Thursday, 23 April 2026
Sitting date: 23 April 2026
Thursday, 23 April 2026
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Start of Sitting Day
Karakia/Prayers
BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker) (14:00): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Business of the House
Business Statement
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (14:01): Next week, the House will consider the remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill and the associated anti - money laundering and countering financing of terrorism amendment bills. The hours of Tuesday will extend into Wednesday for Government Business, and Wednesday afternoon will be a members’ day.
Presentation
Papers
SPEAKER (14:01): No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Improving the public service’s capability to engage with Māori. This paper is published under the authority of the House.
Select Committee Reports
SPEAKER (14:01): Two select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK (14:01):
Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:
Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2025
Report of the Ombudsman, Children in care: complaints to the Ombudsman 2019-2023, February 2024
SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Oral Questions to Ministers
Finance
Question No. 1
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:02) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance) (14:02): In context, yes.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is unemployment higher or lower since she came into office?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member knows the answer to that. What is important is that the Government has a plan to build the productive capacity of this economy, and what is definitely true is that the Government’s plan for growth and prosperity can be contrasted against the Opposition’s plan, which so far consists of 16 pages released publicly—much of which just contain graphics and photos.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is New Zealand’s credit outlook better or worse since she took office?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Government is grappling with the legacy left to it by the previous regime, which saw debt double, Government spending increase by 50 percent during a six-year period, and wasteful, wanton spending, fiscal largesse that the country and this generation and the next generation to come will have to repay.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are business liquidations higher or lower since she came into office?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: If the member’s point is that the New Zealand economy should be doing better, then, of course, the answer to that is “yes”. Of course the Government wants the economy to grow and to drive higher living standards for New Zealanders, but, as the member, I think, forgets—or is not aware—the legacy bequeathed to this Government from the last hopeless regime takes time to turn around. It is not acceptable for the Opposition to expect immediate improvements when they left the books in such a hopeless state.
SPEAKER: No, hang on. That last part of the answer wasn’t particularly helpful to the order of the House.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals higher or lower since she took office?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, they are higher, and people who are withdrawing money on hardship basis from their KiwiSaver accounts should blame the previous Government for their reckless mismanagement—
SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, sit down.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Take responsibility for a change!
SPEAKER: When a question is started, no one speaks.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she found at least one family who has received the full $250 that was promised to them?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, many families around this country are better off as a result of the Government’s tax-setting changes and the FamilyBoost scheme that is providing much relief to hard-working Kiwi families at a time of hardship for many.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the reason why she didn’t give a direct answer on any of these questions because—
SPEAKER: You can’t get upset about the answers. I’ve been pretty clear about the content of answers. If you’re going to make statements like that, there’s a different way of wording it. Just find that different way.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why won’t she give a direct answer on any of these questions; is that because she knows, on every single one of those measures, things are worse, not better?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll tell you what I do know to be the case. I do know that this Government came to office at a time of great hardship for New Zealanders; I know that this Government’s prudent fiscal management is setting New Zealand up for success; I know that this Government’s record, in comparison to the past Government’s record, compares very favourably; and I know that this Government has a plan for the future of New Zealand, and I know that the Opposition doesn’t.
Infrastructure
Question No. 2
NANCY LU (National) (14:07) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening New Zealand’s infrastructure system?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (14:07): Yesterday, I announced five changes to how we improve assurance of infrastructure projects. We are simplifying assurance by having one tool that is focused on what Ministers need to make investment decisions. We’re transferring responsibility over assurance from the Treasury to the independent, expert Infrastructure Commission. Ministers will now get a two- or three-page fitness assessment for business cases seeking Cabinet endorsement. The fourth is we are setting up a dedicated assurance function for asset management plans and long-term investment plans, and the fifth is giving key Ministers more oversight of major projects before they go to Cabinet for decisions. The aim is to avoid projects like the new Dunedin Hospital build and iReX in the future.
Nancy Lu: Why are changes to infrastructure assurance needed?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There is nothing more frustrating as a Minister than turning up to Cabinet or Cabinet committees and being presented with long, turgid papers filled with business cases asking for billions of dollars of expenditure. The reality is Ministers are not experts in building prisons or building roads, but they are expected—and we are expected—to make decisions about billions of dollars’ worth of investment without high-quality, accurate, and concise information. Unfortunately, the reality has been for New Zealand Governments of successive stripes to let investments move through the system with bad projects gaining momentum until it’s too late. In the meantime, tens of hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted on business cases designed for phantom projects. It’s clear that the system has been underperforming for all Ministers and Governments of all stripes. This Government is determined to fix it, and that’s what we’re doing.
Nancy Lu: What will these changes mean for Ministers, taxpayers, and the sector?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s good news all round. The changes mean that Ministers can confidently say yes or no to projects and long-term capital plans early, knowing that their decisions are informed by evidence and expert advice. For taxpayers, they mean more projects that meet the needs of taxpayers and represent good value for money. It also means the public can use these tools to hold Ministers to account for decision making. For the sector, it will mean less stopping and starting of projects, because good projects will rise to the top and unrealistic, unfunded projects quickly sink to the bottom. For central government, it will mean they have to lift their game on asset management plans, asset registers, data collection, and reporting, and monitor their assets and their long-term investment plans more accurately and more seriously.
Nancy Lu: What feedback has he seen on these changes?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Very positive feedback. Infrastructure New Zealand said that “Strengthening independent oversight is long overdue … the public deserves confidence that these decisions are well-tested, properly prioritised, and deliver long-term value.” New Zealand’s lead association for infrastructure asset management professionals, Āpōpō, also welcomed the changes. I agree with both their remarks, and it’s great to see the sector responding to this Government’s clear statement of direction and priorities.
Immigration
Question No. 3
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:10) to the Minister of Immigration: Do migrant bus drivers deserve clear, practical pathways to residency; if so, will she review the requirements for the Work to Residence pathway for bus drivers so that they can remain in the country?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration) (14:11): Migrant bus drivers who applied for a work visa between September 2023 and April 2024 already have a clear and practical pathway to residence to through the Transport Work to Residence visa. It’s clear because the requirements for residence have been known for the last three years. It’s practical because it requires a person to only work as a bus driver for two years before they can apply for residence. It’s also generous because bus drivers are also able to apply for a further two-year work visa. This gives them a total of five years working in New Zealand to meet residence requirements.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with Greater Wellington Regional Council’s concerns that without changes to the immigration settings for bus drivers, driver shortages could return as soon as this year?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: No, I don’t, and I want to quote the Metlink manager telling councillors to stop fretting when he said that he was extremely confident that there was no risk to the service, that they have good domestic recruitment plans, and they were training people through the system well. Furthermore, I have been advised by my officials that a number of bus companies currently looking to recruit are receiving more applications than they have vacancies for from New Zealand residents and citizens, and they’re not having any recruitment issues.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the Bus and Coach Association chief executive, who said that bus drivers don’t need academic-level English to do a good job and that she wanted the Government to lower the requirements, and if not, why not?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: It is important, and it has been a longstanding agreement, that a certain level of English is required—
Tamatha Paul: University-level English.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: —for residence in this country. It’s not university-level English, as the member is saying; it is literally the base level you need to be able to study at university. It is a long-held policy in this country, since the early 2000s, that a high level of English is required to settle well in New Zealand and to gain residence. That goes for any migrant who wants to come to this country, and that is exactly the same for bus drivers. In this case, when this policy was set in 2023, the residence requirement setting for English was known by the people who came into the country, and there is five years for them to gain that level of English to settle well in New Zealand, as we expect.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question?
Ricardo Menéndez March: Supplementary?
SPEAKER: Third question here—we always take three.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He’s already had three.
SPEAKER: No, he hasn’t. I’m counting.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the point of expecting bus drivers to be able to write essays under time pressure, and how is that relevant to the tough job of driving buses?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already said, this is not about driving a bus—and certainly a level of English to drive a bus is very important. What we are testing is their ability to gain residence. We expect, in this country, since the early 2000s a required level of English to settle well in New Zealand. It may well be the Green Party policy for a low level of English, and if you’ve got a criminal record, and if you’ve got poor health, you can get residence in New Zealand, but that is not the expectation of most New Zealanders.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister agree that operators should train and employ New Zealanders as bus drivers, and what steps is she taking so employers do not use immigration as an excuse not to train our own people first?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: That is an excellent question, and as I’ve already stated in previous answers, the bus companies are having more New Zealanders apply for positions than they have vacancies for. New Zealand immigration policy is always about putting New Zealanders first and filling skills shortages where we need to. In that respect, we’ve put in place a range of policies to ensure that that exactly is the case.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Why does she expect a higher English requirement standard of migrant bus drivers than for wealthy golden visa applicants?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: There is across New Zealand, when you apply for residence, a set level of English, and it goes for whichever occupation you are in. There is a separate, different visa for our Active Investor Plus Visa (AIPV) holders—or our golden visa holders—and, as I said in the media yesterday, for those, many of them may not spend much time in New Zealand because they are global people with huge access to capital, knowledge, and skills, and they are bringing immense benefit to New Zealanders. In this case, when people are on an AIPV, regardless of what they are doing, we expect them to have—and have done so since 2003, I believe—a high level of English in order to have good integration into New Zealand because they are going to be living in New Zealand permanently.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will she remind the questioner that protocols and procedures set out by the Government are required to be followed and not dodged, like some people do?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are important things that are set out in immigration instructions around character, English language, health, and a range of other things that need to be met in order to gain residence in New Zealand, and if anyone is dodging those, then Immigration New Zealand will usually eventually find out and hold them to account.
Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she claim that migrant bus drivers need to have an academic level of English to settle adequately into the country when she does not expect that same standard of wealthy investors who may be settling into the country, as well?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: They are two entirely different visa categories that we treat completely differently. One is an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV); one is an investor migrant programme. With everyone who comes in on an AEWV, we have a set level of English that is required for residence which has been set since the early 2000s and that this Government does not have any plans to change because it is important for settlement in New Zealand.
Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti
Question No. 4
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:17) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he believe that the review of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi will improve Māori-Crown relations, and, if so, how?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) (14:17): The review of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is an agreed part of coalition arrangements, and without the coalition we would continue to have the same ambiguity and inconsistency that has pervaded and permeated drafting of these types of references in previous years. Now, Māori-Crown relations will improve more if we have clarity in legislation and practicality in outcomes, and that’s what good kāwanatanga is about. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just—
Hon Willie Jackson: You wouldn’t have a clue.
SPEAKER: Oh, we’re not going to have that across-the-House stuff any further on this.
Hon Willie Jackson: Well, talk to him.
SPEAKER: No, no. Mr Jackson, I will talk to the whole House. If I talk to people specifically, as I just have, that is to be taken as some warning that the time in the House might be shorter today than on most other days.
Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister, why does he support this review when Cabinet’s own paper concedes there will likely be more litigation, more tribunal claims, more costs, and more damage to the Māori-Crown relationship?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The review and this mahi is not yet over. We have still got to go through a process, including engagement with various groups, iwi leaders, and others, some of which has already been undertaken by my erstwhile colleague “Mete-kōura”—Minister Goldsmith. But, as the member opposite is aware, this was part of the coalition arrangements in order for us to perform good kāwanatanga, rather than having us end up with the parties opposite in these seats.
Hon Willie Jackson: How does ignoring official advice warning that repealing Treaty obligations would have wide-ranging impacts on Māori interests improve the Māori-Crown relationship?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Might I refer to my excellent colleague Minister Brown’s mahi in the health space. Notwithstanding some of the mahi that has been undertaken in relation to Treaty principles and references therein, the immunisation rate of two-year-old Māori has actually improved under this Government, and he has actually improved a range of other indictors in the health space, notwithstanding all of the gobbledegook, and vague and ambiguous wording that parties opposite had interred in legislation in days gone by.
Hon Willie Jackson: Is the advisory group wrong when it suggests that references to Treaty principles now have 50 years—50 years—of jurisprudence behind them and that changing them would likely increase legal uncertainty rather than decrease it, and, if so, will he demand that the review be cremated and buried like the Treaty principles bill?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, there have been references to Treaty principles for over 50 years in legislation, but there is a great responsibility on us as coalition partners to review some of the references to the Treaty of Waitangi principles—some of the references to the Treaty of Waitangi principles. But what we won’t do is use the principles of the Treaty or the Treaty—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—itself as a Trojan horse for the type of socialism that that member peddles in this precinct.
SPEAKER: The—[Interruption] Just hang on. Everyone settle right down.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister agree with past esteemed Māori leaders like Pomare, Ngata, Carroll, and Buck that the Treaty has three articles—they’re not principles—and that New Zealand is a country of New Zealanders promoting self-improvement for everybody, not separatist grifting on the taxpayers’ pocket?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The rangatira has spoken, and he’s also mentioned three outstanding Te Aute College graduates. “Whakatangata kia kaha”—“Acquit yourselves like men, be strong”. I acknowledge that there are three articles in the Treaty of Waitangi, and there are on the nine versions of the Treaty that adorn my wall in the Beehive—long may that continue, for the next nine years. There’s also a number of principles enunciated through Waitangi Tribunal reports and judicial comments throughout previous years. Kia ora.
Hon Willie Jackson: Can the Minister name a single iwi or hapū or Māori organisation—just one—that told him that the review will improve Māori-Crown relationships?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: What I can do is name a number of iwi leaders who are very disappointed with the performance of the spokesperson on Māori-Crown relations on that side of the House.
Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order.
SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon—
Hon Willie Jackson: There’s no addressing of the question.
SPEAKER: Wait, wait—slow, slow.
Hon Willie Jackson: It was a clear question, and he didn’t even come anywhere near to addressing it.
SPEAKER: Yeah; think about how you asked it, I think. You can ask it—
Hon Willie Jackson: Should I ask it again?
SPEAKER: Ask it again, yeah.
Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, thank you very much.
SPEAKER: No trouble.
Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, that’s great. Can this Minister name one single Māori organisation, hapū, iwi—just one—who told him that this review will improve Māori-Crown relationships—just one?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yesterday, our coalition Government convened the accord hui with Ngāti Raukawa ki Wharepūhunga in Tokoroa. Not once did Kataraina Hodge and Maria Te Kanawa, the chair and the CEO of that outstanding iwi in the heart of Waikato-Tainui—Waikato, Maniapoto, Raukawa; go the Chiefs!—mention the review of the references to the principles of Waitangi. But what they were absolutely enamoured by, they were absolutely energised by, they were absolutely enthusiastic around the outcomes that this Government is actually deploying into places like Tokoroa, which this Government has focused on in the last three years.
Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, so that’s none. OK.
SPEAKER: The—
Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Hang on, wait—[Interruption] Hang on, the whole House just needs to calm down.
Hon Willie Jackson: Why doesn’t the Minister just admit that the real reason he is pressing ahead with these policies is in the vain attempt that the Prime Minister will be able to finally remember his name?
SPEAKER: I think—
Hon TAMA POTAKA: My name will be here much longer than Willie Jackson’s.
SPEAKER: No, no—sit down. Yeah, just so we’re all clear, the question was out of order, and the answer certainly didn’t help order. But we’ll call that a day and we’ll go on to question No. 5.
Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was on New Zealand national television—
SPEAKER: No, no—sit down.
Hon Willie Jackson: Couldn’t remember his name.
SPEAKER: No, sit down.
Hon Willie Jackson: It’s a fair question.
SPEAKER: Sit down. I just want to tell you, Mr Jackson, I know your name, and I’m very close to using it in a context that’s not very good.
Education
Question No. 5
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (14:25) to the Minister of Education: What assurances, if any, can she give to the Wai 3553 claimants that her education reforms will not risk long-term harm for Māori learners?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:25): As proceedings for Wai 3553 are currently under way, I won’t be commenting on matters related to the claim, as I wish to respect the tribunal’s opportunity to consider all evidence carefully before reporting. I can, however, give assurances to all New Zealanders that raising achievement for Māori students is at the heart of my work programme.
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Will she commit to immediately halting her education reforms until the Waitangi Tribunal completes its inquiry and delivers its recommendations and she can assure the Wai 3553 claimants that she will meaningfully engage with Māori and the education sector before continuing with these reforms?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I will not be doing that, because as I said earlier, raising achievement for Māori students, for tamariki Māori, is at the heart of everything that we are doing. After decades of decline and stagnant, persisting gaps in achievement that everyone else has been ignoring, this Government is investing—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s enough down the end there.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: This Government is finally investing in a bilingual education system more equitably than any other Government that I can remember. That is about raising achievement for Māori students. If you want to talk about the opposite of long-term harm for Māori students, it’s what we are investing today into our bilingual education system.
Internal Affairs
Question No. 6
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (14:26) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcement has she made about a new Anzac initiative with Archives New Zealand and the National Library?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (14:27): Yesterday, I launched Anzac Stories with Archives New Zealand and the National Library. Anzac Stories is a new website providing Kiwi kids access to historically accurate and engaging content created by Archives New Zealand and the National Library from their collections. The stories are of real people, places, animals, and items and are designed with the help of students from Belmont School in Lower Hutt and Adventure School in Porirua. Anzac Stories incorporates games, quizzes, and facts, and I’d encourage all parents of nine- to 13-year-old children to interact with this website this Anzac Day.
