address the issues without targeting and singling out any groups, because when we divide communities, we weaken them. One thing I know is that diversity is our strength, and when we are united, we are stronger—stronger as a community, stronger as an economy, and stronger as a country. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just for consistency, I did note that the member didn’t stray far off his written notes there. I just repeat that this is general debate; there’s a time that we should—it’s a very broad range of issues, we should be able to debate them and bring that as ideas here without necessarily sticking to our script. So just for consistency, for all those I’ve advised during this debate.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill.

Bills

Carter Trust Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Preamble and clauses 1 to 9

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is committee on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. We come first to the preamble. This is the debate on the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I move that this debate be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that the preamble and clauses 1 to 9 stand part.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:01): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few questions I want to ask the member in charge of this bill. It’s a local bill, a private bill in the name of Mike Butterick, who is the MP for Wairarapa, and the Carter Trust is an important part of his Wairarapa community. I think it is important for us to sort of go through the legislation and to get a bit of a greater understanding around the Carter Trust and the intention behind this bill and why Mr Butterick has brought it to Parliament, and the select committee process it went through as well.

The first question I want to ask is related to the purpose and the background of the legislation, and I would be keen to hear from the member in charge if he could just explain to us why this private bill, in the first case, is actually necessary. What’s the problem that the bill is intending to seek and to solve for the Carter Society and the Carter Trust?

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks very much to the member for that question, and a very good question that is indeed, and I’m sure there will be plenty of other questions. The bill is necessary because the Carter Trust Act is a 1961 Act and it’s actually just simply now outdated, and it’s actively impeding the efficient operation of the Carter Court care home.

Private bills generally affect an individual, group, or organisation with a specific interest, and follow a very prescribed process to get to this point. It would be remiss of me at this stage to not acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee; the chair of the Carter Society, Sharon Parker, who’s been involved all through this; the Public Trust, for 129 years as trustee of the bequest from Charles Rooking Carter; David McLay, for his legal guidance and expertise in navigating the process that this bill is currently going through in this House, and the complexities involved there; and then, last but not least, Charles Rooking Carter for his bequest.

This bill is necessary to ensure that necessary changes actually do occur. When you look at the big picture, what began in 1901, as a home for six to 10 “aged poor men” or “inmates” as they referred to at the time, has now grown into a modern, 100-plus bed facility serving the wider Wairarapa—which, thankfully, now also includes women, as well. The 1961 Act imposes redundant ministerial approvals, leasing restrictions, and administration hurdles that no longer actually make any sense. This bill winds up the redundant trust, distributes the assets sensibly, clarifies the Public Trust’s liability, and gives the society the flexibility it needs while still honouring the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (16:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to, before I ask my short question to my colleague Mr Butterick, also acknowledge that this is putting into action the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter, who is an interesting character in that he was a wealthy landowner by the end of his life, but he also advocated for better working conditions and so forth. As a fellow import from England, I feel a great kinship, and I live in Carterton, named after Charles Rooking Carter. My question to the member who’s leading this bill is not about the substance of the bill, I’m comfortable with that. It’s been through an adequate select committee process, and I think we can all be comfortable with it. I would just like to know what steps the member has taken to convey progress through the different stages of this bill to the Carter Society and its members. Thank you.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:05): Thank you very much for that question; a very good question. We’ve been in direct and continual contact with David McLay, the person providing the legal advice; Sharon Parker; and the Public Trust, as well. So all the way through, everyone’s been on the same page and having very good conversations and keeping each other up to date in terms of the progress. So thank you very much for the question.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (16:06): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to make a short contribution. We, the Labour Party, have no concerns whatsoever about this bill. We are fully in support of it. It has been a long time coming. I remember first having conversations with the Carter Society about this bill probably about five years ago. They’ve put a lot of effort into this, it is long overdue, and it is required. But of course, the risk in this place is that when you are fully supportive and content with the way that a bill was drafted and it’s progressing through the House, if you don’t say anything, it could be misinterpreted as a lack of interest, and that is certainly not the case. So I wanted to put on record, yet again, the support of the Labour Party for this bill, and acknowledge the amount of work that has gone into it—and that includes the member who sponsored the bill, Mike Butterick.

It is important for local and private bills, wherever possible, to not be political. Too often in this House—as, actually, frankly, we’ve just witnessed in the general debate—we can’t help ourselves. But in this instance, this is a bill that has been rigorously assessed, that has been debated in the House, has gone through a full process, has the full support of the local community, and it warrants passing. It doesn’t warrant being delayed, but it warrants due recognition of the effort that’s gone into it and the benefit that will be brought to the community. So we commend it to the House.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:07): I would just like to acknowledge the contributions from Kieran McAnulty and Celia Wade-Brown as fellow MPs that live in the Wairarapa. It is important and it is great that sometimes we can show that we do agree on issues. So thank you very much for your support.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:08): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I actually do have a couple of specific questions relating to it, and I appreciate that there is general consensus and support across the House on the legislation, but it’s still important to scrutinise it as it goes through the committee of the whole House stage. That is our part in this Parliament, to ensure that we scrutinise the legislation even if it has universal support—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It is, Mr Rutherford. But I will make the point in the case of a private bill that it has been through a select committee, so I’m not going to look favourably on any prolonged debate on this in the Chamber this afternoon, out of respect for the people that bring it, so I am expecting genuine.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yep. Yeah. And unlike the other side, I don’t intend to take full five-minute calls to ask my questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In that case, you only need to ask your questions in one call.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, happy to Madam Chair, if you’d like me to. The first I want to talk about is in the Social Services and Community Committee’s report, they talk about the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave. I actually think that’s a really important point for us as a House to just scrutinise, because the select committee have actually written quite a substantial part of their report on the upkeep. They’ve said things like “Section 7(a) of the Act includes a requirement for net income from the Trust to be used for ‘paying the costs of keeping in proper order the grave of the testator’ ”, which is Mr Carter himself. So why has the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave not been included in the legislation, and can the member confirm that the grave ultimately will still be maintained? I’ll come to my next questions after that.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:09): Thank you for that question. Yes, I can confirm that the grave will still be maintained. It’s a very good question, and I actually managed to sit in at the Social Services and Community Committee when they were asking about that—and quite right that they should be asking that. So the Carter Society has already given a formal undertaking to continue maintaining the grave. The select committee was satisfied with that assurance. The obligation was actually never in the 1896 will; it was added in the 1961 Act. So the society will continue this very respectful practice as a condition of the scheme.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:10): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I also just want to talk about the staggered commencement, which are clauses 7 and 8, because that too is actually quite an unusual thing for us to see in legislation in that sense. In the bill, it says that clauses 7 and 8—and now 7A—come into force six months after Royal assent, rather than immediately. I’m keen to understand from the member in charge, why have the inclusion of a staggered commencement, rather than just having it straight after the private bill is passed?

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:11): Thank you for that question. Well, as anyone that’s ever run a business and has to file their accounts with the accountant and spends an inordinate amount of time waiting for the final accounts to be done knows, it is simply about that: giving the trust the necessary time to complete those final accounts and to make the distributions and wind up the trust in an orderly manner. The rest of the bill, including the immediate repeal of the outdated ministerial powers, can commence straight away, giving the society that immediate flexibility, while the financial housekeeping is, effectively, being completed.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:11): Thank you very much, Madam Chair—I appreciate your patience with this. I am trying to move through a variety of different questions on the legislation. One I do really want to focus on, as we come to the end—as we come to the end. I see Ingrid Leary up there—I’m sure she’s got plenty to contribute from diary on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. But my question’s actually on the impact on the residents who are in the care home that is provided by the Carter Trust. Now, the member in charge, Mike Butterick, said in his opening contribution that initially it was just for boys, and it was widened and the scope now includes men and women, but how’s the bill actually going to affect the residents of the Carter Court care home? For example, are those residents going to face higher fees? Will they see any material impact for them as day-to-day residents of the Carter Court care home—or, for example, will they see potentially reduced services that could impact them as well?

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:12): I would thank that member. It’s actually a very important question and one that does deserve some clarity as well. So residents will see no negative impact. Fees for contracted long-time residential care are actually already set nationally under the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Act 2018. So removing the outdated ministerial power in section 12 does not change what the residents may pay. Society will continue to provide high-quality care. The winding up actually gives it greater flexibility to focus the resources on the residents. So thank you for the question.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:13): Thank you, Madam Chair—it’s really great to hear the amount of due diligence that’s been done by the member on his bill. He may be aware of some of the advocacy I’ve been doing around retirement villages and capital payments. I can see that there is independent living under the auspices of the Carter Trust. With that in mind, I’m interested to know what the member has done to understand the impact of any potential legal changes to the retirement villages legislation certainly being flagged by his party and his Government to capital repayments—whether he is supportive of those repayments being within a mandated time period of a year and whether they should apply retrospectively or not.

I get that this is about—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s a very narrow bill and it’s out of scope. I will give the member in the chair an opportunity to answer that question, but we’re going very broad.

INGRID LEARY: That would be great, Madam Chair. Thank you.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:14): Yeah, I thank the member for that question. Look, it’s not in this specific bit of legislation, so it’s not something that I’ve considered per se. That’s speculative in terms of what changes there may be, but this bill doesn’t speak to those as well.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:14): Just my final question—thank you for the indulgence. Noting that by all accounts, Mr Carter was a really honourable and upstanding citizen—and there’s been acknowledgment of that in the committee today and in the other readings that we have—I do note that in one of the clauses of the bill, clause 2(2), it talks about trust lands. The member will be aware that at the period of time when the will first came into being was a period of unsettled time in New Zealand where there were confiscations of Māori land and there were other things happening around indigenous land. I am not at all suggesting that was the case with this particular will, but I am curious to know whether the member has researched that and has satisfied himself that he’s really comfortable with what happened at that period.

Of course, there’s no going back in history, but I’m curious to understand the depth of research that the member might have done around that to allay any concerns. I know that when we were speaking about this previously in the House, there may have been some sensitivities for some of those who were in the Parliament listening to a farewell speech from one of our Māori colleagues. So just curious to understand what the member has done to make himself very comfortable with the history of this, or reconciling the history of it, as the case may be.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:16): Thank you for that question. Certainly nothing that I’m aware of, nor fellow Wairarapa MPs. It’s never been raised. I still come back to the very generous legacy of Charles Rooking Carter that he has left for his Carterton community that continues to provide for our elderly.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (16:16): Just a quick question, and also congratulations to the member—great to see you in that spot. Why has the bill chosen to distribute $50,000 specifically to the Anglican parish of Carterton and the balance to the Carter Society? I was just wondering, is that fair and consistent with the original will, in your opinion?

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (16:16): Thank you for that question. It certainly is a very different position sitting up here in the House. Yes, so why has it chosen to distribute $50,000? Thank you very much—it’s a very good question. Is it consistent with the original will? Yes, it is. It’s fair and consistent. The original will provide an annuity to the Anglican vicar of Carterton. The $50,000 is an agreed lump-sum equivalent that both the parish and the society have accepted in full satisfaction of that obligation. The balance then goes to the Carter Society, which has been delivering actually care for decades. Public Trust, as executor, has confirmed that this is the most practical and equitable outcome.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:17): I move that debate on this question now close.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Just don’t take a call might be another way.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Would you like to withdraw that motion and I’ll take the vote? Or do you want that motion to stand?

TOM RUTHERFORD: I withdraw the motion.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Carter Trust Amendment Bill and reports that it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): We’re at the beginning of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill, third reading. Members, this bill has been the subject of personal votes for previous readings. I’m aware that there will be many members who support and oppose this bill who will want to speak to the third reading. I propose that the member in charge of the bill, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, have the first 10-minute call in the debate. I propose that the remaining 11 calls be split into 22 five-minute speeches to give as many members the chance to speak as possible. Members who want a call should come to the Speaker’s Chair to indicate this, and also indicate whether they are for or against the bill. I will then endeavour to allocate the calls evenly amongst supporters and opponents of the bill.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (16:20): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s quite a special moment that this bill has got to this stage when you consider that all recent attempts to adjust the liquor licensing at Easter have not got to select committee. I think that a big part of why it’s got to this point is the way this House has conducted the debate but also the way in which members have worked together in the Justice Committee and outside the debating chamber.

The intention of this bill is extremely simple: it proposes to change the rules that currently exist for on-licences on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning, and Christmas Day. As it currently stands, on-licenced premises—bars, clubs, and restaurants—don’t operate on these days under the same rules that they do on every other day, and the question has to be asked: why is that? If it were a case that they couldn’t open at all, then that, it could be argued, is consistent with the rules that are in place for the likes of retail and most other services, but it’s not. These businesses are allowed to open on these days, but they have to follow different rules, and those rules, I would argue, don’t make sense.

Why is it that on these days, if someone goes and wishes to buy a pint, they have to buy what’s deemed to be a substantial meal. Why is it that a substantial meal isn’t actually defined? If someone is ordering a bowl of wedges, it isn’t clear whether that is a substantial meal, but if they made that loaded wedges and added cheese and sour cream and bacon, is that a substantial meal? Is a pizza a substantial meal? It is ridiculous that this is where we are at, and those owners and operators and workers in hospitality have to guess what is a substantial meal before they can serve someone a pint of beer. What is even more ridiculous is that, actually, they’re not required to eat the meal; they’re only required to purchase it. It can sit there while they drink, and it could also be argued that they then can go and buy another substantial meal in order to keep drinking. That doesn’t make sense. This bill clears that up.

Now, it’s important to note that the bill as originally drafted actually went wider than that. My intention was only ever to focus on those businesses that are already allowed to open, because I have seen the debate in this House up to this point. It is clear that there isn’t a majority in this Parliament to change the trading laws at Easter, and that is exactly why I have not proposed that; in fact, I have voted against that, myself. But when all we’re talking about here is businesses that can already open, this is not expanding access to alcohol. When we’re only talking about those workers that are working anyway, this is not taking anything away from those workers that would otherwise enjoy a guaranteed day off. All this bill does is concentrate on the rules for those businesses that are already operating.

The problem with including all businesses that are allowed to operate is that that includes supermarkets, and I was comfortable with that to begin with. But, as we’ve found out through the select committee stage—and I do want to acknowledge the work of every single member from every party in this House for the collaborative and constructive way in which they dealt with that. We found that, actually, what would have happened was that these days, for those businesses where you can order alcohol online and get it delivered, the current rules are that you can order on the day but it can’t be delivered until the next day, and they would have actually been able to deliver on the day—so bottle stores couldn’t open, but online deliveries could, and there was no way to get around it. Basically, we either had to include all off-licences or none at all, and I supported the select committee’s view that we include none at all, because if we had included them all, it would have gone beyond the intent of the bill to focus on those businesses that are already allowed to open and we would have lost the debate, like it’s been lost every other time before. By bringing it on to on-licensed premises, it becomes extremely clear and extremely simple.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge Cameron Luxton because his amendment at the committee stage actually did what the bill was intended to do in the first place—and this is always the risk when it comes to members’ bills. Most members have submitted a bill to the ballot and they will know themselves that we don’t have the resources that Governments do when it comes to drafting bills, and so it’s quite common for select committees to identify gaps, etc., and look to improve it—basically, that’s the point of a select committee. When it became evident that in the absence of Cameron Luxton’s amendment, there still would have been anomalies, I was very happy to support it and I was very pleased that Parliament chose to, as well, and so now, here we are, with this bill, which is extremely clear-cut and extremely simple.

I do want to acknowledge the way in which this debate has been conducted, because this is a conscience vote for a reason. Parliament treats these issues as a conscience issue because it recognises by convention that even within parties, who will share the same values and share the same principles, it’s quite possible or probable that you may have different views on this matter, and, indeed, that’s how it has played out in the various stages of this bill. But it’s not just the way in which the debate has been conducted in a respectful and courteous manner in this Chamber; it’s also the way in which it’s been conducted through the submissions process of the select committee and also the various correspondence that I’ve received from people either thanking me for bringing this issue forward or expressing concern and urging me either to withdraw the bill or to not support it.

Those that oppose it can broadly be put into two camps: those that have genuinely held and legitimate concerns around increasing access to alcohol and the harm that that might cause, and those that hold these days to be sacred and wish for this change not to go ahead on that basis. I respect both of those views. While I disagree, I do recognise that they are legitimate, and I do respect them, and I will respond to them briefly.

Because these businesses are already allowed to open, we’re actually not increasing the availability of alcohol. People can go to these premises on these days anyway, but they have to go through, basically, a farce of a process to be able to purchase a drink. There is no evidence that has been provided that what is being proposed in this bill will actually increase harm, and increasing access to off-licences would have had a much larger chance of increasing harm because that doesn’t come with the restrictions and monitoring that it does when people are purchasing on-licence.

To those that hold these days to be sacred, again I say that I respect that view. When I go to Mass on Easter Sunday, that should have no bearing on the choice of others. If they choose to go to Mass, fine; if they choose not to, fine—that is entirely their choice. But why should people feel that their perceived views that people should not go to the pub—that’s fine: don’t go to the pub, but let’s not stop others from making that choice.

Also, let’s recognise that, actually, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not prohibit the consumption of alcohol on those days. We’ve got to ask the question: why have we got these rules? We will still hold Easter and Christmas Day and Anzac Day in high regard and as having a special standing in our society. Enabling people to purchase a drink at the pub will not take away from that.

This bill also, very finally, enables RSAs to serve members of the public that are joining veterans after an Anzac Day service on the morning of Anzac Day without having to get a special licence. This is a change that has been welcomed by the RSAs. They have had to jump through hoops to welcome in their community after an Anzac Day—a very special day for this country. RSAs are the focal point of the community, and they will no longer have to go through this burden.

I thank everybody for their consideration of this bill. We’re on the third reading. We’re on the verge of passing it. I would strongly urge you to continue your support for it, and thank you for it thus far.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to reiterate, for those people who have just come into the House, that we are taking five-minute calls from here on, for those people who have actually indicated to me that they want to take a call. If you wish to take a call, please, come up and indicate to me. At this stage, I will say the question is that the motion be agreed to. I’m going to try to balance it up, so I’m going to call on Dr David Wilson.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (16:31): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Hon Kieran McAnulty for laying out some of those issues. I fit into both of those categories, so thank you, Kieran. Yes, I believe, and we believe, that access to alcohol has many harms associated with it. I won’t go through all the evidence, because I think most of you will have covered a lot of that evidence. I wish to add one little one that I found in the US, and that was called “Holiday Heart Syndrome”. Simply, access to alcohol increases arrhythmia and stroke. It’s a lot about the access, and whichever way you cut it, you are opening access through this bill.

