Thursday, 2 April 2026

Thursday, 2 April 2026

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

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

Business of the House

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House) (14:01): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 21 April. That week, the annual review debate will be held. The House will also consider the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill—also known as the CCCFA, the two anti - money-laundering bills on the Order Paper, and the countering financing of terrorism amendment bills. The hours of Wednesday will be extended into Thursday for Government business.

Presentation

Select Committee Reports

DEPUTY SPEAKER (14:01): No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:01): Report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee of the ASEAN New Zealand Air Services Agreement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration.

Bills

Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill

Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill

Introduction

DEPUTY SPEAKER (14:02): The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.

CLERK (14:02):

Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill, introduction

Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill, introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Police

Question No. 1

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:02) to the Minister of Police: Has he asked New Zealand Police to present him with a fuel resilience plan in case New Zealand faces a prolonged fuel shortage; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Acting Minister of Police) (14:02): As the member would expect, Police have been participating in coordinated and proportionate preparedness efforts across the public sector, ensuring that they have fuel resilience.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does classifying Police as a “critical customer” guarantee enough fuel for standard operations during a prolonged fuel shortage?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As the Hon Chris Penk well outlined on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery yesterday, work is ongoing and well under way to consider any hypothetical future shortages. Any future settings in this area will be developed. I’d point out that the Prime Minister, finance Minister, and others have repeatedly been clear that our focus is on ensuring sufficient stocks and supply of fuel. I’m not sure it’s helpful to presuppose any changes in settings at this point.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will non-emergency police dispatches—that’s P4 and P5 callouts—still occur under level 4 of the National Fuel Plan?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As the Police have done on a range of issues throughout the history of policing, they will continue to prioritise to ensure that emergency services are maintained. Prioritisation is a matter of operational police performance. They will deal with prioritisation as it needs, to ensure that the public is safe. I think it is really important that we assure the public that police services will be maintained, no matter what settings.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the Police Eagle helicopter be able to operate normally under level 3 or level 4 of the National Fuel Plan?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As we’ve stipulated repeatedly, hypothetical discussions around what will or will not happen in future settings is not helpful to the public, or reassuring. What we are dealing with is ensuring that, as we have always done with policing, prioritisation continues to occur and emergency services will continue to be maintained. This is why the Government is focused on critically ensuring that supply is maintained.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will police area commanders or district commanders make the call on how fuel is prioritised at level 3 or 4, or will this be directed by Police National Headquarters?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As we’ve repeatedly answered in this series of questions, Police prioritisation will be an operation issue for Police to resolve. As the settings are changed, those settings will be communicated to Police leadership, and prioritisation, as has always been the case for policing, will be dealt with by the police system.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many days of petrol and diesel does New Zealand Police have in reserve, and how will reserves be distributed across the country?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The specific fuel levels, I think, are really unhelpful to reassure the public that policing services are being maintained. What we are focused on is ensuring that Police prioritisation will be the main focus to ensure that emergency services are delivered. That is why this Government is focused critically on ensuring supply. At this point, we do not have issues with supply, and, therefore, future settings and discussions at this time are not helpful.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are Police meant to plan ahead, budget, and be prepared if there is absolutely no detail on the operational implications of this fuel crisis?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Planning is ongoing and continuing. We have a fuel plan in place. The settings will continue to be changed. It is not a fair reflection of policing to say that they have no plan or no systems in place. As I said in the primary answer, these plans are being dealt with, and Police are involved in future settings and will continue to do so. We have every faith in Police’s ability, and this Government is supporting that by ensuring supply is maintained, as according to the announcements that we’ve made around increasing storage that was secured by Minister Jones and announced by Minister Jones this morning.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister anticipate severe scrutiny from the Opposition if a Government was to start interfering in Police independence, right down to the level of detail of when they fill up their petrol tanks?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We have every confidence in Police management and capability to plan. This is why the police Minister does not need to speculate about that level of detail, because we have full confidence in the Police executive management to deal with these issues.

Transport

Question No. 2

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (14:07) to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government make funding available to public transport authorities so people living in towns across New Zealand can access frequent bus services, and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:08): As the Minister of Finance said yesterday, the conflict in the Middle East is hurting the economy; pushing up prices; and disrupting trade, shipping, and financial markets. The Government can blunt the worst impacts for vulnerable New Zealanders—that’s why we’ve lifted the in-work tax credit in response to the conflict—but there is no avoiding the cost. The global events are making New Zealand poorer, and, of course, that has impacts on the land transport system and on public transport. We make substantial investments in public transport services across the country, including in our regional towns. Our focus is ensuring there’s enough capacity in current public transport networks as people make their own choices in response to the current global fuel price shock. We are keeping a close eye on capacity numbers across the network, ensuring people can rely on their buses, trains, and ferries arriving on time and as planned. I have been advised that public transport authorities are not yet facing capacity concerns. We are open to further investment to ensure capacity, if shown to be necessary, and my officials are regularly engaging with public transport authorities to understand any emerging capacity issues, and I expect that work to continue.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept that demand for public transport is influenced by the supply and that if a bus is coming every 15 minutes in smaller towns—like Dunedin, New Plymouth, Whanganui, Levin—there will be more demand for public transport, and what will he do to provide services?

Tim Costley: There is no public transport in Levin.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Exactly.

Tim Costley: You can’t make it free.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Well, we’ll let the Minister answer the question. I thank the member Tim Costley for pointing that out. [Interruption] We’ll now listen to the Minister, thank you, who is the person answering this question.

Rawiri Waititi: Was he in the reshuffle?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sure that didn’t need a bus.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Hey, mate! You’ve got to get into Government to be reshuffled, and that won’t be happening to you anytime soon. The short answer is yes, on the margins; however, we are facing a difficult situation. Revenue into the National Land Transport Fund is actually forecast to decline because people are driving less, because when they go and fill up at the pump, the price of petrol is high and rising, and likewise the same with diesel, so they are purchasing less petrol, which has flow-on revenue impacts for the Crown. We are also facing rising costs because 80 percent of our buses are diesel buses, and the price of diesel in particular is rising quickly and has increased quite a lot, as I think the member knows. We are facing both forecast declining revenue and rising costs, so we’re in a difficult situation. Our focus, as I said in the primary answer, is on maintaining existing services so that they can continue to operate, because the last thing I would want to see at this time of great peril is people not being able to take public transport when they need to make the switch out of their cars.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he indicate to councils that they could now apply or reapply for funding for proposals they had worked up under the previous Government that would have massively improved bus services in New Plymouth, in Dunedin, and in Christchurch, and all of those proposals were abandoned because of the change in this Government’s transport policy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That second assertion in that member’s question is not borne out by the facts. The public transport activity class funding range rose between 2021 and 2024 and 2027. There are hundreds of millions of dollars more flowing through to public transport under this Government as compared to the previous Government. Unfunded wish lists are not something that any Government is in a position to fund at any particular time, and there were funding proposals under the previous Government that were also declined because of revenue constraints in the National Land Transport Fund, as I think the member knows. As I say, our focus is on maintaining existing services. The member did not seem to listen to my last two answers, which is that we are facing a crunchy situation where revenue is declining and costs are rising, in an already constrained National Land Transport Funding environment, so we are focused on keeping the existing services running rather than looking at new services.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware the electrifying the bus fleet or the ferries in Auckland and Wellington could save an estimated 27 million litres in diesel each year; if so, will he reconsider his Government’s funding cuts to electrification of public transport vehicles and vessels?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m proud of the record of past National Governments in electrifying the rail network in Auckland, for example, so the member’s general point that electrification at the moment is lowering costs is, of course, correct. We have to weigh up funding those sort of things that the member is talking about—which would not create immediate short-term help, although would, obviously, in the long term—with the immediate funding situation and difficult crunch that we find ourselves in. As I say, our focus is on making sure that buses, trains, and ferries that currently run in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch and other regional towns and cities around the country can continue to operate.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he consider reversing the cuts to free and cheaper public transport for children and young people as a timely, targeted, temporary action to help families who are struggling with higher fuel costs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government is not in favour of broad, untargeted subsidies, on the grounds that they don’t focus on those who need help the most and they don’t meet the Government’s criteria of the support we are looking to provide during this time of timely, temporary, and targeted. As the Minister of Finance has made clear at various points, we need to learn the lessons of past responses to crises when responses were not timely, targeted, or temporary, and we are now paying the price today for those profligate decisions. Our focus is on maintaining existing services. The Government provides, through SuperGold Card and community services card concessions, quite extensive and generous subsidies already for public transport. I’m not ruling out further extensions, but nor am I ruling it in, because, as I say, we are facing a very difficult funding crunch in which we need to make sure existing services can continue to operate. As I often say to the Greens: there is no magic money tree, and to the extent that there is one, the leaves just got clipped off.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Given that there is a crunch in funding, will he consider putting on hold the hundreds of millions that are currently going into planning for highways that won’t be built for decades so he can provide frequent, affordable, reliable bus services and public transport services to people right across the country?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s important—as I think the member knows—not to confuse capital and operating costs. It is true that some of the projects the Government has been looking at as part of the long-term transport infrastructure pipeline will not start for some years, and, of course, at the moment we are in a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month proposition. We are giving due consideration to all of the funding pressures on transport, as the member, I hope, would acknowledge. It’s a very tricky situation for the country, and transport is at the epicentre of that funding challenge.

Finance

Question No. 3

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (14:15) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government addressing the economic impacts of conflict in the Middle East?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:15): The Government is responding to the conflict in the Middle East in a measured and targeted way. Fuel continues to flow and there is no immediate supply disruption, with 59 days of petrol, 52 days of diesel, and 46 days of jet fuel in-country—within our exclusive economic zone or in the water heading here—but higher global prices are putting pressure on households and businesses. In response, we are acting on three fronts: providing temporary targeted support to the squeezed middle; strengthening fuel resilience, including storage and supply options; and working closely with industry to monitor impacts in real time. Our focus is on staying ahead of the risk; protecting New Zealanders, both now and in the future, by using responses that are temporary, targeted, and timely; and keeping the economy moving.

Cameron Brewer: What further actions is the Government considering to bolster fuel supply?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yesterday, Ministers signed off on a proposal through the Regional Infrastructure Fund to increase New Zealand’s diesel storage capacity through a commercial arrangement with Channel Infrastructure at Marsden Point. This will provide up to an additional 93 million litres of diesel storage, which is around a 20 percent increase in current capacity, providing New Zealand with greater resilience if global supply conditions deteriorate. Alongside this, officials are continuing work on options to bring in extra supply, including options to convert our existing international fuel tickets into physical fuel that is accessible to New Zealand, and engaging with importers on commercial proposals to secure additional supply from a wider range of markets. Taken together—

Hon Damien O'Connor: Cheer up.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —these are prudent, practical steps to strengthen fuel security. Every day in Government is better than even the best day in Opposition, Kieran.

Cameron Brewer: Supplementary. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please. Cameron Brewer is the only person in the room that should be speaking right now.

Cameron Brewer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What work has the Government done on phases three and four of the fuel plan?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When we released the framework last week, we were clear that phases three and four would not be locked in without our working alongside industry. These decisions need to be made with industry, not to industry. Since then, we have worked with fuel companies to get more detailed and regular reporting on fuel stocks onshore, within our exclusive economic zone, and on vessels further away, giving us a much clearer picture of supply. We have also worked with those fuel companies to get a better picture of what is happening with demand for fuel. We have begun extensive work on the detail of our public sector fuel plan to ensure that Government demand is well understood and managed, if needed. Alongside that, we have engaged with more than 800 businesses and have received more than 830 submissions through our priority bands channel, with further consultation continuing this week. This is about doing the groundwork now so that if further steps are required, they are practical and can be implemented in an orderly way. We are planning carefully, but we are not at that point now of needing to move to another response phase.

Cameron Brewer: How is the Government providing additional support to families?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I acknowledge that pain at the pump is widespread. The Government has moved quickly to provide extra support for low to middle income working families by increasing the in-work tax credit for up to a year. This will make a significant difference for those parents and their children. It gives about 143,000 families an extra $50 a week, and another 14,000 families an abated amount of relief. The policy is carefully targeted to parents who are working hard for a living and who are not eligible for main benefits, and yet have modest household incomes with which to support their kids. It is funded from the Budget 2026 operating allowance, and so it will not add to forecast debt or inflationary pressures. This is a temporary, timely, targeted, and affordable policy to soften the impact of the conflict on working families.

Prime Minister

Question No. 4

TODD STEPHENSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and happy Easter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (14:20) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (14:20) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I echo my colleague’s wishes of a happy Easter to you, all of those members who have made it to the House today, and everybody up and down New Zealand, for the coming four days. I absolutely stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions, and in particular, the measured and careful approach that we are taking to the situation with fuel shortage. We are being careful to preserve New Zealand’s future options, including our fiscal room and our children’s education, while also preparing for worse scenarios if they come about. We’re taking an approach of maximising the supply of fuel, including by increasing storage capacity and working our diplomatic connections, while being prepared to manage demand if and only if that supply fails or lessens significantly in the future.

Todd Stephenson: Why is the Government taking this approach?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the reason that the Government is taking a measured and proportional approach that works with business rather than against, and one that seeks to preserve New Zealand’s options in the long term, is precisely because this Government—the people in it—and New Zealanders have a very clear memory of what happens when you do the opposite. We come into this situation with $191.4 billion of debt, half of that was borrowed, not throughout New Zealand’s long history but just in three or four years of COVID response. That’s why we have to take every new commitment seriously so we don’t risk challenges to our credit rating overseas that would further imperil New Zealand’s finances and debt. And that’s why we’re so committed to ensuring that we keep children attending school, because that is the most important investment we’ll make in our future.

Todd Stephenson: What did the Government consider when making the decision on increasing mileage rates for home and community support workers?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We have, as a mantra, that anything we do must be targeted, timely, and temporary. That means that if we’re going to take taxpayer money, particularly that borrowed from younger New Zealanders, from future taxpayers, then we make sure that money goes to the people in the greatest need with a specific reason and it ends as soon as the pressure is over. That is why we have decided to give an increase in mileage rates to those people who travel for work; not those people who travel to work. It’s those health and support workers that have, often, quite low incomes, they travel from home to home helping vulnerable New Zealanders. Those people get hammered by fuel prices as they go about their job, they deserve a mileage uplift because they’re travelling for, rather than to, work. And just two weeks ago, we said that for those who work, have children, and have low incomes, we would increase the in-work tax credit. These are in very stark contrast from just hosing out money en masse and worrying about who pays for it later.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Oh, what? What were the tax cuts?

Todd Stephenson: What did the Government consider when making the decision to deliver extra fuel storage for New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We need to make sure that we have optionality so that if there is an increase in fuel supply and we need to be able to take advantage of that increase, we can do that—lest there be a shortage down the track. There is a chance that there will be lumpiness in the supply of fuel. That is something that is absolutely critical to be able to capitalise on, and these extra 90 million litres delivered in the next eight weeks, for a $21 million commitment by the Government, represents excellent value by any standard, including that of the regional investment fund. I just want to respond to something from Damien O’Connor, the former member from the West Coast, who said that tax cuts were indiscriminately hosing out money. Let me just get something straight: the money belongs to the people. The Government takes it off them in taxes. Having people pay less tax is not giving away money; they owned in the first place. If you think the Government owns all the money, Damien O’Connor, then you really are—not joking—a communist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that last statement was unnecessary, and I’d ask the member to withdraw it. I think the rest of it was a good explanation in response to the interjection that was made.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Todd Stephenson. [Interruption]

Hon Chris Bishop: He said he was proud to be one. It’s not an insult.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet!

Todd Stephenson: Are there any suggested initiatives the Government has considered but decided not to progress?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, indeed. We remain open to ideas. For example, we’ve opened, at the Ministry for Regulation, a red-tape tip line because we believe that there are ideas out in the community that we may not have had. We don’t have a monopoly on wisdom, and that position of humility, I think, is important for any Government to take at a time like this. We’ve seen other initiatives—such as unions, who are supposed to represent workers, actually campaigning for workers not to go to work and even taking legal action to avoid going into work. We’ve seen people suggest blanket subsidies for public transport, no matter how rich or poor the people benefiting may be, and no matter the fact that people who take public transport are not actually affected by fuel prices. In fact—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: It conserves fuel.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —people are moving to public transport in order to avoid high fuel prices. Julie Anne Genter says it conserves fuel, but what she doesn’t realise is that’s exactly what people are doing now. New Zealanders are moving to public transport at current fares in order to preserve fuel, and that is what prices do. That is how markets work, and that is the opposite of how communism works.

Economic Growth

Question No. 5

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (14:27) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Has she read the Sustainable Business Council report that shows how a sustainable growth pathway could boost New Zealand’s GDP by $22 billion annually by 2035?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) (14:28): I have read the recommendations of that report. Those that concern the Government cover a range of other ministerial portfolios, and I note that many of the recommendations are to businesses themselves. Several of the recommendations relate to work already under way in this Government’s work programme. For example, one of the recommendations is around the aspiration for abundant, affordable renewable electricity generation. I am advised that 22 renewable generation projects are currently going through the fast-track process—a process that member opposed. In fact, I am advised that more renewable energy has been commissioned in this term of Government than in the previous 10 years combined.

Reuben Davidson: Has scrapping support for businesses transitioning away from fossil fuels left them more exposed to price shocks and less able to invest in cleaner, cheaper energy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m not quite sure what the member is referring to. Just in the past fortnight, I stood alongside other Ministers as we announced the extension of our investment into the electric vehicle (EV) charging network for the country—essential infrastructure to ensure more people feel able to buy an EV without suffering range anxiety. I’ve also been advised that registrations for EVs have surged, which is a good sign that New Zealanders are capable of making their own decisions about how to ensure their own energy security.