Cameron Luxton: How will this initiative benefit Kiwis?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I asked Archives and the National Library to undertake this project to encourage Kiwi children to be engaged in learning about an important part of our nation’s history and to give them access to the rich collections of Archives New Zealand and the National Library. It is an increasingly digital world. Many of us, especially children, consume information online. While seeing the physical archives and library collection items is wonderful when you do have the opportunity, many of our national records, including our war records, have been digitised. I wanted Kiwis to see the benefit from that work and be able to interact with it, and this fully online resource gives children and their families access to historically accurate archival information in a way that appeals to them.
Cameron Luxton: What are some of the features of the site?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Anzac Stories features written stories supported by quizzes, games, photographs, maps, timelines, and interactive elements that encourage exploration and learning in a fun way. There’s what is called the challenge hub, which holds all of the quizzes and games from each of the stories in one place. This feature was particularly popular with the students who tested the site and resulted in fierce competition to see who could get the highest scores. One of my personal favourite features is the guide to the site, a little white mouse inspired by the New Zealand - born spy Nancy Wake, who earned the nickname “White Mouse” during World War II because she was so difficult to capture. The White Mouse carries the viewer through Anzac Stories, giving useful historical tidbits along the way.
Cameron Luxton: What is the significance of children being able to access and engage with Anzac history?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It’s important for us not to forget our past. Anzac Stories are stories of courage, sacrifice, service, and bravery, and it shows the impact war has on individuals and communities. They have shaped who we are as a nation, and particularly with the Anzacs. The Anzac story should not be forgotten. Anzac Stories will help children further understand New Zealand’s place in history, why we commemorate Anzac Day, and the impact these conflicts had on real people, real New Zealanders. I encourage families and children to try it out this Anzac Day by visiting the home page of the National Library’s website. If I may also take this time to pay my respects to those who have served and continue to serve.
Tertiary Education
Question No. 7
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (14:30) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What actions, if any, has she taken to support tertiary institutions and students impacted by the ongoing fuel crisis and rising cost of living?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:30) on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education: Our Government has always acknowledged that many Kiwis have been doing it tough during a cost of living challenge and the fuel crisis. The Government continues to support students through student allowances and loans and other settings, and continues to expect tertiary institutions to understand the needs of their students and support them, including through hardship funds. The Government is working with tertiary institutions to understand their fuel needs.
Shanan Halbert: Is she aware that universities are having to pay out of pocket to help staff through the ongoing crisis, given the Government won’t do anything to help?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, the Government’s been very clear in terms of how the support during the fuel crisis should be temporary, targeted, and time-bound to not create a period of high inflation that we are still recovering from that the last Government had. We’re clear about the fact that institutions are independent organisations and if they choose to support their staff, that is a matter for them.
Shanan Halbert: What support, if any, is being provided to regional students, including apprentices who need to travel in a car for their qualification?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, those who are in apprenticeships are of course employed and it might be a matter for the employers if they seek assistance. The other thing that we would encourage of tertiary institution providers, as always, is to consider the needs of their students and to make adjustments if they need to.
Shanan Halbert: Is she aware that by not offering any help through this crisis, she is heaping more financial pressure on universities and polytechnics?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, we’re very clear that the fuel crisis that has been imposed on New Zealand by the conflict in the Middle East is having an impact on a number of organisations, and, like many organisations across the country, they’re having to make adjustments based on these sets of circumstances that we have no influence over.
Shanan Halbert: Is she aware that at the same time, by not funding enough domestic enrolments, she is heaping more financial pressure on universities and on polytechnics?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, not sure that I agree with all of the assertions in that question, but we have challenging times facing the country that, in terms of the fuel crisis, are of no making of any decision that this Government or anyone in New Zealand has made, and organisations from one end of New Zealand to the other are having to make adjustments. Tertiary institutions are no different.
Shanan Halbert: How does she expect students to succeed in their studies when they’re facing reduced opportunities and increased cost of living pressures with no extra support?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, on 1 April, 52,000 students received an increase in their student allowance. But I accept that the cost of living and the fuel price increase is having an impact across the country. Our Government maintains that the support that we provide must be temporary, targeted, and time-bound, otherwise everybody is impacted and—
Shanan Halbert: So no support—no support for students.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I want the House to just consider the fact that the group of students are one of the most vulnerable groups. When there are extended periods of high inflation and high interest rates, who does it hurt the most? Students.
Health
Question No. 8
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (14:34) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about expanding the role for community pharmacists?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:34): The Government recently announced that from June it will be easier and more affordable for patients to get treatment for a range of common health conditions, with expanded services proposed to be delivered through community pharmacists. Health New Zealand’s proposing that participating pharmacists be able to provide funded medicines for children and their families for pain and fever management, oral rehydration, and common conditions such as scabies, headlice, and conjunctivitis. The proposal also covers treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections and emergency contraception. This will reduce the need for GP visits for straightforward conditions; lower costs for families; and improve access to care, particularly where GP waits are too long.
Sam Uffindell: How will these changes benefit families?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: These changes can give New Zealanders a practical and convenient alternative when GP appointments are not immediately available. Pharmacists are highly trained health professionals, so instead of waiting for a GP appointment or paying full over-the-counter costs for medications, parents will be able to visit a local pharmacy, receive a consultation, and access funded treatment on the spot. Pharmacies are among the most accessible health services. Expanding their role will improve local availability of funded treatment and care for these conditions, ensuring patients get timely care while easing pressure on general practice.
Sam Uffindell: What impact will this announcement have on access to healthcare in rural and high - health needs communities?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, pharmacies are often among the most accessible health services in many communities, particularly in rural and high-needs communities. Allowing pharmacists to supply funded medications for these common conditions will help in those communities where it’s difficult to see a GP quickly and ensure people can receive treatment closer to their home. To support delivery, Health New Zealand has established a $5 million per year extended pharmacy services fund to help ensure these services are available nationwide.
Sam Uffindell: How does this initiative support the wider health system?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: This initiative is about making better use of the highly trained health workforce we have across the country. By enabling pharmacists to manage common conditions, we free up GPs to focus on more complex cases, reducing pressure across the system and ensuring patients receive the right care at the right time. It is a practical, common-sense step to improve access, affordability, and efficiency in our health system. We are fixing the basics and building the future of our health system here in New Zealand.
Question No. 3 to Minister
Amended Answer to Oral Question
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration) (14:37): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer to question No. 3 today.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to question No. 3 I said the transport residence pathway was for bus drivers who’d applied for a work visa between September 2023 and April 2024. I meant to say it was for any bus driver who applied for a work visa before 7 April 2024.
Health
Question No. 9
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (14:37) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent reports has she seen on illicit tobacco?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (14:37): Last week, Retail NZ released a report outlining their assessment of the emerging threat posed by illicit tobacco. It said that an illicit tobacco market already existed and is only going to grow. Recent customs seizures and media reporting recognise this growing illicit market. This reinforces what the Government has been saying all along. We recognise an illicit market is a real threat to a smokefree New Zealand. It also reduces revenue collection used to fund Government services, and I’d stress that it allows organised crime groups to line their pockets and expand their reach in our communities. We need a strong, proactive approach to addressing this challenge, and that’s what we are currently working on with officials and agencies.