I wish to switch now to the kinds of values that we hold. In my understanding around Anzac, Christmas, and Easter, things like remembrance, reflection, reverence, respect, and tradition are important. I’m reminded of when my wife and I were in a beautiful place in France called Amiens. We walked into a church, and in that church—it’s a beautiful church, of course, over 500 years old—it had pillars reaching to the roof, as high as you could see. Then, when we walked to those pillars, we realised that those pillars had names carved in them all the way to the roof. We also recognised that they were New Zealand names. Two wonderful women who were there that day came up to me and Anna and said, “Where are you from?” We said, “We’re from New Zealand.” She said, “Thank you. Thank you so much for defending our city.” And we said, “Thank you so much for remembering us.”

We think these things are really important. I’m lucky to have such a beautiful wife who actually adheres to tradition. In fact, she builds traditions for our home. She has brought into our household the tradition of Christmas every year. It then falls to me to find a relevant 12-foot tree to get into our house and make sure it doesn’t fall down, and then decorate it and do something with it at the end of the break. But, yes, I have taken that on board, and it is a wonderful tradition. I think that what we’re dealing with here is that these are really, really important traditions for us to own and have and carry forward.

I’m thinking about the Māori Battalion, the new memorial and museum at Paihia. You must visit this. The warriors and what that Māori battalion had to go through, in terms of how they had to become noticed and accepted, and their bravery—it warms the cockles of your heart to understand how important these people are to us, to us as New Zealanders, and in their case, as Māori. It’s part of our inheritance, it’s part of our nationhood, it’s part of our values: fairness, empathy, respect. Most of all, these holidays are part of us. They’re part of our history, part of who we are as a nation. They all have meaning, and that meaning goes far beyond having a tipple or a few drinks. I think it’s a small price to pay for us to actually take that meaning on board and think through carefully what it means to us, what these things mean to us in this day and age. Remembrance is so important for us, so important for our youth to know who they are and where they stand in this nation.

It’s not much to ask to take some time to reflect, to revere, and to respect, and then to celebrate with friends and family. A small degree of restriction for a few days, to reinforce shared traditions and values, is a very small price to pay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (16:36): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. As members may know, I had a crack at something similar early in the term. Back then, I got some sage advice from the Hon Kieran McAnulty. He told me I was biting off a bit too much, and as it transpired, he was right. My bill was voted down. It was dealing with a much broader issue around restrictions on Easter trading. It was defeated at first reading, but here we are with a much narrower bill reaching its third reading. I have to say Kieran McAnulty has done a bloody good job in getting his member’s bill to this point, and I really do give him all my support.

Why are we here? Kiwis have matured a great deal in the 110 years since prohibition was so very nearly the law of this land, and if it were not for the votes of the soldiers overseas, it well would have been. We recognise the harms now, and increasingly, that alcohol can cause and have developed laws and norms which regulate ourselves. These keep us safe for 360 days of the year, so this is not a vote for no laws. It is a vote to expand the laws that work on all of those days to the 3½ restricted trading days.

As Kiwis, when we are asked to justify or debate the minor points of a substantial meal or are turfed out with that classic song playing too early in the night—you know it, Madam Speaker; “You Don’t Have To Go Home (But You Can’t Stay Here)”—we can all recognise the absurdity of treating responsible adults this way; the absurdity of treating licensed venues, the operators, and the managers this way, as not worthy of hosting their guests for celebrations with friends and family in a way they choose and on a day that matters to them.

Then, there’s the celebration that will be cut short in Christchurch on what could be the biggest celebration of the year, a spectacle of rugby long-awaited with the opening of Te Kaha One New Zealand Stadium. There will be much of memory and revelation, I’m sure, with teams from across the Tasman recognising our shared Anzac past. I realised that this bill as originally drafted, while making important changes, would unintentionally leave out many bars and pubs across Christchurch and force them to close at 11.59 p.m. on the day before Anzac Day as a restricted trading day. For a city like Christchurch, which has been through so much and waited so long, that would have been devastating. The House backed and voted for my amendment to fix up that part, and I am grateful for the support of the sponsor of this bill. I think that might be why it got over the line.

I’ve had many questions asked of me about this, so I want to take this opportunity to address precisely what my amendment does. The amendment says, “The premises for which an on-licence is held may remain open during the permitted trading hours that apply to the premises.” Some have questioned whether these words “may remain open” refer to a bar being allowed to open on that day, or whether it means that they must remain open and stay open past the 11.59 p.m. deadline the day before.

So, Madam Speaker, if you’ll forgive me, I’ll go into some detail and read a little bit, not only for the benefit of honourable members but also to ensure that Parliament’s intent is absolutely clear when interpreting this law. The wording “may remain open” is deliberately used because it reflects the established terminology of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990. That Act uses the same phrase as provisions such as “certain shops may remain open” and “garden centres may remain open on Easter Sunday”. In that context, “may remain open” has never been understood to mean that a business must already be open immediately prior to the restricted trading day, rather simply meaning that those businesses are permitted to open and trade on those days. The same meaning is intended here.

New section 45A, inserted by new clause 4A, is intended to allow a premises holding an on-licence to operate on restricted trading days in the same way that they would on any other day of the year, subject only to their ordinary licence conditions. That includes both remaining open if already operating and opening at a time permitted under their licence, even if the premises was not open immediately prior to the restricted trading date. To be clear, this provision is not limited to allowing trading past midnight; it is enabling a licensed premises to open the day and close and reopen in accordance with their usual licensing hours.

Should this bill become law in time for the weekend, an on-licensed business may, subject to their licence conditions, open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday or remain open. That is the intent, it is clear, and it is aligned with the original intent of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (16:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution. I do want to acknowledge the member, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, for his considered, respectful approach in terms of this bill. It has been helpful to understand the components and the aspects that’s he’s strongly supporting, and he has explained that today.

I speak on behalf of our community members across Aotearoa who have emailed me to continue opposing this bill, and I have a number of reasons that I just want to outline the reasons for that. In my hood in South Auckland, specifically in Māngere, we have got the most faith communities across South Auckland, a number of churches and mosques and those who come together. Whilst they do acknowledge that there is a time in their busy diaries that they do appreciate alcohol, specifically for the sale and supply—this specific bill—a number of them have said to me their personal views verbally and personal views in writing. They want to keep Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday—specifically Good Friday and Easter Sunday—for many of the faith communities that hold that quite dearly.

We have a number of challenges with alcohol in Māngere in South Auckland. A number of our youth, unfortunately, are not as respectful. We have quite a diverse group of young people, colourful in many ways, but some of them just cannot handle alcohol and overconsumption. I have appreciated the different view or the respectful way that my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty has explained this bill and also what is written in this bill. However, I need to stand up and say something for those who oppose it, because they want protection, specifically, of those Easter days and also of Christmas Day.

I think with Anzac Day, the issue there is we have had many soldiers and their families returned from—returned services members and they deserve to be respected on Anzac Day, and so there is a provision there.

However, for those three days, one of the things that I’ve heard from submitters is the cultural significance of faith communities. Why is it important? They want to see that there are continued restrictions in terms of protecting those specific four days. Also, Easter is very important to Christian communities.

I take the opportunity to voice out and continue opposing this specific bill. Even if we get to the point where we lose the vote, that’s all good. At least I’ve managed to voice our concerns from people across Aotearoa. They might be small in numbers, but it is significant that they want protection and preservation of those specific cultural days. The significance is because with a 24-hour, 7-day open diary online and all the different platforms, people do need to take a rest and acknowledge the significance in different communities. I’m not saying all communities. Like I said in another contribution earlier, there is a place for alcohol. People do like to relax. They do like to go to a place that they can feel comfortable, that they’re able to purchase. But, on this occasion, I do have to stand with members of my community who are saying enough is enough. In my neck of the woods, there is far too much accessibility with alcohol. We have a real problem with some of our young people who are probably only 15 years old and look like they’re 21, and so they get away with purchasing different things at different times.

The last point I want to make is the significance of Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday. Those are really important times for different members of our community. We have a very diverse community in Māngere and across South Auckland. It is important to highlight those reasons because they want to see members of Parliament, hear both sides, and whilst there is a large group of our members who will support this bill, there are those in our community who have opposing views. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:46): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand and take the first opportunity for a call from the National Party, which is proudly a party that is a broad church. And there are a variety of views on this side of the House on this specific piece of legislation. I think it’s really important that members of the general public get the opportunity to hear that representatives from different political parties, just like we’ve heard from the member that’s just taken her seat, can have differing views within their own party on a specific piece of legislation, based on whether it may be religious values, whether it may be cultural values, whether it may just be something that is on their own conscience, whether it may be the views of their wider community. But I think it’s really important that through this debate you’ll hear a variety of views from this side in support and in opposition to the legislation.

From my perspective, I am in support of the legislation. I have supported it from the first reading, through the select committee, at the second reading, and now at the third and final reading. I had the privilege of being a member of the Justice Committee where we considered the legislation, and alongside particularly my National colleagues Carl Bates, the Hon Andrew Bayly, and Rima Nakhle who, in and amongst ourselves, held different views on the legislation. We listened intently to those who made submissions on it, whether it was hospitality groups, the retail sector who said, “Please tidy this up; make it more workable for us. It’s confusing. We are the ones on the front line who have to let the customers down. Please just make it more straightforward for us.” And then we heard the other side of the argument, those from church or religious organisations who said, “These are cultural or really important religious days for us and please give us the opportunity to breathe on those days.” And I think David Wilson was articulating that in his earlier contribution as well. The reason I settled on being in support of the legislation is not for self-interest. Last reading, the Hon Erica Stanford said I wasn’t old enough to drink alcohol, but I don’t actually consume alcohol. It’s a personal decision that I’ve made.

Hon Rachel Brooking: You’re a married man.

TOM RUTHERFORD: “A married man.”, Rachel Brooking says. Yes, but I make my own decisions. Sometimes. [Interruption] It was going so well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I couldn’t possibly adjudicate that.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah. I must not tell lies in this place, Madam Speaker, but I don’t—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And withdraw and apologise.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, thankfully it’s 4.50, she’s definitely not watching. She’s got far better things to be doing with her time.

The reason why I support it is because there’s no self-gain from it, but who am I to stand in the place of someone who on Good Friday or Easter Sunday or Anzac Day, wants to go down to the pub, wants to go to the restaurant, to a bar to enjoy a beverage with their friends.

Suze Redmayne: Can’t be bothered cooking.

TOM RUTHERFORD: And that’s right, Suze Redmayne.

It might just be that day that they go, “Actually, why don’t we as a family or as whānau or as friends just go out and have a nice time and not have to face that hurdle that we often face of—oh no, we better order a substantial meal.” Well, someone’s on a diet and they were just going to order a side salad, but they can’t have an alcoholic beverage now, and now they must order the entire Caesar salad so that they can enjoy having the cider they were going to have to accompany it. It’s just ridiculous. It’s outrageous. In 2026, it’s an anomaly that I think, ultimately, this piece of legislation is going to tidy up.

One of the really good things that we did through the progression of this legislation is remove the ability for it to focus on supermarkets and bottle stores, because that’s not actually the intention—what this legislation is aiming to remedy and fix. It’s not about people being able to pop out to the bottle store, because they had opportunities to be more organised or to have things at home or whatever else; it’s for those who go out to the pub, to the restaurants, and to the bars.

The other thing that is really front of mind and is coming up near the end of this month is Anzac Day, which is a really, really important day for us as a country. We have heard from numerous RSAs across the country who face rigmaroles all the time around the challenges of having to be able to serve alcohol on Anzac Day to their patrons. Now, it’s not about everybody getting intoxicated, but it’s about having the opportunity to remember and to be with one another on a really special day for New Zealand and for our history and for where we are going as a country.

As I said at the start of the contribution, the National Party, on this side, has a variety of views. We are a broad church. You’ve heard from me in favour of the legislation, you’ll hear from colleagues opposed to it, but, ultimately, I think that’s what makes politics really, really important in this place and why this conscience issue is really important for us all to take a stand on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a bit of a roster going here, and I’d like to now call the Hon Mark Patterson.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) (16:51): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just start by acknowledging the member Kieran McAnulty for bringing the bill forward and carefully and skilfully, actually, shepherding it the House to this point—a little too skilfully for my liking, because in an hour’s time or so, or less than an hour’s time we face crossing the Rubicon. Individual members will be voting according to their conscience. Will they vote to uphold their traditional New Zealand values, history, and traditions? Will they respect our Christian heritage, sacred Christian celebrations of Christmas, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday? Will they acknowledge the solemn commemoration of Anzac Day morning? Or will they sacrifice that heritage at the altar of consumerism and consumption?

Do members fully understand the cultural shift they are being asked to endorse? Are they comfortable that on these sacred days people will be spilling out of bars and night clubs at all hours. It’s a slippery slope—making them just another day. Don’t get me wrong; I’m no wowser here. I’ve spilled out of my fair share of pubs and night clubs over the time, but it does not have to be those days—those 3½ days where the world doesn’t stop, but it slows down. It’s time for families, it’s time for commemorations, it’s time for celebrations of very important events. The status quo might be a bit clunky, but it is not the end of the world. Business has found the ability to perfectly work through that in the past. It’s a very small sacrifice to make.

I will be voting to protect these important days from the scourge of consumerism, and I’m proud to stand by my New Zealand First colleagues in standing up for our Christian heritage, standing up for our traditional Kiwi values, and voting against this bill.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (16:54): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. First of all, can I acknowledge, as my colleague Tom Rutherford did, the complexities of this and acknowledge the range of views that are present in this House?

For me, this has been an interesting bill. I am the cofounder of, I think, New Zealand’s only conservative public policy think tank, the Maxim Institute, and many years ago I would have voted against this bill, but I rise today to vote for it. As a conservative, I’m not opposed to change. I am in favour of incremental change, and that is one of several reasons why I do support this bill. I think it is a wise and incremental change to legislation that does need adjustment, and I want to speak to that very briefly.

I have found sometimes as I’ve sat through the earlier stages of this bill—and this is the first time I’ve taken a call on it, because I’ve been thinking about it carefully—when I have considered what the content of this legislation is, my mind has turned to the joke of the ham sandwich that walks into a pub, goes up to the bar, and orders a drink and is told by the publican, “I’m sorry mate. We don’t serve food in here.”

At the heart of this legislation is a very simple and, as I mentioned, incremental change. It is simply an adjustment to 3½ very special days of the year, 3½ days that are very special to New Zealanders, and particularly to some—including myself, and I’ll speak to that in a moment—where it is currently the requirement, as has been spelled out well by a number of colleagues, including in detail by my friend and colleague Cameron Luxton, for one to buy a substantial meal if they want to consume a beverage.

All that this bill does is remove that requirement. It doesn’t change the liquor licensing laws. It doesn’t change shop hours, and all of that has been laid out. It just makes that simple change. I believe that that is a good and incremental change. I do not believe that that change in anyway affects the sanctity, the sacredness, and the specialness of those days. As a keen follower of Jesus Christ, my Christian faith is absolutely the foundation of my life and it’s the prism and the lens through which I see the world and understand what a human being is and what we’re here for. I love particularly three of those days. I love Anzac Day as well for different reasons. But those three days, Easter Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day are, for me, the most special days of the year. I will most certainly be at church this weekend and at the end of the year as well.

Whether my colleagues and friends, whether they are church attenders or not, are having a steak and chips with their beer that afternoon, does not in any way affect the sacredness of those days, and, in fact, I’m very likely to be found to be having a drink on those days as well.

The final reflection I want to share is, again, as this conversation has been going on in this House now for a few months, that I was reminded of a time many years ago when my wife and I were first married and lived in London and we went away to a church conference one weekend in north London. At the end of the meeting on a Friday night, a guy called Nicky Gumbel had finished speaking and he invited people to the front for prayer while the musicians played softly, and then he said, “For those of you who aren’t in for that, if you just look around behind you now, you’ll see that the bar is open.” It was a memory that I haven’t had for a while, but it spoke to me quite powerfully of, I think, a very healthy relationship with alcohol. I do think that this legislation, amongst other things, is an opportunity for us to make a considered incremental and mature step forward in terms of a healthy relationship with alcohol, a healthy respect for differences, and not be fearful of what this means to our sacred days.

For all those reasons, I thank the member for bringing this bill to the House. I thank all members for their careful and respectful consideration of this bill. My favourite time in this House was the committee of the whole House. It was us working together—it was something else; a vision of what this place can be. So I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to call Kahurangi Carter next, and I want to indicate that I’ve only got two further names of people who have indicated they wish to speak. If anyone has come into the House over the recent little while and wishes to add their name to the list, please come and see me.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (16:59): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, we’re talking on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. There is a drug that is the leading cause of preventable death and morbidity around the world and here at home. It costs our country upward of $7 billion annually, according to a leading economics firm. This drug features significantly in emergency service callouts, many times where violence and aggression are involved. We know that prohibition doesn’t work. It has never worked and only makes those drugs far more harmful because of the circumstances it creates.

This drug, the nation’s most harmful is, of course, alcohol. Drugs, like alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis exist. The question for legislators should always be: how do we create law to reduce harm? There’s a broad spectrum of approaches, here, and at both extremes, you see the maximisation of harm. At one end, you have criminal prohibition, and, at the other end, you have an open slather free market. At each extreme, whether it’s criminal organisations or commercial entities, you see those making money exploiting vulnerable communities by selling as much as these substances as possible.

The evidence shows New Zealand has among the highest rates of alcohol harm on almost every metric. The law is a complex and unwieldly beast for both communities and small operators to navigate and this tells you that the law is not fit for purpose. We need a common-sense approach to drug and alcohol harm reduction and we, as a country, won’t fix these serious issues the way successive Governments have approached it—like Luxon’s Government, this term of Parliament, who have done nothing to advance drug law reform to make our communities safer. In fact, the only drug law reform has been to make purchasing alcohol easier. We need bold leadership to do what successive Governments have been too scared to do, what communities and public health experts, the ones at the front lines, have been calling on politicians to do for decades: to overhaul the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The Law Commission told this House that in 2010, and they told us about the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2012. When are we willing to do the logical and consistent thing and regulate according to reducing harm?

As our communities wait for sensible laws, the Government does less than the bare minimum and in ways that is cheered on by industry—probably gives you a hint as to who amendments like this actually benefit. The Greens have a long history of fighting alongside communities through alcohol harm reduction laws to minimise drug harm. In 2022, our current Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick’s members bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, was drawn from the biscuit tin. This bill had extensive support from Alcohol Healthwatch and local councils, including Christchurch and Auckland City councils and many other local councils supported it too.

In June 2025, the Christchurch City Council agreed on a new set of rules for how alcohol can be sold and supplied across the city—the Local Alcohol Policy, or the LAP. It took the hard work of our communities who, throughout the process, consistently told councillors that the wider community wanted sensible local alcohol policy. The key aim of this LAP was to address the harm caused by alcohol in our Christchurch communities. The result of the LAP is a focus on making alcohol less available at certain times, particularly in areas where easy access to alcohol can increase harm in community.