Reuben Davidson: Why did the Government axe funding, resulting in hundreds of redundancies in the science and innovation sector, when a long-term innovation plan is a key recommendation of the Sustainable Business Council to generate economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think the member should see that we are doing some of the most extensive science reforms in a very long time, which are absolutely focused on making publicly funded research more applicable to commercialisation. And as the member comes into his role, he, like me, will get to meet with many of the firms who are very excited to see that, rather than science funding being spent on projects about singing to kauri trees, we will be investing in projects that actually can generate future economic growth. And I note that in the middle of this year, the Government will release its new Science Investment Plan, which will set out strategic Government-wide research priorities aligning public investment with long-term Government goals. I completely agree with the report the member’s mentioning—that innovation is part of New Zealand’s future. It’s actually also part of why we are such a successful nation.

Reuben Davidson: Will she commit to a plan for abundant, affordable, renewable energy to enable economy-wide electrification and sustainable growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That was one of those supplementary questions where you have to have listened to the answer to the first question so that you don’t repeat it, but I’m very happy to repeat my answer. Absolutely, we are working to electrify NZ. We have 22 renewable electricity generation projects currently going through the fast-track process. That’s 22 projects which he voted against being able to happen faster. He thought they should be tied up in court. And, at the same time, we have commissioned more renewable energy generation in this term of Government than in the previous 10 years combined. We’ll be judged on action, not rhetoric.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that, just today, the country’s largest ever wind farm had consent approved after just five months, when it was previously declined under the Resource Management Act (RMA)?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, isn’t that wonderful news? And what that shows is good policy in action, because what we inherited as a Government was an RMA system beset with red tape—bureaucracy—adding cost and delay and preventing renewable electricity being built in this country. The Fast-track Approvals Act is ensuring that projects we need—wind farms, solar farms—don’t remain ideas on a piece of paper being argued in court; they are actually being built. And yet, sadly, what one of the things this report calls for is a bit of bipartisanship on these important issues, and so it is such a shame that members of the Opposition opposed that fast-track legislation, which is unlocking renewable energy for the nation. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, calm down. Reuben Davidson.

Reuben Davidson: What specific steps has she taken to support workers losing their jobs and facing redundancies?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This Government has continued to support the social welfare system in New Zealand, which provides a safety net for those who are unemployed. What we are also very proud of is that we are a Government that believes that every New Zealander who doesn’t have a job would actually, if they were able to, be better off in a job, which is why the Minister for Social Development and Employment has been working so hard to ensure that our welfare system also creates incentives for people to get into jobs and to work hard.

Hon Tama Potaka: To the Minister of Finance: do you think enabling houses and homes around the country, and enabling fast-track projects, actually creates jobs?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Point of order.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Minister makes an exceptionally good point—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I’ve got a point of order from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The question is to the Minister for Economic Growth, not the Minister of Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apologies, I missed that. Thank you. Would you like to rephrase the question, please?

Hon Tama Potaka: Does the Minister of Finance consider that enabling homes—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The question is not to the Minister of Finance; the question is to the Minister for Economic Growth.

Hon Tama Potaka: OK, thank you. Does the Minister for Economic Growth consider that enabling houses throughout the country to be built, and enabling fast-track projects to be carried out and implemented, creates jobs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, this is one of the wonderful things that the fast-track regime is enabling. It is supporting thousands of jobs across the country; jobs associated both with the construction of major housing projects, quarries, renewable energy, but also the jobs that are generated when you have those developments occurring and adding to the overall productivity and employment opportunities in an economy. It is a job-supporting, job-rich policy that the members opposite opposed. What a shame they opposed more job opportunities for Kiwis.

Reuben Davidson: Is she concerned that New Zealand’s reliance on imported fossil fuels may push up inflation, limiting economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think, like every New Zealander, the fact that the price of petrol and diesel has gone up is something that I am very concerned about. I would put to the member that I’m spending more minutes of every day focused on that issue than he is. What I would say is that we are seeing that many New Zealanders looking out at the world are forming a view that, into the future, they themselves would like to be more energy independent. And we are seeing people choosing to buy electric vehicles. We are seeing firms choosing different ways of approaching their energy usage. But one thing that has been said to me several times in the last few weeks is this: “Isn’t it ironic that our ability to access our own security, in the form of our own natural gas and oil, was completely curtailed by the actions of the last Government, who made us more dependent on imported energy because they couldn’t count”—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister will stop there before the point is having a crack at the last Government. Thank you.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister for Economic Growth confirm that the fast-track laws recently enabled the construction of a green steel facility in Waikato, which will use around 200,000 tonnes of recycled steel annually, including with an electric arc furnace not subsidised by taxpayers through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) Fund?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I thank the Minister for bringing that great project to the attention of the House, and, again, a project enabled and made possible by our fast-track legislation. What I’d point out is that, as is so often the case, what New Zealanders want is for the Government to get out of the way and stop saying no; not get the money bazooka, spray it around, and sign their own names on the cheque.

Health

Question No. 6

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (14:37) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about supporting home and community support workers with rising fuel costs?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:37) Home and community support workers play a critical role in delivering essential services to some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders. We recognise that rising fuel costs were placing pressure on them as they travel for work. That’s why, today, we’ve announced that the mileage rates for home and community support workers will increase by 30 percent. Many workers will receive an extra $19 per 100 kilometres of travel to help offset the cost of rising fuel prices. This is timely, temporary, and targeted support that ensures these front-line workers can continue delivering vital care in people’s homes despite global fuel prices driven by conflict in the Middle East.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why is it important to provide the support now?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Home and community support workers require frequent daily travel to provide care in people’s homes, and rising fuel prices risk disrupting those essential services. We’ve increased their mileage rate by 30 percent, and in practical terms that means for every 100 kilometres travelled, these workers will receive an extra $19, which covers the current rise in fuel costs, which is around $8.50 for the average petrol vehicle and $11.80 for the average diesel vehicle. We can’t control global fuel prices, but we can make sure workers delivering essential care are supported to keep these services running. Acting now ensures continuity of care for vulnerable New Zealanders while supporting the workforce that underpins these services.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How long will this increase mileage rate remain in place?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This is a timely, temporary, and targeted response with the increase remaining in place for up to 12 months or until the price of 91 octane petrol falls below $3 per litre for four consecutive weeks. It will apply to home and community support workers who work for providers contracted by Health New Zealand, the Ministry of Social Development, and ACC. This means that support is being targeted where it matters most, ensuring essential services continue to be delivered to those who need it the most. The Government is also reviewing the In-Between Travel scheme as part of the broader aged-care sector review to ensure it is fit for purpose. This work is under way through the Aged Care Ministerial Advisory Group.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other announcements has he made to support patients travelling for care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Supporting our home and community support workers means that patients will continue to receive the care they need and won’t be left without that care, particularly as we enter busy winter months. Further to this, we have also increased support for patients who travel for appointments, with the increase in the milage rates for the National Travel Assistance scheme also being temporarily increased by 30 percent. This will benefit patients who need to travel long distances for specialist treatment, including cancer care, renal diagnostics, and other services not delivered locally.

Agriculture

Question No. 7

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (14:40) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement that “When farmers do well, so do Kiwis. A strong farming sector means more jobs and higher wages”?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:40): Yes, I do. I thank the member for asking that question. Indeed, it’s the first question she’s asked me in 2½ years on agriculture. What I would say in addition: that was from a social media post up on the National Party website that was very widely shared. New Zealanders all around the country joined us in congratulating and thanking farmers for being worth $60 billion worth of exports and up to 360,000 jobs in the economy. Exporters pay their workers more.

Hon Jo Luxton: How does he intend to support farmers dealing with the rising costs of fertiliser and freight due to global uncertainty?

Hon TODD McCLAY: It is fair that every country in the world is facing an increase in costs, not only from fertiliser and fuel. We’ve been very active with farmers and the export community, both directly through Zoom meetings where they can give us direct feedback, as well as engaging with them out in the marketplace. The first thing we need to do is make sure there is fertiliser in the country. I’m informed that we have enough fertiliser now to get us through the winter. We’re working very closely with fertiliser importers to make sure that spring will also be good. We’re doing this for two important reasons. Rural New Zealand needs our support, because when farmers do well all of New Zealand does well. Secondly, New Zealand exports food to feed the world. We have an obligation and we need to produce the food, so we therefore need fertiliser.

Hon Jo Luxton: Is Federated Farmers Hawke’s Bay provincial president Jim Galloway wrong to say these farmers will “have nothing to grow because there is no-one … to take their product.”?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I’d have to check very carefully that that was an accurate quote, but what I can say—and as far as Federated Farmers is concerned—is that when we came to Government 2½ years ago, they did a survey and they came out and they said very openly and widely that confidence in the farming sector was the lowest it’s ever been—at minus-66 percent. On January 2026, results since we’d come to Government had improved to plus-37 percent; that’s an increase of 100 points. I think Federated Farmers understands who supports farmers most in New Zealand.

Hon Jo Luxton: How many farming jobs does he estimate will be lost from the closure of Heinz Wattie’s and McCain vegetable processing plants?

Hon TODD McCLAY: That is a very challenging issue and it’s something that we’re working through. For those who are affected, of course, the Government will do everything that we can. However, what I would is say is that actually in the Hawke’s Bay and other areas, we have seen significant growth not only in agricultural production, but also in jobs. What we’ve had to do over the last two years is unpick a lot of rules and regulations that were put in place by the previous Government that put costs upon farmers and made it harder for them to produce. We’ve done that because we back farmers and we know that when farmers do well, all New Zealanders do well. An example of some of the things we’ve had to change is we had to take away a ute tax, there was going to be a fertiliser tax, a capital gains tax, a water tax, tax, tax, tax—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, this was a straight question on a very important issue, and it shouldn’t be used as an opportunity for the Minister to make political statements. There was never a policy with that name imposed by the previous Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. Look, I take the point of order. It possibly was the incorrect name—it became the well-known name. If the Minister knows the original name, perhaps it would be best to use that name.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, what I have on my paper, it says “It looks like a tax, it smells like a tax, it’s a tax.”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that wasn’t really an answer.

Hon Jo Luxton: Will there be a specific plan—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet!

Hon Jo Luxton: Will there be a specific plan for farming communities in each of the national fuel plan’s phases?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, some of the details are being worked through. Of course, exactly how that will happen—the Government’s working very hard so we don’t have to escalate through that, but I want to be very, very clear: we are facing a challenge as a result of a war that we have nothing to do with. Many countries of the world are facing similar sorts of things and we will be doing everything possible to support our farmers because this is a Government that knows that when farmers do well, all of New Zealand does well.

Hon Jo Luxton: Has he received advice that reduced production will increase our reliance on more imported produce grown by farmers overseas?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, there’s no direct evidence that farmers will be producing less. In fact, we produce enough food to feed 40 million people around the world. We have seen, from dairy to red meat to horticulture—virtually across the board—increased production, greater exports, and returns. There will always be enough food for New Zealanders to eat because we’re not a population of 40 million people.

Hon Simeon Brown: How did the Minister enjoy his first question from that member, and is he looking forward to the second?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question. No, the Minister’s not going to answer that question.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, I was going to say I didn’t enjoy it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, thank you. The Minister’s not going to answer that question.

Health

Question No. 8

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 8 in the name of Jenny Marcroft.

JENNY MARCROFT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is—

Dr Tracey McLellan: You’re all so useless!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shh!

Hon Chris Bishop: When was your last question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shh! The Hon Chris Bishop—quiet, please.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (14:46) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent reports has she seen on the state of aged care in New Zealand?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (14:46): Recently, I announced that the Government had tabled its response to the Health Committee’s inquiry into aged care - support services for experiencing neurological cognitive disorders. This inquiry was a commitment in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, and I would like to thank the members of the Health Committee for undertaking this important work, and, importantly, to thank those who made submissions to the committee and those facilities and service providers who supported the committee’s important work.

Jenny Marcroft: How is the Government responding to the report?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The committee’s report is now an important part of informing the work of the Aged Care Ministerial Advisory Group, who have been tasked with reporting back by June 2026 on what’s required to create a modern, effective, and sustainable aged-care system. We’ve known for many years that the current system has widespread challenges, not least of which is lack of capacity, limited respite options for carers, and outdated contracting models. This Government recognises that the challenges faced are not simple, as providing more funding or adjusting the existing system is not enough. We need to rethink the system as a whole. Aged-care delivery in New Zealand is very good and is provided by caring and dedicated workforces; that care is just being provided within an outdated model. We need a model that works for individuals receiving care and is investable for the businesses and community providers who deliver the care services.

Jenny Marcroft: What does an improved aged-care system look like?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Quite simply, we want older New Zealanders to be able to access the right care at the right time and in the right place. We know that, where possible, supporting people to age in the place that is right for them is better for their care and quality of life and delivers cost efficiencies for the health system. Like every other part of health, we should also be focused on prevention. While recognising that we have an ageing population, we also know New Zealanders are living well for longer. This shows that the wider aged-care system needs to recognise and incorporate support, to keep people in good health for as long as possible.

Jenny Marcroft: What short-term actions has the Government taken to stabilise the aged-care system?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Over the last two years, this Government has invested an extra $343 million into the aged-care sector to provide stability while we work on changes to the system. Health New Zealand has introduced a new Casemix funding model and framework across the South Island to better support those who receive care at home, and this model will be introduced across the whole country. Finally, today, as the Minister of Health has announced earlier today, a timely and temporary, targeted increase to mileage rates for home and community support workers of 30 percent has been delivered to help offset rising fuel costs and ensure continuity of care. Wider consideration of the critical role that the home and community support sector plays in aged care is an important component of the Aged Care Ministerial Advisory Group’s work.

Housing

Question No. 9

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (14:49) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What progress has been made with addressing homelessness?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:50): Since the mercurial Minister of Housing, Minister Bishop, and I announced the five near-term actions to address homelessness in September last year, I can confirm that 515 rough-sleeping households have been housed in social housing through the Housing First programme up until 25 March 2026. This includes 237 whānau housed so far in the additional 300 places that this Government funded, plus a further 278 households that were housed by leveraging existing contracted capacity and vacancy management across Housing First providers. This Government helps deliver the right house in the right location with the right support for those in serious housing need.

Dan Bidois: What else has been achieved through the Government’s near-term response to homelessness since September last year?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can report that access for rough sleepers to temporary accommodation through transitional housing has also increased. The additional funding provided last year supported over 280 rough-sleeping whānau into transitional housing, with many subsequently moving into social housing or other long-term housing over time as these whānau get placed in warm and dry long-term accommodation.

Dan Bidois: What difference is this making for rough sleepers and businesses operating in the main centres?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I regularly join housing and support service providers on morning checks and wake-up calls in the main centres. They have told me directly that the investment announced in September is making a huge and material difference to whānau rough sleeping. My officials shared with me this week an example about a gentleman they met who, through Government tautoko, a provider has supported through immediate access into a warm home. He was on the street with a serious and life-threatening health condition. Now he’s got a roof over his head, is going to get treatment, and knows he has a place to come back to which is warm, dry, and supported by the team at Auckland City Mission, backed up by tautoko from this Government. Businesses and stakeholders like Viv Beck at Heart of the City have welcomed the massive decrease in the number of rough sleepers in central Auckland as a result of targeted and timely actions. A big mihi to the exemplary Minister Brown as the Minister for Auckland for his mahi alongside me on this kaupapa.

Dan Bidois: What other progress has been made to support those rough sleeping?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Better connection to services, and support to households who come out of rough sleeping through outreach services and housing assistance centres, which have been successively achieved in a number of cities. The Ministry of Social Development team, for example in central Auckland, are working with Housing First providers and the team at Kick Back, supporting the work with rough sleepers getting benefit entitlements alongside housing at pace. This Government is working effectively alongside housing and social service providers and other stakeholders to support those in housing need.

Public Service

Question No. 10

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:53) to the Minister for the Public Service: Is the Government going to encourage public sector workers to work from home to save fuel; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service) (14:53): Many thanks to the member for her question on my last day as a Minister. No. The Public Service already has a clear and flexible policy that allows agencies to manage working from home arrangements as required. This policy, along with individual agencies’ existing policies, are adequate to manage the situation we face at present. The Government’s priority for the Public Service is that essential and front-line services continue to be delivered to New Zealanders. The Public Service must remain resilient and ready to respond to rapidly changing circumstances, including the current fuel market volatility. While we acknowledge the increase in fuel prices, we do not currently face a fuel shortage. If that situation were to change, then we would consider whether further measures were required.

Camilla Belich: Why isn’t the Government following International Energy Agency member countries like Australia and actively encouraging public servants to work from home during this fuel crisis?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think one of the things with being a sovereign nation is you make your own decisions, but also our situation—

Steve Abel: Unless America tells you to do something!

Francisco Hernandez: What if Trump tells you to do something?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Who are these people? [Interruption] I know. It is important to realise that our situation is not the same as Australia’s. We are not in the same situation as they are with fuel storage and access. In addition to that, I think it’s always good to understand that New Zealand’s situation has, I understand, been mentioned at the OECD, I think it was, just recently in Paris as the exemplar of how a country should manage this fuel situation and, at the same time, keep their economy going. I think it’s critical that we are actually on the right side of this. The Government’s doing well. The Public Service is doing well. The public is doing very well.