Internal Affairs
Question No. 10
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (14:38) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Has Fire and Emergency New Zealand been classified as a critical customer under the National Fuel Response Plan; if so, what does this classification mean in terms of fuel supply for Fire and Emergency New Zealand under National Fuel Response Plan phases 2, 3, and 4?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (14:39): Yes, Fire and Emergency has been classified as a critical customer for the purposes of delivering emergency services. Under the National Fuel Plan phase 2, there is no restriction on access to fuel for Fire and Emergency. Under current proposals for phases 3 and 4 of the Government’s fuel response framework, Fire and Emergency will be prioritised for uninterrupted supply of fuel. As a life-supporting service and critical customer, Fire and Emergency New Zealand are prioritised for fuel to maintain emergency response capability, with supply directed to critical and life-safety activities in line with all-of-Government settings.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will the classification of Fire and Emergency New Zealand as a critical customer guarantee that Fire and Emergency New Zealand will receive a full allocation of fuel to allow them to undertake standard operations?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I just said, because this Government has acknowledged that it is very important for life, safety, and critical emergency response to continue within all phases of the fuel plan, they are working with the Public Service Commission and the all-of-Government group to ensure that there are supply lines for fuel across this country.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will the Government ensure that firefighters in rural communities will have access to the diesel they need to undertake standard operations in the event of a prolonged fuel shortage?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I am aware that Fire and Emergency has a representative on the Public Service fuel response plan high-user working group, which is providing advice and highlighting their needs in the all-of-Government fuel planning. It is essential that all of New Zealand, whether that is urban or rural, has access to critical and life safety - preserving services through all phases of the response. Fire and Emergency is working with that all-of-Government group to ensure that Fire and Emergency will be there for communities in need.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Are Fire and Emergency New Zealand considering deprioritising or pausing certain front-line activities during phases 2, 3, and 4; if so, what are they?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I met with the chief executive of Fire and Emergency and the chair of the board of Fire and Emergency, as well as the chief executive of the monitoring agency, last week to talk about the contingency plans as it comes to different phases of the fuel response. That work is ongoing—there is only a draft plan at this stage—but they are working tirelessly to ensure that the life-preserving services and life, safety, and critical services will remain through all phases of the plan. However, it is also still the case that that work is under way and I don’t want to get ahead of it.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: When can the public and firefighters expect to see the full details of how emergency services will operate in phases 2, 3, and 4?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I don’t want to get ahead of the plans that they are making, but I would be absolutely assured that I’ll be seeing that plan—but I haven’t yet seen that plan, and so the public will see that plan once I’ve also seen that plan. The assurance that I would give to the public is that Fire and Emergency has been designated a critical user through all phases of the fuel response. They are working closely with the all-of-Government group for fuel supply and security, and the assurance I’ll give to members of the community is that Fire and Emergency has been prioritised to be there for communities in their times of need.
Land Information
Question No. 11
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (14:43) to the Minister for Land Information: What recent announcements has he made about investment in New Zealand’s premium agricultural sector?
Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Minister for Land Information) (14:44): Bonjour, Mr Speaker. Today, I welcomed, along with Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour, and Minister for Economic Growth, Nicola Willis, a new investment from French fashion house Chanel in New Zealand’s fine wool production. It shows the world now knows New Zealand is open for business. Chanel has invested in a joint-venture company to own a part of and continue to support Lammermoor Station in the Central Otago high country, which produces some of the world’s best fine wool for Chanel’s garments. This is a win-win-win for Chanel, Lammermoor, and New Zealand.
SPEAKER: Yeah, not bad. Seven out of 10. Carry on.
Miles Anderson: How do investments like these benefit all New Zealanders?
Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: Chanel’s investment in New Zealand illustrates how overseas investment opens new doors for Kiwis. The investment was granted under the Overseas Investment Act’s benefit to New Zealand farm land benefit pathway because it is expected to provide substantial benefit to New Zealand. It allows Lammermoor to continue doing what it does best, retaining jobs and livelihoods in the process, and contributing to New Zealand’s export growth opportunities. When we grow our exports, we grow the economy, and that helps to pay for hospitals, schools, and safer communities.
Miles Anderson: What makes New Zealand an attractive place to invest for companies like Chanel?
Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: As we all know, New Zealand’s primary sector is world class. However, it’s important to have a Government that is outward facing and courts new investment to New Zealand, and that’s what we’re doing. Chanel plans to build on Lammermoor’s organic status and achieve regenerative organic certification. That would make Lammermoor the world’s first fine-wool producing farm with those credentials. That will boost the value of our export receipts. It also boosts the reputation of New Zealand wool’s high quality and sustainable production. Where there’s a wool, there’s a way.
Miles Anderson: What changes has the Government made to speed up and encourage investment in New Zealand?
Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: New statistics from Land Information New Zealand show average end-to-end assessment time frames for business and productive forestry. Assessments have decreased significantly under this Government, going from an average of 67 working days to 31 working days in the last 12 months. I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon David Seymour in this, who has ensured the new streamlined pathway allows low-risk applications to be processed faster, delivering more investment to New Zealand. As he said, the proof is in the investment pudding. Merci beaucoup.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Why did the National Party Minister of Land Information and the ACT Party Associate Minister of Finance override the recommendation from the Overseas Investment Office to decline the sale of three farms near Clydevale to foreign US investors because they did not the meet the benefit to New Zealand test, and did New Zealand First support the sell-off?
Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member knows that it’s not appropriate to provide suffixes in relation to Ministers from a party background. Ministers are Ministers; they are not National Party Ministers or New Zealand First Ministers or ACT Party Ministers, They are Ministers, and they act in that capacity.
SPEAKER: That is true. I’m sure that the member will be able to reword his question to comply.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Why did the Minister of Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance override the recommendation from the Overseas Investment Office to decline the sale of three farms near Clydevale to foreign US investors because the application did not the meet the benefit to New Zealand test, and did the other coalition partner in this Government agree with that sell-off?
Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: I’m not privileged to that information. What I can say is that all overseas applications must go through a benefit to New Zealand test, and they will be assessed on their merits.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Is it now the coalition Government’s policy to override the recommendations from the Overseas Investment Office when assessing the benefit to New Zealand test and open the door to the sell-off of New Zealand farms to foreigners?
Hon MIKE BUTTERICK: No. All applications should be assessed on their merits.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Overseas Investment Office report on the New Zealand Dairy Holdings Trusco Pty Ltd as a Trustee for NZ Dairy Holdings Trust application to sell the farm land.
SPEAKER: And is it a publicly—
Hon Damien O'Connor: —application to sell the farmland?
SPEAKER: —publicly available document?
Hon Damien O'Connor: Not necessarily, Mr Speaker. It is only available under Official Information Act (OIA) request, because the Government has not released this.
SPEAKER: Has it been released, as most OIA—
Hon Damien O'Connor: Mr Speaker, it was received under an application of an OIA.
SPEAKER: Yes, it’s frequent practise for successive Governments to release OIA documents.
Hon Damien O'Connor: No, it hasn’t. Mr Speaker, with all due respect—
SPEAKER: I’ll put the leave. Leave is sought, is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Mr Abel, just wait for the House to give you the courtesy of their silence. Thank you.
Resources
Question No. 12
STEVE ABEL (Green) (14:50) to the Minister for Resources: Are there any places in Aotearoa New Zealand where mining should not be promoted; if so, where are these places?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (14:51): Obviously, we have changed the legislation, the Crown Minerals Act, and introduced the notion of promotion. There are areas, in particular in the Department of Conservation estate, where it is not possible to gain the necessary consents for mining.
Steve Abel: Does he think it’s appropriate for prospecting, exploration, or mining permits to be issued inside Te Wāhipounamu UNESCO World Heritage area that is protected for its outstanding universal value as the largest and least modified of New Zealand’s natural ecosystems?
Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, any application for a mining entitlement will follow the law. As to whether or not areas that are not prohibited in terms of extractive activity should be pursued will depend on a case by case basis.
Steve Abel: Does he think New Zealanders want to see our most spectacular natural places ruined by mining or does he agree with MP Shane Jones who, in 2010, said of mining that it is “An exercise in destroying New Zealand’s clean, green image and destroying conservation values.”?
Hon SHANE JONES: Sadly, life is not static. I can confirm, however, that there a host of areas in New Zealand where it would be very inappropriate to mine. Whether or not those places will be permanently off limits, obviously, waits for a future regime.
Steve Abel: Does he accept the expertise of the Department of Conservation who warn that the Bendigo goldmine is an unprecedented threat to wildlife, or, given his expressions of disregard for native animals such as Archey’s frog, does he think our taonga species should be sacrificed beneath the bulldozers of Aussie goldminers?
Hon SHANE JONES: On the matter of frogs, obviously, there has to be a balanced approach. On some occasions, it will be possible to relocate species. I hope, however, that they don’t end up like the snails that died under an ancient national regime.
Steve Abel: What is his response to the opposition of local community and of existing hospitality, tourism, viticultural, horticulture, and farming industries concerned about Bendigo’s noise, air pollution, water contamination, and the tailings dam containing 18 million cubic metres of toxic waste in perpetuity that is proposed?
Hon SHANE JONES: There’s always a balance when we seek to extract jobs, wealth, and export earnings in particular areas that are mineral-rich. We can’t have generic denunciatory remarks wiping out all possibilities. It depends on the context.
Steve Abel: Why does the Minister, apparently, express disregard for those local businesses and those community concerns, and, indeed, for the opinion of MP Shane Jones, in 2010, who said regarding mining that “It will be a short fillip for foreign-owned companies. The jobs will be scarce, and the degradation in these very sensitive areas will be very long-term—I would think irreversible.”?
Hon SHANE JONES: I can provide no better answer than to go to the Good Book: “When I was a child, I thought as a child.”
SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll just take a very short break for people going to other business to leave the House quietly. That means quietly with no talking.
I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill.