During the select committee process, the Alcohol Healthwatch said this bill could further perpetuate the harm caused by alcohol and that extensive research tells us alcohol-related harm in Aotearoa is at unacceptably high levels.

The Green Party is united in our position that we cannot support this bill. The Green Party have always stood for sensible evidence-based drug harm minimisation.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:04): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s certainly a fascinating debate. I listened intently to the contribution of the member Greg Fleming, who talked about incremental changes being a positive, because I, also, recognise that this is very incremental. For that reason, in fact, I am going to vote against this bill because my vote is really a protest vote.

I do want to add my voice to those acknowledging the work of the Hon Kieran McAnulty and acknowledging the very, very, very small incremental change this bill would make. However, I can’t, in good conscience, continue to see bills come before the House that incrementally change, small, nuanced parts of a wider architecture that urgently needs reform. My protest vote is to say that, while I don’t have an issue with the content of the bill, I do have a very big issue with the way that this House approaches alcohol. The need for reform and some of those evidenced-based statistics we have heard around New Zealand’s relative harm profile, around the impact on communities, including in South Auckland where there is evidence that some school children are going past five or six alcohol stores every day on their way to school. Saturated in the visibility, saturated in marketing and advertising through sports clubs, that might not otherwise be thought to be able to survive without that advertising. I did support Chlöe Swarbrick’s reformist member’s bill, that was referred to by Kahurangi Carter, for those reasons.

This is not a moral stance. I believe that we have wonderful Christian people in this country; we also have people of many other faiths who may not acknowledge those days or those traditions. So, for me, this is not a Church versus State kind of debate; this is about what we can do responsibly to try to respond to the issue of legislation that is well out of date, as has been said. The fact that it is so difficult to bring reform to this House that even the cross-party mental health group cannot get a discussion about alcohol harm reduction and a meaningful piece of work onto our agenda because some political parties will not support that. Yet at the same time, we have the Online Casino Gambling Bill going through the House, not as a conscience vote, yet with all indications that there is extensive harm to be caused. The admission that this is a bill, which, essentially, not only opens and regulates a market but expands it and makes it competitive, which incentivises marketing to our young people.

So there are all sorts of contradictions that take place in this House, and, today, we have seen the best of the good parts, which is collegial and really thoughtful and well-considered debate and respect about something complex. But I do worry that we are not having the real conversation, which is about how we have a proper comprehensive look at alcohol reform that might do things like tweak the Easter and Anzac Day rules in the way that this bill does, but that might also reduce the harm and exposure on our young people. I question the reason why we are not able to have that debate. That is a very big issue for me.

Finally, I don’t have a problem with our Anzac people having a tipple on Anzac Day. In fact my understanding from insiders in the Defence Force is that it’s quite normal to do that prior to the Anzac Day services. So again, this is not a moral position; it is merely a protest vote. But I think, wearing my mental health spokespersonship hat and my commitment to wanting to make laws in a good way that are transformational and that are reformist and not let incrementalism stop us from having the big debates, I will continue to vote against all incremental alcohol bills, including this one.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (17:08): Thank you, Mr Chair. Like my colleague Tom Rutherford just mentioned, the National Party is a very broad church—we have different views. I think they’re very similar to my electorate as well, which is Mt Roskill, they are very diverse as well.

I am here to stand on behalf of the people of Mt Roskill to oppose this legislation. The reason of it is not only because this is about faith, community, but I think this is also about alcohol harm, as well about the failure of our country. When I did my survey, I asked my constituents, “Are you guys opposed or do you agree with all this legislation which will allow alcohol sales on Anzac Day?” I think the majority of people said, “Yes, we are happy to allow people to buy, to have a drink, to enjoy themselves on Anzac Day.” It’s no question asked on this one. But once I say, “How about on Easter and Christmas?” Oh, the result is actually completely opposite. The majority of my people said “No”—they say no. This is the reason I’m standing here to oppose the bill.

Let me give some of the comments my constituents have been mentioning. One of them: New Zealand has long been a country of faith and many of the founding laws and policies were instituted for those core moral reasons, and having alcohol sales at Christmas and Easter is against that feeling. Another constituent actually emailed me, saying, “Alcohol is definitely not contributing to the spirit of a composed or reflective state of mind. Those guarded memorial days deserve, or are probably even required to help us to understand ourselves; our shared culture.” You can see that a lot of feedback has been sent in—I appreciate it was not only to me, but to a lot of our colleagues here as well—to stand against this legislation. As I say, those 3½ days are special days for our faith communities, and I think most of the people will like it to remain the way it is.

Let’s talk about the business side. A lot of people are also lobbying and sending us emails saying, “Hey Carlos, allowing us to sell alcohol on Easter or even Christmas will help us to go through the tough times”—to allow the business to be in a little bit of profit. I’ll share a story with you guys. One of my friends actually opened a takeaway in my electorate. He’s a Christian. What has happened is that he believed that, “Yes, I need to open seven days in order to maximise my profit.” What’s happened? That’s led to his health going down. He’s not feeling well and is going to hospital. Then, after that, he changed. He talked to God and he asked God for advice. He changed the opening hours to only six days a week now—he takes Sunday off. Everyone was telling him, “Hey, if you do that, will that mean that your income will be less? Is this sustainable?” I asked the same question. The answer for him was, “Carlos, no, actually, my profit is pretty much the same, because people were willing to go to the shops to buy food on the other days. It’s not really affecting the business.” They don’t see any growth or drop in business turnover.

I think this bill doesn’t really help businesses to get a little bit more profit, but that actually creates a problem, which is called alcohol harm. I think, with alcohol, as has been mentioned, a lot of family violence, physical or verbal abuse, is caused because of people intoxicated, or alcohol harm. Also, I think one of the many things here is that we want our veterans to have a glass of wine. Yes, I think the intention of it is very good, but one thing I know is that they have sacrificed themselves fighting for a better country. Is that the country they’re actually fighting for, with people suffering from alcohol harm or other alcohol-related abuse? Is that what they’re fighting for? Has the member actually talked to them and said, “Now, I’ll give you an option. You can choose to enjoy having a glass of wine on Anzac Day or you can see someone actually suffer due to alcohol harm.” I’m sure the answer for our veterans is, “No, I want a better future for New Zealand. I don’t want anyone getting hurt or being harmed.” For that, this is why I’m here to stand opposed to the bill.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (17:13): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in this debate today, at the third reading. I wasn’t actually going to take a call, but I listened to a couple of my colleagues who, I felt, made really good speeches, so I thought I’d come down and make a contribution so that it is on record. It’s not where you stand in moments of calmness; it’s actually where you stand in moments of controversy that matter, and I want it to be known for the electorate of Northcote—the people I represent—what my position is. I am supportive of today’s legislation.

I want to start out by saying I am a person of Catholic faith—my priest will say I’m probably a lapsed Catholic, but that is the perspective that I bring to this place. I don’t talk about my faith because I believe in a separation of Church and State, and I don’t think that that should be brought into the debate in this House in any way whatsoever. It is the perspective that I bring but, for the reasons that my colleague Tom Rutherford outlined, I don’t believe that I should be telling others, and this House should be telling others, what to do on those special days. “Who am I?” is what you said, and I reflected on that and I thought, “Well, actually, who are we as a House?” We’re no better than the people of New Zealand. The Ministers have the same flaws as members of the public, so we are no particular gurus and we have no higher authority to be telling others how they live their lives. I don’t think that we should be telling others, if you want to have a beverage on those days, what type of beverage it is.

Tom Rutherford: There’s no obligation.

DAN BIDOIS: There is no obligation, so I think that’s what brings me to support this bill.

I have a personal view that I think New Zealand is far overregulated for the size of our country. If you look at why we are low income, low productivity relative to the rest of the world—and I’ve lived all over the world and seen that actually we are well overregulated. We go to the nth degree where we shouldn’t do, and I think this bill goes some way to rectifying that. I did actually support some of the amendments to widen the scope of this bill. I don’t actually know if they made it through, but I was broadly supportive of giving power back to the people, from this House, for them to determine the way they go about their conduct during those special days.

This bill updates the law for, I think, current society. I think, to the member who has spoken from the other side who talked about alcohol issues, if I can just indulge the House. I lived in France for a few years and I was amazed at how liberal the alcohol laws were in France but how the attitude of the French actually—[Interruption]—yes— how the attitude of the French played out. I got speaking to a number of my French colleagues, who said that the attitude in the way they bring up their kids with respect to the respect of alcohol is very different to what I would term “Anglo-Saxon culture”. It was only a weekend trip to London via the Eurostar where you realise the Anglo-Saxon culture. It is very similar to New Zealand’s culture—and Australia’s, Canada’s, and the United States’—of binge drinking. I think, actually, that’s at the heart of the discussion. It is not legislative; it is cultural, and I would love a debate about how we improve the cultural attitude towards alcohol in this country.

I just want to end by acknowledging the member who has brought forward this bill—congratulations—but I do want to acknowledge the previous member, Cameron Luxton, for your bill several months earlier, which we had an opportunity to vote on, and I supported, but that was voted down because of particular party positions. It is great that we’re here today—I do hope this bill goes through—but it would have been great to have been here six months ago. To play politics with things like this is utterly unacceptable, and I do hope that members on the opposite side reflect that with future debates. I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:18): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the fact that I’m also getting an opportunity to share my views with respect to this bill in the name of the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty. As I mentioned during the committee of the whole House stage, I do oppose this bill and I continue to oppose this bill, notwithstanding the fact that I respect the views—particularly from my colleagues in the National Party and Government and also across the House—on this.

For many years now, I’ve attended Papakura Marae on Christmas Day. What happens on Christmas Day at Papakura Marae is there’s a charitable trust called Whaitiaki trust, which is run by many very good, decent folk, including my good friend Whaea Anne Kendall. What they do is they provide a Christmas lunch for many families that are otherwise in need or people that just want some community or to be around community. Papakura Marae is a no-smoking and no-alcohol venue, and there’s a reason for that. That’s why they’re no-alcohol. I suspect that one of the reasons is because alcohol is a very big problem for families in South Auckland and all around New Zealand.

I love the fact that my colleague Dan Bidois spoke about the attitude to alcohol, which I touched upon in my last speech with respect to this bill. Attitudes are different around the world, and I see very clearly that in New Zealand—and I grew up in Australia—our attitude towards alcohol is one where, “Let’s all get drunk. We can’t have a good time”—not for all people, of course—“we can’t have a good time unless we get drunk.” Unfortunately, the maturity towards alcohol is not necessarily the case here in New Zealand.

That’s why I do oppose this bill; it is, as I said before, allowing extra access to alcohol on days, particularly, where children have a right to have their parents fully present—on these days that, to many, are sacred and, to many, are not necessarily sacred but are days where they get the opportunity to switch off from everything else and just allow themselves to be in the presence of their kids, or for their kids to have their presence, unhindered by the desire to go to the pub, to go to a restaurant, and “Let’s start going on the booze.”

It saddens me—it saddens me that the quiet moments that a lot of us reflect on when we were younger—I reflect very clearly on days when mum and dad would go start off our Sunday at church and we’d come home and we’d have a kind of lunch underneath the fig tree at the bottom of the yard, all together. That was our family quiet time. I reflect on some of the kids I see coming to Papakura Marae and to other places around South Auckland, kids that love their parents so much. Sometimes, I’ve seen the parents obviously hungover, obviously coming down from just taking drugs, and I reflect on them, Mr Kieran McAnulty, when I think about, couldn’t we just leave these 3½ days alone for these kids to have their parents fully present?

It saddens me, because it’s maybe confusing for some businesses and patrons to have to figure out, is a bowl of hot chips the same as a substantial meal? But what I worry about more is the confusion of kids this coming Christmas, where they’re used to their parents just being at home, and now, where are the parents?

Laura McClure: They can stay at home.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yeah, they can stay at home, my good friends say, but what about those parents that don’t have control? I’m not talking about the parents that have self-control. I’m talking about the parents in South Auckland that don’t have a lot of self-control because of their unfortunate addiction to alcohol.

I want to reassure members of the public that the National Party values families. Indeed, one of our 10 values is strong families and caring communities, and notwithstanding this bill perhaps going through today, our party values strong families and caring communities. I don’t commend this bill today.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (17:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wish to take a short call in response to some of the issues that have been raised. I think it’s important to acknowledge that this bill is about on-licence that are already able to operate on these days, so it’s not that these days—which, I acknowledge, are very important days—are being opened up. That’s the first point. People can already drink at the on-licence on these days.

The change is that, at the moment, if people want to drink in the on-licence on these days, they have to have a meal, and that is what this change is about. It’s about the meal, not about whether you can drink on these days or not. And, of course, when I say “on-licence”, that means somewhere where you go into a building and you buy your drink and you consume the drink in that venue. So it is different from an off-licence, and we have huge problems in this country with off-licences. It’s not about the off-licences, where you go in and you buy your alcohol and you leave and you drink it somewhere else. So it is discrete in that manner. This is about meals, and whether or not a meal has to be served on these days. It’s not about the days themselves, which are, of course, very important days.

I want to just comment now on two other issues. One was a contribution from my friend and neighbouring colleague Ingrid Leary, and she was talking about the need for a fulsome reform of our alcohol laws, and I agree with that point, as well. We do need that rather than lots of piecemeal conscience votes, but that needs to be done on a first-principles basis about alcohol harm, and there is some legislation floating about at the moment, and that legislation is not what we need. So that is a piece of work that needs to happen in the future.

My third point is I noticed that New Zealand First is opposing this legislation because it is the—and this is to quote the Hon Mark Patterson—“the scourge of consumerism—consumeralism”—I’m struggling saying the word. So there’s going to be too much people consuming too many things. I do wonder what their policy position then leads to. I think a lot of issues are being conflated here. I very much respect the position that these are important days, particularly—well, they’re important days to Christians and there is a lot of history in New Zealand around these days, and they are days that are important to me. But alcohol can already be sold on these days, so that consumption is already happening. There’s no change to the consumption of alcohol. The change in consumption is not having to have a meal provided. That is the consumption change. So I respectfully disagree with that point. And, on that note, I’ll sit down.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (17:27): Thank you. Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill.

I have listened today to the arguments for and against, and I think there’s some things that people in this House have forgotten. I rise on the fact that, in reality, you could think Kiwi should enjoy a drink—and I think that’s the discussion that we’ve heard from people that are for this piece of legislation. But it’s the consequences of that happening on these days, and we will unleash far-reaching harms on our society. We’ve heard through the Justice Committee that heard the submissions on this that there was really powerful testimony from our healthcare community. On busy holidays such as Christmas and Easter, hospital emergency departments (EDs) are overrun with alcohol-related cases.

The reason I rise after listening—because I wasn’t going to rise tonight and speak on this, because I have spoken in other readings—but one survey found that one in eight ED admissions on Christmas Day was due to excess drinking. Why I say that is one in eight on Christmas Day—and we have healthcare, we have people, I believe, that deserve a break on Christmas Day. They deserve not to have to be dealing with those types of issues. It’s Easter, it is Christmas Day. They are special days.

I stood in this House in the second reading, and the religious side of this, the Christian values of that, I understand, and that’s a really important part of not allowing alcohol sales on those days. For me, it was, I said, about the fabric, and it was about the importance of those Easter holidays. It was the importance of Christmas Day and protecting those days as the fabric of New Zealand.

We’ve heard through speakers that we’re talking about 3½ days here where we just slow down a little bit and we can enjoy those days. Now, we’re putting that extra strain on our police and on healthcare. I just think that’s unacceptable. Like other speakers in this House, I actually feel saddened and disappointed that we’re here today at this point.

There are, as I can hear across the House, those that have got the mentality that this has to happen. Unfortunately—I’m going to say this; I’ve been thinking about whether I would say it or I wouldn’t, but I will—we’ve almost got to the point that this bill has to be passed because of a rugby game. I love rugby, and it is our traditional sport, and I understand there’s a brand-new stadium in Christchurch, but the rush and thought of having to get this through for a rugby game has actually disappointed me more.

We have heard from the promoter of the bill that this isn’t a major change, so following the first reading, where it was said that these are minor changes, the Amendment Paper on this opens up the shop trading hours. What I put to this House right now—and people that may be thinking, “How do I vote?”—is that, on Boxing Day, there will be bars and restaurants open. They can now open to normal shop hours. Those shops, those restaurants, and those bars could be open to 3 a.m. on Christmas Day. They could be open to 3 a.m. on your Fridays or your Sundays. There is no restriction. To me, that is absolutely wrong, and the bill has been opened up so far that it goes away from looking at this to help businesses. It has actually opened up that so far that we have now got the health issues, but we have also got no restrictions, and no one is looking after those sacred days. On that point, I just think we’ve gone down the wrong path.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (17:32): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution on this. I just note, for any of those watching who might wonder why we’re focusing on this, this is a members’ afternoon, and this is a member’s bill, so I congratulate the member for having this pulled, as is tradition.

It’s a relatively simple one, and I’ve certainly heard a variety of views from my electorate, but I’m comfortable voting in support of it. The reason why I’m comfortable voting in support of it is because this is a minor change which affects those on-licences that can already sell alcohol on these days. It just changes quite a minor thing, which is that, unlike every other day of the year, they don’t have to sell a substantial meal with the alcohol; on these days, they do. I think this is just a bit of a regulatory thing that’s been in place for a long time and hasn’t really been looked at. I don’t see a good reason for it. It doesn’t change the alcohol consumption. It doesn’t change the hours or times. My understanding is that it is being sold on these particular days, so I’m comfortable supporting it.

I do note—you know, reasonable minds can disagree on this and certainly we hear that in this House. I do acknowledge the longstanding history and importance of these days, which are also important to me. It does not stop anyone, and I don’t think it would result in behaviour changes, because these are on-licensed premises that are already opening. It is not allowing additional ones to open. Like I said, the alcohol can already be sold from these on-licences on these particular days already, so it’s pretty simple, from my perspective. Although I note that there are some strong feelings about this, I do think that this is one of those things that I can comfortably support. With that, I will be voting in support of this bill.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (17:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this piece of legislation. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Kieran McAnulty for, one, having his bill drawn. I think it’s like a 1.6 percent or something chance of getting a member’s bill drawn from the tin, so congratulations on that. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Cameron Luxton for his efforts in liberalising this part of our liquor laws that we think has been inconsistent and not sensible for quite some time.

I wasn’t going to take a call, but I thought that I will, just based on some of the conversations that we’re having. The great thing about conscience votes is that we all kind of break rank a little bit from what our party normally may think on an issue. It means that we can actually discuss them openly. I really do want to acknowledge all of the members and all of their views, because I do know that there are quite a lot of different views on this.