Camilla Belich: Will the Government, then, follow the lead of major private sector employers operating in New Zealand, like ANZ and Fonterra, by encouraging more working from home flexibility, given that the Government employs, directly or indirectly, almost half a million people?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think one of the situations is that, again, the Government doesn’t follow every employer. It is important to realise that a lot of those, for instance, Fonterra staff employees cannot work from home, because they’re working in factories. In addition to that, a lot of public servants live and work in Wellington, where there is actually a very good public service provision—public transport provision, I should say. At the same time, it is important to know that many public servants do not have that option. Certainly, if we look in the public sector, New Zealand Police front-line staff, Corrections front-line staff, probation officers, nurses, doctors, and teachers do not have that luxury. I think what is also very important to understand is that we have to keep the economy going, and small businesses up and down the country are saying, “Please do not stop people going to work, because what it will do is it will kill the economy, and we’re already getting over that massive debt we’ve been left from COVID.”

Camilla Belich: At what phase of New Zealand’s Fuel Response Plan would the Government begin to encourage public sector workers to work from home?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it will depend exactly when that were to occur, but at this stage, it’s not at phase 2. Clearly that is something we would consider on a case by case basis, but I don’t think we can have our front-line police officers working from home. I don’t think we can have our front-line corrections officers working from home. So for many people in the public sector, it is simply not an option.

Camilla Belich: Where it is possible for public sector workers to work from—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, please. I’m having a struggle to hear the person asking the question—Camilla Belich.

Camilla Belich: I think it might be my mic.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think it was a bit of noise coming from over here.

Camilla Belich: Were it is possible for public sector workers to work from home without impacting operations or output but assisting to preserve New Zealand’s fuel supply, why wouldn’t the Government strongly encourage public sector workers to work from home?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think it is important to keep the economy moving, and small businesses up and down Wellington and Auckland and everywhere else where there are public servants operating—mostly in Wellington—would actually be devastated if they go through that situation again of losing their customer base because the Government wants to look like we’re leading the world. What is important to also remember is that for every individual employee in the Public Service, it’s up to the managers as well as the employees to make those decisions. There are many people in the Public Service who do significant amounts of work from home, either one day a week or two days a week, and that is something that’s arranged between them. We do not think, in the Government, that it is our job to go and dictate to 60,000-plus employees in the Public Service how they should operate their commute to or from work or if they have one.

Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.

Camilla Belich: Supplementary question.

Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, I’ll wait for the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. We’ll take one more from over here.

Camilla Belich: Thank you. If countries like Australia and South Korea are encouraging working from home or even considering mandatory work from home provisions for public servants, why isn’t New Zealand?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think the member might find that we do not have—[Interruption] I don’t know why everyone is so excitable today. We do not have the same fuel situation that Australia has, and I’m not across the South Korean fuel situation, but I would say to the member that if she really wants us to be as rich as Australia, I suggest that she supports the Resource Management Act reforms and she also supports fast track and she supports mining. If she does that, we will be richer than Australia.

Hon Chris Bishop: Are you done? Have you got one more?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, she’s—

Hon Chris Bishop: Away you go.

Camilla Belich: I’m not done. Supplementary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we ceding now, are we?

Camilla Belich: On what is likely to be one of the last questions that the Minister receives in the House: would she concede that allowing public sector workers to work from home is a better suggestion to save fuel that stating: “I think most Kiwis understand if you’ve got less stuff in the back of your car, you don’t need much petrol.”?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In as much as the Minister is responsible for that question—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I don’t know who said what, but I think it is important to remember that the Public Service, even though it is a significant number of people, is not the biggest user of fuel, nor are its people. It is very important to understand that the Public Service that we inherited, I have to say, was in a bit of a doldrums, they’re feeling a lot better now, and getting back to work—[Interruption]

Hon Ginny Andersen: Because there’s only five. You’re about to join—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I don’t know. Ginny Andersen used to be so much nicer when she’d turn up in my office trying to be nice to me. I don’t know what’s happened to her since then, but anyway, if she doesn’t want an answer, she won’t get one.

Hon Chris Bishop: In her final question time, after a long career, what is her proudest achievement as public services Minister?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Do you know what? Bringing back the mojo.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, and I’m sure we’ll have the appropriate moment to say our farewells to Minister Collins when she gets to the end of her tenure.

Environment

Question No. 11

LAN PHAM (Green) (15:01) to the Minister for the Environment: Will the Government’s decision to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment result in better or worse environmental outcomes?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment) (15:02): We acknowledge the concerns raised about disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment but let me be very clear: there are no substantive changes to the functions under the Environment Act 1986. There is no reduction in environmental protections. The amendments are structural and technical only.

Lan Pham: What is her response to Professor Bronwyn Hayward who, in her submission on the disestablishment, said that she “can find no evidence of the Minister’s claim that merging such diverse functions in mega-ministries has been successful overseas” and that “it appears Cabinet was presented with incorrect or misleading statements made by the Ministers in charge of the bill.”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: So, again, we acknowledge that a number of people have got concerns but we need to look at what happens bringing a number of agencies together. They’ll deliver more practical, joined-up advice than currently, and they’ll have portfolios brought together that can coordinate much better, and so it reflects those strong links that there are between environment, housing, infrastructure, transport, and regional development. It’s about integration rather than silos.

Lan Pham: Does she agree with Pirirākau hapū who said, “This is not just a bureaucratic shuffle; it’s a calculated move that threatens the very foundations of our nation’s identity, prosperity, and justice. To weaken environmental protection is to undermine Māori rights and to erode Māori rights is to endanger the environment.”; if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No.

Lan Pham: Why does her view differ from advice from officials and environmental advocates that scrapping the Ministry for the Environment may result in worse environmental outcomes, meaning more polluted waterways and more of our precious species lost?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, as I said at the start, there are people with some concerns about disestablishing the ministry, but, again, let’s just look at the facts. There are no substantive changes to the functions, there is no reduction in environmental protection, and the changes are structural.

Lan Pham: Does she think that being the only Minister outside Cabinet since 1972 meant a voice for the environment was missing around the table when Cabinet decided to disestablish her ministry?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, there have been a number of Ministers outside Cabinet since 1972. I consider that as a Government, we talk freely together about these matters, and when we come to a decision that is going to make structural changes only—the box is going to look slightly different, but the contents are going be the same—we’ve come to those decisions together.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that bringing together all of the functions inside a new ministry is the practical manifestation of what the Green Party often says they believe in, which is the integrated approach to urban development issues and the environment?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, it’s hard for me to know what the Green Party believe in—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a point of order from Ricardo Menéndez March. I think I know what the member is going to say, and the Minister has already spoken to that fact, that she does not speak for the Green Party.

Simon Court: Does the Minister agree with Roger Partridge from the New Zealand Initiative that the current system of sprawling, complex Government departments is inefficient, and it is helpful for the delivery of services to bring these things together in one place?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Certainly, operating in silos is really inefficient, and integrating these matters that do have good links brings much more practical, joined-up advice and is likely to bring about better outcomes than current arrangements.

Lan Pham: What is her message to the many submitters and New Zealanders deeply concerned by this decision, who for the last 40 years have expected Governments of any political stripes to retain a dedicated voice for the environment at the heart of Government?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, again, I acknowledge that there have been people who are concerned about this disestablishment, and that hasn’t been helped by perhaps some of the misinformation about it. If we keep coming back to what is actually happening, there are no substantive changes to the functions under the Environment Act; there’s no reduction in environmental protection. They’re structural changes.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What would the Minister therefore say to survivors from the recent severe weather events in Te Tai Tokerau, which you should all know about, and how will disestablishing Manatū Mō Te Taiao—which is the Ministry for the Environment, in plain English, just to be helpful—strengthen, if at all, or improve, when what you’re saying is that it is a structural thing only; how will that occur—

Hon Member: What’s the question?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: —and the oversight and long-term resilience—to this gentleman twittering to the left of me—outcomes for whānau in Te Tai Tokerau?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I think I got the gist of that question. What I can say is that environmental outcomes always depend on good evidence, and from that good evidence, good decisions. Regardless of any structural changes to Government agencies, the statutory environmental reporting will continue, and as that reporting continues, good evidence will be there for good decisions.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Two specifics, therefore: what specific safeguards will replace the role of Manatū Mō Te Taiao to ensure regions like Te Tai Tokerau that are already exposed to repeated weather-related environmental pressures do not experience worse environmental outcomes as a result of these decisions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Ministry for the Environment gives advice to the Minister, and decisions are made based on that advice and based on the information that comes, so there is no thought that a structural change will change the standard of that advice, the level of that advice—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Madam Speaker. My opening words were “specifics”, and that’s what I was listening for. It didn’t show up in any regard in the response.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister has answered the question in the sense that—she’s basically answered it pretty much in every question. Her consideration is that the structure is changing but the work will continue—my words, not hers. I don’t think the Minister needs to answer that unless you’ve got anything to add.

Vocational Education

Question No. 12

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (15:10) to the Minister for Vocational Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding vocational education?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education) (15:11): Some wonderful announcements. I recently announced that the remaining four polytechnics within the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology will begin new arrangements from 1 January 2027. NorthTec, Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki, Whitireia, and WelTec will become stand-alone regional polytechnics supported by the federation of polytechnics to ensure access to shared services and ongoing viability. This marks a significant step in rebuilding a vocational education system that is locally led, financially sustainable, and aligned with the needs of regional employers, industries, and communities. We are fixing the basics and building the future of vocational education in New Zealand.

Maureen Pugh: What does this announcement mean for the West Coast?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: We love the West Coast. From 1 January 2027, Tai Poutini Polytechnic will operate within The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. This will ensure that in-person, campus-based vocational education remains available on the West Coast. This model will allow for financially viable delivery, while retaining local identity and keeping key partnerships, such as trades academies, with West Coast schools. It ensures continuity for students and regional industries, supporting pathways into meaningful work and aligning programmes with local employment needs. I thank the local MP for her advocacy work there. We are fixing the basics and building the future of the West Coast.

Grant McCallum: What does this announcement mean for Northland?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: From 1 January, NorthTec will be reestablished as a stand-alone regional polytechnic. Among other financial supports to ensure its continued viability, I am delighted to announce the in-principle investment of $34.7 million for the development of a new Whangārei tertiary hub—subject to business case—creating modern, fit for purpose facilities, supporting an initiative from local community leaders and growth in areas such as health training. This Government recognises the importance of local, on-campus delivery for the people of the Far North, and we are proud to support this into the future. We are fixing the basics and building the future of Northland.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What does this announcement mean for the East Coast?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The wonderful East Coast—I’m pleased to announce that the Eastern Institute of Technology—EIT—will be receiving $10 million to support the rebuild and improvement of its Hawke’s Bay campus in Taradale, following Cyclone Gabrielle. EIT Council chair David Pearson called the announcement—I quote—“a genuine game-changer for EIT.” And the chief executive said—I quote again—“ EIT is well and truly back in business. … This funding will ensure our Taradale campus can continue to serve Hawke’s Bay for generations to come.” We are fixing the basics and building the future of the East Coast. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet.

Hon Mark Patterson: Supplementary question to our newest Cabinet Minister—congratulations, Penny—what does this announcement mean for Telford?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government recognises that different industries require alternative solutions for delivery, which is why we are delighted to announce that the unique residential agricultural training facility Telford will be receiving $2.4 million to address deferred maintenance to ensure a fit for purpose, fully functioning agricultural campus. This will ensure that the hands-on training in agriculture, rural animal healthcare, and equine skills on Telford’s 921-hectare working farm near Balclutha in South Otago will continue to produce work-ready graduates into the future. We are fixing the basics and building the future of vocational agricultural training in New Zealand. [Glen Bennett stands up abruptly to leave the Chamber]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, I thought for a moment that Glen Bennett had a question there! That concludes oral questions. I would ask that members quietly leave, and for those of you that we don’t see again for the rest of the day, happy Easter. Just move out quietly. Thank you.

Bills

Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Acting Minister for Racing) (15:17): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Third Reading

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Acting Minister for Racing) (15:17): I move, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Since we announced in December 2024 our intention to close commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand, a deliberate, multi-stage process designed to ensure fairness and good outcomes for both people and animals has been under way. An initial bill to protect the greyhounds passed unanimously in December 2024. A ministerial advisory committee was quickly set up and has worked with the greyhound racing industry to plan for closure. That committee made recommendations for a bill which were accepted by the Government. Once it was introduced to this House, the Primary Production Committee listened to and conscientiously engaged with submitters to strengthen it, producing the bill which sits before us today.

At the heart of this bill and all the decision making that has led us to this point are, first and foremost, greyhounds and the people. Animal welfare is important to New Zealanders, and so too is supporting the people affected by this bill, which is why this bill will establish a transition agency to oversee the closure, tasked with supporting affected people and greyhounds.

This bill comes into effect over three stages to allow a smooth transition to closure. The first stage will be from the day after Royal assent, and it lays down the framework for closure ahead of 1 August 2026. This stage will see the establishment of that transition agency responsible for ensuring that a transition plan relating to Greyhound Racing New Zealand is in place to wind up the industry.

The second stage is from 1 August 2026, and it will bring in the actual end of commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand. During this stage, Greyhound Racing New Zealand will be dissolved and appropriate remaining functions will be transferred to the agency.

Finally, the third stage will see the repeal of the provisions relating to the closure of the industry and the agency. While the bill anticipates that the agency will have completed its functions within three years, it allows for some flexibility in timing in case there are still some outstanding tasks. Therefore, the third stage comes into force on a date set by Order in Council but no later than on 31 July 2031. Once disestablished, any residual assets held by the agency will be, as recommended by the select committee, distributed to industry participants.

The Ministerial Advisory Committee, who have been planning for the closure and who will be appointed to the board of the transition agency, recently outlined key elements of planning towards the end of greyhound racing. This includes options for the agency to take over ownership of dogs and pay for all their food and care until they are successfully rehomed. This also includes mental health and wellbeing services for those whose daily lives are closely tied to the industry, as well as retraining support for those currently employed in the industry. Training and behavioural support for greyhounds to improve rehoming outcomes will also be included in the planning. The Ministerial Advisory Committee members appointed to the board of the transition agency will work with the existing greyhound rehoming organisations to facilitate the rehoming process, which we anticipate will take time, given the volume of greyhounds needing to be rehomed.

We have continued to recognise that closing the greyhound racing industry has not been an easy decision to make and that the hardest part about making this decision is the people affected by it. We will do right by them, but we have resolved, alongside the overwhelming majority of this Parliament, that closing greyhound racing is the right thing to do. The commercial greyhound racing industry has been on notice since 2021, after multiple reviews led to the same conclusion—that things needed to change. The industry did make some improvements; however, despite these efforts, data on the most serious injuries and deaths on the racetrack have stayed consistent. Regulatory change or further investments weren’t going to significantly better serious injury rates, and it became apparent that the time has come for the end of commercial greyhound racing.

New Zealand is not alone in this. Other jurisdictions, such as Wales, Scotland, and Tasmania, are also moving to close commercial greyhound racing. These jurisdictions share our sentiments that greyhounds are sentient beings who deserve a life free of serious injury in an inherently dangerous sport, and the time has come to act.

We want to acknowledge those New Zealanders today who are affected by this legislation and encourage them to engage with the transition agency once it is set up and is running. We all have the same shared goal in this closure: to support the people and support the greyhounds.

We expect that, by the time 1 August approaches, there will be around 1,600 greyhounds awaiting their chance to live in a forever home and with a family who cares for them. This week marks 20 years since Minister Peters launched the Greyhounds as Pets adoption scheme. Just as Homer and Bart Simpson discovered in the first episode of The Simpsons, greyhounds make great pets. They’re low-maintenance dogs with quirky personalities, and they are the most gentle of animals. It is great to see that Santa’s Little Helper, the greyhound the Simpsons adopted, is now involved in publicising the New Zealand greyhound rehoming campaign.

We know that rehoming of these greyhounds is a big task and one which requires an all-hands-on-deck approach from the transition agency, greyhound rehoming groups, and, of course, the public. It will take some time. To the members of the public listening today, please share the message: consider adopting a greyhound, or fostering it, if that’s more suitable. These greyhounds are wonderful pets, and it is time for them to live as pets. You’ll never regret having one in your family. We commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (15:24): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. The House is currently at the third reading of the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill, and I rise as Labour’s spokesperson for racing.

It’s been a wee while in getting to this particular point. I know that, previously, there has been some commentary around the fact that this bill currently before the Parliament is the second stage of a bill around seeking to wind down the greyhound racing industry in this country. Previously, the Parliament did, through all stages under urgency, pass a bill—some months ago now—that sought to protect greyhounds from euthanasia and from, effectively, illegal destruction. That was because the Minister, Mr Peters, at the time introduced a bill to signal, effectively, that this bill was on its way and wanted to protect the welfare considerations of greyhounds that otherwise may have been placed at risk. The Labour Party supported that particular bill through all stages under urgency, but just note that that was a signal that the bill currently being debated by the Parliament was on its way.

We have supported this bill at first reading, at second reading, and in its current form through all stages of clause consideration, in terms of the committee of the whole House. Here at third reading, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill as it stands today.

The racing industry here in this country, as it stands at the moment, Madam Speaker, as you’ll know, has three codes: greyhound, thoroughbred, and harness. They all have, over many years, added to the fabric of racing in this country, and all codes continue to race, up until this point, with the understanding that there is an absolute expectation that those who are involved in those industries have animal welfare as the primary consideration in everything they do.