Bills
Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill
Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill
Committee of the whole House
All Parts, Schedules, and Clauses of Both Bills
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill.
We come first to the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 21, “Preliminary matters, historical account, acknowledgements and apology, and settlement of historical claims”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National) (14:57): Point of order. Madam Chair, I seek leave to take this as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The two bills?
STUART SMITH: For two bills.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): To take the two bills as one question—is there any objection? There appears to be none. So are we clear that we’re debating both bills as one? The question is that Part 1 stand part on both bills.
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (14:58): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It gives me great pleasure to stand on behalf of Minister Goldsmith, in support of both the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill.
For those watching around the Chamber, this part of the debate, having had the second readings, is to discuss, I guess, in detail, somewhat the clauses and parts of the bills. From my perspective, on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the more fuller and historical accounts of these two settlement bills have been made in the second reading and will be made more fulsomely in the third reading. It falls to me just to point out any of the potential amendments that are to be made in this stage.
In regards to the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, there are no amendments proposed for consideration to this committee, and all parts of the bill, in our view, will stand as adopted from the recommendations of the Māori Affairs Committee and agreed to by the House at second reading.
Shanan Halbert: You know what I’m thinking—what are we doing?
Hon JAMES MEAGER: In terms of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill—I’m being asked by member Shanan Halbert about “What are we doing?” Well, we’re going through both bills at once, so I’m thinking on my feet, Mr Halbert, and I’m trying to combine both bills at once so that we can actually get through this in a respectful and moderate way in the spirit that these debates normally have, where you’re not heckled and interrupted by members of the Opposition in what is usually a relatively conjoined process.
In regard to the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, there are some minor amendments being proposed on Amendment Paper 570—and the barracking from Mr Halbert continues to my left. I’m not sure what side of the bed he got up on this morning, but the rest of us are here to celebrate these bills and, I’m sure, to hear about the amendments being proposed on Amendment Paper 570.
Since the Māori Affairs Committee’s consideration of the bill, some members—and Ginny Andersen is now joining in on the barracking on a Treaty settlement bill. It’s an interesting day here in the House. I believe that they even tried to stop some Treaty settlement bills from being progressed this morning, and so I don’t know where the Labour Party is at, but maybe Steve Abel can get them under control.
The changes being made by Amendment Paper 570 are very minor and technical in nature. They mainly relate to the change in approach from 10 Hauraki bills progressing together to third reading and to individual groups being able to progress when they are ready to do so. These changes will affect references to the Pare Hauraki collective redress deed and the timing of transfer of jointly vested properties. There are also some amendments to clauses in relation to the vesting of certain Crown-owned minerals to align with similar provisions in the Ngāti Pāoa Claims Settlement Act 2025. Finally, other amendments will update the name of the Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana: Te Tari Whakatau, as well as updating interests listed and legal descriptions for cultural redress properties as a result of surveys.
I think that it’s a great occasion when we can come together to support the long and arduous process that many hapū and iwi go through to have their claims settled. With that, I hope that we can progress at pace together, unanimously, and, as such, I commend both bills to the committee of the whole House.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): For the clarification of the committee, the question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill.
Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill agreed to.
Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill to be reported without amendment.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill set out on Amendment Paper 570 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill as amended agreed to.
Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 22 April.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, I’m advised that last time we were on this bill, we were up to call No. 5, and it is a New Zealand First call.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:05): Cool, thank you, and is this part of the split call, Madam Chair, or am I taking the 10-minute call?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, this is a split call. This will be your call, yes.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Sweet—kei te pai. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party is still not supporting the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill.
First of all, let me acknowledge all the plumbers and builders out there in our communities. I want to acknowledge that we need more of them in this House of Representatives—actually, if we’re to, genuinely, be a representative Parliament—and the Green Party does want to see reduced building costs, more healthy homes being built, fair treatment for homeowners, renters, and tradespeople. We particularly acknowledge for tradespeople, right now, with the current fossil fuel crisis, that their work is currently harder to actually perform and, particularly, for them to provide for their families. We also acknowledge that for many builders, they’re operating in an environment where there is not a lot of work available in the construction industry. However, in this bill, we’re concerned that the benefits of expanding self-certification outweighed the potential risks of error in plumbing or drainlaying, given most work is not visible after construction.
The risks often coming from plumbing are not limited to the individual property but can result in cross connections between stormwater and sewage, causing pollution of rivers and seas and increasing health risks; overflows can also impact neighbouring properties. According to the regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s commissions have had to complete a more detailed cost-benefit analysis of both options, which was due in late March.
I also want to acknowledge that plumbers and drainlayers can already self-certify work in relationship to existing buildings. We respect the oversight of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, but note the concerns of some submitters—which were part of the select committee, which I personally did not have the privilege to be part of, and I acknowledge the work of members and that select committee that scrutinised this bill. The board having explicit authority to audit and endorse plumbers or drainlayers against the eligibility criteria throughout the life of the endorsement rather than just the application at the time is an improvement in the original bill. The board may prescribe minimum standards that plumbers and drainlayers must meet in order to be endorsed to self-certify work, including minimum standards relating to their ability to meet any potential civil liability. However, as legislators we know what the minimum standards will be.
We also want to note that the Minister has indicated that they will be bringing amendments to the committee of the whole House and that this will significantly expand the scope of the bill, and we’re sceptical about the expansion to commercial buildings. I know my colleagues, who are leading the work on this bill, will be scrutinising it at the committee of the whole House stage.
One of the things that we want to also note our concerns on is the fact that a lot of the details—and critical details particularly—were being left out to future regulations rather than the bill itself. We’re not satisfied that secondary legislation is where these issues should be laid out. This does also seem to be an ongoing trend under this Government where a lot of critical details that we believe should be in primary legislation have been left out to secondary legislation. For example, it’s stuff around setting out exactly what work could be self-certified. More clarity in primary legislation would have been particularly useful.
We’re also concerned that if solar water heating and more sustainable water use, such as rainwater for toilet flushing, required building inspections, but simpler but less sustainable mechanisms can be self-certified, fewer sustainable options will, inevitably, be chosen. We don’t want to streamline the most energy and water intensive forms of construction, particularly at a time where we’ve already been told that compared to other OECD countries, our water usage remains quite high. The recommendation that a consent can include both certified and non-certified work, maybe less, is encouraging for sustainable work.
Just mindful of the time, I want finally to note that there will always be a significant data management role for keeping photographs and other records for work that is self-certified—potentially unfunded. This is in relation to the inspections by the Building Consent Authorities. We also wish to ensure the accessibility of this information is readily available for house buyers.
We will be scrutinising this bill further in the committee of the whole House stage, with my colleagues who have been leading on this bill. I also want to acknowledge organisations like Simplicity Living who have shown us that a better way is absolutely possible. We want to continue scrutinising this bill, and right now, unfortunately, as it stands, we will not be commending this bill to the House, and we look forward to further scrutiny of it in the weeks to come.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (15:10): It was a pleasure to be part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that helped shepherd this bill to this stage. My wife likes to remind me that politicians talk too much—so, with that, I commend this bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (15:11): It’s a pleasure also, as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, to rise and take a call, which I can assure the House will be much lengthier than that of the member who’s just resumed his seat.
This is the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill, and it’s called that because, effectively, it’s an omnibus bill that seeks to amend a couple of pieces of legislation. As my colleague Arena Williams has already articulated today, our position is that we will be looking to support this bill here at its second reading, but we do so with a number of caveats that we wish to explore when the bill does pass—and it looks as though it will—this particular stage through to the committee of the whole House stage.
The bill itself is, I think, a piece of legislation that does reflect Labour’s commitment to reforms that seek to speed up opportunities in terms of housing development but also, at the same time, maintain a level or a threshold that doesn’t compromise safety. That’s certainly something that can’t be compromised, and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Mr Foster, did actually hear from folk in this particular regard. I’ll come to those reflection and observations around the select committee’s report in due course.
When we’re looking at this ability to be able to compromise speed and efficiency, that’s find, but ensuring that safety is maintained is really, really important. If things are not done in a safe way, then things can go wrong, and they can go horribly wrong. There are many, many examples in New Zealand and other countries’ histories where building products or the way in which a particular piece of work has been undertaken effectively fails and goes completely wrong.
We respect the skill and the professionalism of those tradespeople who are licensed to undertake work in this particular space. They are hard-working, salt-of-the-earth folk in communities all around this country. When we think about our plumbers, when we think about our drainlayers, and when we think about all of those job opportunities that are even broader than that, some of these folk who have worked in these areas have been hit hard lately in terms of the up to 20,000 folk in the construction sector who, effectively, have lost their jobs. That’s an important distinction that also needs to be taken.