For me personally, I think there are a couple of things. For these premises that are already open, particularly pubs and restaurants at the moment, it is just absolutely ridiculous that they have to decide what a decent meal is in order to serve alcohol with it. I know that Jamie Arbuckle mentioned that this is going to go into shop trading hours. These bars will be able to stay open all kinds of hours. It doesn’t actually affect their normal trading hours, and we are not changing the Shop Trading Hours Act. I get where that concern may land, but this piece of legislation doesn’t actually do that.

Talking about some of the alcohol harm, my colleague Rima Nakhle gave a very powerful speech about thinking about children and those that are exposed to alcohol harm and addiction harm. I know, first hand, my mum grew up in a family where her father was an alcoholic, and she had all kinds of issues that came with that. One of the key things she learnt was that no matter what, when you’ve got an addiction, you will find a way in order to get your hit. That doesn’t change just because our trading hours have changed.

It’s completely discredited that people are going to go out and get drunk in bars and restaurants on particular days, like our days of, say, Easter and things like that as opposed to getting drunk at home. What we know has actually been happening is those that do want to, those that might have an addiction, for example, they tend to stockpile, they tend to go harder. I know that Jamie also talked about the hospitalisations. Well, that is happening right now without the safety of our bars and our restaurants. I know our licensed premises have to adhere to really strict rules when it comes to intoxication. One of the safest places you could probably have a few beverages in is a licensed premise like one of our pubs, one of our restaurants.

While I do appreciate that there are concerns about alcohol harm, I do think that keeping it in the on-licences is actually a really smart first step. I’d like to see it actually go a bit further to the off-licences, as you’ll probably hear from quite a few of the ACT members, but I do think this part in the bill is sensible and it’s a good change to be making.

It would be remiss of me to not discuss Christchurch and what is happening. I know a few members have said that these amendments have just been passed in a hurry to open up a stadium for the sake of a football match. That is actually not true. I think there has been more interest from the public and the media because of this anomaly that we have found ourselves in, but I do think that this would happen anyway. Whether it happens right now—it was going to happen anyway, and it’s just standard process. But because it is happening, I can’t wait for Christchurch to see the punters coming in. I hope our bars and restaurants—actually, all of our shops—do really well on that weekend, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next speaker, I’ve had some queries about how long, if we go to a personal vote, it is likely to take. It will probably be about 20 minutes, and we will be voting before dinner.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (17:39): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I won’t take my full call. I spoke in the second reading, and my position remains the same as I shared in that second reading speech. However, there have been a few comments that have been made in this third reading that I thought needed to be put on record in terms of the way we could address some of the challenges that have been raised without changing the law and without taking a step on a slope towards these days ultimately ending up being free rein. I don’t have any issue with the changes to Anzac morning, as I expressed in the second reading, but there’s a lot that’s been said in this House this evening about this idea of a substantial meal. Well, we could clarify that through regulation. We could make it clear that a burger is a burger and a salad with a glass of champagne is OK.

We could make clear that a big bowl of chips with bacon and cheese on it is a meal if you’re having a beer with it. The idea that the only way to solve this problem is to remove the law—to take a step on that slope towards removing the importance of these days in New Zealand’s history and in its culture—is in itself absurd. So rather than continue to make that argument and share again the points made in the second reading, I just wanted to put on record that the idea that the only way to solve this problem is to remove this piece of legislation, in my humble opinion, is not accurate nor correct. Therefore, I do not commend this to the House.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (17:40): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise and have a speech in this debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. I’m very privileged to be able to speak again. I actually think I’ve spoken in all three stages of this bill. I want to again acknowledge Mr McAnulty. It’s great that he got this bill to the House. Obviously, initially, we had some disappointment, because we wanted to kind of make reforms in other areas related to this. But, look, we were very happy to come on board and actually get something done.

This is really a very practical bill. Again, Mr McAnulty calibrated it so it could get support across the House. I really do want to acknowledge that, because he is actually about getting something done, which I think is great—just as we would be in ACT. This is a very sensible change. I’ve had the opportunity to listen to some of the contributions while I’ve been up in my office. It’s been a very respectful debate—people putting forward their different reasons for or against voting for the bill. But this does really address an issue—one of inconsistency. Again, as we’ve already heard, we had places opening on these days but having to serve what was called “substantial meals”. There was a lot of discussion, actually, and submissions at select committee about what constituted a substantial meal.

But this bill, if passed today, will give a lot more options for premises already with on-licences to continue to operate as they would on every other day of the year, except what is currently the protected days. So that’s very exciting. It’s going to make things a lot clearer, both for the public, but also for businesses and operators. We’ve obviously also had agreement across the House to make a small amendment to make sure it’s very clear around trading hours. So I think that was great. Again, Cameron Luxton worked with people to get that across, so that was excellent.

But I reflect on it in two ways. One is, of course, I’m a member of ACT, so we always want to increase people’s freedom. What that means to us is that’s freedom for people to make their own decisions and their own choices to decide whether they want to go out to an establishment to have a drink with their friends and family or not. We’re not forcing people to do anything. Again, that’s very much how we think about things in ACT. We’re not forcing people to do anything but we’re allowing them choice and responsibility to do it. So that’s very exciting.

But the other thing I think about is from where I live down south. I’m lucky to live in Queenstown—one of the premier tourist destinations of New Zealand.

Hon James Meager: One of.

TODD STEPHENSON: Well, yes, Mr Meager’s yelling out behind. I know Timaru’s very important, Mr Meager, but Queenstown is regarded as one of the premier tourist destinations of New Zealand. Of course, we have a lot of tourists, and they come all times of the year, but including Easter and Christmas Day and Anzac Day. Again, this will just make the establishments in places like Queenstown but also Wānaka, Tauranga, wherever you are in the country that are catering for overseas visitors, it will make it much easier to cater for those people.

The other thing which I’ve heard referenced is about, obviously, the Christchurch stadium. I think, again, this is a sensible change for actually boosting events and things that we actually want to encourage in our cities. Again, this isn’t being done just because of the Christchurch stadium, but, look, if the timing happens to fit, let’s actually get this done so we can celebrate the wonderful stadium in Christchurch, which I, hopefully, look forward to attending sometime in the future, and giving them the opportunity this Easter to actually operate in a way that’s going to cater for the guests.

So, look, I’m very happy to unite with other people across the House in favour of this. It really is increasing people’s freedom in New Zealand, and that’s the reason I’ll be supporting it and also other ACT MPs will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I’ve determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who will want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we’re going to follow: I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result, at that stage any member can call for a personal vote.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 66

Noes 56

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Unlock the doors. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill

First Reading

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (19:30): I move, That the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

At its essence, this bill is about empowering artists to create and do what artists all over the world do every day, without the threat of being sued because of an archaic law. Art is a powerful tool for social and political change. There’s a lot going on in the world right now, and so we must lean in to art to help us make sense of the world. Oh, what a grey world it would be without our artists. Thank you to all the artists, academics, and politicians who have championed this bill to finally make it to Parliament.

I mihi to former MPs who have worked to modernise this law, like in 2011, when Green Party MP Gareth Hughes first put this bill in the biscuit tin. More recently, in 2018, National MP Simeon Brown introduced his own bill, seeking to introduce a similar parody and satire amendment within the pre-existing fair dealing exception for criticism and review.

This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to clarify that a fair dealing within a work does not constitute an infringement of the copyright of the work if it is for the use of parody or satire. This amendment follows the common-sense approach taken by Australia’s Copyright Act 1968, section 41A, which explicitly recognises that parody and satire are legitimate exceptions to copyright infringement. Let me make it crystal clear: this bill does not provide a free pass to use copyrighted material without considering originals, nor does it override protections for Māori cultural work. Instead, it brings clarity to the law, ensuring that fair dealing applies to those who use existing works in a transformative and critical manner. This bill clarifies what fair use means: the right to critique and create in ways that strengthen our democracy and contribute to public discourse.

Parody and satire sits at the cornerstone of any democracy. It holds power to account, challenges social norms, expresses views, and encourages creativity, prompting us to reflect on the world around us. Satire and parody is the tool that so many of our beloved artists and commentators have used to highlight these very things, encouraging discussion and its use.

Currently, it’s hard to quantify what art hasn’t been created or shared due to the threat of costly legal bills and repercussions posed by the current law. Over the past year, I have met with artists, comedians, academics, digital creatives, and legal experts, and the message has been clear: this change is long overdue. We have wide support across the arts and legal sectors, and a special thankyou goes to meme creators like The Whakataki Times, Cindy With Sign, Jordan Rivers, and Political Editing 2.0; satirists like Christchurch’s Andrew Gunn; comedians and artists like Kura Forrester, Courtney Dawson, Keisha Castle-Hughes, Joe Daymond, and Thomas Sainsbury, who have used satire to define their art and create creative voices in Aotearoa; and academics like Professor Graeme Austin, who have provided their insights on the subject. Thank you to all of you—thank you.

Many have spoken about the effect of the current legal uncertainty, where fear of litigation has stifled creative expression. From small-scale content creators to established satirists, there is widespread support for a more modern and balanced copyright framework. This bill responds to that call, ensuring that New Zealand’s creative community can continue to challenge through their art and make us laugh. You only need to scroll through Instagram to see the success of our comedians and content creators on the world stage, proving exactly why we need to even the playing field.

This bill is about balance: balancing the rights of copyright holders with the fundamental freedom of expression that is essential in a democratic society. It is a small but important step in modernising New Zealand’s copyright framework. The UK, Canada, France, and Belgium already have these laws in place, showing why it’s time for us to make this move—and, you know, Australia has it too, and you know that we hate trailing behind the Aussies.

Our copyright laws, which were created three decades ago, do not reflect the changes since then in our media landscape. Emerging artists, in particular, have described the financial and emotional toll of navigating a legal grey area. In an age where digital content spreads rapidly, the law must be clear, accessible, and fair to our artists, the content they make, and its reflections on our society.

This bill would be in alignment with article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, specifically around tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake, to help promote and advance Māori storytelling and perspectives. Māori have a long tradition of using satire as a means of social commentary. From waiata ngahau to pūrākau and whaikōrero, the delivery of pointed but light-hearted banter is felt on the paepae, whether you understand te reo Māori or not. Teanau Tuiono’s dad jokes hit just the same in te reo Māori.

Māori artists and commentators often face significant financial and institutional barriers in their creative endeavours. By clarifying that parody and satire are legitimate forms of expression under copyright law, the bill provides greater access and equity for Māori creatives to share their perspectives without the burden of prohibib—prohibitive—

Hon Member: Yeah, I think we’ve got it.

KAHURANGI CARTER: —legal constraints. I think we’ve got it—hey, there’s a meme idea, everyone! It is also important that we uphold protection for Māori intellectual and cultural property.

This bill offers an opportunity to reinforce protections and include the Wai 262 recommendations through the select committee process, ensuring that tikanga Māori remains central to how we approach copyright and artistic expression in Aotearoa. We encourage submissions and conversations to ensure we’re achieving this.

This Green Party bill is a narrow, carefully considered change to the Copyright Act 1994. It provides certainty for our creative sector, aligns us with international best practices, and strengthens the foundational principles of democracy and freedom of expression. Now I will quote Jeff Bromski: “Art has always been a powerful tool for social and political change. From the earliest cave paintings to contemporary street art, artists have used their work to express their views on society and the world around them, typically created in response to social or political issues.”

I urge the House to support this bill so we can move it to the select committee, where we can hear submissions and refine it further to ensure our laws are fit for purpose and reflect our society. New Zealand is a modern society, and we need our laws to reflect that.

For all our artists out there: thank you for making the world a brighter place, thank you for continuing to create art to get us through tough times and to help us shape the conversations around us. I’d love you to send me your memes. Now, I might not understand them, but I promise I’ll try. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (19:41): Good evening, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: It’s a pleasure to stand and represent National on the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill in this first reading. National will be supporting this to select committee.

Arena Williams: Yay! Good stuff. [Green members applause.]

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah, it’s great. This is the second time I’ve got to be the person from National who gives the good news. I did think about drawing it out, but I thought that’s a bit—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Oh, mean!

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah. But I won’t. I won’t hold you in suspense.

There was only one way that National could go with this because this is a bill about freedom of speech. Also, previously, the speaker Kahurangi Carter mentioned that the Hon Simeon Brown had a very similar bill in the ballot, previously; it was, I believe, drawn and voted down. This is something that goes to the fundamental values of our party. Freedom of expression is an absolute requirement for democracy in our country—for democracies everywhere.

This is a very small bill. It does make one small amendment to the Copyright Act 1994, by inserting new section 42A, which allows those “fair use”, copyrighted materials to be used for the purpose of parody and satire. That exempts them from having an infringement. So that will, hopefully, take away any chilling effect that not having that provision under the law may have held. Now, it’s a little bit hard to prove that because there haven’t been any cases brought to trial about this in New Zealand; however, there are international cases where these kinds of things have come to the fore and highlighted the issues where there are no exemptions. However, New Zealand is just coming into line with most other countries that we liked to compare ourselves with, like Australia, the UK, and many countries in the EU. Like you say, in Australia, their Copyright Act was from 1968. That shows you just how far we are behind. We’re just bringing ourselves into the 20^th century—let alone anything else.

In this day and age, how fast things can be transmitted through electronic means over the internet is completely outside of what anything would have been imagined when our laws were first bring drafted—although, the Copyright Act does allow for some software and other digital products to be protected, in some ways. So we already have some provision, but it didn’t go far enough to see the extent of what the internet has become.

When we think about what satire is and what parody is, we often think of them almost as the same thing together, but they actually are two quite distinct things. Parody is where it’s making fun of the original work in some way, or the original statement, or using that original statement or artwork to highlight something. One example of a visual parody that’s often used is of the very famous photo of The Beatles walking across the crossing, and people often put themselves into the same situation, or they might then dress up in funny clothes or in cosplay, even, and be crossing a crossing. That has enough of the reference to the original photograph that people understand what the reference is. That’s parody.

Satire is actually using a situation or a real-life event or an artwork or a work to highlight a social issue or a political point or just to make fun of people. A good example of satire is some television shows that we all may have watched—especially political geeks who like things like Veep or—you’ve never heard of it, Madam Speaker? You should watch it; you would love it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll take a note.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: It’s one for the watchlist. Or one of my favourites is Utopia. Maybe one that you would know, Madam Chair, is Yes Minister. [Madam Assistant Speaker pulls a face, resulting in laughter from members.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Actually, I do know it; I’ve actually got the boxset!

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Ha, ha! That’s all right, Madam Speaker. I thought I was sailing close with that one!

There are lots of examples, and people can understand what they’re saying. It’s interesting with things like some of those satire programmes that we watch, many of us will get the impression that “Gosh, we could almost be watching a documentary. This is so close to the reality of what we are living and things that we’re experiencing.”

In this day and age, where we have AI-derived material; we’ve got deepfakes of people making comments, of politicians making statements, even, it becomes quite difficult because we have some real-world politicians making statements at the moment that it’s hard to believe is actually truly what they’re saying. For example, some of us might struggle to know, at times, whether the President of the United States has actually said something, or if somebody has created a deepfake and put this out as a satirical moment, because it’s so hard, often, to believe what we’re seeing on TV. This is one of the issues that, I think, will come up in select committee, that we will drill down quite hard into, to discover what the boundaries are around this and what some of the danger areas are that might come up where there’s quite a broad interpretation of what both parody and satire are.

It’s really important to make sure that we keep the intellectual property rights of the artist and original whakapapa that things come from protected. It is absolutely fundamental to the continuation of art that the original artists have the ability to have some control over their work. This is not a means by which somebody can say, “Oh, well, it’s just parody.”, but that they’re clearly using artistic material as, say, for a basis of an advertisement or something that they’re going to gain commercial benefit from. Absolutely, that would be a different test under the law.

This particular provision, while it’s still quite narrow, would still involve quite a bit of interpretation. I think we’re going to have a good time at the select committee really thrashing this one out. I look forward to all of the submissions that, I’m sure, we’ll get on this. I hope that this is going to be one of those really entertaining and informative debates that we have. I do hope that people will come forward and bring their perspectives on this.

For me, the most important thing is that we are opening up and maintaining ways of having critique and debate that is a really constructive and informative part of our democracy. Everything that we can do to strengthen our democracy, I think, is important for our Parliament to take on. Recently, we had a forum on, basically, democratic resilience across the world—and in New Zealand, in particular—that was held here in Parliament. I think that was a good start to how this Parliament can work to strengthen our own democracy. Having bills like this supported across the House—or at least widely supported across the House—I think, is a good thing for us to be able to debate it. It also shows that where things are important for our democracy, where they make sense—nobody’s really got a mortgage on good ideas here—we should all support those that are good ideas, not because of what colour of party the person comes from. Members’ days give us an opportunity to really do that: to explore these ideas and to be able to debate them on their merits.

As the deputy chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee—which I’ve got to hope that maybe this is coming to? No? Oh.

Arena Williams: Sorry.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: No? Oh. OK, well, that’s a shame.

Tim Costley: Where’s it going?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: I thought it might be coming to us.

Tom Rutherford: Well, we can vote for it. Yes.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Well, we can still vote for it.

Dan Bidois: Send it to EDSI. They’re not doing anything.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah, exactly. Anyway, this is a bill that I look forward to seeing the process as it goes through the House and through the committee. I commend the bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (19:51): Good on that member for what I’m sure will be a debate about this bill which is light-hearted and which acknowledges that all of us have an interest, as politicians, to see a thriving public discourse that includes taking the mickey out of us. It’s in our DNA; part of the Kiwi approach to our politics is that we can have a bit of a laugh and enjoy a robust debate as well as, at times, taking the mickey out of politicians as a form of legitimate discourse.

It will be very surprising to most New Zealanders to realise that there is not a carve-out in our law for that kind of free-spirited debate already. We should have been there many decades ago, but here we are trying to find a way forward on this in a member’s bill. I congratulate Kahurangi Carter for having this drawn and for taking it through. Well done to you. I know behind the scenes you have done a lot of work to ensure that there is a level of cross-partisan consensus on this. That is the best of us when we can get together and make sure that we can find a way forward that everyone can agree on.

Madam Speaker, when I think about what I would like to see more of, because of this bill, do you remember when I was growing up in the Helen Clark years—and I thought Helen Clark was really my auntie for quite a long time—that we would have these ads on ZM and mainstream radio of Helen Clark singing to an Eminem song and later John Key doing the same? Satire was a real part of the discourse of my generation growing up with politics in our everyday lives.

Tom Rutherford: We don’t do Eminem on this side.

Dr Tracey McLellan: They don’t talk about Eminem.