Now, we’ve heard for some time that the greyhound industry was, effectively, put on notice, as some would say, back in 2021. We got to this point now where the Labour Party’s position is one of support for this bill, because we do believe that it is the right thing to do.

In previous contributions around the second reading, colleagues talked about the Primary Production Committee and the submissions that had been received. I say that at third reading to signal that this bill has changed from when it first arrived in this Parliament. It hasn’t changed from second reading to third reading, and there were some changes that were sought at the committee stage. The Labour Party did not support any of those Amendment Papers, and I’ll perhaps talk about that in a moment.

I do want to acknowledge that this is a bill that will have an impact on many individuals in the greyhound racing industry, not just those who own or train or perhaps like to punt on greyhounds here in New Zealand, but there will be impacts much broader than that, to those who perhaps are vets who are involved in aspects of race-day support and others as well. I do want to acknowledge the fact that this will have an implication for the lives of those who are involved in this industry. I do note that this is something that has been signalled as being in the pipeline for a wee while, and, as Minister Costello herself has indicated, the Minister, Minister Peters, has signalled that for some time as well.

The animal welfare considerations are really important to us, because they are what is behind our decision to support this bill. A lot has been said around the rehoming opportunities that the transition agency will now need to turn its mind to. There are some fantastic agencies and organisations who are out there, who have, for many years, done a great job in seeking to rehome greyhounds. I’ll perhaps leave other colleagues to touch on that.

Some of the industry participants felt as though the select committee process was the only way that they were able to have their voices heard, and I know that despite the fact that many of them will perhaps be unhappy with the outcome in terms of this bill, none the less, they have identified that they felt as though they were able to be heard through the select committee process. I do hope that, in time, there will be some reflection on that and an acknowledgment that the bill has changed as a result of hearing from them.

The Labour Party didn’t support the Amendment Papers that were put forward at the committee of the whole House stage, and I just want to indicate why that was. One area, really, was around the inability for the TAB to continue to accept wagers or betting on greyhound racing overseas. Now, this was a change that was made by the select committee, because it didn’t accurately reflect the intention of the Government to ban, effectively, the TAB from taking bets on greyhound racing. This is a bill that is focused purely on domestic greyhound racing here in New Zealand and a strong view that it needs to cease and it needs to stop, and that’s what this bill does.

What is really important, in terms of a review opportunity for the TAB continuing to take betting on international races, is the fact that there is a review opportunity in the bill scheduled for some time in the future, which the Minister for Racing must initiate. That is not an optional choice. It is a mandatory review that is expected, and it is expected that the continuation of betting or taking wagering by the TAB on overseas greyhound racing events would form part of that consideration. This is not the Parliament saying, “We’re just going to turn a blind eye to this.” It will be on the radar, but the focus at the moment is on the closedown of the greyhound racing industry and the roles and responsibilities that that transition agency needs to turn its mind to.

The other issue was an amendment to seek to introduce a compensation mechanism for industry participants. Now, the position of the Labour Party in not supporting it is that where we are heading today has been signalled for quite some time. It is our expectation—and it’s been confirmed by the Minister in her comments on behalf of Minister Peters today—that the transition agency will be expected to work actively with industry participants to ensure that mental health and that wellbeing considerations are top of mind; to ensure that there is an opportunity for retraining, redeployment, and skill uptake from industry participants as part of this transition agency. There is absolutely no expectation that the transition agency would just be stood up and, basically, leave the industry participants in a state of flux. No, the expectation, as we understand it—and this is the basis on which we are continuing to support this bill through the Parliament today—is that the agency, in being stood up, would work with industry to ensure that there are opportunities around redeployment, that there are opportunities around retraining, and that there are opportunities around support for them to continue to engage.

The Parliament has made some changes to the bill as a result of what it heard in select committee. One is the number of people that could be on the transition agency. It has effectively increased that holding by an additional member, if the Minister so chooses to appoint an additional member. Now, the Minister for Racing has been very clear that it is his intention to appoint, effectively, the members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee. Now, we believe that there is much logic in that, because they have been working with the industry—and should be working with the industry—around the changes that this bill would provide. There is a continuum, in that sense, of the work that they will continue. However, the Minister has agreed with the changes from the select committee, actually, to have an additional slot on there to perhaps consider who might be appropriate if there is a particular skill set that is missing there, and being able to put that in place.

The final point that I want to touch on is around the issue of the closedown of 1 August this year. There had been some conversation around whether or not that should be delayed, whether it should be staggered. Our view is that that is not appropriate, and that’s why we didn’t support any changes to that time frame, because in addition to this being well signalled in advance, we believe that the transition agency now has a suite of work that it needs to get through. The Minister talked about the three stages or phases that the agency would need to get under way with as a result of this bill coming into force. This has been well signalled.

It is time for greyhound racing in Aotearoa New Zealand to come to an end, and this bill gives effect to that. The reasons have been outlined, and it’s on that basis, collectively and individually, that the New Zealand Labour Party will support this bill this afternoon.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (15:34): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak in support of the third reading of this bill, the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

There has been a long and storied history on the process to achieve this bill coming to its third reading today. The Green Party has for a long time called for the end of greyhound racing. I found a post on the Facebook page of Mojo Mathers from 2016, when she received a petition from the Greyhound Protection League of New Zealand calling for that closure, and the Green Party supported that call then. That was a short time after the Hansen report, and subsequently the Robertson report, and, before that, there was a report in 2013, all of which highlighted the problems and the challenges with racing greyhounds—the injuries that they suffered, some of the cruel practices in the industry at the time. I acknowledge that some of those practices are no longer in place now, but insufficient work has been done to address the fundamental harm that occurs to animals in the process of racing them. That’s why we have this bill today.

I also acknowledge that, in 2022, my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick had a bill in the biscuit tin that would bring about the closure of greyhound racing. I inherited that bill when I came to Parliament, in 2023, and I put questions to the Minister in scrutiny week of June 2024, saying, “Is he the Minister who has the intention to show the decisiveness that this issue requires and actually bring the industry to a close?” At the time, the Minister obfuscated on the question and reminded the committee that greyhounds loved to run, and I said, “Well, they love to run, but they should be free to do so of their own volition, without the compulsion of being forced to race at times that they may not wish to.” The Minister made further comments, and later, I had an opportunity to question him—it happened to be at the Pickwicks Bar—as to whether he would take action on the greyhounds. He quite humorously, in his inimitable style, said, “When the time is right, there will be a decision, and it will be the right decision.”—which didn’t tell us anything.

It turns out it was the right decision. It turns out that it was the right decision that the Minister took, and it is worth acknowledging that it has taken many years for us to have a Minister willing to be this decisive, and we must give the Minister credit for that. I withdrew my bill from the biscuit tin. Though I had actually sent him a copy of it in May 2024 and invited him to adopt it, I withdrew it in December 2024, because it became very clear that there was a serious intention on the part of this Government to support the closure of the industry.

It must be acknowledged all of the organisations and advocates for greyhound welfare who have pushed hard for a long time to achieve what we are passing today: SPCA, HUHA, SAFE, the Greyhound Protection League of New Zealand, and many others who have stood in defence of the right of these dogs to live happy, healthy lives in loving homes.

We put up some amendments that my colleague Tangi Utikere just spoke about at the committee. I should say that the process of the committee was, first of all, to correct an omission in part of the drafting of the bill which actually meant that there would be allowed to be betting on greyhound racing in Australia. That was the Government’s intention: to retain bidding on greyhound racing in Australia. For us, that has always been a hypocrisy. We cannot say, “It’s illegal for you to bet on greyhounds here in New Zealand, but you can still bet on greyhounds in Australia.” It is not fair for us to shut down an industry here but allow New Zealanders to bet on the same industry, where the same welfare issues occur, in Australia. That’s the Green Party view of it, so when the amendment came to the committee to correct that omission in the drafting, the Green Party voted against that amendment. No other party in the committee did vote against that. We subsequently put those amendments before the committee at the committee of the whole House. Again, no party, apart from Te Pāti Māori and the independent MP Tākuta Ferris, voted with us on our amendments.

I want to acknowledge that the money that will be coming from that racing in Australia—around $44 million over three years—will go towards the cost of winding up the industry here, including the rehoming of the dogs and including the support for the wellbeing of those who are currently dependent on the industry. We support that very much, but we believe that money could have come directly from other codes in the Racing Integrity Board.

We put a second amendment that the time frame for which the gambling in Australia could continue should end automatically in three years. That was also voted down, but we think that a subsequent Government could readopt that. I want to note, in a recent conversation with the SPCA, they believe the rehoming could be done and can be achieved in quite a timely fashion, noting that in Florida, they rehomed 5,000 to 7,000 dogs in two years. The SPCA themselves are rehoming 300 animals a week and 16,000 animals a year.

With all of the agencies that we have on board—the existing rehoming agencies; we acknowledge their very important work to date and their ongoing important work and all of the animal welfare organisations on board with us—it should be very much achievable that we rehome 1,500 to 1,600 New Zealand dogs in a relatively timely fashion, but we must make sure that they are going to loving and caring homes. It may be that there is a transitional need for foster homes before there is permanent rehoming.

My final word is to just acknowledge that we did hear the heartache that people in the industry feel. We heard that loud and clear. As I said in the second reading, it is possible to hold two seemingly contradictory views—one, that most in the industry are good, caring people who do care for their animals; and the second view that too many dogs have suffered and died and will continue to do so for us as a society to accept the continuation of greyhound racing. That is the view that we, as Te Pāti Kākāriki, hold. It is time for this industry to come to an end. It must be done in a compassionate way for the people and for the animals.

As to the question of compensation, we do support funding for supporting people in transition to new forms of work. We do not support direct compensation for material losses. The reason that we do not is that we believe that sets a bad precedent.

Cameron Luxton: They did it in good faith.

STEVE ABEL: I’ll give you a quite intense example, Mr Luxton, of why we don’t want to set that precedent. When it reaches a point that a society finds that a certain industry or activity no longer meets the morals of that society—i.e., that activity has exceeded the social licence of that society—it is appropriate that that society and its legislators should have the right to bring that industry to an end. In 1833, when it became clear it was no longer acceptable for there to be slavery in the world, the British Parliament passed legislation against that slavery, but they made the terrible error of compensating the slave owners for the loss of their industry.

Now, I am not in any way suggesting that the greyhound races are in the same category, but I simply make the point and a glaring example that, if we set the precedent of compensating industries that have moved beyond the social licence of New Zealand, we set a dangerous precedent. There are other industries, if we are to deal, for example, with climate change, that we are likely to need to bring to an end as a Parliament, so we do not support the compensation. We do support direct work to support those people in transition, and that may be financial work for their mental wellbeing and for finding them new jobs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (15:44): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill because this is not a happy day for Parliament. What we are doing here is not built on respect for the people who this is affecting. It is a debate that has not reckoned with the principles that it is creating. We have heard phrases like “social licence” thrown around as a substitute for facts on the ground and as if it can be used instead of a meaningful engagement with the people whose livelihoods are on the line, who were not engaged with, and who came to the select committee and had their say. What changes did they get?

When these people have tried to engage and ask for meetings, they’ve been told that they need to talk to a Wellington bureaucrat and not talk to the actual people who are making the decisions. These lawfully acting New Zealanders have been called “sinners”, and that reminds me of when one Minister of a previous Government called protesters a “river of filth”. When they questioned the levels of engagement and when they raised their concerns, they were told they should be thankful—thankful that their industry is being taken away with the claim that they have been saved in the past.

Let’s be very clear about something: this industry was not built in Wellington by MPs in this House or by fancy suits in the Beehive. This industry was built by hard-working New Zealanders—Kiwis with rough hands—and not done by favours or handouts from Government. They built an industry and a community through decades and generations of work, and, now, they are being told that they’re the problem and they don’t deserve to have what they’ve worked for, what they’ve invested in, and what they’ve lived in. I remember when the war on farmers labelled us. I remember being out there on the back paddock on the ranch and thinking about the city folk calling us all kinds of things and the pain that caused us in our souls. I remember how that felt, and I say to those out there who remember that pain, “Think of how these folk feel today.”

I want to turn to the animal welfare issue, because this is where the debate has really lost its footing. New Zealanders love their dogs. I think of my hound Awhi and my past dogs, who I’ve loved, Jazz and Tahi, but the way that welfare has been talked about—and treated as if this was the case—is that the greyhound industry were indifferent to the wellbeing of their animals. The people of this industry depend on good animal welfare. They have built towards it. They have recognised issues in the past and come to terms with them and tried to find a way through. They’ve spent millions of dollars supporting it. Frankly, their own standards and pride of work depend on those animals. I’ve visited these facilities and seen these investments. Good animal welfare is about setting policy that is practical with enforceable standards that improve the outcomes for animals. It is not about standing on a soap box and pretending that a whole industry is evil. That is not a serious animal welfare policy.

The simple question that needs to be asked is: what actually leads to better outcomes for animals? Is it working with an industry who care about their dogs to improve outcomes, or is it pushing the betting offshore with standards we can’t set? This raises questions of intentions.

Tonight, many are going to pat themselves on the back and declare victory, but that is just ignorance to the reality of the situation. We have seen this before. Lawful firearm owners were treated as criminals. This House passed legislation, unfairly taking their firearms, and, back then, ACT was the only party that stood up for them. We said that you should not punish law-abiding New Zealanders just for political convenience. ACT stood alone in the face of a tough political crosswind. Here, today, we are seeing a similar approach. It is a different sector, but it’s the same attitude—a Government thinking that it can impose change from the top without trying to work with the people most affected. Instead, the Government would rather lecture and demonise than listen. This can be seen in other things ACT has stood up for. ACT was the only party in Parliament that stood up for the unnecessary, burdensome, and expensive earthquake relief regulations. A decade later, people have come around to the view. ACT was the only party that stood against the zero carbon Act while every other party in the House voted for it. Now, we have parties adopting ACT’s view that it was a mistake and that we need to have a good review.

Even if it’s too late for greyhounds, to somebody listening out there, they will eventually come for your industry, and I hope that there is someone left to speak for you.

Tamatha Paul: Do you want your dog to race?

CAMERON LUXTON: She loves running. It’s great.

Now, it’s important to discuss what we’ve heard about how this transition will be managed. We have been told that the transition agency is filled with people who are experts, but the truth is that rather than letting the industry wind itself down, we’re taking away decisions from people on the ground and giving them to people whose jobs are in Wellington. We’re putting trust in the system over trust in New Zealanders, and I have to ask, when did we stop trusting the people that this country was built on? When did we decide that salt of the earth Kiwis, the ones who actually do the work, could not be trusted with their own future? In ACT, still trust them.

Hon Casey Costello: Perhaps read the bill.

CAMERON LUXTON: I have definitely engaged with this bill. We believe that these people with decades of experience and a proven record of improvement should be involved more deeply.

Hon Casey Costello: They are involved.

CAMERON LUXTON: More deeply. It’s not the job of Government to be micromanagement. The simple principle is this: you cannot light the fire and claim the credit for putting it out. In this case, you cannot undermine an industry and then turn around and say that you’re saving it. You certainly cannot expect those to be thankful for it. New Zealanders can see through this vegetative verbiage.

ACT has offered solutions to problems in this bill. We went out and we listened to the community. My colleague Laura and I visited the Addington Raceway to hear directly from those affected. We had a great time. We watched the races, the dogs going hard, checked out the infrastructure, saw how happy, how ramping and amping to go the dogs were. No one was being forced to race; they were having the time of their life. Once they had stopped, you could see how contented and happy with themselves they were. It was an occasion for people from a rural and urban life to come together and watch dogs having fun. But there was a sting of sadness in the air: disappointment with this ban. It was sitting like the Sword of Damocles above them, but the string had been broken.

From these meetings we learned some important things. These folk are not delusional. From the moment the ban was announced, they knew that there was very little chance of it being changed. When I talked to them, they were able to let us know what could be done to ease the transition. The first issue raised with people was straightforward. They wanted compensation for the State taking away their property, and fair enough. I said it in my second reading speech, and I’ll say it in this House again. We need to understand just how extraordinary this step that we are taking actually is. It is extinguishing an industry. When the State does that, it simply cannot walk away. It must recognise the consequences.

That’s why I put forward an amendment which was debated during the committee stage. What was the response? That these people do not deserve to be compensated, because they’ve somehow failed. How can they have failed when they followed the rules Parliament set for them? And now, in good faith after the fact, we are rewriting the rules. The Government has moved the finishing line. Compensation sets the right precedent. It says that Parliament respects property rights. It says that Parliament understands the immense power we hold. It says that, when we exercise that power in a way that fundamentally disrupts people’s lives and livelihoods, we do so with responsibility, not indifference.

The second issue raised by trainers was also clear, and it’s one that ACT sought to address. If the legislation is truly about animal welfare, and acknowledging Steve Abel’s comments, there needs to be consistency. We are shutting down a domestic industry on animal welfare grounds while continuing to allow betting on overseas greyhound racing through the TAB. My proposal was simple: that revenue from overseas betting should be ring-fenced, used only for animal welfare purposes, greyhound rehoming, or compensation for those affected. That would at least align the policy with the stated intent. Instead, we are told that continuing overseas betting is necessary to fund the industry closure. There is a real concern here: without clear safeguards, that money may not go to where it’s intended, and there is a risk that it will simply disappear into the wider racing system. These amendments were proposed to be pragmatic and grounded in common sense. They weren’t about stopping the policy. They were about making sure it was fair and consistent. They weren’t about stopping the policy. We were trying to make sure that what was being claimed was actually being done.