The select committee itself had a few submissions—we had 22 of them. Four actually fronted up and presented their oral submissions, and you might look at that and think it’s not a huge number. But when we actually reflect on who they were that came and gave oral submissions, they were representative of the industry; they were industry bodies that represented a number of folk for whom this bill will make a huge difference in terms of the work that they do. I think it’s also worth pointing out that this is by no certainty a bill that received the overwhelming support of industry participants. They like the direction that this is seeking to head in.
But they do have—and they did express with the committee—some concerns about some aspects, in many regards, the view that in some instances this bill perhaps doesn’t go far enough. That when we’re talking about small-scale works, when we’re talking about routine pieces of work that, actually, there are things that are captured in the bill currently—that’s fine. But many of these industry participants actually shared with the committee, through their representative organisations, that there are many pieces of work—a lot of them actually in the rural community sector, and I’ll come to that in a moment—where they’d like to see this bill actually applied to the work that’s undertaken in that particular space.
When we think about the opportunities of simple work and what’s narrow, there was a very strong push—and I know my colleague Ms Williams touched on this—that what’s included in the provision is pumped, and onsite systems like pumped water supply, irrigation, and circulating systems actually are standard all around the country. So there’s no difference here; there’s no regional variation in terms of what the expectations or the specs are in terms of whether they’re compliant or not, but these are often the case in rural communities, in rural households on farms and elsewhere where this would make a huge difference. In actual fact, you know, the Master Plumbers themselves said, “Well, if you look at every single rural building basically in New Zealand, you will find that there is a pumped water system.”
What we’re really interested in, as a party, is exploring where the Minister’s thinking is at when it comes to the committee of the whole House stage, because this is what was heard, this is what’s been reflected in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s report. While the Minister had indicated to the committee, and again today, that there seems to be an openness to explore some of these options, and obviously there was a conversation that needed to be had with, well, his now Cabinet colleagues around where he was going to land with that. We do hope that when we progress this through the committee of the whole House stage that those are the sorts of things that the Minister and the Government have actually turned their mind to.
When we think about greywater reuse systems, whether they should be included, they are often seen as low-risk opportunities that are governed by standards that are already in existence, they already are at play, yet they’re not included in the bill in terms of whether that’s been captured or not. So it’s important that we do consider what the majority of rural properties actually have. This is not saying it’s trying to make it easier, because, at the end of the day, we don’t want a system in place where safety or quality is compromised but there is a sensible middle line and threshold where these sorts of things can be worked through. So we look forward to lending our support to that conversation, with the view of making a difference for the community.
The select committee, as I said, in its report, identifies a number of the changes that have been made. One of the places where the majority of the committee did land—and I think it’s a sensible one; certainly the position that the Labour Party supported—was where you have an approach to a building consent authority (BCA), generally a council, to undertake a piece of work in circumstances where you have self-certified work that would be a permissible option under this bill, and when you have non-self-certified work, i.e., the BCA is required to basically follow through their normal process.
The bill was introduced to mean that, actually, there was a discrepancy between what work could be covered and what work couldn’t be covered in terms of the overarching need for what you needed to do to get your building consent. What the committee, in response to submissions, has said and where it’s landed is, actually, it accepts that in many circumstances when people go and engage with a drainlayer, and plumber, and architect-others who do fantastic work in this space—there needs to be an understanding and an acceptance that in many circumstances there will be hybrid opportunities where a suite of work will be undertaken that will include non-self-certifiable work, but also self-certifiable work. What the committee has done is it’s made a change to the bill to allow there to be that hybrid nature and to be that flexibility.
One of the other changes that the committee did initiate was not just saying, actually, we’ll wait for these self-certified work tradespeople to, basically, when they lodge the application, when the work is done, lodge that with their professional body organisation. What’s really at the heart of this issue is a desire to ensure that as members of a professional body and a professional sector, there are opportunities for those organisations who often provide a bit of an umbrella around this to be able to undertake audits, basically, as they’re able to, through the process.
Now, this is going to save people a lot of money as well, because, if you are a homeowner in a rural community or urban community, and you undertake a piece of work or you wish to have a piece of work undertaken, if there are any issues, wouldn’t it be much better that you are informed of that earlier in the process, rather than having to wait until the end of the process to realise that there are some issues that need to be rectified, and the costs associated with that. So this is not uncommon to other parts, if we think of teachers’ registration and licensing, if we think of other opportunities in terms of the medical profession and elsewhere, we think that this is a very credible step and a sensible step to make that change.
So there are a couple of other matters that the select committee did report back on. We look forward to the committee of the whole House stage because, as I say, there are still a number of issues that do need to be addressed before wholesale support at the end of the day. But at this stage we will support this past second reading.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (15:21): One of the issues repeatedly raised by the building sector is that the consent takes too long. There are long waits for inspectors and an excessive number of inspections required for plumbing and drainlaying work. These delays are not just frustrating; they drive up the costs of building and slow down much-needed development. This bill addresses those challenges in a practical way. It introduces an open self-certification scheme, allowing qualified plumbers and drainlayers to sign off their own work. Importantly, this is backed by strong safeguards, including new monitoring, auditing, and disciplinary functions for the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. This is a sensible reform. It will streamline the building process, reduce unnecessary delay, and help lower construction costs. It will deliver real benefits for both the sector and New Zealanders.
DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (15:22): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill. Now, we recognise those very real pressures in the building and construction sector: things like delays, bottlenecks, and the cost. That all adds up when you come to build a house in New Zealand. So it’s important that we do get that balance right, because, at the crux of it, everyone here wants faster, more affordable building, but speed cannot come at the cost of safety, quality, or consumer protection. Cutting costs is one thing, but cutting corners is another.
I want to speak from a slightly different perspective than some of the members of this House. Having been from a tradie background myself, I’ve spent a significant amount of time on the tools. I’ve done my own plumbing and I’ve done my own drainlaying over the years. I haven’t tried gasfitting, but definitely the plumbing and the drainlaying. I have the old adage: never pay anyone to do something that you can do yourself. It’s one of my mantras in life. Doing your DIY on your own place, it’s a way that you can definitely get ahead. I suppose the same comes to Government, for that matter. Prisons, healthcare system, schools—never get anyone to do something that you can do yourself, because we’ve all seen examples where that has gone very bad, when you sell off assets, and it always ends up with the New Zealand public getting a raw deal.
But I recall starting out, doing work experience as a drainlayer at school, and you learn quickly about soil conditions, fall gradients. I recently did some plumbing at home too—well, I actually got my 15-year-old boy to do a lot of the work while I provided direction. I took him down to the hardware store and we bought the PVC piping. That’s actually getting quite expensive at the moment—all types of piping, fittings: all those things that are wrapped up with the use of oil and things like that and the high cost. But anyway, we went to the hardware store and we actually bought a toilet cistern as well. So we got that fixed up, because, if any of you know, one of the biggest hits to my ego is if my wife says to me, “Well, if you’re not going to do it, I’m going to go pay somebody to do it.” That really spurs me on to get down there and get the hardware myself and get it all fixed up.
Having said all of that, with all that DIY, compliance is very important. There are very real consequences if something does go wrong. Let me tell this House, when plumbing and drainage fails, it doesn’t fail quietly. It usually gets very expensive and it can be quite hard to find a plumber when you need one outside of normal trading hours. But then also, it affects peoples’ homes, their health, and their wallets. That’s why people who do this work carry such a heavy professional burden and responsibility already. Plumbers and drainlayers are not cowboys; they are trained, they are regulated professionals who take pride in getting it right the first time.
In fact, for those in this House who don’t know, the plumbing apprenticeship actually takes five years—it’s one of the longest apprenticeships that you can do in New Zealand. It’s a great profession. It’s skilled, it’s essential, it’s future-proof. Sometimes, every now and then in this House, someone will yell out, “Oh, the ChatGPT thing!” But there is evidence that people that yell that out for starters are from professions that are probably most at threat from taking on that ChatGPT creep. However, being a plumber, a gasfitter, and a drainlayer, you’re pretty well protected from AI. There’s going to be huge opportunities over the coming years, particularly for young people, to take up those jobs. So a little bit of a plug for the trades there. If you’re thinking of a career, plumbing and gasfitting is definitely the way to go.