ARENA WILLIAMS: You were listening to—well, let’s talk about Eminem. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry—legitimate discourse; legitimate discourse. But part of growing up in New Zealand and engaging with politics was about satire; was about being able to laugh at our leaders Helen Clark and John Key. Now, for instance, there is a play about Helen Clark on—the Auckland Theatre Company is running Helen Clark in Six Outfits, which will also be funny and poignant. But being able to have that as part of our culture is absolutely essential to a thriving political discourse. It’s not all about the cost of living—although most of it’s about cost of living, isn’t it? Housing, health, jobs, got it? But also it’s about seeing politicians as people; seeing people who are part of our communities who we can laugh with and at.

This is a bill which helps that along. Good on the member for bringing it, and I hope we pass it into law.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (19:53): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m glad you can remember who I am. No—maybe that’s a bit of a parody. Look, I rise on behalf of ACT. I consider myself probably the most famous arts, culture, and heritage spokesperson in the New Zealand Parliament. But I also have some background in intellectual property and, of course, I probably am one of Parliament’s greatest free speech advocates. I want to congratulate Kahurangi Carter on having her bill drawn from the ballot. It’s great. It’s very exciting, isn’t it? I know I’ve had one of my own bills drawn—it’s very exciting.

I can indicate, straight up, ACT will be supporting this through the first reading because we actually do believe in free speech. If you hadn’t had this bill in the ballot, it’s quite possible an ACT MP would have, so I do want to congratulate you on getting it drawn. I think it’s going to be a really interesting discussion because, as some of the other speakers have talked about, there are some legal issues to kind of tease out. How far does the fair dealings go? What is parody and satire? I think it’s going to be really interesting.

I’m a bit sad it’s not coming to the great Justice Committee, but it is coming to the Social Services and Community Committee. My colleague Laura McClure is on there and I think she’s going to really enjoy being a part of the select committee discussing this. Again, members will know Laura has her own interest in, obviously, technology—in fact, we’ve heard already about deepfakes. Again, she’s very interested in these issues. As Kahurangi Carter said, we have had a lot of changes in our media landscape and what technology can and can’t do, and what it can deliver.

I also think it’s quite fun that it’s April Fool’s Day when we’re actually talking about this bill—I just thought of that as I sitting here. I haven’t actually checked out every political party’s, but I’m sure every political party had a little gag before lunchtime today. Maybe later on, I’ll be looking around to see—oh, the Labour Party didn’t? Well, you had better go and check out ACT’s gag about giving—

Hon Mark Patterson: It’s hard to tell with your stuff, Todd.

TODD STEPHENSON: You’ll have to yell louder—giving cows the vote. You’d be all in favour of giving cows the vote down there, Mr Patterson, wouldn’t you?

But I did think that’s quite fun about it being April Fool’s Day. Maybe The Office, Madam Speaker, is something you’d be more familiar with? Yes Minister—you’re way too young to have watched Yes Minister—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, Mr Stephenson.

TODD STEPHENSON: But, I mean, again, everyone will be familiar with The Office—you’ve got the UK and the US versions, which are a great kind of parody of office life. I think this is going to be a really interesting discussion to have.

I would also note that what we like about this bill is it is narrow and is going to do something to actually protect free speech and artists’ rights as they are undertaking their work, which is great. But I think we also all need to think about what we can do to do other protections in relation to free speech. In fact, today we’ve had what I would call quite an outrageous decision by the Broadcasting Standards Authority to actually try and police the internet. Again, that’s quite a bit of overreach there and, again, it fits in where we’re looking whether some of our laws and our bodies are now fit for purpose in this new age. I do think we just need to be very careful, but I think this is great the way this bill is constructed because it’s going through something very specific. The select committee will be able to get some really great submissions on what this is actually going to mean for people in the community, and then they can make sure that actually how the law is drafted is fit for purpose. I think it’s going to be really interesting to talk around the issues of fair dealings and “fair use”—what that looks like.

As Kahurangi Carter so eloquently outlined in her opening, we’re wanting to protect artists’ rights here, but we’ve also got to think about other copyright implications. But I think they can all be ably managed by the very capable Social Services and Community Committee. ACT looks forward to supporting this through its first reading, hopefully—I think we’re almost there, actually, getting it to the select committee already, but I do commend this to the House. Congratulations again, Kahurangi Carter.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (19:58): Thank you. Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege always to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to a bill and in particular a member’s bill. I’d just like to congratulate Kahurangi Carter for having her bill for the first time in the House this evening. It’s been a bit of a joke getting it to the House because it’s been on the Order Paper and back off and on and on. It has taken a bit of time, so it’s great that we’re here this evening to speak to the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill.

Copyright applies automatically when something’s published or created. It’s a form of intellectual property right. It gives the person who creates that original work exclusive rights. Copyright balances the right of the authors and creators to choose how they want their creations to be used, and also it balances that with society’s interest in allowing people access to use those works of intellectual creative endeavour. The basic premise of copyright law is that the creator of those works has the right to decide how their work will be used. I think that’s a really important concept to be held at top of mind through the course of the discussion if, in fact, this bill goes to select committee—which it appears to be doing so based on the indications from across the House of support.

This bill will introduce a copyright infringement exception for fair dealing with literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works for the purposes of parody or satire. The question I have to ask, though, is: what is the problem that we’re trying to solve here? There have been no specific guiding court cases in New Zealand that have established a clear precedent or defence for copyright infringement based on parody or satire. Legal experts, actually, have noted there is a distinct lack of litigation in this area.

Quickly looking at what is satire, it’s the art of making someone or something look ridiculous. It raises laughter in order to embarrass, humble, or discredit its targets. In fact, Arena Williams said that taking the mickey out of politicians is part of our social discourse; it’s been going on for years. In fact, it was even recently with us last year with a billboard that appeared in Wellington saying “Defund da Police”. And, actually, the Green Party complained to the billboard company asserting copyright breaches—hmm, curious.

In terms of satire, Kiwis are very familiar with satire on TV: Fred Daggs’ shows, A Week of It from the 1970s and 1980s, Eating Media Lunch,bro’Town, Wellington Paranormal,7 Days. Now, one that actually challenges social norms as satire, as the member in charge of the bill, Kahurangi Carter, has stated in her opening address, I all recommend you go and look at Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby. That absolutely addresses the social norms. It’s actually doing a bit of a re-tread at the moment on YouTube.

Parody, on the other hand, copies the original artwork. It transforms it through creative processes to create something brand new. Radio, of which I was a member of radio for 30 years in my broadcasting career, uses parody quite a lot. Radio Hauraki was one of the proponents of radio or music parody—parody songs. Back in the 1980s, there was a song which featured in the top of the charts for many, many years, 27 weeks. It was called “The Bridge”. The pirates on Radio Hauraki turned it into a parody song called “The Fridge”. It was all about electrical appliance love. That song, the parody of that, there was no court case. There was no legal component. They weren’t attacked for the parody of that. In fact, there’s been a whole bunch of parody songs across the years: “Rugby, Racing and Beer”, “Puha and Pakeha”, “Stole My Car”, a parody song based on that very popular hit song, “How Bizarre”. Any court cases about parodies? No, not one.

The only other thing I’d like to quickly mention is that this bill does not address moral rights. It’s silent on moral rights. How will moral rights be assessed? They are personal, unassignable rights which vest in the author of the work the right of attribution to be identified as the creator, the right of integrity to object to derogatory treatment or alteration of the original work, the right against false attribution—to not have a work falsely attributed to them. They are primarily focused on protecting the creator’s personal and reputational connection to their creation.

New Zealand First, for these reasons of moral rights not being identified in this piece of legislation, does not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, I just have to put the question, which is that the motion be agreed to.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Tēnā ra koe, e te Pīka.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just remind the member of the dress code for the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (20:03): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei, i tēnei o ngā pire nā Te Pāti Kākāriki, otirā te mema o Kahurangi Carter. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe mō te kawe mai i tō pire ki tēnei Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to us all in the House. I stand to give voice to the Māori Party’s comments this evening regarding this particular bill from the Green Party; indeed, from the member Kahurangi Carter. Many thanks to you for bringing your bill to this House.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori tonight to talk to the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to provide the fair dealing of work that does not infringe—[TheHon Andrew Bayly sneezes] Bless you! Does not infringe copyright if the purpose is for parody or satire. This amendment allows for a much wider interpretation of current copyright laws in favour of the public wishing to use copyright works through parody or satire to promote an issue freely.

Parody and satire are among the oldest forms of criticism and play an important role on making light of an issue members of the public may feel strongly about. This bill would protect artists from being sued by large companies if they use copyrighted works for parody or satire purposes.

Within our policy platform, when we look at Mana Ōrite, we support this bill on the side of small creators, regular people rather than big companies. Mana Mokopuna supports the importance that our mokopuna are able to express themselves freely without the fear of being sued.

Ko ētehi o ā mātou nawe, ētehi o ā mātou āwangawanga ki tēnei o ngā pire [some of our issues, some of our concerns regarding this particular bill]—some of the concerns we do share, though, is that we must be mindful of the relationship between this parody and satire expectation and when we look at the Wai claims, such as Wai 262 and the protection of taonga. And we do live in a future and world of artificial intelligence, and I also just want to say, along these lines, supporting the bill from Laura McClure of deepfakes is also the opportunity that we can bring to the House when we have members’ days like this and members’ bills, to see how we can make changes to laws or bring in bills like this one.

So within the Wai 262 claim, just the protection of taonga and cultural appropriation. And that’s what we’ll hear from the select committee. Then, also, I’m relieved and excited to hear that the National Party and ACT Party are supporting this member’s bill. Tēnā rā koe Kahurangi mō ō mahi.

[Thank you, Kahurangi, for your work.]

So, the protection of artists and, also, freedom of speech. I runga i tēnā, e tautoko ana a Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā pire ka kawea mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō. Tēnā koutou.

[With that, the Māori Party supports this particular bill that has been brought before this House of Parliament tonight. Thank you all.]

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (20:06): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and take a call on this Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. I would like to add to the congratulations in the House tonight to the member Kahurangi Carter for bringing this bill into the House.

Now, some of us grew up, not with Yes Minister, but with McPhail & Gadsby. And in that era, the creation of parody content was significantly different and a lot harder—took a lot longer than it does today for people to make memes or to make parody or satire content. I, myself, was very lucky to work in an industry where we made a lot of parody and satire content on a show called What Now, and I wanted to acknowledge also Andrew Gunn, who skirted a very fine line around what you could get away with in the world of parody and satire, and did it masterfully.

I think what we all know is that the world has changed significantly since 1994 when the current Act was drafted. This amendment in this member’s bill does a lot to bring the Copyright Act up to date to be able to include parody and satire in it.

Now, a couple of things I just wanted to take note of that have been referenced in earlier speeches tonight. The first was an ACT MP saying to a Green MP—this sounds like a meme, right? An ACT MP says to a Green MP, “If you hadn’t done it, one of us would have.” It’s not often that that happens. The other was a member of New Zealand First being in opposition because they claimed that meme and parody and satire makes someone or something look ridiculous. And fair point, New Zealand First manage to do that in this House every single day, of themselves, so they don’t need a change to the Copyright Act for that to happen.

The main reason I think it’s so important to progress this is because—and that we support this—it does strengthen freedom of expression. It also means that unintentionally funny things like people claiming they can do their weekly grocery shop for $60 can be immortalised in a meme, and we can watch that over and over and over again. So, Madam Speaker—

Tom Rutherford: What about someone asking 12 questions of the Minister of communications?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Madam Speaker, when that member has finished, I’ll take this time to commend this bill to the House.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (20:09): It’s a great pleasure to rise in support of the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill first reading in the name of Kahurangi Carter. The interesting thing is that this is not the only bill that’s been pulled from the biscuit tin under the name of Kahurangi Carter; there’s been a second one since that. Some MPs spend decades in this House and never manage to actually get one drawn. This member has struck gold early in the parliamentary term.

I tried to calculate the odds. It’s actually very rare to be able to get two pulled, but, actually, she’s not the only member in this current Parliament that has had two bills pulled. I would mention that Catherine Wedd has also had two drawn: one for a three-day maternity stay, and then the other regarding a social media ban. I was lucky to get one of my bills drawn earlier this term, which was about fairer taxation on ACC payments, which actually ended up being part of a Government bill. Anyway, I’d better get back to the substance of the bill. I see you looking at me, Madam Speaker.

The purpose of this bill is to introduce, into New Zealand copyright law, the authority to use copyright work for the purpose of parody or satire. This does bring us in line with other countries, such as Australia, the US, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany—I could go on. Currently, our Copyright Act, from back in 1994, is a bit of an outlier. This amendment ensures that creators and commentators have legal breathing room to use works for a bit of comedy or for critical effect without the fear of infringement.

I actually thought it was already the law—if you see some of the Green Party’s social media—however, it turns out that’s not parody or satire; they’re actually being serious. Of course, I joke, but as they say, many a true word is said in jest. Better to try and fail than never to try at all. I believe that, in some quarters, this has already been coined the “Meme Bill”. While it sounds modern, the reality is that this is not really a new idea. We have been trying for many years to finally address this gap in our law. It has been left open for nearly two decades.

It’s worth noting the history of this bill. Back in 2008, a then Labour-led Government considered a fair dealing exemption for parody and satire, yet it never saw the light of day. In 2011, a former Green MP drafted a member’s bill to do exactly this. He argued that it was essential for protecting free speech and reflecting realities of internet accessibility and technology. However, that bill fell by the wayside. Then, in 2018, Simeon Brown introduced his own bill to seek a very similar thing. What we’re debating today is, in effect, the resurrection of these early efforts, updated for the modern age.

It is ironic, perhaps, that it has taken this long to protect the rights of a good joke. We New Zealanders, as has been mentioned, do like to take the mickey. There is more colourful kind of language that can be used to express the same thought, but I think it’s important to note that defamation or offensive misuse and other rules will still be enforced.

The Copyright Act hasn’t been updated for a number of years. I think the last time was in about 2008. A lot has changed since 2008. Technology has changed. Our consumption of media has changed. Nobody in 2008 would probably have envisaged watching videos that now dominate social media or the internet. YouTube was only three years old at that stage. Streaming services weren’t a thing. iTunes definitely wasn’t a thing. Some of my colleagues were still in primary school. These advances are impacting the way we create, distribute, consume, and adapt material. Who would have even thought of TikTok back in 2008.

I think it’s important that we also have a wider review of our intellectual property laws, which I think the Minister is looking at. I think what we have here is a very simple carve-out, a small change to the Copyright Act, which I think will have a good effect on humour, comedy, and also free speech. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:14): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take what will be a short call on this bill. Can I, firstly, just acknowledge my colleague and friend Kahurangi Carter for having this bill drawn from the biscuit tin. She certainly is starting to have the touch in terms of having bills drawn from the tin. I want to acknowledge the hard work that she has done in bringing this bill to the House. It looks, from the contributions of members thus far, as though its trajectory is on the way to a select committee of her choosing. I want to acknowledge the work that she has done.

This is a bill that will provide an update to reflect what is, I think, a modern approach to the way in which we all go about our lives; in particular, being able to debate and participate within a democracy and as part of a democratic process. Ms Carter herself talked about the fact that we don’t want to stifle creative expression. We certainly don’t want to do that. As someone who is a child of the 1980s, believe it or not, I reflect on and remember The Billy T. James Show. At the time, actually, when you’re growing up and you’re watching that and you’re experiencing that, to know that aspects of that particular show now would perhaps be questionable, based on the behaviour of people, perhaps, in this place, I think lends itself to a further conversation.

Whilst this will have a broad applicability in terms of journalists, those involved in social media, creatives, and others, I think the actions and the contributions of members in this House will naturally provide some fodder for content. I look forward to seeing the progress of this bill, and we’re very happy to support it.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (20:15): It’s a pleasure to round off, from the Government’s side, the first reading speeches for the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. I certainly echo the sentiment of previous speakers in welcoming Kahurangi Carter and congratulating her for having her bill drawn. As my colleague Hamish Campbell said, the odds are certainly in your favour, so maybe consider buying a Lotto ticket this Saturday!

Also, I do wish to indicate that I too am a 1980s baby, so I do remember fondly the Billy T satire, who was whanaunga, actually, if you think of those who are from the mighty Maniapoto area. He’s buried just outside of Ngāruawāhia. If you’re going along State Highway 1, you’ve got a lovely hill up near Ngāruawāhia—that was where he was laid to rest. I certainly acknowledge his contribution.

There are bills of consequence in this Parliament, bills where you think, “This is why I came to this House.” Sadly, this is not one of those bills, but I do wish to acknowledge that it is an anon-nomoly.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Phenomenal.

Tom Rutherford: This’ll be the first one they use!

DAN BIDOIS: Ha, ha! There you go. I think it is worth tidying up. It’s no disrespect to the member, but thank you for raising this issue in the House.

When I think of my own experience with satire, of course Billy T. James comes to the fore, but in nearer times, actually, looking at the regime that they have in America—I spent a few years living in America and follow closely a lot of satire shows that are in America. One particular show is Real Time with Bill Maher. I don’t know if anybody on the other side—

Simon Court: How good is Bill Maher.

DAN BIDOIS: He’s good. He’s a good centrist. He’s a Democrat, but he doesn’t mind criticising the Democrats, and he also gets the Republicans in. He is, I think, probably one of the most well-known satirists, who has fallen afoul and gotten on the wrong side of presidents. I think Donald Trump has had a massive run in with him in the past. It is so important for the functioning of a free and liberal democratic society that we enable these satirists to contribute to the public discourse in a way that connects with the public. That’s why people like Bill Maher and The Daily Show and Yes Minister and The Thick of It and Veep. I don’t know if anybody remembers the show Veep. That’s a great satire show—also American. I think they have a huge role to play in helping to engage a wider audience with public discourse.

It on that basis that this side is going to be supporting the piece of legislation. I just want to do a plug: if the member does want to send it to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, we will have a bipartisan approach on that bill, or the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, as my colleague Vanessa Weenink suggested. Look, we look forward to the submissions on this bill and to tidying up the piece of legislation. It is well worth reviewing this, after what has become an outdated piece of legislation.

My colleague Hamish Campbell again indicated the history that this bill has been through. I look forward to following with interest the submitters that may come, and I wish to do a call to all two viewers at home that are tuning in, that if you feel strongly about this piece of legislation, submit on the bill and you will be heard as part of the select committee process. On that basis, it is a great privilege to commend this bill to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (20:20): Well, it’s been an engaging and fun debate. I’ve enjoyed hearing about the other member’s bills that have been pulled from the biscuit tin in this term and in previous terms. Thank you to everyone who contributed to this debate, inside and out of the Chamber. I’ve really enjoyed working across the House and getting to know lots of you better so that we could get almost full consensus across the House for this really important bill.