Finally, I want to say something to the participants in the industry and to those who feel like they haven’t been heard. Listen carefully to what is being said in the House today, because it tells you everything you need to know about how parties see you and your communities. In ACT, we see you as valuable members of a rural New Zealand, of the backbone of our country. Even if ACT stands alone in this, we are proud. We will always stand for a Parliament that knows it is not above the people and instead understands that we work for the people—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (15:55): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to address the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill, legislation that marks a turning point for greyhound racing in New Zealand. Feedback from those in the industry has been at the heart of this process, and I’d like to thank everyone who submitted, including the trainers, breeders, track staff, and families, who spoke passionately about their enduring love for their animals and their jobs. This bill’s impact is far reaching.

After listening to submissions, we’ve ensured resources are focused not just on animal welfare and rehoming but on the pastoral care and support people will need during this transition. We owe these individuals compassion, dignity, and practical help as they adapt to this profound change. The select committee process brought some important improvements, and I’d like to acknowledge the chair of the Primary Production Committee, Miles Anderson, and committee members for their engagement and commitment to this process.

The racing amendment bill is a response to changing social licence and the involving expectations of society. Right now, our resources and empathy must be directed both to the dogs needing to be rehomed and to the people who have cared for them and built their lives and livelihoods around them. I’d like once again to acknowledge and sincerely thank everyone who submitted on the bill. I know that, for many of them, the outcome of this bill is imaginable, and I sincerely wish you all the best.

Tamatha Paul: Madam Speaker. Oh, is it not?

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (15:56): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a very quick call on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

Steve Abel: Point of order. Madam Speaker, I think you missed my colleague’s call before Dana Kirkpatrick’s. [Interruption]

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Well, I’ve got to do one anyway. I might as well get it out of the way. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The sheet I was using didn’t tell me that it was a split call, so that’s why I didn’t see you over there. I’m sorry, I will come back to you next call.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, I rise to take a short call on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

Look, I understand this has been a difficult time for many involved in the sector. I just want to commend the good work by the Primary Production Committee to do their very best to reach better outcomes in some very challenging circumstances. There’s been a lot of passion and emotion involved in this bill. I want to just leave our thoughts with all of those people who are involved and all of those animals who will find new homes, hopefully. I think that it is best just to leave it at that, and I can happily pass it over now to my colleague and friend over there, Tamatha Paul. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tamatha Paul: Madam Speaker. Over here in the back.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I hear you and I see you. I call Tamatha Paul.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (15:59): Thank you, and thank you to the previous speaker, my friend—I like that—and colleague, Dana Kirkpatrick.

I actually want to respond to what ACT MP Cameron Luxton was saying in his speech. I don’t want to have a go at what he’s saying, because I get that you’re standing on your principles and I respect your freedom to do that, but I said, “How would you feel if that was your dog?” And he said, “Yeah, my dog loves to run.” So does my dog. Here’s a picture of him—[Holds up picture] His name’s Max, for the Hansard; he’s also known as Mukman, spelt M-u-k-m-a-n. He’s a rescue, but he’s a greyhound - border collie mix, and he loves to run. He is the most annoying dog ever. I get home at 10 o’clock at night, and he comes right up to me and stares at me. If people know greyhounds—they stare, and it’s really annoying. You’ve just got to say, “Get—get.”

Because he loves to run, they are also single-mindedly focused on what’s in front of them. Greyhounds have been bred over generations and decades—if not centuries—to focus in on the thing that they’re chasing and to just lock on and chase it. I know that, because that is exactly what Max does. When he sees a rabbit, when he sees a possum, when he sees a little ferret, he goes for it, and he doesn’t care what’s around him, and that has meant a very expensive vet bill.

That’s the thing about greyhounds: they love running, yes, but they also really hurt themselves in the process when they’re doing that. I know that that was identified as part of the reports leading up to this moment—that there have been parts of the industry that mean that the way that greyhounds were being raced actually injured them. I’ve got an example. While I’ve been an MP, Max almost impaled himself on a stick because they’re just so focused. People might have seen me on the front lawn of Parliament throwing a ball for Max, and that’s also a risk, because I’m always really scared that he’s going to knock somebody over. It brings people great joy, because even parliamentary staff go out there and throw the ball for him, which is really nice.

But this is the thing about those dogs; they are massive idiots as well. They don’t care about what’s going on around them; they have no spatial awareness, they just go for the thing. That’s why there have been all of these red flags raised about the injuries, because they just go for it. My understanding is that because of the way that the racecourses are, they are hurting themselves when they’re turning those corners. My understanding is that the greyhound industry knows well about the injuries that happen to these dogs.

I know there have been three reports making recommendations about how the industry can improve their welfare so that dogs don’t get injured—and nobody ever wants to see a dog injured. I don’t know about you guys, or if anyone’s a dog person here, but when you step on your dog’s foot, and they squeal, you feel like the worst person on earth. I remember seeing a video of a greyhound on meth; I’m not sure if it was a New Zealand dog. The Speaker’s looking at me in a puzzled way. I looked up, while I was sitting here, “greyhound racing, methamphetamine”. There’s an article from 2021: “Greyhound Zipping Sarah wins race—while on methamphetamine”; an RNZ article from 2023: “Greyhound racing case: Lengthy ban imposed on mother and daughter”; and, from 2026: “Winning greyhound tests positive for methamphetamine”.

These are the kinds of practices that have come about. Sure, these might be the worst examples of treatment within the racing industry, but, unfortunately, because the greyhound racing industry has failed to meet these constant warnings to buck their behaviour up, they have lost their social licence to continue as an industry, to take that directly from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who I thank for having the courage to be the one to finally end this cruel practice.

Dogs—I’ve got two—are not just things to race; they are their own beings with their own personalities, thoughts, and feelings. I just hope that this is a really big signal to everybody out there that you can adopt one of these greyhounds; just Google “adopt a greyhound New Zealand”. They will be looking for homes. They are beautiful companions; they will keep you on your toes; they are extremely loyal, intelligent creatures—but stupid when they’re chasing something. I really want to encourage everyone at home to consider adopting a greyhound as this industry comes to a close.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (16:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as a member of the Labour caucus and the Primary Production Committee in support of this bill that we are speaking about today to bring to an end the commercial greyhound racing industry here in New Zealand.

I want to respond to something that Cameron Luxton mentioned about this not being a happy day. I don’t think that necessarily anyone here is saying that this is a happy day, because we are fully aware of the implications of this piece of legislation and the change it has on those that are directly involved in the industry—whether it be breeders or those who work in the grounds preparing tracks, etc., for racing. But the industry has pretty much been on notice for many years now. We’ve had multiple reviews; the industry has been given the opportunity to make improvements with the types of racing tracks and things that they use. While there has been some change from round tracks, basically, to straight tracks, the changes have been far too slow and far too few.

I do, on that note, just want to acknowledge all of those from the industry that did submit on this bill to us in the Primary Production Committee. There were some really heartfelt submissions given by these people, and we are talking about families in the industry. I might have mentioned in my second reading speech that we’re not talking about big commercial businesses; we are talking about families here, who have been involved in this industry for many, many generations. We clearly heard from those who really love their animals and care for their animals, including a lot of young people and young children. But we cannot ignore the number of deaths and animals having to be euthanised as a result of the racing industry.

New Zealand is a country that absolutely prides itself on our animal welfare standards. I think this is something that, around the world, people are taking another look at. Up until today, or when this bill passes, New Zealand was one of only a few other countries that actually have commercial greyhound racing. I think Australia, the UK, and Ireland are the other countries, and I think there are only two racing tracks in the US. This is an industry that is on notice around the world and perhaps will come to an end.

One of the really important pieces of this legislation is the transition group that is going to be put in place. They’ve been part of the advisory group to the Minister, and the fact that these members are going to move to this transition group or board is really important to allow for that continuity. They are very familiar with the bill; they’re very familiar with the issues that have been raised, and their role is going to be of absolute core importance in supporting those that are involved in the industry—whether it be to help support with the upskilling. I know that in the committee of the whole House, there was a proposed amendment brought to the House around financial compensation, and that was obviously voted against. I think that this particular group or board will be compensating, in a way, in so far as helping to support those to up skill into new roles and new jobs.

The other part that they will play that is really important in this bill here is to ensure that the animals that are rehomed are rehomed to appropriate new owners. I can only imagine that, in taking on an animal that has come from that racing industry, it will probably take a little bit of a transition period for the dog to go from being a racing dog to being a pet at home and living quite a different lifestyle.

The other thing that has changed from when this bill first came to the select committee, and then after submissions, and didn’t change through the committee of the whole House process, is the ability for the TAB to continue to take bets for overseas greyhound racing. This will support the financial implications to allow for this change to happen within the industry. The intent was that the New Zealand taxpayer would not be footing the bill for the changes that this legislation brings about, but that it should come from industry itself.

So, again, I do really want to acknowledge the families that are impacted by this. It was not a bill that the committee took lightly. As I said, we heard some really heartfelt submissions that definitely pulled at the heartstrings, but, ultimately, animal welfare has to be at the core of this, given, as I’ve said, New Zealand takes its animal welfare very, very seriously. We can’t ignore the continued deaths. We can’t ignore that we were only one of a very small number of countries that continued to allow this to happen. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (16:10): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this bill, the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill at it’s the final reading. While I didn’t sit on the select committee, listening to the feedback from the other submitters, it’s clearly been quite an emotional experience, with the people who are losing, effectively, their livelihoods, and they love their dogs and what they do, and the families involved. I think it’s really important just to remember and acknowledge that. With that, I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (16:11): I rise to take support for the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. We do so because it reflects a difficult but necessary decision, one that balances the imperative of animal welfare with the fairness of people whose livelihoods have been tied to the industry for many years. This is not a decision that’s been taken lightly, nor has it been one made in haste. After multiple reviews and years of scrutiny, the conclusion has become unavoidable and the greyhound racing industry has repeatedly failed to meet those acceptable welfare standards. The evidence has been consistent. Systemic issues have occurred: high injury rates, preventable deaths, and insufficient oversight. You know, we come to a point where reform is no longer credible. At some point we must act, and this bill does exactly that.

It removes greyhound racing as a permitted betting activity in New Zealand and provides for an orderly, humane, and well-managed wind-down of the industry. Importantly, it does so in a way that has been significantly strengthened through the select committee process. I want to acknowledge that process. Over 2,000 submissions were received. That’s a substantial level of public engagement and it has led to meaningful improvements in the legislation that is before us today. The bill we are debating is now actually better and more balanced and more humane and more practical because of that scrutiny.

At its core, this bill places animal welfare where it belongs: at the centre. It strengthens prohibitions against unlawful destruction of greyhounds. It prioritises the safe and successful rehoming, and following the select committee amendments, it requires the newly established Greyhound Racing Transition Agency to report annually on key welfare outcomes, including euthanasia numbers and deaths while awaiting rehoming. That transparency matters. It ensures accountability and it gives confidence to the public that this transition will be conducted with care and integrity.

The bill also makes clear that new owners of rehomed greyhounds must be informed of the obligations under the code of welfare for dogs and that is a practical but important step in ensuring that these animals are not only rehomed but properly cared for in the long term. The principle here is simple: no dog is left behind. Every greyhound must be accounted for and every animal must be treated with dignity, and every effort must be made to ensure a safe and humane outcome.

This bill is not only about animals, it’s also about people too. Labour acknowledges that this decision will have significant impact on workers, the trainers, and the communities connected to the greyhound racing industry, as has been mentioned in various contributions here today. These people have dedicated years—in many cases, decades—to their profession. Those concerns are real and they deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and this amendment bill goes further in addressing those concerns.

It establishes a dedicated Greyhound Racing Transition Agency, and that’s a body tasked with not only overseeing the closing of their industry and the rehoming of dogs but also supporting those affected through the transition. It seeks out a structured three-stage approach. Stage 1 establishes the transition agency immediately following the Royal assent. Stage 2 brings an end to all commercial greyhound racing betting from 1 August 2026, and stage 3 sees the transition agency wound up between 2029 and 2031 once the rehoming enclosure is complete.

This is not just an overnight shutdown; it’s planned and it’s a staged transition. It’s one that provides certainty while allowing the time to get this right. Funding for this transition will come from TAB New Zealand. Importantly, following the select committee amendments, TAB New Zealand will retain the ability to take bets on overseas greyhound races. So it’s a good bill and I commend it to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (16:16): I stand to speak on this Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. I want to thank the Primary Production Committee for all the care and consideration they have given this bill; for the likes of Miles Anderson and his leadership as deputy, for instance. I also want to acknowledge the many families involved in this greyhound industry that love their dogs. As previous speakers have said, the select committee has strengthened the orderly and humane wind-down of this sector. I wish everyone success. We acknowledge those that are rehoming greyhounds and we all encourage more of that. I commend the bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:17): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also make a contribution today at the third reading of this Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee who heard the submissions but, as most people would have, we have run into colleagues from time to time and heard stories about submissions and know that, of all the bills that we see progressing through this House, this was one where there were whole families coming in to provide evidence and give their submissions, and that there were lots of very heartfelt stories to be relayed to the select committee. So I acknowledge that Labour supports this bill, however, at the third reading stage and we concur that the select committee process has strengthened this bill, and I think it better reflects both the interests of animal welfare and the affected industry participants.

I would note that sometimes when you’re not a member of the select committee, you listen a little bit more intently to the prior contributions to pick up the gist of the vibe of things, so to speak. I feel like I’ve learnt several things today, listening to the contributions. I was aware of the fact that there had been three major reviews, I think in 2013, 2017, and 2021. Many of us on this side of the House will remember in 2021, Grant Robertson being quite emphatic and making that explicit expectation to put the industry on notice. It had been something that I hadn’t paid much attention to before that time. It wasn’t a sector or an industry that I had any personal particular knowledge of or experience of, but it prompted therefore Grant Robertson’s particular interest and it prompted many of us to do a little bit of homework to make sure that we checked in with the local industry in our own areas and learnt a little bit more about something that was potentially very easy to take for granted. So I remember that passion and I’d like to acknowledge the work that Grant Robertson did in those early stages of being very explicit about putting the industry on notice, because I do agree that there’s only so long that you can continue to hope for improvement. There are so many reviews and expectations that can be said without seeing some major changes. Because, at the end of the day, the harm here is harm to animal welfare and to real-life animals, and that is important.

I’d also like to acknowledge Eugenie Sage. Eugenie Sage was a very valued member of this Parliament and a local resident in Banks Peninsula, who also was incredibly passionate about this issue and had taken the opportunity to, on several occasions, raise welfare concerns using that parliamentary process. So I acknowledge that.

But today, we are here because this bill removes greyhound racing as a permitted betting activity and winds down the industry, as we’ve heard, in an orderly and in a humane and in a well-managed way, with key improvements that were secured during the select committee process. We’ve heard from other people who have made contributions today who have talked about the three stages and who have talked about the transition agency. We have heard from my colleague Tangi Utikere, who led for us on this bill about the fact that it is certainly our expectation that part of the remit of the transition agency will be to ensure that there is appropriate support in the myriad ways that that might manifest for people who are involved in the industry, either directly or indirectly.

That certainly is our expectation and why, therefore, we don’t agree with the amendment to support that there would be direct compensation. I think that that is absolutely the right thing to do, given that there has been such a lengthy period of notice. It springs to mind some parallels, I suppose, with some other industries that we may eventually want to wind down because they cause terrible harm. So avoiding that precedent, I think, is really, really important.

So Labour has consistently supported action on the greyhound welfare issue and a responsible transition. While we support the amended bill’s objectives, we will continue to hold the Government to account on the compassion, fairness, and meaningful support for workers, trainers, and communities affected by that transition. It is important that that land in a fair place. It creates a Greyhound Racing Transition Agency, as we’ve talked about, which is a dedicated body to oversee the closure and the rehoming of dogs.

I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate what several people have said, including the Minister who introduced this bill at third reading, that it’s time for many people, hopefully, to consider adopting or to consider fostering a greyhound. There has been the genesis of a little bit of a PR and an advertising campaign around that and we would like—I’d certainly hope—to see a little bit more of that happening. I know of probably one already confirmed adoption relationship that has taken place and another one that is in train, because that’s the nature of these things, isn’t it? You often don’t know what you don’t know, and then one person goes through that process of adopting an ex-racing greyhound, and that seems to be going quite well, and therefore friends and family get the opportunity to consider it for themselves. So a bit of a shout-out for people to take that seriously and to give that a crack.

As we have also discussed, the structured, three-stage approach, I think, turns this process into something that’s not only manageable but is also something that has the requisite transparency. We think that that is a good idea. So closing an industry that has—and let’s be honest—repeatedly failed to meet the welfare standards which we would assume it should do if it wanted to maintain that social licence to still be a legitimate part. The select committee improvements therefore have made this wind-down process, I think, a very easy bill to support. As long as the protections for animal welfare and dignity remain at the heart of that decision-making process, which I absolutely believe is the right thing to do, then I think that we can be rest assured today during this process that that is a good decision and Labour will continue to support the bill.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (16:25): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take this final call in the third reading for the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. I think what I have experienced with the fact that I haven’t been a member of the select committee, but listening to the speeches of those that were, is that this has been a very emotional journey with regards to the passing of this bill.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that from the very first inquiry or looking into the animal welfare of the greyhound industry back in 2013 and the subsequent two other inquiries that were had, it obviously exposed the fact that there was quite concern over the welfare of the greyhounds in the industry itself. This I think has exposed the fact that select committee processes can actually bring quite an amount of emotion into it. The previous speaker, Dr Tracey McLellan, mentioned the fact that families came into the select committee rooms in quite emotional states with how this is going to affect them with this—an industry that they love, an industry that they have passion for, and also animals that they also love as well.