But with that pride and professionalism within that trade, after you do your five years, there is still a little bit of risk. This bill proposes to shift more of that risk on to those very tradespeople through that self-certification regime. Now, in principle, self-certification is not a radical idea, but we can see versions of it overseas where it’s working very well. So that is why it’s a really good move that we’re taking and I commend this bill to the House.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (15:27): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise and talk in support of the second reading of this bill. It will make the system more efficient, giving plumbers and drainlayers the ability to sign off on their own work, which puts them on an equal footing with electricians and gasfitters. This is going to make it easier and more affordable to open the door to homeownership for more Kiwis and supports the growth and job creation in this sector. This is a very positive step from a Minister that has made a number of positive steps in the building and construction space and is doing a great job. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (15:27): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too, as the previous speaker Sam Uffindell just said, would like to take a call to tell a few anecdotes and discuss a little bit about the submissions in the select committee process about the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill. One of the good things about plying your wares in this House is that you get to have a variety of topics come before you in select committee. As someone that’s never had much to do with the trades—as my colleague Dan Rosewarne just pointed out—a fantastic career path for a lot of people and a bunch of people who do sometimes very under-celebrated work in our society because it’s not until things go wrong that you commend the sheer skill and all of the expertise involved in getting it right.
So it was an interesting bill for us to work on on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I would like to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—very ably led by Andy Foster—for looking at this bill. I think my colleague Tangi Utikere said there were four people that came and gave submissions, but the breadth of submissions was a very high standard, very informative, made us take notice, made us make some changes, because clearly this was something that the people that submitted on this bill were very passionate about and very knowledgeable about. So it’s one of those bills that you felt much more armed with expert knowledge at the end of the process than you did at the beginning.
So Labour will support this bill at second reading. We supported it at the first reading. We acknowledge, as I said, all of the submissions. But I want to be very clear, as other colleagues have done to date, that our support is not unconditional. It depends on the Government getting some of those remaining settings right, and we understand that there’s intention to do that during the committee of the whole House stage, because I think that we were largely on the same page with most things, but there are some things that we want to be very clear that we still have some concern about. They are around insurance, and I’ll go into that in a little bit more detail, but certainly around insurance, around scope, and around basic consumer protections, which I think are really, really important, and it’s incumbent upon us to get that right.
While everybody in this House, I think—and that’s evidenced through the contributions that have been made today—shares the goal of faster and certainly more affordable building, speed can never come at the price of safety, quality, and fairness. In this country, we have had our fair share of examples of that over the years: when corners have been cut, when decisions have been made that allowed or afforded certain practices to happen that weren’t good practice, and when consumers and homeowners and other people bore the brunt of that. We don’t want to see that happen again.
At its core, this bill introduces, as people have said, an opt-in self-certification scheme for qualified plumbers and qualified drainlayers. It’s important to note that that very much is an opt-in. It allows endorsed practitioners to certify their own work as compliant with the building consent without requiring a council inspection for that work. It amends the Building Act 2004 and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006.
Like anything where changes are made that involve risk, this reform moves the risk. It doesn’t take risk away; it simply shifts the risk away from councils who would have been going through that process, and on to the individuals and the consumers. When risk shifts, responsibility and accountability shifts as well—it follows—so we have a couple of things that we want to point out.
But before I get to that, I do want to acknowledge that the select committee did make meaningful improvements, and many of them were driven by issues that were either raised via submissions or raised by Labour during that first reading. Just to give you three or four examples—stronger audit powers: the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board can now audit practitioners throughout the life of their endorsement and not just at the start. That does actually, practically, close a real gap. As my colleague Tangi Utikere said, there should be the ability to have mixed consents so that it avoids that, sort of, all-or-nothing approach that submitters absolutely warned us against, and we took that on board.
The third thing was the broader information signatory so that architects, so that engineers and design Licensed Building Practitioners can now provide declarations at the consent stage because that actually reflects how projects work in practice. As you can imagine, some of the work that’s done by plumbers is done at a stage where the other work essentially comes up and covers that up. So that’s got to be done sometimes at more that design stage. So it’s only fitting that there should be some other signatories to be able to do those declarations. And a public register, because I think if you’re allowing any profession, any trade to check itself, in essence, there needs to be a requisite amount of transparency on the other end of the scale so that a public register so that home owners and future buyers would be able to check certificates of compliance. And that just provides that level of transparency. That’s really important, and a good safeguard.
Finally, just also the mandatory monitoring by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). We think that that’s really critical. If the scheme has any unintended consequences that haven’t been thought of throughout this process, then we need to know that sooner rather than later so that acting in good faith, changes can be made to up those protections. So they’re all sensible changes that were made during the select committee process. And as I said, we look forward, we believe, to the Minister bringing some amendments to the committee stage to add a couple more as well.
So the outstanding concerns, though, that I did preface at the beginning, were the fact that—well, the first one concerns the issue of insurance. We think this is the biggest gap. We’re being asked, essentially, to support a system that places more liability on individual tradespeople without confirming as yet that there’s some sort of insurance product in place for them. And MBIE said that one is expected, and that’s all very well, and the board will set minimum standards, but expected isn’t obviously the same thing as available now. So we look forward to some more information on that.
The second one was about the scope expansion because the Minister did signal an intention to expand the scheme. And as my colleague Tangi Utikere said during the submission process, we heard examples of how that might be good, but potentially to cover work and buildings that are up to three stories high—that sort of pricked our ears a little bit because that’s a significant step up in risk. So we are being told that that could happen at the committee of the whole House stage. We’re not a fan of that. So expanding that scope expands consequences, I think, quite obviously. It must be properly scrutinised, not rushed through at the last minute. It would be remiss of me not to express some sort of disappointment that if that’s the order of things, it should have happened sooner.
The third thing is some consumer protection. So when councils step back from inspection, homeowners lose that layer of protection. So the question becomes, what happens if something does go wrong? What if a practitioner is no longer trading in the mean time? What if defects only emerge years later? And right now we don’t believe that those pathways are as clear as they need to be for the policy that directly affects people’s homes, which is, you know, as we can all appreciate, often someone’s biggest asset and that does matter, therefore.
In regard to the regulatory uncertainty, we did feel that too much of the detail, including what counts as self-certifiable work is going to be left to regulation. We often see that happen, but it’s incumbent upon us to be able to sometimes push a little bit harder to make sure that the primary legislation reflects that. We’ll be looking to lock in as much of that clarity as possible into the primary legislation.
The unintended incentives are the final thing I want to raise because there’s a real risk that a simpler, cheaper plumbing option becomes easier to approve, while more sustainable systems still face those higher regulatory hurdles. But apart from that, we look forward to the next stage of this process and answering some of those questions. But at this stage, we commend the bill to the House.
Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (15:38): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to take a short call as a last speaker. This is actually about opt-in scheme to allow qualified plumbers and drainlayers to self certify. But it actually limits the self certification to low risk plumbing and drainlaying jobs by eligible professionals. I think that’s a great thing. Giving qualified plumbers and drainlayers the ability to self certify their work puts them on equal footing with electricians and gas fitters who have actually had this flexibility for years. I think it is actually something that the industry has actually been wanting.
It’s a common-sense change and it is something that the National Party committed on our manifesto back in the 2023 election, and we are delivering on that promise. So I commend the bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (15:38): It’s been an interesting process in that we’ve changed the batting order in terms of which bits of legislation were up. That’s interesting, but thank you for allowing me to make some comment on behalf of both New Zealand First and as chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
First of all, I just wanted to say thank you to all of the committee members for working through this very, very collaboratively and collegially, as we always do. I also want to thank all the officials who worked very hard on this, but also the submitters. And what was really, really good—we didn’t have many submitters, but the submitters that we did have were really good quality. They were really focused, and particularly the two that I wanted to thank were Master Plumbers and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. We didn’t just hear from them, but we also engaged with them further and we said to officials, “Actually, we want you to engage with them further.” And I know that the Minister also engaged with them further, and we engaged with the Minister, too. So it was a very collaborative process where everybody was trying to make sure we got the best possible result that we could get.
We had some suggestions that we should have got more into this report back and maybe less reliance on the committee of the whole House.
Clearly, in our report back, you can see the expectation. It’s not often that we would do this, but the expectation from the Minister is that there will be further changes in the committee of the whole House. The reason that we went down that path was both advice from the Minister but also from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to say, actually, they don’t have the time, in the time frame that we have to report back, to be able to give justice to that and get it right in the select committee report-back. So we’re relying on the committee of the whole House to do some of those things, but we’re very clear in our commentary that that is our expectation and that is what we want to see happen.
We talk a lot in this House about the cost of housing, but just driving down the cost of housing, the value of existing housing, probably will end up being counter-productive, because all it does is make existing housing more attractive, vis-à-vis new housing. It becomes not worth building new housing, because you can’t make the margin on it. The key is to actually make it cheaper to deliver that new housing. That’s not by reducing the quality of that housing but by delivering better value and doing more for less. There are many, many things that this Government has been doing, and this is one of those things, to try and push down the actual cost of delivering housing, because that’s the way that you drive down the cost to the people who are purchasing it.