I want to reaffirm why this bill is necessary and to talk about some of the ideas that were raised. There was a lot of talk of 1980s babies as well, so I just want to say, shout-out to the 1984 babies—that’s right.

As we close this first reading, I want to affirm why this bill is necessary. This Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill has been coined the “meme bill”. When memes first came out, I actually used to call them “me-me” bills. It was about a couple of years later that someone said, “You know they’re not called ‘me-mes’, right? They’re called ‘meems.’ ” So for everyone out there still calling them me-mes, they are memes.

At its core, this bill is about balance and fairness. It ensures that fair dealing applies to parody and satire, while maintaining protections for copyright holders and for Māori cultural works. Internationally, similar provisions exist and function effectively without undermining creative industries.

Now, National talked about the importance of our parliamentary work and the importance of taking on this bill and how important the select committee process will be. National also talked about this post-truth era that we are living in and how it will be important to modernise this bill and to really needle in at select committee to make sure that it is fit for purpose. ACT supports the bill and that is not satire, everybody. In fact, it’s not even an April Fool’s joke. There we go. The self-coined most famous arts and culture spokesperson—Todd Stephenson—said that we need to look at that “fair dealing” and really solidify what that means in law, to provide clarity to artists and to our legislation.

We heard from Labour—thank you very much—around how taking the mickey out of ourselves is part of the fabric of our country and is in our DNA, and talked about shows that we’ve all grown to love, like The Billy T. James Show and Yes Minister. Actually, our lovely colleague Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke said, “Yeah, bro’Town!”, and I said, “Were you born when bro’Town came out?” So, yes, we all have had that parody and satire touch our lives.

Simon Court: South Park!

KAHURANGI CARTER: Ha, ha! Now, New Zealand First did talk about intellectual property rights and spoke about the lack of litigation around this bill and why we actually need it. I just want to say that it is hard to quantify how much art has not been created or shared due to the fear of massive legal fines.

I would like to say, ultimately, this bill is necessary and is a carefully considered step forward. It provides clarity and supports creative expression and upholds democratic freedom. I urge the House to support this bill, and now, we get to voting and I guess we will see if National and ACT indicating support is the ultimate April Fool’s joke or not.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 115

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 8

New Zealand First 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (20:26): The question is, That the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (20:27): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a privilege—sorry, let me just start that again. I move, That the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

Now, apologies for the initial confusion there, Madam Speaker, this is new territory for me. Unlike some fortunate members in the House, this is my first member’s bill, after nearly nine years in this debating chamber, so it is a pleasure to have the opportunity now to speak on what I believe to be an important member’s bill. I look forward to gauging support across the House and I understand there is a good support for this proposal.

I’ll outline some of the aspects within this particular member’s bill, but before I do that, I just want to start by noting that New Zealand has a very proud history of military service: over 180 years’ worth since our initial militia was set up—now, of course, the New Zealand Defence Force. We have deployed all around the world in conflicts: of course, World War I and World War II, where we lost 18,000 New Zealanders and 12,000 New Zealanders respectively between those two conflicts, but indeed many conflicts since that time as well, and that’s the really important part that I want to highlight. Indeed, we did highlight that just recently with the passing of the Anzac Day Amendment Act, which sought to broaden the scope of that piece of legislation beyond those two world wars and a few subsequent conflicts—actually right up to modern environments.

Many people may not actually be aware, but we have a lot of Defence personnel right now all around the world in all sorts of deployments, doing all sorts of amazing things for the safety and security of New Zealand on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand. I want to thank and acknowledge all of those Defence personnel currently offshore and, indeed, all of those currently serving, and of course the veteran community as well, which is the crux of this piece of legislation.

Of course, here we are in the House on 1 April. Now, later this month, we will be commemorating. I’m sure all members in this House will be getting up bright and early for dawn services to commemorate on Anzac Day around the country. Indeed, that’s one of the particularly special parts of the role for me in the Waikato electorate. It’s always a challenge to get around to the different events that are happening from an Anzac Day perspective, because there are so many in a large electorate—as I’m sure you can relate to as well, Madam Speaker. But it is one of the best parts of the role, to go around and see genuine community members out taking a moment, particularly at dawn services, to put themselves into some slight imposition by getting up early and going along to commemorate those that have served on behalf of New Zealand and, in many cases, made the ultimate sacrifice.

Now, we owe a great debt to those people. I think pretty much every member of the community understands that and wants to acknowledge that and demonstrate their respect for that service.

This is part of the challenge that’s led to this member’s bill, because we have, unfortunately, some people in New Zealand who like the idea of that recognition, of being honoured in a fashion that veterans are, without actually having done the service, without actually having earned that respect. That is, really, the crux of the member’s bill that I bring forward to the House today, around what’s often called “stolen valour”, where you get a person representing themselves as having served, wearing an array of medals on Anzac Day or at some other function when, indeed, they have not earned those medals or been awarded those medals. I find that particularly egregious, and I think most Kiwis do as well, because it belittles the experience of those that did genuinely serve and did genuinely receive those medals, those declarations as a result of the sacrifice that they made away from their family, from their friends, on behalf of the country. That should never be undermined.

There has been, of course, a piece of legislation here. The original Act was developed or passed into law in 1918—so that’s a wee while ago now, as members of the House would appreciate. That’s why we need to bring forward this modernisation bill, because, actually, within the Act as it stands now, one of the penalties is a fine of a maximum of £20.That’s somewhat outdated in the context of New Zealand in 2026 and forms part of my logic for bringing this bill forward.

It’s an interesting one because, as I said, I think everyone agrees that that’s a pretty terrible thing for someone to do—to portray themselves as having earned or received those medals or decorations when, indeed, they have not. But there’s some nuances around that too, because there are also situations where someone may have served and may be a veteran and may have medallic recognition, but not necessarily for all of the medals they’re wearing. Unfortunately, we see that sometimes too. It is, on occasions, veterans themselves who dress themselves up to be more than the service that they did would allow. That is a concern, as well, but it’s on a gradient. I think that’s where the details of the bill—and I’ll get into the particulars of the change that I’m proposing, shortly—will allow for some flexibility.

You also have a situation where there are unofficial medals that have been presented to a member of the defence force, they may already have their medals, and then they have an unofficial medal that they are not entitled to add to their medal rack. I’ve got some examples here—that could be the United States Antarctica Service Medal, it could be the Australian Chief of Defence Force Group Commendation. It’s possible for a New Zealand serviceperson to be awarded that, but not to add it to their other medals that they have. In some cases, though, they do. That may be a bit of a protest vote—there may be any reason behind that. Again, that’s not allowed, but that’s part of why there needs to be a bit of flexibility in how the penalties are put out under this legislation.

So—the anticipation has been building, I know. In terms of the actual changes that I’m proposing here, what we’re looking at is under section 4A, which refers to the “(Offences in respect of military decorations)”—actually, take away the piece that says “is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $500”. And then down in section 6, under “(Penalties)”, replace “section 4” with “section 4 [and] 4A”—so that encapsulates that previous piece I just mentioned. And then change the fine, under section, from “20 pounds” to “$10,000”. That is a more accurate reflection, I think, of where the fine should be set this year and then doesn’t make a distinction between decorations and medals and badges and the likes under this legislation. It’s just a more simpler approach within that. I should clarify that that is a maximum. There is discretion within that, as I said, depending on the severity of the offence to increase or decrease the fine.

The other piece that I want to modernise, while we’re at it with this 108-year-old piece of legislation, is to change in section 4A(2)(a) the word “himself” to “themselves”, because, actually, it’s not just men that serve in the New Zealand Defence Force, we have women who do an incredible job with the defence force as well.

I actually want to take a moment now to acknowledge some of the service in this debating chamber, because there are actually 10 currently serving MPs that have served in the New Zealand Defence Force. I think many members of this House wouldn’t actually realise it was that high. I suspect that’s the highest it’s been for quite some time. We have one in the Labour Party, who I’m sure will be speaking shortly; one in New Zealand First; and eight in the National Party. I think that’s a really impressive step to have. And look, that’s not the crux of why I’m bringing forward this bill, but I think it demonstrates that we care deeply about the military, we understand some of those challenges, and that’s why this piece of legislation is coming forward.

The aim here, obviously, is modernising this legislation, but, really, we don’t want to be using this legislation. I would love for this change to act as a deterrent so that we don’t see these people making these bad decisions and turning up and misrepresenting themselves. Unfortunately, we have seen cases of it, and members will have seen media over the last few years where this occasionally pops up—an RSA president, for example, down in Rolleston, I believe it was; you know, some of these attractions that are not great. Hopefully—the intent here is that—this acts as a deterrent, stops some of that terrible behaviour from happening, and enables us to have more confidence in supporting our veterans.

I look forward to the select committee process. I welcome submissions on the bill, and I’m open to improvements as we go. I commend it to the House.

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

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) (20:37): Thank you. Madam Speaker. I rise, as the Labour Party spokesperson on veterans’ affairs, to speak on the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill. In acknowledging those in the House who have served—my colleague Dan Rosewarne only two weeks ago was still a regular force serving captain in the New Zealand Army, and so it brings home just how recently many of these military engagements that we are all aware of have occurred. I’m also aware that we are standing in a war memorial here in this Chamber, and I think many of us, on quiet occasions, have cause to reflect on those who went before us. As Tim van de Molen has mentioned, the fact the proximity to Anzac Day—that he gets to read this bill for the first time—is somewhat serendipitous.

I had hoped at this stage to bring a medal of my own, which is my Police long service and good conduct medal. Yes, good conduct, Mr Bayly; I don’t like that quizzical look on your face—

Hon Andrew Bayly: Yes, I’m surprised. Very surprised.

GREG O'CONNOR: The only reason I didn’t have it here is that I wore it very recently at Government House, where my police cadet wing had a 50-year reunion. I noticed that many here, in the previous bill, were talking about being children of the 1980s. Many of you, with some mathematical ability, will work out that having joined the police 50 years ago, I probably am not a child of the 1980s. However, the significance of my decoration, that medal, became apparent. Many of my colleagues have left the police. That medal is not awarded in the police until you have 14 years of sworn service, and subsequently you get a bar for each seven years—I got to 41 years and nine months. I would have got my fourth bar on my medal; however, I couldn’t be a sworn member of Parliament and of the services at the same time, so I missed out by that three months.

However, we all fronted up at Government House, and Dame Cindy Kiro was very gracious in organising and inviting us there. We were the Sir Denis Blundell Police Cadet Wing, and being the wing sponsored by a Governor-General, he allowed us to become the first service of any of the forces not only to graduate but to ever march at Government House. Those members who didn’t quite make the 14 years who were there, and there were many of them, looked somewhat in envy, I suppose, disquiet, but certainly looked at those of us that actually did stay long enough to get our medals and felt that perhaps maybe they would like to have stayed a little bit longer. Certainly, I know the feeling they got, and that we all got, being among our peers, was that that was an earned medal.

Speaking on this bill tonight, I think it gives some context to how earned many, in fact all, of these decorations are. I’m sure my colleague on my left—having, I know, served in many of the more recent conflicts and war-like situations that Tim van de Molen spoke about, which the New Zealand forces are still in today—will perhaps be able to share some of his own experiences.

Given that context, that is why I think it’s very important that we take breaches of the wearing of these decorations so seriously. In researching, even some of the rules in this House were actually set around pertaining to military service. One, you can’t call anyone a coward here. That’s because, for those who did go away to war, when they came back after the First World War and the Second World War, it was forbidden to actually refer to the fact that one of your fellow parliamentarians hadn’t actually gone away. Of course, that led to a lot of aggravation in the Chamber, disorder in the Chamber, so it was actually banned. Although I was looking for it—I knew that I’d seen it somewhere, but I couldn’t quite get to the—I generally know Speakers’ rulings, as you do, Madam Speaker, right down to the nth degree, but this one I couldn’t quite land on at the time. That gives some idea of how the military aspect of our lives is still very much here today.

In fact, this relatively small piece of legislation is, I see, increasing the fine. It’s interesting that we’re now going to $10,000 from £20. I just did a quick calculation. Allowing for inflation, the fine would actually only be about $2,600. That’s something that perhaps will be able to be sorted out—assuming that this does get to select committee, that’s something that we will actually be able to sort out. There may well be some rationale behind that hefty hike. I think it would probably be a relatively cold day that anyone would be fined $10,000, but I think, having been dragged before the court—and I know the case that Tim van de Molen just spoke about. I think it was someone from Levin, the head of the RSA, who had been brought to task—in fact, taken to court—and fined $500 for doing that very thing.

I think the mere fact of standing in a dock somewhere being so charged would probably be sufficient punishment itself, but certainly it doesn’t hurt always to revisit these things and just ensure that, as we discuss this in the House tonight, as we debate this in the House tonight, we do reflect on what these things mean to us. I think, as a New Zealand society, we are the sum of our component bits—those component bits as far as human occupation goes, from the 1200s, when humans first set foot here, to everyone that’s been here since. As we sit here tonight, we do represent all that came before us.

I’d like to think that this bill, and certainly Labour will be supporting it, will receive the support and acknowledgment of these military decorations and acceptance of the work and the relevance of the work we still do. There are a couple of other bills that will be before the House. This is one of three bills. The Anzac Day amendment bill, which Mr van de Molen—I don’t think I congratulated you on getting your first bill drawn in nine years. Having been lucky enough to have a couple myself, I know it’s a great feeling that day to hear when you’ve actually been pulled out. If luck goes, if you’ve got another one there, you’ll probably get another one next month, because these things tend to come in pairs.

There’s another bill: the Veterans’ Recognition Bill. There is some disquiet among our veterans community about just what recognition they do get. It’s the Sir Wira Gardiner case. Wira Gardiner was a very well-known New Zealander. He died of glioblastoma—Agent Orange—which has been pretty much recognised for those Vietnam veterans, which was another group that took a long time to get recognition when they came back. That has been a hard-fought case through the courts, and the veterans community are still awaiting resolution of that, just to see the tone or, shall we say, the way in which the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 is being administered.

Again, it gives me great pleasure to say that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill. There’s probably a little bit of work to be done at the select committee, which we’ll look forward to doing, to make sure that this bill and this particular part of the recognition of the military service of those who went before us, those of course who gave their lives, is very much part of the way in which we recognise modern New Zealand. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (20:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill tonight. Thank you for giving me space to talk to this.

At the outset, I can say that it is important to acknowledge that we do support aspects of this bill, particularly the move to update the language so that it is inclusive and reflects the reality that military service is not limited by gender, just as we need toilets for everyone. However, the central issue is whether this legislation is necessary and proportionate. The evidence suggests that it’s not.

The behaviour that this bill seeks to address is that people falsely claiming military honours appears to be an extremely rare occurrence in Aotearoa. What is the problem that we’re trying to deal with here? The fact that there has been only a single prosecution under this law in over a century indicates that this is not a widespread or growing problem requiring legislative action. Good lawmaking should be driven by a clear need. In this case, there is very little to demonstrate that the current settings are failing or that stronger penalties are required to deter offending.

I acknowledge that we have a number of members in the House who have served in the armed forces, but I don’t really think that nostalgia is a reason why we should legislate. While the current fine may be outdated in pure monetary terms, as we’ve just heard, increasing it significantly does not solve a clearly identified problem. There is a question of proportionality. As my colleague Greg O’Connor noted, a jump to $10,000 for a fine is substantial, particularly when we compare it with what the original penalty would equate to today—as my colleague just mentioned, around $2,000.

More broadly, Parliament’s time and resources are limited. It’s important that we prioritise legislation that responds to real, pressing, and widespread issues affecting people. This bill does not meet that threshold, and for those reasons, while we support the inclusive language and the changes thereby, we don’t support progressing this bill as a whole. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (20:50): I am not quite sure what I just heard from the other side there but I think it’s completely rude and disrespectful to every single person who has served, who is serving, and for all of these plaques along this wall that have encouraged us as a country to be democratic and allow members of the Parliament to be elected to be in here—comes about from all of those people who have served and given their life.

I rise, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the ACT Party, more explicitly on behalf of Mark Cameron, an MP who’s unable to be here this evening because of an illness and who would like me to speak positively on this bill, and respectfully for all of those people who have served and continue to serve for democracy in New Zealand.

The Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill, I believe, is needed. I would like to commend my colleague from the National Party, Mr. Tim van de Molen, for bringing this to the House for us to vote positively on and to support. What this bill does, at its core, is ensure that the law properly reflects the value that we place on service and on sacrifice.

The principal Act, which dates back to 1918, was designed to protect against people falsely presenting themselves as recipients of military decorations or distinctive badges, and that protection still matters. When someone wears a medal pretending that they earned it, they’re not just telling a lie, they are trading on the courage, on the hardship, and on the sacrifice of others. Instances of that behaviour are fortunately rare in New Zealand but rarity does not mean irrelevance.

Updating the penalty to a modern level of up to $10,000 ensures that the law carries genuine weight and reflects our expectations. The bill also makes a small but meaningful change to reflect that military service is no longer only for men. I still am quite perplexed as to why the Green member Scott Willis thought it was important at that stage to talk about toilets, when we’re talking about modernising—that service is no longer just for men. That amendment acknowledges the reality of modern service and the contributions of women in uniform. It’s a modest drafting change, but symbolically it’s very important.

I just want to point out one minor thing that may warrant further consideration at select committee. In the principal Act is section 4A. That section has been in place for decades and that places an evidential burden on the defendant in certain circumstances. If we are revisiting this Act, it is appropriate to ask whether that remains consistent with the values that we seek to uphold, requiring a person to prove their innocence rather than the Crown proving guilt engages a fundamental principle of our legal systems. The men and women whose medals we are protecting served a country founded on the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, and so I encourage the select committee to also consider this.

Finally, honouring veterans is about more than ensuring that medals are not misused. A medal is often only part of a much larger story. We honour service not just through protecting decorations but through properly supporting veterans and their lives after service, and through preserving our military history and heritage in museums, collections, and the artefacts that do tell us the full story of their sacrifice.

This is a narrow bill with a worthy purpose, which ACT looks forward to engaging constructively with through the parliamentary process. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (20:54): I want to start by congratulating Tim van de Molen for the bill and for having the bill drawn. This month, as he said in introducing the bill, we commemorate Anzac Day. Of course, it’s great to see the growing support, the growing support again for Anzac Day commemorations because all of that is about honouring the people who have served our country. That really is what this bill is about doing: it’s about the integrity of the honour that we give.

Recently, of course, we had quite a discussion about the Anzac Day Amendment Act and that was all about broadening the recognition of those who put themselves in harm’s way on behalf of our country. It said it’s not just those who served in military, it’s also those who served in non-military uniforms—it might be nurses, it might be people in the Merchant Navy, whoever it might have been—who put themselves in harm’s way in the service of this country. Of course, at the time, I was very, very strong on saying I want to make sure that we don’t also forget the recognition of those New Zealanders who also served effectively alongside our services, but in the colours of another country—fighting for the same purpose—that we don’t forget them because there are many, many thousands of Kiwis who did exactly that.