So I am mindful of the amendments that were provided throughout the select committee process, which strengthens the bill itself. I want to acknowledge that I want to convey to all those that are part of this sector all the very best in this transition away from the closure that’s going to occur shortly. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 11

ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:28): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): You need to seek leave for that.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Oh, the drill sheet. I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

First Reading

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:28): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

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

Hon JAMES MEAGER: For the avoidance of doubt, I move that the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 August 2026.

This Government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order and protecting our future where all New Zealanders can feel safe in their communities. One basic function that needs fixing is the ability for a business owner to trespass somebody. But before we fix that ability, can I just take the opportunity to congratulate a couple of my colleagues, Mr Cameron Brewer and Mr Mike Butterick for their ascension to the ministry forthwith. It’s always good to see an experienced man about business in the ministry, and also Mr Butterick being a mid-Cantabrian that was snuck up to the Wairarapa, it’s very good to see his promotion as well. I’d like to acknowledge the contributions, of course, of Ministers Collins and Reti over many, many years.

Back to this bill, the Trespass Act is not working effectively or practically in a modern-day urban retail environment. This law has remained virtually unchanged since the 1980s, when its focus was the removal of people from places like farms and private dwellings where the general public had no reason to be. It was not drafted with private premises in mind, where the public can expect to freely enter, such as malls, busy shops, dairies, and supermarkets. Retailers have been increasingly concerned about offenders engaging in criminal behaviours such as theft with the knowledge that they can subvert any attempt to be trespassed. This places the livelihoods of those retailers, including the workers, and customer safety, at risk. About 230,000 people work in our retail sector, and the cost of retail crime in this country is in the billions.

This bill will modernise the Act by providing occupiers of retail, food service, and licensed premises with a greater range of effective tools to address unwanted and criminal behaviour and deter retail crime. I want to thank the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime for their work on these proposals.

The bill at hand responds to the concerns reported by retailers with five key changes. First, the bill will increase the maximum period that someone can be trespassed for from two years to three years. It will also give all occupiers the discretion to set a trespass period of any time, up to the three-year maximum. Providing this greater range of time frames for trespass will allow retailers and other occupiers to take the individual’s behaviours into account when making those decisions—for example, a very short trespass period of a few months may be sufficient to encourage a change in behaviour, while the full three years may be appropriate for people who cause serious harm to workers or who threaten them with weapons.

Another change is to provide occupiers of retail, hospitality, and licensed premises the new ability to pre-emptively trespass a person from more than one location at once. This takes into account the issue of what happens when you trespass someone from a bar in one part of the CBD and then they just hop to the next to the next to the next, causing chaos along the way. With this, the owners of chain stores as well, such as supermarkets, will be able to pre-emptively ban a person from entering any of their stores throughout New Zealand. Occupiers of individual premises will also be able to use this power to trespass a person from any location, providing they have the authority from other occupiers of these locations to trespass a person on their behalf.

This change is focused on stopping those offenders from simply moving their criminal activity from store to store. This is a limited power because it will only be available to occupiers of retail, hospitality, and licensed premises to deter retail crime. The occupiers of other types of premises, including places occupied by councils, will not be able to use this power, but, of course, I’m sure the select committee will be interested in the feedback on this issue.

The bill will also close a loophole where people who are presented with a trespass can avoid that trespass simply by walking away or they can threaten the occupier and intimidate them into not providing that trespass. Under the bill, a person will be deemed to know that they have been trespassed in retail and hospitality spaces in some circumstances. This will be in situations where the occupier has clear evidence that the attempted trespass was frustrated in some way, such as being interrupted by aggressive behaviour. Similarly, to support trespass to be a more effective tool, the changes in the bill will provide backstops for the time and the place of the trespass. This will be in circumstances where an occupier does not or cannot specify to the person a time period or additional locations applicable to the trespass.

An example in the retail context is where the occupier tried to trespass someone but that person intentionally prevented the trespass from being communicated. I’m having difficulty catching up with the tense and the pronunciation of “trespass” and “trespiss”, but we’ll get there. In these circumstances, the trespass will default to a three-year period and only apply to the location at which the trespass of that person was attempted—I’m pretty sure I’m getting it wrong, but that’s fine; I’m sure Dr Webb will correct me along the way. This will help to ensure that someone is successfully trespassed and will remove any excuse that the trespasser didn’t know where they were trespassed from and for how long.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Say that three times fast.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: It could be “trespisser”; I’m not too sure.

Finally, the penalties for the trespass offences have not been updated since the legislation was enacted back in the 1980s—a good decade indeed. As a result, the penalties are now far too low to act as a real deterrent. They do not reflect the actual harm experienced by retail workers when people break the law and trespass where they have been told to stay away.

The bill will increase penalties from $1,000 to $2,000. The penalty will also apply to the new offence for trespassing on specified retail premises. The bill will also increase the penalty for a person who fails to give their name or address to a constable or to a private occupier to $1,000.

From day one, our Government has worked tirelessly to ensure that criminals face real consequences for their actions and that victims’ interests lie at the heart of our criminal justice system. This bill is yet another step in that right direction, and it provides retailers with another tool to protect their livelihoods and to deter retail crime. I commend the bill to the House.

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:36): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Now, retail crime is a very serious matter. It’s something that we all, I think, take seriously in this House—especially at times like those we’re currently going through at the moment when there’s a fuel crisis and people are struggling. We do not, obviously, need—and retailers do not need—additional stresses to deal with, and, obviously, retail crime is often one of those things. I think that is very important to note at the outset.

Additionally, we have a belief that when we change the criminal law in New Zealand, we should change it in a way which is clear, fair, and consistent with the principles of innocence until proven guilty, also acknowledging important legal principles like making sure that the mens rea, which is the intent or mental element of a crime, is also acknowledged. Unfortunately, in this bill, there is a mix of things that I think will be of great assistance to retailers and a few other things that probably need to be clarified at select committee. I do look forward to looking at this in the Justice Committee and seeing if there is a way that this bill can be improved on.

The Minister for Hunting and Fishing is correct; this bill, I understand, was first drafted in 1980. A significant period of time has elapsed since then, and I think there have been calls for the update of trespass law in New Zealand for a period of time. I understand that this has been a subject of academic study and also consideration by experts on this matter. I don’t think the point of reforming trespass is necessarily something that many people would disagree needs an update.

There are a few different provisions in this bill. There are two provisions around the amount of time the trespass order can be put in place, extending that time for a year and also extending the fine. Those are relatively minor and I don’t think they are that meaningful but also not that objectionable. I’ll put those to one side.

The other key matter in this bill—and I think one which I understand is important to retailers—is the ability in this bill to allow for, say, a retailer or, say, when there is a conglomerate of different shops under the same umbrella to be able to trespass a person from all of the different outlets that that particular operation may have. At the moment, allegedly that is quite difficult. I don’t think that’s something that we object to in principle in terms of encouraging the ease of trespassing someone when there’s a clear issue.

I think the things that do need to be considered with that particular provision are we have had issues raised by the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the sharing of details about people. They have raised concerns that information could be shared in a way even when it isn’t likely that that person would trespass on a particular location. For example, someone may have been trespassed from a North Island shop and they may be trespassed from one in Te Ānau, for example. It’s possible, but it may not be very likely that they would, in fact, go all the way down to the bottom of the South Island—my colleague knows how long that trip often takes—in order to attend somewhere where they have been trespassed. There is a balance here, as in all things.

There are serious concerns about this particular bill. Even in the information provided by the Government, we see concerns around the Ministry of Justice bringing up the rights of children—whether children should be excluded from this. There are concerns about this disproportionately affecting Māori. That’s also brought up in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi obligations. I have had a brief look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act section. Although I think it doesn’t find that there are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues, there are clearly human rights issues that do need to be addressed by this.

There are serious concerns that we have around this. Hopefully, these can be addressed in select committee. The most serious one is the change to section 4C of the Act, where it appears that a person could be trespassed without even knowing they have been trespassed. This wording at the moment is very wide, and Labour would like to see this looked at very carefully at select committee if we are going to be able to support this moving forward.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also oppose this bill. I want to just mention a few things because I think the Minister has mentioned the context of this bill quite well.

I think the first red flag for anyone is the fact that this came from the recommendations from the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, which, as we all know, is an incredibly turbulent ministerial advisory group. One part of their recommendations from that particular ministerial advisory group is widely opposed by literally everyone, including the Police, other than those members who were left on that ministerial advisory group when it disbanded. I think that does question the credibility of what we’re seeing and the evidential basis of what we’re seeing in this bill, and it is something that I’m sure, should it go to the Justice Committee, we will be more than happy to examine in further detail.

There are a number of concerns with this bill. It’s particularly the basis of why the Green Party opposes this. I think I want to start by looking at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and the BORA report that was released. I think it’s important for us to note that while the previous speaker mentioned in particular in terms of presumption—the presumption whereby a person is innocent until proven guilty—there is the fundamental issue of section 18 of BORA when we’re looking at freedom of movement. I think what’s really important if you’re looking at the BORA report and particularly when we’re looking at paragraph 20.1 is that, when we are looking at trespassing, it has to be justified limits on the protected rights and freedoms. I would argue that the combination of factors that we see in this bill does not quite reach that particular threshold.

Now, the first thing is this does expand the scope to multiple locations. The multiple locations could be supermarkets, it could be petrol stations, and that, particularly when you’re looking at rural areas, will have a significant impact on people who have been trespassed in terms of their ability to move around under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis and a fuel crisis.

That being the first point, I think it’s also important to note that, if we’re looking at limits on the rights and freedoms and particularly section 18 of BORA, we also need to consider what is introduced in clause 7 of this bill, which is that a trespass order can be delivered orally—so, as someone is leaving, who potentially may have hurt you, it is, like, “Sorry, you have been trespassed from this petrol station and all petrol stations in this area.”—or all supermarkets, Four Squares, Countdowns, etc., in this area. That is what is going to happen when we are looking at this particular bill. That doesn’t necessarily address the issue that we are seeing here. I know that the other side is talking about stealing as a possibility, but what about things we often don’t think of? This comes from my third concern, which I’ll come to just shortly.

I want to finish this point, which is that in those cases, you have effectively limited a person’s right and freedom of movement from multiple locations without that threshold and without that particular limitation that we’re seeing. Therefore, I do not agree with some of the analysis in the BORA report, because I don’t think it considers the full potential scope. There is currently no guidance on what the process is for an oral trespass. Is it just someone in the heat of moment saying, “You’ve been trespassed.”, without proving if that person is innocent?

That does come to my next point, which is the fact that when we’re looking at something like this, let’s not beat around the bush: we are going to be seeing Māori and Pasifika, and particularly rangatahi Māori, being disproportionately affected by this, because let’s face it, racism is very much alive and real. People are talking about stealing, etc., but I do not see people talking about Karens being trespassed, to be perfectly honest. The Green Party will not support this. We will be keen to hear more from the officials on this during the select committee and also from the public.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (16:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m actually not surprised to see that some parties in this House are not supporting this bill, which is actually to control retail crime. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the first reading of the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

This bill is actually about controlling retail crime. This bill is about sending a strong message that law and order matters, and this bill is about sending a message that if you threaten people’s safety, if you threaten people’s livelihood, there will be consequences, and yes, your privilege of access to their business can be taken away. That is what this bill is about.

We know just over two years ago, under the previous Labour Government, crime was out of control and people were losing faith in the system, the system that is supposed to protect them. I know the other side are really angry because we are doing something to control retail crime. They don’t like that, but, on this side, we will continue to put mechanisms in place that will protect retailers and that will protect businesses. When we are protecting businesses, it’s not just that business, it’s also all those customers who walk into that business. It’s about their safety as well.

We know we have heard so many stories of retailers frustrated about people walking in, stealing, grabbing what they want—and, in some cases, not just grabbing what they want, but grabbing as much as they can and then walking out. Not simply walking out but looking at the person who is at the counter, laughing at them, basically challenging them, in a way, indicating that nothing can happen to them, and they walk out with all those things basically taken away from that business. And what happens? Then what happens? That business loses their margins, and how long can they sustain themselves? They can’t sustain themselves for very long. What happens? They will just shut the door, close the business, and do something else. We don’t want to see our small businesses suffering like this because of repeat offenders, people who take offending for granted. They think that they can walk in, they can steal anything, and walk away like nothing should happen to them.

There should be consequences for these people, those who are repeat offenders, and that is why this bill is a really good bill. We want to see that trespassing notice duration extended by this bill, which is a good thing. Also, we heard the Green member saying that it should not apply to multi-locations. Yes, if a business owns multiple chains, the trespass notice should be able to be given for all those multiple chains that that business owns. And yes, there are some people who deliberately obstruct, they avoid the trespass notice being served to them. That’s why this mechanism of expanding circumstances where a trespass notice is considered validly issued is important. In circumstances where people try to avoid that notice being served—in those situations—it is important to find ways that the notice is deemed to be served.

Of course, there is an increase in penalties, as well, in this bill. We really support this bill because, for ACT, this is about fixing what matters. This is about the safety of communities, this is about fewer victims, and this is about consequences for people, those who choose to offend. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (16:49): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk in support of the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

New Zealand First has a founding pillar that building a prosperous nation and protecting community and country are foundational to a solid and successful country. We have heard a bit today about the idea that this will be removing the rights and freedoms, but what about the rights and freedoms of the employees that work in these premises that have to deal with the disorderly behaviour, the theft, the violence, and the threats? Those are the people that New Zealand First represent: the workers that have to deal with these issues.

When you talk about trespass, you have to understand that, yes, there is a right for people to go shopping, but with every right, there is a duty married to it, and with every freedom, we owe a corresponding responsibility. So you behave yourself, you be polite, you do what is required, and no one is going to trespass you from anywhere.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m trying to, Hon Costello.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Sorry, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’re talking about the third person. OK. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The third people.

The foundation principle here is that we have to ensure our retail sector is protected; we have to ensure that our businesses can do business. This is an important step. This is an important piece of legislation to update, from the very many years that trespass has been vague. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:51): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to take a call on the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I can hear the arguments on the Government side of the House—and, absolutely, the protection of retail and businesses is important. But I have an issue with this particular bill, and we will not be supporting this bill, because we know that punishing poverty has never worked and it will never work. Fining poor people thousands of dollars for stealing and surviving is not going to stop theft. Giving businesses the power to ban people from entering stores they’ve never been to—for any reason—is not justice.

Just last year, someone was trespassed from their local New World for two years for taking photos of clogged fire exits so that it could be cleared, which they eventually were. This bill could see that same person trespassed from New Worlds and Pak ’N Saves across the country for three years for pointing out a safety issue.

We have a supermarket duopoly controlling our food supply, and this bill could easily see people banned from accessing all supermarkets across Aotearoa for three years if just two managers don’t like the look of them. We will never support a system that will deny people access to kai, especially our whānau living in rural communities; those struggling with mental health, poverty and addictions; and people with Ministry of Social Development payment cards, who are only allowed to access essential services from a small number of shops.

The Ministry of Justice warned the Government that increasing the trespass will harm all of these people and will stop them from accessing the services they need to survive. Denying people access to kai and whenua is one of the most blatant and harmful violations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi that a Government can enact, especially during a fuel and cost of living crisis.

It is clear that this coalition values private property rights more than anything else. They value private property rights and business profits more than the oranga of our people and the constitutional rights guaranteed to all people under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This bill is just like the Government’s move-on orders, because neither policy actually offers a solution to the problem. They want all of us to see the people who have been screwed over for generations as the problem, not the decades of failure from consecutive Governments that have caused people to be homeless, that have caused people to be in poverty, and that have caused people the mental health and addiction issues that drive the types of behaviours that this bill will target.

According to Christopher Luxon, the bigger issue is Chuck and Mary coming in for a once-in-a-lifetime trip to New Zealand on a cruise ship, walking around downtown and getting intimidated because someone is sitting on the doorstep of a shop they’re trying to get into. The only thing these policies are capable of is moving people around so that Chuck and Mary from America don’t have to see the real New Zealand. Homelessness and theft will continue to be the issue until we address poverty, until we address addiction, and until we address poor mental health outcomes. And our mokopuna will be put in a worse position if we continue down this path of lazy, harmful policy.

Our policy platform is clear: we need to ensure that all people in Aotearoa are fed, housed, and have enough income to live meaningful lives. We will make the minimum wage the living wage, we will remove GST from kai so that people can afford to eat, and we will make sure that the 112,000 empty homes in this country are available to those who need them. We will never end homelessness and poverty by punishing people. Our movement is about being hard on healing, rather than hard on crime.

Therefore, Te Pāti Māori absolutely rejects this bill. It doesn’t go far enough to protect retailers and small business or even big business. What it does is it marginalises more of the communities that are living in poverty and that are struggling with the cost of living crisis and now a fuel crisis. We need to look at not the proximate causes but the ultimate causes of why our people are in this condition, and ensure that those belts and braces and supports are around them to ensure that they can live with dignity; that they can enter a shop and have the dignity to be able to buy the products that they want, to feed their tamariki; and ensure that they can do that freely in this country. But to ban people for two to three years from one shop, and having an impact on another shop, is going to absolutely impact our people in this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (16:56): I rise to speak in support of the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in this first reading. The Government is strengthening the trespass laws to make them more effective and practical for businesses. We know that our trespass laws are no longer fit for purpose, they’re difficult to enforce, and often criminals take no notice—they return with impunity and just continue to rob businesses of their livelihoods, they are dangerous to staff members, and we want every New Zealander to be able to go to work safely. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Duncan Webb—third time lucky.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:57): Thank you, I’m just so keen to speak about this! Look, no one can pretend that the issue of people entering retail premises, or any premise, and creating a menace or committing a crime isn’t a difficult one that needs to be solved. There’s an existing trespass framework. If you look at the policy work which has been done, it basically says two things: it says that the law is not the problem, and it says that the costs of implementing this will exceed the benefits.