This bill, in part, is about expanding recognition, and we’ve already heard that expanding the recognition in its language to say it recognises that both men and women have served our country in times of war and in war-like situations. That is a very positive thing. But the bill is a relatively small bill. That would be quite nice, actually, to tie it in with the Anzac Day Amendment Act. But the main component there is updating the penalty for falsely claiming military honours.

The current Act, as we know, dates from December 1918, so the penalties are just a tad dated. We’ve already heard—you know, what does £20 equate to in today’s money? It’s interesting; we often have debates in select committee about penalties which are set at some point in time, inflation occurs, and then they take the penalties become completely outdated. Well, here is that in spades. We argue about that and we get pushback from the bureaucracy saying, “Well, we can’t really allow for penalties to be able to be changed by Order in Council.” But I think that is a problem because it means that every time we have to change any piece, any penalty, we come back and we’ve got to go to this whole process of a bill, which of course is a very expensive process. So I do encourage us to have a think about that.

If you look back at what £20 in December 1918 equates to today, it equates to something like $2,772, according to the Reserve Bank’s inflation calculator. It was interesting to see that inflation was running at 13 percent that particular year. So clearly in wartime it got a little bit out of control. Of course, we’re seeing a little bit of that kind of thing even though we’re not even involved in a war. But wars in other places affect us in terms of inflation rates. But then again, some of that came from the Green Party and they’re not particularly well acquainted with either economics or inflation.

You could argue that this is an offence without victims. You know, somebody’s wearing something, it makes them feel good; who’s worried about it? But quite clearly, that is wrong because, as we just argued at length in the Anzac Day Amendment Act, it’s important that we recognise the service that people have given. That’s the service where people have put themselves at risk. They might have seen friends and colleagues who are killed or seriously wounded. They might have been wounded themselves; they might even have been killed. That is a serious contribution to our country and it is something which is important that we respect and that we honour.

Somebody who is passing themselves off as having gone through that process and having served and having won medals or whatever it might be, who has not won that, who has not earned those, that is something that is severely disrespectful—we’ve already heard that in the introduction of this bill—to those people who have put themselves in harm’s risk for their country.

New Zealand First has always been a proud supporter of our defence forces and all those have served and the recognition of those. We support that tradition, we honour that service, and we want to preserve the honour of those people who have worn our country’s uniform, served their country in times of war or war-like conditions, and that is what this bill is about.

Military decorations are revered representations of bravery, of service, and of devotion to our country. That is why false claims are so offensive, and we have seen a number of those happening around the world where people have been passing themselves off as having been someone they’re not, having earned medals they have not—and has genuinely caused deep offence. That is why the I commend this bill to the House and thank Tim van de Molen for bringing this bill to the House.

Hon Members: Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, the Labour Party sheet is incorrectly listed. So the next two speeches are inverted. Tim Costley.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (20:59): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. I do want to commend my gallant friend who brought this bill to the House for his exceptional work.

I do want to talk about the bill and what this means and share a couple of stories if we get time, but it would be remiss of me not to just take a moment to respond to what I want to say is the worst speech I’ve heard from a Green Party member, but it’s not. It was woeful. Scott Willis stood there and said that this bill was about nostalgia—veterans are just about nostalgia, and medallic recognition for those who serve, those who go to war, those who lay their life on the line is simply nostalgia. That shows you what the Greens think about our military. That shows you the respect that they have for our service people in New Zealand.

I bet you, if you go to their Instagram pages—go to Scott Willis’ Instagram page and look up 25 April last year; I bet you he was getting a selfie at his local Anzac Day parade. To turn up here and say it’s just nostalgia—Anzac Day is just nostalgia! This is one of the most fundamental days of our country; 6 February, no doubt, but 25 April 1915 as well. How can we forget? I see other members from the Green Party holding their heads in shame. I bet they were embarrassed about what they heard come out of Scott Willis’ mouth. I have spoken with other Green Party members that I’d like to think actually have a different view. At the end of my speech, I will yield the last 20 seconds if a Green Party member wants to stand up and say, “Actually, we support this bill; we think veterans are worth more than nostalgia, and we will support them.” I will give my time to let someone stand up and do that. I think there are one or two that might even take that opportunity, but I challenge them to come and do that. There is time for them to come down to the House if they’re not here already and make that contribution.

This is far more than nostalgia. These are the same people that want to defund the Police. These are the same people that campaign on that and think that’s worthy. The person who said that got promoted to No. 3 on the party list ahead of some very good MPs—I’m looking at one. That’s the kind of thing they value. Let New Zealand take a look; let New Zealand take note of what we heard today. The one good thing he said from the bill was that it changed “himself” to “themselves”. It was a gender thing. How can you be so out of touch as this Green Party to think that that is the good thing in the legislation? Of course there are men and women and all sorts of people who serve in our military, but that’s not what this is about; this is about recognising service, honouring service, and ensuring it gets the respect it deserves, and I see none of it—none of it—from that corner of the House.

OK, I’ll take a deep breath and try to say what I was going to say. This is a good bill to talk about. I brought my—I happened to just get them out to take back for Anzac Day [Holds up medals]. I’ll be speaking at various services this year, but I bet you, at the civic service in Paraparaumu at 9 a.m., I will meet the great-grandson of Keith Elliott, who won the Victoria Cross in World War I. He wears his great grandfather’s medals, but like everyone can, and still can under this bill, they wear them on the right-hand side. It’s a way of saying, I want to honour those who went before me. It might be a great-grandfather, it might be a mother, it might be a sister, it might be a son, but they can still wear other people’s medals.

That’s not what this is about. This is about the people who wear them on the left. If you’ve seen the great Australian music video—I’m not going to pass judgment on it in this House, but you wear your medals on the left if you earn them yourself, and it’s about those who choose to do it. Now, I kind of just don’t get it, if I’m really honest. I served in Afghanistan with someone who won—earned—a Victoria Cross. I can’t comprehend someone else wanting to do it. The thing I struggle with on Anzac Day actually goes in the opposite direction. I stand up and I think, “I’ve got eight medals here. My grandfathers both got five in World War II; they deserve them more than me.” I feel like an imposter, and to think that someone would go the other way, it kind of blows your mind to think that people would do that.

The other point I would just make, and the last thing—and if I get an indication that someone wants to take the call, I will yield—is that these medals mean what they do to the person that earned them. [Points to medals] Those two are for service in Afghanistan. Now, I worked with people who didn’t earn the Victoria Cross, but I say they earned their medal more than me. The situations they were in—I think of people like Jamie and Steve; I think of Pup, I think of Vic, I think of Shep, I think of many people. As our commanding officer over there said to us when they handed them out, “You know what you did to earn this. This is what it means to you.” I can’t imagine anyone who would want to go in the other direction. If they do, $10,000 is the least they deserve. I commend the bill.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (21:05): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’d firstly like to congratulate Tim van de Molen for having this pulled out of the legislative lotto that happens every fortnight. People will make comments on the importance or value of the bills; this is one that has come out and provides an opportunity to address some clearly anomalous situations. Congratulations also to Dan Rosewarne, who I haven’t had a chance to welcome in. I wasn’t here when he was sworn in, so welcome. It is great to have another person with military experience and background, and we’ve heard from some of them tonight.

I’m not going to speak for too long. As the defence spokesperson, this is the first time I’ve spoken, and it is indeed an honour to represent a part of Government responsibility that is important for our whole country. As we move towards Anzac Day, I acknowledge that importance. I received a letter from someone, who I’m not going to name, who was pointing out that service in Malaysia at a certain time wasn’t acknowledged, and access to a medal for that service has still not been acknowledged, and it’s a point that he thinks I should take up.

Now, without getting into the detail of it, it once again emphasises the importance of acknowledgment and medals. In fact, the Labour Government, going back, did acknowledge service for many, many people. I remember presenting a medal in the Motueka RSA to someone who was well into his 70s or almost 80s, I think, and him crying. He was so emotional that for the first time, he had received acknowledgment for his commitment to our country. It reminded me, and I’ve never forgotten that incident, of the importance of, as I say, having access to medals, acknowledging service, and then, of course, respecting those medals.

This bill addresses the very rare occasions—certainly, one incident over many, many years would indicate that it’s very rare that anyone would fraudulently display or claim the medals. Indeed, I, like probably many others, have received medals from family members who have passed away, and people thought I was the most appropriate person to take those. I’d never thought it was appropriate that I should wear them. This was not someone that close to me There are, however, others who have close family members and grandparents, and who are legitimately able to wear the medals as a sign of a family member who has given that commitment. It’s so far removed from myself, I don’t feel that way.

The point is that most Kiwis, whether they’ve been in the military service or not, do acknowledge—not just on Anzac Day—and respect the importance of medals. Indeed, my cousin Greg O’Connor tells me the police force was a high-risk occupation. I’m not quite sure, but it is another area of commitment and risk—just as the fire service is as well.

Labour supports this bill as an opportunity, through that legislative lotto that delivers for some and not for others—but, none the less, it’s an opportunity to address some issues that can be improved for New Zealanders. Kia ora.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (21:08): Good evening, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure, as always, to speak on a bill on a members’ day—especially when it’s the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill in the name of Tim van de Molen. I congratulate Tim for having this drawn and for bringing it to the House. When Tim first spoke to me about this bill that he was considering doing, I immediately said, yes, this is an important thing to do.

One of the things that this bill does is increase the penalty for purporting to have something where you haven’t—stolen valour is one way of putting it. Increasing that higher than would be expected for just inflationary change, from £20 in 1918 to $10,000 now, is not merely saying that this is just an increase to a penalty; it’s another way of saying how much we value service. We value service so much that if people are pretending that they served, the infringement and the fine that they will get for that will be very substantial. Members across the House might not understand the importance of that and why that matters to veterans. I think it’s worth saying that if you do this, it is a significant event. It is a significant fine, and $10,000 is a lot of money for just about everybody. Yes, it has been noted that there’s only been one prosecution in New Zealand regarding this, but that doesn’t mean to say that there hasn’t been more instances of this. They may have not made the media in the same way, but just because something hasn’t come to through the courts does not mean that it’s not an important issue. And that’s why it was quite ironic, actually, to hear squat—Scott Willis—

Dana Kirkpatrick: Squat Willis.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Squat Willis, sorry, Scott Willis—after we had just been debating the parody bill, which had no legal problems leading to its being brought to the House. To then say it’s not important to be discussing this bill, and, as my gallant friend Tim Costley says, for him to stand in a war memorial and say that this bill is about nostalgia was outrageous and quite despicable. If he was here, I would almost ask him to withdraw and apologise. And I hope that he considers coming back to the House to withdraw and apologise for all of those people.

Tonight, we are discussing this on 1 April, not far from Anzac Day, and it’s appropriate that we have this bill brought in at this time. It’s also part of a suite of things that the National-led Government is doing to further recognise our veterans. We’ve recently had the Anzac Day bill that has been through the House and also there is the work that’s been done on recognition for veterans, which are separate items. There has been a lot of contention around how we respond to those who have served and those who have entitlements because of their service, and injuries or illness that may have been a result of those services. It’s important that we delineate those and don’t cross-pollinate, if you like, between those bills because they are separate and discrete issues; that’s why they’re not all brought together at once.

This is an opportunity to speak about the importance of medallic recognition, to what it means for our country that we value people who serve, and what it means to those veterans and to other people who are serving at the moment; that we do show that this has a real value and that it’s not just a token thing, and that the penalty is high and harsh for this kind of misdemeanour if it happens. And so, with that, I, again, congratulate my colleague Tim van de Molen and commend the bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (21:13): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to take a call on the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge the gallant member Mr Tim van de Molen for getting his bill drawn out of the ballot and, indeed, the rest of the gallant members within this Chamber, and, most importantly, the veterans who have earned these medals as part of their service.

People often ask, “How would you possibly know that someone has not earned a medal?” Well, if you’re a veteran, you know relatively quickly. Here’s my medals here, and as Mr Costley mentioned, you wear them on the left-hand side. Now, there’s several ways that they are mounted. These ones are court mounted. You can also get swing mounted, where they hang low. You’ll see a lot of the World War II vets, Vietnam vets, will have them swing mounted. You’d usually have the New Zealand Operational Service Medal at one end, the black and white one, and then you’ll have your campaign medals. From there, you’ll tend to have your UN or your NATO medals. In this case, it’s the NATO Non-Article 5 ISAF for Afghanistan. And then you have your long-service medals with your bars, and then you have your New Zealand Defence Service Medal recognising three years’ service. Now, this is probably the most important medal because it marks the three years that you’re subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act and it’s an acknowledgement that you actually signed that dotted line and decided to complete that service—so I’ve always seen that one as the most important. You’ll also see that the name and the registration number is engraved on the side of the middles. So if you ever find some, you look round the side and you’ll find the names and the registration numbers engraved.

Now, if someone isn’t meant to be wearing them or they’ve added a few on, you might get a mix of swing and court mounted on the left-hand side of the chest. You may also get these medals not in the right order—you might get a long-service medal tagged on to the side or they’re mixed up around. So that’s how a veteran can, usually, spot someone that’s wearing them that is not entitled. So if you do see that—usually most veterans will actually willingly tell you about how they earned these medals. I particularly enjoy it when kids come up to me and ask me about them, and any veteran will be more than willing to, you know, explain how they earned them.

Mr Tim van de Molen is absolutely right, it can be a slap in the face to veterans and also their families because it’s the time away from home, the time away from helping out with children and all those things that come with not being there as part of that family unit—so your family’s, essentially, kind of, in a way, earned these medals as well. So it can be a slap in the face to the families of veterans if they see people wearing them that aren’t entitled to them.

So what’s changed with this bill? It’s the deterrent and the financial penalties. They are outdated; they no longer reflect the seriousness. And so this bill, that’s been introduced today, is an acknowledgment of that seriousness. So for that reason, we commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): It’s the member’s right of reply.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (21:17): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, happy to take the last call here and can I start by thanking members across the Chamber that have spoken on the bill this evening. I think it has been encouraging, in nearly all cases, to hear strong support for the intent of the bill and the genuine approach that members are bringing to the consideration of this as it hopefully progresses through the subsequent stages: select committee next and then back into the House.

There’s a couple of things that I just wanted to note that I didn’t quite get time for in my first contribution and also in response to some of the comments. It’s been picked up by others as well, but the intent here is not at all to stop family members from recognising those that have served—grandfather, great-grandfather, parents, kids, whatever their example situation may be for them. And as Mr Costley explained, they wear those medals then on the right-hand side to symbolise that it wasn’t themselves that earned it, but they’re wearing it on behalf of a family member. That is entirely appropriate and, indeed, we encourage that. It’s a great way for them to be able to share their pride in the service of a family member and also to commemorate that service in the community at Anzac Day and the likes. So not stopping that at all, it’s, really, just about ensuring that we are cracking down on some of that disgraceful behaviour that’s been canvassed across the House.

Now, there’s a comment around the level of the fine being above inflation. I thought Vanessa Weenink spoke quite well to that, and that, actually, the intent was to demonstrate that this is a valuable consideration for us. The value of the veteran’s service is a key part of that. Now, look, there’s also an element of, I guess, futureproofing within that too, right? It’s a maximum fine of $10,000, so there is discretion, but we don’t want to be coming back to the House every five years having to adjust that threshold to make it a reasonable deterrent again. And so that’s the point there: it’s actually reasonably in step with comparable jurisdictions as well. And so I’m pretty comfortable with that $10,000 level, but, of course, open to hearing feedback on that from submitters through the process as well.

Now, we’ve also had a handful of people ask, “Well, who are these 10 MPs in the House, currently, that have served?” And I think there’s been a few hints given out, in terms of some of the medal racks that have been held up tonight. I will name and shame, actually, and we’ll start with the most recent addition to the debating chamber—indeed, a welcome back to Dan Rosewarne from the Labour Party, great to have him back in the team and I acknowledge his service in the New Zealand Army; Andy Foster from New Zealand First who served in the New Zealand Navy; then, in the National Party, we have Andrew Bayly and Shane Reti, who both served in the army; Chris Penk who served in the navy; myself, Joseph Mooney, and Penny Simmonds in the army; Tim Costley in the air force, bless him; and Vanessa Weenink in the army. Sorry, just a little bit of banter there between services.

But, look, I think it’s relevant to note that actually, because it’s a really important part of the pride that I think each of those members brings and, indeed, that we are standing in a memorial here, acknowledging the service of many people that have come before us. I think it’s an important step to acknowledge and so I want to thank them for their service. But beyond that, as I’ve said, this is really about acknowledging the service of veterans across New Zealand and ensuring that we continue to do that in a respectful manner, to clamp down on those who seek to misrepresent themselves as something they are not, and to ensure—well, hopefully to act as a deterrent, so we’re not actually having to use this legislation in the first place.

I hope that over the course of this process of going through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and back into the House we may get support from the Green Party. I know it had some initial indications of support earlier on. It’s a shame to see they appear to have changed their view on that. But look, hopefully they’ll come back round and recognise that it’s not just about nostalgia, as Scott Willis horribly put it but, actually, it’s an appropriate recognition of what has been a very important service on behalf of New Zealand.

I’ll leave it at that, but thanks again to all members who spoke on this, I appreciate the contribution. I look forward to the next stage and welcome submissions from the community, as well. I’m really looking forward to that feedback on how we might be able to massage it and make it better, if necessary, and then come back to the House. I commend it and look forward to the next step. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono) (21:22): The question is, That the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:22): I move, That the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider this bill.

This bill is a simple one in its purpose, but important in its effect. It’s about fairness, transparency, and making life a little bit more affordable for New Zealanders who are already doing it tough. These guys are doing it particularly tough; it’s about our migrant workers, our cleaners, our nurses, people who are in Aotearoa doing the mahi and paying a little bit every week for their family offshore. Maybe it’s our Pacific migrants in South Auckland who are working those jobs which we really need them to work—they are the backbone of the South Auckland economy—and perhaps they are paying a little bit to their mum every week or perhaps they are making a transfer for their retirement.

Whatever it is, at the moment they are paying more than almost anyone in the world for that service because the fees that are being advertised to them are very unclear; they’re not transparent and there is not a point of competition at the point of sale. Often, these people, who are some of the most vulnerable workers, are provided with very little information and that information is misleading about what the fees are because it is perfectly legal in New Zealand to say “zero fees” when all of the fees are hidden in the forex spread. This is a market which is not working and this is a bill which makes a simple change, fixing that up so that we can have a competitive system and so people can get a fair deal, shop around, and get what they’re owed.

While we’re debating this bill, fuel prices are soaring, households are under pressure, and people are finding it harder and harder to make those choices every week. This is a cost of living measure because it will cost people in this situation thousands of dollars every year if they are sending regular payments every week, or, for the grandfather who came to my office for help from his local MP because he thought he had been scammed when he sent a large amount of savings back to where he was from to his daughter—he thought he had lost $13,000 in that transport. When we started helping him with a scam claim with his bank, we discovered that actually what had happened is that that was the fee which he was charged to make that payment. That is wrong. We can fix that. This bill will go some generous way to making sure that services that are better for catering to his needs have a foothold in this market and fintechs can compete for those services, and that those fees have to be actively disclosed to him at the point of sale so he would have known what he was being charged and didn’t hear about it weeks later from his daughter on the phone. It was incredibly difficult for me to work through with him because after we had helped him understand that he felt shame. He doesn’t want to talk about it anymore because it is something that he deeply regrets.

This is something which is not only costing New Zealanders but it is robbing them of dignity; robbing them of their money and robbing them of a feeling that they are in control of their own financial affairs. That’s what happens when you have markets which don’t work for consumers, when people are paying whatever kind of fees that rob them of the certainty that when they are advertised a product they will pay that price. Things like dark patterns on internet transactions where you sign up for a concert ticket, you expect to be paying $80 for that and then you’ve added on concert insurance, you’ve added on the credit card fee, and you’ve added on another fee for the merchant, and all of a sudden that concert is $120. Things like that, which make people feel like transacting online, transacting through some of these services is all a bit hard and further robs them of the ability to participate in what is simply financial infrastructure. Just like we should view the Government’s role in providing roads, schools, and bus routes for people to get around the city to live their lives and to do business, we should also see this as essential financial infrastructure that everyone should be able to participate in.

I know every party in this House can agree about those critical services which mean that people can transact, can buy products, and can participate as full citizens in the New Zealand economy. This is one of those things. It’s a particular thing for people who have been left out of the decisions about consumers. They’re not often prioritised. These are migrant workers. These are people who are some of the most vulnerable workers. These are also people who—say, our Filipino community, many of whom are health workers and work in incredibly important jobs and will be making these payments regularly. For many of them, they’re pretty tech savvy and able to use many of the tech services. But for others, where there are barriers to them accessing those kinds of financial technology services which are targeted at this and bring rates down, they’re also seeing on shopfronts in their communities rates that are advertised to them as if they are low, but they are not in fact low. They are coming from a jurisdiction which legislates and regulates this much more closely than we do, so the level of trust in the New Zealand system is actually too high, coming from their jurisdiction which has proper rules in place like this. New Zealand isn’t doing its part for these people who are working really hard in the jobs that we need them to. This is a simple fix that we can make here.

It’s also not just about migrant workers, it’s also about any New Zealander who buys anything online and anyone who goes away on overseas trips or goes to see family overseas. If you’re in Australia and you’re converting New Zealand currency to Australian currency, you’ll be paying, often, more in New Zealand than you would do to convert it the other way in Australia because, at the moment, the way that our fees are regulated means that there’s not transparency—but there are those sorts of rules in Australia. It’s really important that we at least line up with different jurisdictions to make sure that New Zealanders can get a fair deal on our shores. Then New Zealanders wanting to buy things overseas are also well served by our rules and regulations here.

This is one simple way that the rules are stacked against people who are just trying to live their lives and buy products that are overseas and enjoy the hard-earned money that they make. This is something which is very profitable for many of the services that offer this.

It’s really unclear, for people who are using them, that that is the case and that it is actually really profitable if they continue to use them in that way. I hope that this clear change to the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, requiring upfront disclosure, is something we can agree on around this House. I’m very hopeful that this is something we can work through at the select committee stage to also raise this issue as something that has cross-partisan support and will stick, because there are thousands of people right now who would benefit from this change. It’s something that I hope we can all be talking about with the people in our communities who need to be able to see this change.

For migrant workers, at the moment, things are tough. For Kiwis who have small businesses that are transacting offshore, things are tough. This is one simple measure where we can say the cost of these services should not be borne by you. You shouldn’t be cross-subsidising other services offered by financial institutions, because you are doing this; you should be paying what, say, Australians are paying and what, say, Americans and people in the UK are paying, and that is not the case now. That is something we can all fix tonight, working through the submissions and getting the bill and regulations planned out that we can all support. I hope we do that. I commend it to the House, and I encourage everyone to vote for this cost of living measure.

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

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (21:31): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s great to stand up and talk to the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill, and I congratulate the sponsor Arena Williams. I also want to follow in her tribute earlier on the late, great Sir Barry Curtis, long-time Mayor of Manukau City from 1983 to 2007—24 years of building Manukau—one of our great civic leaders in Auckland and someone who leaves an incredible legacy behind. Condolences to Sir Barry Curtis, aged 87, who lived a very full life of community service. For those of us that remember, in the 1990s and 2000s, getting around Auckland—as you would, Mr Speaker; I’m not trying to age you— Sir Barry would recite his introductory comments and greetings, every Pasifika greeting that ever existed, as part of his repertoire. Here’s to Sir Barry Curtis.

The National Party won’t be supporting this bill, and I’ll take you through that shortly. I’m pleased that it is going to be referred to the Governance and Administration Committee by the sounds of it, and I want to also acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee deputy chair, Tim Costley, and the whole committee that today launched a parliamentary inquiry into Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s (FENZ’s) fleet issues. That was following a motion, a very proactive motion, that was put on the Table by Tim Costley earlier, deputy chair and member up the Kāpiti Coast. Well done, Tim. I wish the committee all the best with its endeavours on its parliamentary inquiry into FENZ.

As the previous sponsor’s already articulated, the financial markets amendment bill—let’s just call it that—proposes to amend the 2013 Financial Markets Conduct Act, claiming to require greater transparency of international money transfers. It requires of financial institutions fair-conduct programmes to ensure that customers are provided with full disclosure of fees and costs associated with international money transfers. I don’t think anyone would disagree with more disclosure and more transparency around fees and costs pertaining to international money transfers.

I come with good news—I come with good news. Help is already on the way, and many members will recall that we are in the process of passing, through this Parliament, three bills regulating our financial services sector—a trifecta there to ensure that they are more effective. Our Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, I think, has had an interrupted second reading. It’s certainly gone through select committee, and that will address and provide the architecture to more closely scrutinise and regulate, and provide oversight to, the issues that the sponsor has outlined. That bill, the one that’s halfway through Parliament, has got a focus on improving outcomes for consumers, and, importantly, it simplifies and clarifies minimum requirements for fair-conduct programmes. It aims to modify the conduct of financial institutions (CoFI) regime to streamline compliance and strengthen the Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA’s) oversight. Of course, this bill comes in over the top of this piece of legislation, and it comes in 12 months—only 12 months—after CoFI has taken effect, on 1 April 2025. So 12 months on and with a bill already in the House, we don’t see the need for this. I’ll speak further to that.

The financial services and banking sector remains on notice—frankly, it remains on notice—and you may have seen, and you may have read about, a 16-month banking inquiry, and we’ve had a six-month follow-up since then. We made about 19 key recommendations—14 which were unanimous. There were a range of issues—and I want to pay tribute to Arena Williams for being at the forefront of that inquiry and never missing an opportunity—and never missing an opportunity. That work continues. The banking inquiry is a live document. We reported back later last year, and we are having those six-monthly come-to-Jesus moments with our banking sector, our non-deposit takers, and others—fintechs as well—as to how it is working. You might have seen, today, from the Hon Scott Simpson, more progress and more push as we open up, and regulate, our open banking system.

The Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill, otherwise known as the “Woke Banking Bill”, is another piece of legislation that sits with the Finance and Expenditure Committee and that Mr Foster is the sponsor of. We’ve given Mr Foster an extension of time re: that conduct bill for him to report back and see if we can come to an agreement and if there’s anything that we could get through the House. In good faith, Mr Foster continues to do that work on the “Woke Banking Bill”.

The CoFI is also under way and leading the charge on reviewing the insurance sector and all the costs that it faces. That is something that CoFI’s been assigned to do and that our Cabinet has agreed to, and it will report back on the insurance sector in ways that, perhaps, we can add more accountability, more transparency, and, perhaps, even more cost-effectiveness to the insurance sector in the coming months.

Three bills streamlining the financial services are going through this Parliament, and there was a banking inquiry that went on for 16 months and came with a number of key recommendations that we continue to monitor, and the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, which is sitting at second reading, will simplify and clarify minimum requirements for fair-conduct programmes. It does aim to modify the CoFI regime, which is only a year old, to streamline compliance and strengthen FMA oversight. We are very confident, in the National Party, that, frankly, there is a lot of work going on and there is a lot of sunlight being shone—as they say, sunlight is the best form of disinfectant—on the banking sector and on the financial services sector as far as transparency around costs, fees, and pricing. With that work well under way, with three bills before the House, with one inquiry completed and another still to report back, we are confident that we have got all the oversight that we are ever going to get as far as costing and prices on this. Ongoing reforms are already addressing what the sponsor is trying to achieve here, and the bill that’s before the House is already clarifying and simplifying the obligations of our financial institutions. The bill that is being promoted today would separate that out and run in direct conflict with the legislation that is there and the regulatory tools that already exist and that we are looking to strengthen and put more transparency and accountability around.

I commend the sponsor on her member’s bill and congratulate her on having it drawn, but, again, we’ve got so much work under way in this space and we can’t afford to be distracted with this member’s bill. We wish her all the best, but we won’t be supporting it. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (21:41): I just want to commend Arena Williams for this member’s bill. I think we’ve been lobbied by quite similar stakeholders on this very same issue. As the Green Party’s commerce and consumer affairs portfolio holder, we support the intent of this bill. We know, from evidence as well as feedback from the community, that New Zealanders do pay more on international money transfers than our counterparts.

We have a huge migrant population. We’re a Pacific nation. Consumers should have access to certainty, transparency, and fairness when it comes to international money transfers. I do think the member putting forward this bill is making a very commendable effort to put in place some clarity around the fair conducts programmes, specifically in international money transfers. So we are supporting this bill.

I did want to touch on some of the contributions that have happened in this debate, and particularly from the National Party. I do think that the arguments being given for not supporting this bill just simply do not stack up. It’s bizarre to me that the National Party claims that there’s a lot of work happening in select committees on related bills. They argue that this bill goes contrary to what is already happening. But I would say that—

Cameron Brewer: I never used those words.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, basically, that was the argument that was presented. I do think that if the National Party had issues with the specific language, in clause 5 and 6 particularly, of Arena Williams’ bill, that’s what the select committee is for—to actually refine the language in the bill, to make sure that, perhaps, if the issue is that the member thinks that it’s not aligned with the Government work programme or other bills, we make it aligned. But I did not specifically hear from the member of the National Party about how the Government is looking at focusing on international money transfers, which, to my knowledge, hasn’t been a particular focus of select committee work. So I think the opportunity that we have with this bill is to actually shine a spotlight on international money transfers more broadly, and I do think we would benefit from hearing from members of the community in relationship to how much they’re paying compared to their overseas counterparts.

This is an issue that particularly affects people who need to support their loved ones who may live overseas. It feels like having New Zealanders pay more money for international money transfers serves no one but the entities that benefit from it. It doesn’t serve people here, it doesn’t benefit the families overseas, and so we do think this bill deserves attention in the select committee stage. If the Government was concerned about the work programme of select committees, perhaps they should just drop some of the silly bills that I think are taking indeed a lot of time in select committees—the English Language Bill, for example, is a great one, where I do think we can just basically get rid of it and open some space in the select committee to actually evaluate this bill.

So I do think, again, this bill ultimately deserves attention in the select committee. I welcome the member for engaging constructively with stakeholders who have long called for reform in this area, and we are supporting this bill.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (21:45): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by congratulating Arena Williams for her bill being drawn and for coming before us for the first reading of this bill. We thought hard about this bill. We understand that there is a very narrow policy in this bill, and after thinking hard, we have decided that we will be supporting the first reading of this bill to enable it to go to the next stage—that is, the select committee process.

We really want to scrutinise this issue in the select committee process. We really want to test the policy in this bill against the real-world evidence before we commit to any change after the select committee process. We want to allow this process to happen, because we understand that there are lots of communities that are impacted because of international money transfers that happen, because of some hidden costs that sometimes people can’t see—especially Pacific communities and migrant communities. So if there is anything we can do to help our Pacific communities and migrant communities, we really want to give serious consideration to that. So on that basis, we have decided that we are supporting the first reading of this bill.

In the select committee process, we definitely want to hear from people who do lots of international money transfers, including Pacific communities and migrant communities. We also want to hear from banks, financial institutions, and those who provide money transfer services, because we want to understand from them, as well, what the impact will be of this bill on them—on their capacity and operations and how it will impact competition. All those things are really important for us to understand.

We know this is about consumers. It is about transparency of fees or any additional costs that come when somebody is making an international money transfer. On the other hand, we do not want to put unnecessary regulatory burdens on the sector, because we know if you do that, it’s, ultimately, the consumer that will be paying the cost. So we want to weigh up all those things in the select committee.

I said that we specifically want to hear from Pacific communities and migrants, but, of course, businesses also do lots of international money transfers, but businesses are more informed; they are more aware. But there are some communities that are not that aware about the hidden costs. So we understand that this bill is to require these international money transfer providers to make the cost visible upfront, because there is no point if they realise the cost after the money has been transferred and then they see the actual money that has been received at the other end, and they realise that, actually, the money that they thought they would receive is actually less than that—it’s too late.

So in having that cost available upfront, there is both explicit and implicit cost available to consumers, and then they can make an informed choice. These are the kinds of things that we want to explore in the select committee process. I also know, as an immigrant myself, that migrant families do send money to their families in their own countries where they have come from. From my connection in the Pacific communities, I know that for Pacific communities, for many, many families, it’s not a matter of choice; it’s an obligation. Most of these families I know have to regularly send money to their families in their Island countries. If there is a big event happening, anything in the family that happens, then they have to send more than the usual amount they would send.

Sometimes it’s the frequency: there are times they have to send that money. Even if this fee is small, if you add that up, it can become a reasonable amount. So that definitely needs to be looked into. Another example is recognised seasonal workers. We have so many of our Pacific Island people coming and working here—if I take the example of our viticulture sector, people are coming here from Vanuatu and other Pacific countries, and they are working here and sending money on a regular basis. So we need to take all that into consideration and we want to make this process fair. And we want to look at it in the select committee stage and see if there is something that we can do to make this process fairer. It is about transparency of the fee, the actual cost.

Overall, it looks like a very reasonable policy intent, but we really want to see what the real-world evidence is, and if this is something that we need to do, we will decide after the select committee process. So the ACT Party is supporting the first reading of this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (21:49): Malo. Fa’afetai lava, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill, designed to make fee transparency for international money transfers transparent, which I think is wonderful. I just had the chance to reflect on an experience I had working for the Hon Fiame Naomi Mata’afa when she was the Minister for Women, Community and Social Development in Samoa. I met a wonderful man, the wonderful Afamasaga Toleafoa, who is now the ambassador for Samoa in New Zealand. I was to work with Afamasaga on this village development project and institutional strengthening, and he thought, “Well, who’s this Pālagi coming over here to help us out with this? We’ll just have to school him a little bit.”

Cameron Brewer: Little white guy.

Dr DAVID WILSON: Ha! Yeah, “Who’s this guy?” So he opened with a good question for me. He said to me, “What do you think the major export from Samoa is?” Of course, I thought, “Well, it’s got to be tourism, doesn’t it?”, and he said, “No, by a long way, it’s remittances. We export people and they send money home, and that is the biggest export we have from Samoa.” Of course, this is the same thing around many of the Pacific Island nations—exactly the same situation. So it’s not just those that are living here—and thank you, Parmjeet, for bringing up the fact that this is a cultural thing; that these remittances are sent home to help the family when they are actually living here as well, but we’ve got the recognised seasonal employee workers who are also tripping backwards and forwards to their home nation and they have to transfer their money home.

Now, this is crazy: some of the fees that they have to pay are ridiculous and it’s just unfair. I thank the member Arena for bringing up some of the examples, especially one grandfather, which, you know, reached right in there. That wasn’t nice.

So I just want to turn to the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and commend him for the work that the committee has done—and Arena is on that committee for part of the time—around the banking inquiry and looking at all those things that matter in financial services, such as the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment, where we’re going to give more power to the Financial Markets Authority—fabulous. However, the Financial Markets Authority has no authority in any of the Pacific Islands and so this leaves us with a little dilemma. How do we actually attend to those people who are our citizens and our workers and ensure that they get a fair deal in this process?

Another thing that came out of our banking inquiry is the kind of nature of what Payments NZ serves in those transactions. Payments NZ is like the live wire that runs between all of the payments within New Zealand. Internationally, now, of course, you can use things like Revolut or Wise, travel wherever you want to go in the world and you’ve got access to all these different currencies, no matter what, at a very reduced fee, and nowhere near the price of what you would pay if you go through your bank. However, this service is not available in Samoa. Wise can’t get a bank account there, so what we’ve got now is a block in the system, which is unfair.

In respect of what the honourable member from the National Party said in terms of all the work we’re doing in the financial markets and financial services, this bill is actually complementary to what we’re trying to achieve through those efforts. I think we need to give it some time; we need to take it through select committee.

I commend Arena Williams, the member from the other side, for this bill because it looks at fairness and equality. As you know, New Zealand First has a heart for the Pacific communities and the Pacific region, and we just want those things to be an outcome of the select committee process so we get to hear all of the people that are affected by this transaction. We commend this bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (21:54): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill, the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill. Now, there’s been quite a lot of talk about exactly what this bill is, but, essentially, what this bill is about is fairness. It’s a bill about making sure that when people who have come to New Zealand and who have worked very hard and need to, in a lot of cases, transfer money back home to family members there, can do that without being charged ridiculous penalties or fees on top of those funds.

It’s been great tonight to hear from Arena Williams, who brought this bill to the House, but also to hear from colleagues around the House from quite different political perspectives who all see that, despite their different viewpoints, the concept of fairness when it comes to people being allowed to move their money from one place to the next is an important thing that can unite almost all of us. Tonight, in the House, the one political party who is not going to support this bill is the National Party; the same National Party who promised to take action on the cost of living and have failed and have made it worse and are now not wanting to do anything to address the lack of fairness in the transferring of funds for people and families and communities across New Zealand. I think that is embarrassing.

Tim Costley: Did you vote for tax relief? Did you vote for it or against it? Voted against tax relief.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: I think it is shameful, and I think that the National Party should be absolutely embarrassed and should be making noise in support of this bill rather than general barrage. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.