The real problem here is that if a retailer has an issue with someone in their store, the police don’t turn up, because the Government hasn’t fulfilled their promise to have 500 new police officers, and the police don’t have the resources to assist retailers. This is just a patch to make the Government look busy, but it’s not going to address the root cause of the problem. Well, the root cause is actually, as Rawiri Waititi said, the poverty and the social problems that this Government’s created. But in terms of the symptoms that are happening in retail premises, the Ministry of Justice has very clearly said in the regulatory impact statement that this will have no effect.

There’s a couple of things in here that are going to bear real scrutiny, and the main one is the idea that the Crown, if they prosecute under this Act, may not have to prove a critical element. The crime of trespass is committed when someone enters a premise that they know they’ve been warned off. That’s the whole kernel of the offence: that you have been told by the occupier, “Stay off my premise.” We hear that people run away so they don’t get their trespass warning, which is critical element of the offence.

Now, if someone goes to hand you a trespass notice and you refuse it and turn around and walk out, I think you can reasonably say in that situation that you know that you’ve been trespassed, but if you are doing something that you shouldn’t in a shop and someone approaches you, and so you bolt, is that a situation where you ought to have known? Just remember, “ought to have known” isn’t actual knowledge; it’s someone else thinking from their perspective that you, basically, ought to have listened. If you don’t actually know you’ve been trespassed and you go back, you actually don’t know it, and so you can’t prove that you have no knowledge that you’ve been trespassed or that someone was trying to trespass you. You go back and you are actually committing a trespass because someone thinks that you ought to have known, and you can be imprisoned or be fined a significant amount of money for something that you ought to have known. You’ve committed a criminal offence for something that you didn’t know you were doing, and so that’s a real problem.

The other quirk here is that we’ve now created the Sunny Kaushal effect: we’ve got this special category of people called “retailers”. If we’re going to change the law around trespass, everyone deserves the same protection. People who work in Ministry of Social Development offices deserve the same protection. Legal aid lawyers, who have very troublesome encounters sometimes, deserve the same protection. For some reason, we’ve said that retailers deserve more protection from antisocial people than anyone else, and that strikes me as being a very strange thing indeed.

We do also need to look at the freedom of movement question, which is a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act right that this does curtail, and so the select committee is going to be interesting. I hope we get good submissions on it because there’s a lot of work to do there.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:02): Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that I’m sure will attract some attention. I hope that submitters provide the select committee with a lot of thoughtful material, and I commend the bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (17:02): It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, and there have been some fantastic contributions. Camilla Belich highlighted the cost of living crisis and how that’s affecting business retailers. We will look at how this bill can be improved at select committee, particularly in regard to the sharing of personal information, and also the change being made by new section 4C in clause 6, which provides that someone can be trespassed without knowing it. That’s a key concern that we’ll have to flesh out during the select committee process.

The Green contribution raised some valid concerns in relation to rural areas, but I think that these concerns will also be addressed at the select committee. “Don’t steal” was yelled from across the House, but we’ll also have to remember that sometimes the families of offenders can become victims, particularly if they’re unable to do the things that they would normally do as a result of having someone in their family be the offender.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar discussed the mechanisms required to be in place for businesses in terms of how we can deter those offenders. I think that they do need to face consequences if those offenders do commit crimes, but we will definitely address that as well to make sure that the victims are well represented, as well, in the fleshing out of this legislation.

Casey Costello highlighted the rights of employees and the protections around employees. That’s important too, because, again, no one in this House wants to see employees affected in terms of the people that do trespass and the safety of those employees.

Te Pāti Māori highlighted poverty and addiction and the mental health concerns of those vulnerable people. That’s important because that will be a key part, and we’ll make that a specific point to be addressed during the select committee stage.

The Hon Duncan Webb highlighted police resources and said how the bill will not necessarily address the root causes, which are in terms of resources, the cost of living crisis, and the Government needing to look at taking a holistic view on the wider-ranging issues that affect people that decide to commit these offences. He also said that the “Sunny Kaushal effect” is important, too, and I particularly liked that one.

The intent of this legislation is sound. It represents a long-overdue update to New Zealand’s trespass laws that, quite frankly, have not kept pace with the reality that’s facing retailers, workers, and communities today. The current framework is rooted in legislation from 1980. It’s outdated and it doesn’t actually adequately reflect the scale, the organisation, or the persistence of offending that many businesses now face, and retailers from across the country have been telling us that for years.

Yes, change is needed, and there are elements of this bill that we do support. We support extending the duration of trespass notices from two years to three years. That’s practical, it’s proportionate, and it provides businesses with a longer window of protection, without going as far as the five years that was originally proposed. We also support the introduction of multi-location trespass provisions, but that will definitely need to be a key point that we’ll discuss during the select committee process.

This is in many ways the most significant and most sensible reform to the Act. It addresses the very real problem of what retailers describe as store-hopping, where an individual trespassed from one location simply moves down the road to another branch of the same chain. Under the current law, businesses are forced into a time-consuming and inefficient process of issuing separate notices for each site, and that doesn’t really reflect how modern retail operates. Allowing a single trespass notice to apply across multiple locations within a franchise, a corporate group, or a chain of businesses is a logical evolution to the law and it will make a tangible difference to the front-line workers and store managers who are dealing with those recidivist offenders, and so for that reason, it’s a good start.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (17:07): It’s great to rise to speak on the first reading of the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and I wish the Justice Committee all the best as it goes through its select committee work. It reinforces, doesn’t it—this trespass bill led by Paul Goldsmith—just how much National is the law and order party. It shows just how much we’ve already done in cleaning up retail crime, cleaning up gang patches, and cleaning up ram raids, and now we’re looking at trespassing. I commend the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

DEPUTY SPEAKER (17:09): The question is, That the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Select Committee

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (17:09): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Trespass (Specified Retail Premises and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 3 August 2026.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:10): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

First Reading

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:11): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The law governing alcohol has drifted over time into something increasingly complex, bureaucratic, and disconnected from the harms it was designed to address. This bill is a necessary correction. It makes the licensing process fairer; cuts red tape for businesses, clubs, and events; and restores some common sense to a system that has lost its way.

The first major change limits who can object to a licence application or renewal. Under this bill, only those who live or work within the same council area, or within 1 kilometre of a proposed premises, will have standing to object. No one is denying that local communities deserve a voice, and this bill does not change that; what it does change is the absurdity of allowing anyone from anywhere in the country, or even overseas, to object to a licence application that they have no genuine stake in. It is the same toxic logic that makes it so hard to build anything in this country under our resource management laws.

I’ve spoken to business owners in Auckland dealing with objections filed from as far away as Invercargill. It costs nothing to object, but defending an application can cost tens of thousands of dollars. One venue spent $45,000 preparing its defence only for the objector to not even bother turning up to the hearing. Objection rights exist because local residents must live with the decision and cannot simply leave. An out-of-town objector always has a choice; the local resident does not. They don’t have to come from that town. The fundamental difference is the basis of this reform. National organisations based all over the country remain free to support locals who wish to engage. The process simply reflects who is actually affected. I thank my ACT Party colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar for her advocacy on this issue.

The bill also gives licence applicants a right of reply to objections raised against them. This is a matter of basic fairness. It also creates space for practical solutions. A live music venue, for example, could respond to noise concerns by providing evidence of soundproofing, allowing the business to open while addressing the objectors’ legitimate interests.

The bill prevents licence renewals from being declined solely because a local alcohol policy has changed. Businesses that have operated responsibly for years should not face sudden uncertainty when policy settings shift beneath them. District licensing committees would still be able to impose updated conditions, such as revised closing times, but could not refuse renewal outright on that basis alone.

This bill also removes unnecessary rigidity from the way licences operate. Clubs will be able to apply for an on-licence, rather than their only current option of an existing club licence, giving them far better flexibility. Under current law, clubs can only serve members, guests of members, or members of clubs with reciprocal rights. That means they cannot host public fundraisers, birthday parties, funerals, or community events that serve alcohol without applying for a special licence each and every time. These are significant revenue opportunities that are being turned away. No club will be forced to change; this is simply about giving them more choice. I thank Clubs New Zealand for their input and support of this change, which was also well received by their members when I spoke at their annual conference recently.

Restaurants with on-site retail areas will also be able to apply for an off-licence to sell take-home alcohol to customers, such as a bottle of wine at dinner enjoyed with their meal. This reflects how modern hospitality businesses actually operate, rather than forcing artificial separation. I was fortunate recently to visit La Bella Italia, in Petone, where they have campaigned for this common-sense change for years. This has also been backed by local MP the Hon Chris Bishop.

Special licensing decisions will be made under a new risk-based framework to be set out in the regulations. This will simplify and speed up the process, giving event organisers greater certainty about likely outcomes and conditions.

District licensing committees will also be required to consult each other on applications spanning multiple regions. Event organisers running a national series should not have to provide the same information multiple times to different committees. The creative and cultural sectors have been clear that inconsistent decisions create real costs. This reform promotes clarity and consistency.

The bill also establishes a permanent mechanism, via an Order in Council, to allow licensed premises to televise significant international events outside of normal trading hours, removing the need for bespoke legislation every time. Parliament has passed ad hoc laws for this purpose in 2015, 2019, and again in 2023. It was only thanks to the campaigning of my colleague the Hon David Seymour that pubs could open for Rugby World Cup games at the unusual hours that those tournaments were televised here. Each time, the exemption lapsed when the final whistle blew. Well, I’m pleased to finally call full time on that whistle and on this issue.

The bill removes small but telling examples of regulatory overreach. A barber or hairdresser who wants to serve a customer a single drink—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What about a manicure?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —currently requires a full-on licence. This is disproportionate for what is, by any reasonable measure, a very low-risk activity. Under this bill, a customer will be allowed one serving of alcohol, limited to once per day. It reduces compliance cost, while maintaining all existing safeguards against serving minors or intoxicated persons. Perhaps the member across the way—Dr Duncan Webb might vote for increasing that amount. It also extends cellar-door provisions beyond wineries, to breweries and distilleries. Currently, wineries are the only alcohol producers who can charge for samples without holding an on-licence. This bill fixes that inconsistency so that innovation in New Zealand’s beverage sector is not stifled by outdated legislative distinctions.

Lastly, the bill cuts red tape by updating the legal requirements around stocking zero-alcohol drinks. We are fixing minor issues not anticipated prior to the popularity of zero-alcohol drinks. At the same time, the bill strengthens clarity where genuine risk actually exists. Rapid alcohol delivery services will have clearer responsibilities to ensure that alcohol is not delivered to under-age or intoxicated persons. Current operators, as far as I’m aware, are already voluntarily meeting the spirit of the law. This reform ensures that standard is locked in and that any future entrant to the market is held to it from day one.

Taken together, these are sensible, moderate reforms. They remove red tape, they modernise the law, and they make the system work better in practice. The messages I’ve received are overwhelmingly positive, from the events, beer, wine, and hospitality sectors, and from Mike Hosking, who I’m told enjoys a good pinot noir.

Since introducing the bill, businesses and media have raised additional sale and supply of alcohol issues with me. Some of these will be addressed through the Ministry for Regulation’s hospitality review; for anything beyond that, I encourage submissions to the select committee. That process exists precisely to surface and scrutinise improvements. To those who have concerns: back the bill to select committee. Give it proper scrutiny and suggest improvements. That is how Parliament is supposed to work. As with all my bills, my door is open to any MP who would like to better understand the changes that are being made.

Alcohol is a legal product. The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders consume it without incident and without imposing costs on others. Where alcohol does cause real harm, violence, disorder, drink-driving, and harm to children, the State has both the right and the duty to act decisively, but restricting the freedom of everyone here because of a minority who behave badly is neither fair nor effective. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:21): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for making the offer of having a briefing on this particular bill, which is certainly one that we will be taking up. The sale of alcohol is a complex matter, and it’s complex because it’s not simply regulating an activity; it’s regulating a drug that has a serious impact on our community.

This bill has many different provisions in it, and some of them, we support, and others, we don’t support. I think one of the key aspects for us is, when Labour was last in Government, we passed amendments to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and these focused on localism. It focused on allowing communities and allowing people to take objections if they felt that additional licences being granted would impact the community that they’re a part of. We put these in place and also empowered the district licensing boards and made sure that there was a greater degree of say that people could have in alcohol licensing. What the Minister is asking us to do today is to reverse those changes so soon after they were put in place—only fully implemented in 2024, as I understand.

That is a very difficult thing for us, because the reason that the Labour Government decided to put those in place was because of important representations that were made to us at that time. That’s not to say that there aren’t positive aspects of this bill. The aspects around clubs and their guests seem sensible. The aspects around wineries—you’ll be aware we’ve had many members’ bills around alcohol; you may recall, I think it was Stuart Smith’s bill. I think my colleague Duncan Webb, at the time, suggested expanding that to breweries, meaderies—that’s a word you don’t often hear. Dr Webb was concerned they would be left out, and the Government has recognised that in this bill and included them, in terms of being able to charge for samples.

Additionally, the points that were made around special events—the Labour Party has often supported special licences for special events in order that they may be fully utilised and appreciated when they are held. We don’t object to that, but the fact of taking away much of the ability to object to alcohol being in your community is difficult for us. At this stage, it’s something that we don’t agree to.

The other thing I wanted to just flag that what we want to look into further at the select committee is the placement of zero-alcohol drinks. Now, zero-alcohol drinks—I totally understand that this was not something that was a big part of New Zealand life for a while. I enjoy a zero-alcohol beer myself; I think they’re a great product, and they have undoubtedly led to fewer people consuming alcohol in New Zealand. I think, because they are often branded in the same branding as full-strength alcohol—for example, a Heineken zero beside a soft drink, with no restrictions and treated as if it was a soft drink—there may be some problematic aspects of that.

I think that’s something that we need to look at at the select committee. We need to make sure that at the same time as we are acknowledging the existing of zero-alcohol beverages and wanting to move with the times in incorporating those into our liquor laws, we don’t end up in a situation where we’re inadvertently promoting—to people like children who will be in the supermarket wanting to buy a soft drink—the normalcy around consuming beer or other types of alcohol. These are serious issues, and that’s why there are significant regulations on alcohol and on the provision and sale of alcohol. I think this is something we will look to improve at the select committee. I look forward to the briefing from the Minister on this issue, but we do have serious concerns around bills like this that seek to liberalise alcohol provision and do, in our view, seek to take away the rights of members of the community to object to the provision of alcohol within their community.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kahurangi Carter—just in time. Just in time.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (17:26): Thank you Madam Speaker—Thursday afternoon—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Aw—it always happens on a Thursday. You’re not the first; you won’t be the last.

KAHURANGI CARTER: I appreciate it. There is a drug in this country that is the leading cause of death and morbidity—not just in Aotearoa but around the world. It costs an estimated $9.1 billion annually in drug-related harm, and this drug features significantly in emergency service callouts, many times where violence and aggression are involved. This drug is, of course, alcohol.

Now, we know that prohibition doesn’t work—it never has—but it is a crying shame that of all the alcohol-related harm laws that we need, this is what the Government is choosing to focus on. Out of everything that is needed to be done to reduce alcohol-related harm in our communities, this is a missed opportunity. The Minister has been crystal clear that this bill’s aim is about reducing “regulatory burden” and not about reducing harm. In 2023, it is estimated that alcohol-related harm cost New Zealand $9.1 billion. Harms include crime, misuse and addiction, non-communicable diseases like cancer, pancreatitis, diabetes, cardiovascular and liver disease, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; a loss of productivity, ACC costs, and unemployment. Overall, this bill will increase the availability of alcohol in our communities, including at off-licences, which cause the most alcohol-related harm. We should be reducing harm from alcohol, not promoting it to obtain economic growth, which is stated is also the point of this law.

In June 2025, the Christchurch City Council agreed on a new set of rules for how alcohol can be sold and supplied across the community called the Local Alcohol Policy—which we all know as the LAP. It took the hard work of Christchurch communities, who, throughout this process, consistently told councillors that the wider community wanted sensible local alcohol policy. The key aim of this hard-fought-for LAP, which came from the community, was to address 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 it is more likely that there will be an increase in harm in the community. After spending so much time, energy, and money on the LAP, this bill leaves the future of the LAP uncertain.

We’ve heard from the Alcohol Healthwatch over many, many years that we need to have sensible alcohol harm reduction laws. What successive Governments have failed to do—and been too scared to do—and what communities and public health experts, the ones who are on the front lines, have been calling politicians to do for decades, is for an overhaul of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The Law Commission told this House in 2010, as they told us about the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2012, “When are we, as a Government, willing to do the logical and consistent thing and regulate alcohol for drug harm reduction?” The Green Party have always and will always support sensible, evidence-based drug harm minimisation and this place, Parliament, needs to have the courage to do that. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (17:31): Yes, maybe we’ll just try and cheer up. It’s Easter tomorrow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, I’ve got the egg—look. [Holds up an easter egg]

TIM COSTLEY: People are even going to be allowed to drink, apparently. Look, I think there are some sensible things as I read this bill. Letting people have a chardonnay at the hairdresser—that’s not terrible. Letting some of the great distilleries in my region like The Bond Store and Imagination have both and on- and off-licence at the same time, and charge for samples; restaurants can have that as well—that makes sense to me.

But I think the thing everyone’s thinking about now, less than Easter and whether or not the alcohol laws are changing; they’re thinking about the Wootton Cup. Now, I know this is big. I know I’ve got people on the edge of their seat, but the Wootten Cup is obviously on 18 April—we all know that. This is where the Kapiti Boating Club take on the Waikanae Boating Club—I’m a member of the Kapiti Boating Club; I don’t have a boat and I don’t go fishing, but, still—they’re taking each other on. Now, those members could have a drink at their own club and wouldn’t have to get any special licences, but when they go to register at the Kapiti Boating Club on Friday they need to pay $330 for an extra one and then the same the next night when they have the after-match at Waikanae. This bill is all about simplifying those, and I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:32): That was quick, Madam Speaker. I rise behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. This bill is common sense and we like common-sense legislation. Look, I do agree with one thing that the Green Party have said, and that is that I do think it is time for us to have a good look at the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act across the board. What we’ve seen in this House, even in the time that I’ve been here, is multiple tinkering with the legislation, but it actually needs a good look overall. At the moment, the way in which it works—it’s complex, it’s uncertain, it’s expensive, and it’s bureaucratic.

I, for my sins, was a district licensing commissioner for one term as a councillor. It was interesting. It was a very bureaucratic process. What we saw—there were three particular things that I can recall—were crusades by some of the agencies. You know, whether it’s the Police—the Police in particular, in some cases—or the district licensing commissioners or the public health authorities trying to shut down elements of the industry. It didn’t matter how well the businesses were run, but they were still going to have a crack at them, to try and get less alcohol being sold—doesn’t matter by who.

The second thing was the difficulty in getting a local alcohol policy through the process, because on one hand, you had those agencies; on the other hand, you had the supermarkets and the on-licences. You were on a hiding for nothing because one or the other of them would appeal whatever decision you made.

But the third one I just wanted to raise is that some of the rules in there—and they are set by Government because Government’s so untrusting—were really, really arbitrary. There was one particular situation that I can recall where we had to say to a business that, because the largest item that they sold by turnover was Snapper—that is the Wellington public transport card—and it was slightly, slightly bigger—fractionally bigger—than the amount of food that they sold, we couldn’t give them a liquor licence. They had a choice between either giving up the ability to sell public transport cards or not getting a liquor licence. That is the way that this House had written the legislation. It wasn’t the way that the council was trying to run it; it was the way that this House had written the legislation. There are some things which are in that law which are bizarre and need to be fixed.

But what is in this bill? I think this bill makes some really good improvements and I just wanted to pick up a couple of them. The idea of ensuring that objections come from people who are actually affected by a liquor licence, or potentially affected by a liquor licence application, rather than live at the other end of the country, seems to make a whole lot of sense to me. The ability for the applicant to be able to effectively respond to those people who are accusing them of something, to reply to the objectors—again, makes a lot of sense to me as well. The idea, as Tim Costley said, of being able to have a civilised drink—whether it’s a chardonnay or pinot or whatever it might be—while you’re getting your hair cut seems to be a nice and civilised approach to the way in which we deal with alcohol and enjoy alcohol.

One that I did want to touch on, though, is the ability for a club to hold an on-licence. I don’t know quite what’s going on with your yachting clubs there, Tim Costley, but in the sports that I’ve tended to play—so, for example, football—you have the ability to have a reciprocal arrangement. You don’t have to do anything about it. It’s because you play at an away club that you’re able to go and have a drink there; they play at your club, they’re able to have a drink there because you’re part of the same competition. That’s a recognised approach. But one thing that clubs cannot do is sell alcohol to people who are not members of those clubs. At the club where I was chairman of for many years, we helped make the building work better, to have more people using a building—which is a good thing—to provide a service to the public, and also to help to pay for the operation of the club rooms, we sub-leased it to a cafe. The only problem was that the cafe could not sell alcohol, and one of the things which would have been of benefit would have been the cafe’s ability to be able to sell to members of the public who were enjoying a meal there. They couldn’t do that at the moment, so this, I think, will be a very positive initiative to support them.

Look, the last couple of things that I want to say is the idea of extending trading hours during significant televised events—it would be great to be able to get this legislation through by the time the World Cup is on, but I suspect that is probably a little bit too quick. The amendments relating to special licences make complete sense because that is just cost and bureaucracy. The idea of producer tasting rooms: picking up Stuart Smith’s legislation around wineries and cellar doors, but being able to extend that to other forms—you know, beer, wine, mead, etc. I did ask the Associate Minister of Justice there whether cideries were included in that, and we do need to actually check out whether they are included or not because they should be. The final thing is just to say it was nice to hear about certain restaurants being permitted to hold an off-licence, and the endorsement of La Bella Italia and the wonderful service they provide. I look forward to this legislation continuing and I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Vanessa Weenink—I knew someone else would do it this afternoon!

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: She didn’t even seek the call!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, I know. No, I’ve done it for one side; I’m going to do it for the other.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That’s very kind of you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I’m not going to do it for anyone else. Duncan Webb jumped up three times before to make sure he was on time. Dr Vanessa Weenink.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:38): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Madam Speaker.

Georgie Dansey: Madam Speaker—Duncan, it’s my turn!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll give the call to Georgie Dansey and you two can fight it out later.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (17:38): It’s good to take a call on the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill. I’m sorry to put a dampener on the day, but the Government did bring this bill at 5.30 on a Thursday before Easter, so we do need to talk about the serious nature of it. It’s impossible to discuss this bill without discussing alcohol harm and the impact it has on our communities. I stand to oppose this bill.

In essence, this bill is a windback of current alcohol harm prevention legislation at a time when alcohol harm is so prevalent in our society, we should be strengthening our alcohol harm laws, not deregulating them. Alcohol harm remains one of the most significant and longstanding public health challenges in Aotearoa and it shows up in so many ways that we are all familiar with. It shows up in our emergency departments, especially during peak drinking hours, pressure on our mental health and addiction services, family violence call-outs, road trauma statistics, lost productivity, interrupted education, and fractured relationships.

Alcohol harm affects not only those that drink but their whānau, communities, and neighbourhoods. It has a ripple effect that is far-reaching and long-lasting. Most importantly, alcohol harm does not fall evenly across society, we know that it is concentrated in communities already facing multiple pressures, including economic hardship, lower access to services, and historical inequalities. This reality tells us something really crucial, which is that harm is not simply a personal choice; it is deeply connected to environment, availability, affordability, and power. The issue with this bill is that it is an incremental step towards deregulation of alcohol laws. Previous speakers have talked about it being a small change, but every small change results in more harm, and the more small changes we have, the more harm that is created. When alcohol is cheap, heavily promoted, densely available, and poorly regulated, harm increases. When communities have little say over these factors, harm is entrenched.

Last week, I had the privilege to attend a Communities Against Alcohol Harm (CAAH) conference in Hamilton. CAAH plays a really critical role in supporting people to engage with alcohol-licensing processes in communities. And it’s really clear, from listening to the experts at that conference, how much alcohol harm really affects Hamilton and the wider Waikato, and how much this bill will add to that harm.

The annual cost of alcohol-related harm in 2024 was $9.1 billion—on a health system which is already under so much pressure. Our health system just cannot afford to loosen anymore regulations around alcohol, which is what this bill is doing. This bill seeks to unwind the good work that previous legislation has done to protect people.

One of the tools the last Labour Government put in place was an amendment bill on community participation, which increased that community participation, and this bill is a step to unwinding it. Previous speakers have talked about how community input is not going away, it’s just being restricted—but we need to look at this lens from a Te Tiriti perspective, allowing hapū and iwi to contribute.

One of the examples that I heard from a speaker at the conference I attended was if you have a shared-care parenting situation and the school is in the middle of those two houses and one parent lives within that 1 kilometre and one parent lives outside, the second parent cannot have a say on whether there’s an alcohol shop put within the radius of their child’s school, and that’s not OK. We need to be able to ensure community input is in-depth and goes beyond a 1-kilometre radius.

Look, the main issue with this bill is that reducing regulation and reducing community voice from decision making causes more alcohol harm in our community. Labour opposes this bill and hopes to see significant changes in the committee stage.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (17:43): This bill makes the licensing process fairer, makes it easier to host events, and gets rid of a whole lot of red tape—red tape that gets in the way of everything, from hairdressers to events. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:43): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. The last speaker’s contribution—Suze Redmayne, who’s looking great because she’s probably been to the hairdresser where she can now have a glass of wine. That’s the triviality of it, right? It just strikes me as extraordinary that we’ve got an amendment here before the House so that you can have a glass of wine at your hairdresser’s. And it shows the irrationality of some of these changes, because, as I mentioned to the Associate Minister of Justice, what about if you’re having a manicure? Can you have one when you’re having a massage? Here we’ve got a little carve-out for hairdressers so you can have a glass of wine at the hairdresser’s, and that’s the kind of triviality that this Government—but alcohol, as Georgie Dansey so articulately put, is an important issue.

One thing that strikes me as really strange is that if we look at substance abuse across the board, we’ve got health dealing with smoking, police dealing with other drugs, and justice dealing with alcohol. There’s no integrated policies around, essentially, substance abuse, so here we are talking about alcohol harm in a justice space, where it’s a conversation where we’re talking past each other.

What I do want to say is that across also those substances which cause harm, the most important thing is community voice and community say. One of the very intentional things that this legislation does is it undermines the ability of a community to have meaningful input into how and where alcohol is supplied in its neighbourhoods. We see, essentially, local alcohol plans being undermined by a gold-plated grandparenting system, whereas if a local alcohol plan is put in place, it doesn’t change any licence which has already been issued. We know that licences can last and be renewed time and time again, so it makes the local alcohol plan largely meaningless.

We also heard that objectors must live within a kilometre of the licensed premises. No matter where else their community is, whether their church is next door to or their kindergarten is across the road of the licensed premises, it relates to where they live—and it must be an arbitrary 1 kilometre. Of course, if you’re an advocacy group, that’s going to cut you out of the conversation, and we rely on civil society groups to give voice to wider concerns, particularly in communities which are not particularly articulate.

Then there’s the other point, and there is an analogy here with smoking, and that is the zero-alcohol beers being able to be displayed alongside other products and not in the alcohol-only area. Now, you can’t sell Pall Mall branded candy or Benson & Hedges branded clothing.

Simon Court: Why not?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, the reason is very clear: because brand is what selling products is about. And if we’re going to get to zero smoking, we don’t want to promote those brands. If we have alcohol brands, beer brands, sitting there at the checkout, for example, what we are doing is giving a classic marketing opportunity to something that we want to limit. We are going to have our children pointing to the candy which is sitting next to a Heineken, and they’ll think, “Oh, I wonder what that is. That looks flash. I’ll try that next time.” There is a real issue there, because we accept that alcohol is harmful and we need to limit its sale and its consumption, particularly by young people. But by allowing branded beer products which are branded almost identically to alcoholic products, you are, essentially, by subterfuge, promoting alcohol to the whole community, including young people. I think there’s a very important conversation to be had about that change.

There are some trivial bits in here, but there are also some really important things. The limitation on community voice is probably at the heart of it and the most dangerous thing, but also those wider availability points are important as well. Once again, another bill that will probably go to the Justice Committee—I don’t know what the other committees do—I look forward to having a look at it.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (17:48): I rise in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill in this first reading. We have a heard a lot about alcohol harm. Yes, it is a drug; it does cause harm. But what actually has been missed by a lot of the speakers is parts of this bill are tightening up the alcohol availability, including clarifying responsibilities for rapid delivery services, which will reduce the risk of delivery to intoxicated and under-age people. It is making common-sense changes to our law; therefore I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

DEPUTY SPEAKER (17:50): The question is, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 February.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we were last on this piece of legislation, we were up to call No. 3. I call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:51): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a call on this particular financial bill. As the second reading, one of the things we are looking at is that, first of all, I want to thank the FEC—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—in terms of the examination of this bill and all of the people who have submitted on this bill.

Now, this is one of those bills where, from a Green Party perspective, we do support the bill, as well as the context around this bill. It’s one of three related bills in terms of financial services, and I think one of the things that we are looking at with this omnibus bill is to amend provisions in the bill that allow us to have minimal requirements for fair conduct programmes, on-site inspection powers, as well as the Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA) approval requiring for certain changes. I’m going to talk about the bill and the select committee and the hearings we’ve had first, before going on to one of the more important things, which is around Amendment Paper 446. I think that’s an important thing to mention as one of the things the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has introduced just shortly before finishing the bill.

One of the first things we’re looking at in terms of this is that clause 4(4) of this bill would insert a definition of the price in section 6 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act and also in terms of the FMA’s approval requiring for certain changes. As I mentioned before, we are looking at significant transactions and amalgamations of this bill. We have received a submission that the new sections 421C and 421D appears to require approval from the FMA, even if the proposed action is not relevant or governed by the Act licensing regime. With that, we would have heard—and what the committee has decided on is amending section 421C so that approval will not be required for non-licensed businesses.

I think this is really important when it comes to the ultimate purpose of this bill and a lot of things that are related to the changes to the Financial Markets Authority are around some of the clarifications, and also allowing for that level of transparency and accountability when it comes to the process itself.

With the other parts of this bill, I think there are also other parts where the FMA—the Financial Markets Authority—would also need to consider various parts of the requests. Again, similarly to what I mentioned before, also in other parts of section 421I and 421J around this is around the consideration for the reporting on the proposal and also consideration for requests for approval—whether a licensee or authorised body will still meet the requirements and also the consultation with the Reserve Bank if a licensee or an authorised body was a regulated entity.

Now, one of the other things that the select committee heard during the select committee process—and I, unfortunately, was not one of the people who oversaw this bill through the select committee stage—was also around the nature of the conditions that the FMA may impose. In this case, when we were looking at approval given by the FMA under new Subpart 3A, we’re looking at things that are prescribed by both regulations, but also that relate to matters prescribed in those regulations. I think, in this case—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Come on, Lawrence.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —when we’re looking at—huh?

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Come on.

Suze Redmayne: Happy Easter, Lawrence. Come on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: In terms of, what? In terms of this bill? Look, I think this is an important bill to discuss. While it may not be the most exciting of the bills—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: You’re filling in. Come on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I know this is not the most exciting of the bills, maybe, but it is an important bill, and I think it’s worthwhile to also acknowledge the people who have submitted during the select committee stage to get to where we are right now.

But with that, I do want to say that when we’re looking at the nature of the conditions that the FMA impose, I mentioned before that you get the ones that are prescribed by regulations but also related to matters prescribed in those regulations. I think part of the select committee process was we wanted to see more certainty around the nature of those conditions that the FMA should impose, and the amendments did take place during the select committee stage. Again, when we’re looking at even the amendments going through the select committee, even the amendments as well were approved unanimously, which also shows the collegial elements of this bill as it went through the FEC.

But when it comes to the conditions the FMA imposes, it is important to note that based on the hearings during the select committee—and I’m sure other people will be able to provide more detail around this—that there is the recommendation to amend part of that to impose non-licensed conditions of approval relating to the requirements, but also “vary, revoke, add to, or substitute any conditions” of a licence imposed on the licensed person.

There was also the conversation that was had during the select committee stage that there should be more certainty around the procedural requirements, which also we see in some amendments as a result of that in this tracked change version of the bill following the select committee.

I think the main crux of this that I want to draw the House’s attention on is Amendment Paper 446 by the Minister, which is around climate-related disclosures. I think that is, particularly for the Green Party, an important aspect to consider where “The climate-related disclosure regime requires financial markets entities above a certain size to report on their climate-related risks and opportunities in annual climate statements.” This, I think, is something, from what I can see, that didn’t manage to get the hearing from the public, so it’s probably one of those things that, while we had a chance to examine it during the select committee stage, it might also deserve additional attention during the committee of the whole House stage, so that we’re able to ask the Minister and potentially the officials that support the Minister on this particular Amendment Paper in more detail.

But, in essence, this particular part was part of a Cabinet decision to modify the climate-related disclosures regime and the Minister in charge of this bill has asked the FEC to consider the changes. As a result of that, the select committee has also agreed to make certain changes to the proposed Amendment Paper 446, which is particularly around removing the “prohibition on unsubstantiated representations for climate reporting entities that comply with climate standards”. Also in terms of inserting an additional clause which would mean that the “provisions exempt listed issuers with securities quoted only on a growth market from preparing climate statements.” In this case, unfortunately, because we didn’t get a chance to hear from the public on the changes, there is a—

Hon Member: Make it stop.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry? I thought that members on the other side mentioned something in terms of the select committee process. But because of the fact that this particular Amendment Paper 446 wasn’t examined in full detail and we weren’t able to hear from the public fully on this part, because it does deviate quite a bit from what we see in other parts of the bill, it is something that, as the Greens, we are concerned whether some of the changes to the climate reporting requirements are actually going to have the kind of outcome we want to see in terms of having—particularly when it comes to the reduction in the climate change reporting obligations, whether it is able to achieve the kind of requirements or the kind of obligations that Aotearoa New Zealand really should be looking at in terms of our climate change targets under the Paris Agreement.

Again, like I said, this is something that we would be spending a fair bit of time on as part of the committee of the whole House stage coming up. But in terms of the rest of the bill, this is something that we have supported and we are looking forward to the committee of the whole House stage. With that, we recommend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 April 2026. Happy Easter.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.