Look, it’s possible. Just look at the work that’s been done in the area of building new classrooms. We were effectively getting three for the price of two. Look at the difference in the way that Kāinga Ora is delivering housing, where it’s doing it a lot better than it was doing it before. It is possible to get more for less if you’re doing it the right way. This bill is one of many initiatives that this Government is taking to reduce the cost of delivering needed new housing.
There’s been a lot of talk about risk, and, yes, there are risks in buildings. Things go wrong, and that’s one of the reasons, at the moment, we see the cost of building inspection being so high. Why? Because councils are risk averse. Why are they risk averse? Because they’ve been bitten before. We all know about the leaky homes crisis. As a then city councillor, it cost Wellington City something like $150 million—$150 million. Where does that land? It lands on the ratepayer. I don’t know what Auckland’s bill was, but I think it was probably closer to a billion. Those are huge costs, and councils logically are going to be risk averse. In fact, we got to the stage of saying—it was me in particular; that was both as a councillor and as a mayor—“I want to hand back our licence. I don’t want us to be in the business of doing building consent.” Why? Because it’s just a liability.
It got worse because not only was it leaky buildings but also people started saying, “We’re going to have a go at you on seismic issues as well.” When you think about that, in places which are seismically risky, why would a council want to be anywhere near it? There is risk there. We’re not avoiding risk, but, at the moment, that risk has been lying on the ratepayer, and that is a problem, and that needs to change.
A house is, for most of us, the most important and valuable asset that most of us will ever own. For most of the things we buy, we’ve got protections under the Consumer Guarantees Act. You can go and get a repair, you can get a replacement, and you get a refund—whatever it might be. That’s really a lot harder with a house. It’s very complicated. Often when something goes wrong, it might not turn up for 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years. Something may go wrong a long way down the track. That’s why we’ve had this issue of councils being, effectively, the insurer through the ratepayers, which is, as I said, not very attractive. This is about changing that. We’ve already heard about the proportionate liability rather than the joint and several liability that we’ve got at the moment.
The safeguards in this bill: there’s the reliance on the skill and experience required to be an approved self-certifying plumber—I’ll come back to that because not every plumber is approved to do that, not by any stretch of the imagination—there’s the work and support of the board of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers; there’s the disciplinary process they’ve got. They can impose the requirement to hold insurance. They also hold certificates of compliance, so there’s a lot that is done there to back up the self-certifying plumbers. I also note that I don’t know about the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board, but certainly Master Builders hold a very significant amount of money to be able to back up their master builders if something goes wrong there with their master builders. Of course, they can discipline them as well.
The bill, as introduced, was to allow for approved professional, skilled plumbers and drainlayers opting in. It wasn’t compulsory to self-certify their work. Now, we have the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers with the power of self-certification for certain work. It already exists for the gasfitters and for electricians, but not for the plumbers and drainlayers, so it’s a bit interesting in that area.
The two main submissions, as I said, we heard from were from Master Plumbers and from the board. Master Plumbers have been advocating for this element of self-certification for many, many years. I noted earlier in the debate, before lunch, Celia Wade-Brown’s quote from Christchurch that not all plumbers’ work is of acceptable quality, but not all plumbers are self-certifying plumbers. They have to do at least seven years to get to that point, and they have to meet all those other standards. That is really, really important. That’s a lot of time they have to do that training, and it’s very, very, very, very rigorous. Only plumbers and drainlayers who are licensed and in good standing with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board and have done that seven years - plus will be eligible for an endorsement to self-certify. It’s a relatively small number of people, but it’s important. The board’s going to oversee standards, compliance, and enforcement to protect that public health and safety while the building consent authorities still do the really high-risk stuff.
Just to wrap up, the idea is that self-certification will be for simple plumbing issues. I’ve already talked about who’s able to be self-certified. We made a lot of changes as a committee. We expect some further changes in the committee of the whole House. In fact, we want those further changes at the committee of the whole House. I think I will leave it there but just say, again, thanks to all the committee for the great work that’s been done. But thanks also to the Master Plumbers, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board, and to the Minister for the way he’s engaged with us in this. I commend the bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill
Legislative Statement
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:47): I present legislative statements on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Second Reading
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (15:48): I move, That the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to speak again today in this House to these two bills amending the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. The anti-money laundering and countering of financing of terrorism (AMLCFT) system, which, from now on, I’m going to refer to as the AML system, has drifted into expensive box-ticking that creates delays, frustration, and compliance costs for New Zealanders and businesses. Too often, effort is wasted on low-risk paperwork, while serious criminal activity risks slipping through the cracks. That means unnecessary hurdles for everyday transactions without better outcomes for tackling crime.
These bills refocus the system to be genuinely risk-based, cutting red tape for low-risk customers and businesses while strengthening our ability to detect, deter, and disrupt serious crime. At the same time, maintaining an effective AMLCFT regime is critical to New Zealand’s access to global financial markets. These reforms ensure that we continue to meet international expectations in a way that works better for New Zealanders.
I will start with what the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill will do, but, again, I’ll just call this one the supervisor and levy bill.
First, we have three very different regulators supervising the businesses that have obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act, meaning that support to industry such as guidance is slow in coming, and it can be disjointed. Second, the system is far too prescriptive, and we cannot adequately adjust requirements to reflect different levels of risk of money laundering. Third, the agencies with functions under the AML Act are not sufficiently resourced to properly undertake their functions and support businesses to comply with ease.
To address these shortcomings, the supervisor and levy bill makes three major amendments to the principal Act. It replaces the three supervisors with a single agency, the Department of Internal Affairs, and provides the supervisor with sufficient powers to successfully carry out its mandate. It realigns the use of secondary legislation to enable a more nimble and agile system for setting and enforcing obligations on industry. Thirdly, it enables the setting and collection of an industry levy to help resource and fund the necessary changes and improvements to the AML system.
An effective AML system requires a unified and consistent approach across the agencies that are responsible for stewardship, regulation, and intelligence. By streamlining the supervisory model, this bill will enable more agile and responsive supervision. It also means that the Department of Internal Affairs will be able to issue timely and consistent cross-sector guidance so that businesses can have confidence that they are meeting the regulatory expectations. Currently, updating AML obligations is slow and resource intensive, relying on primary legislation or new regulations that struggle to keep pace with evolving financial crime. This creates and unnecessary burden for businesses, and it risks gaps in enforcement.
This bill enables the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Internal Affairs, as well as New Zealand Police, to make targeted changes through secondary legislation such as rules and notices. This allows obligations to be applied more flexibly based on risk, supporting a genuinely risk-based system while retaining regulations where parliamentary oversight, of course, is required. We need an AML system that is sufficiently resourced to make meaningful reform and to cut through red tape for those legitimate businesses, while effectively detecting, deterring, and preventing financial crime.
This bill establishes an industry levy as part of a new hybrid funding model to support the improved operation of the AML system. This is consistent with international practice and will ensure that participants in our financial system and other areas giving rise to money laundering risk will contribute to the safeguards against financial crime. Levy regulations will distribute costs in a risk-appropriate and equitable way while minimising administrative costs. We will be mindful of the potential consumer impact of the levy where multiple regulated companies are involved with the same transaction.
The intention is that the regulatory relief enabled by this bill, together with the benefits to be co-funded by the levy, will result in overall positive outcomes for businesses and consumers. We will continue to refine the levy in consultation with the industries and the businesses that it might affect. I would like to thank the industry for their continued engagement and their support throughout this process of change.
I now turn to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment (AMLCFT) Bill. This bill cuts unnecessary red tape. It makes the system easier for businesses to navigate and of course comply with. It delivers 25 targeted changes to improve efficiency, support regulators, and maintain New Zealand’s compliance with internation standards. For example, it allows more proportionate due diligence for low-risk trusts rather than applying the same requirements regardless of the risk. It also removed unintended duplication, such as requiring an international Border Cash Report when one has already been completed. More broadly, the bill improves clarity and proportionality across the system by ensuring obligations, including checks for politically exposed persons, are applied based on risk rather than on rigid rules.
The supervisor and levy bill was considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, while the AMLCFT bill was considered by the Justice Committee. I’d like to thank both committees for their careful and constructive consideration of the bills. I’d also like to thank those submitters who took the time to share their views. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee made a series of excellent recommendations, primarily relating to retaining the integrity of the enforcement mechanisms in the Act for new secondary powers introduced in the bill. This is to ensure that regulator parties know where they stand when a rule or a notice is made, and that criminal activity absolutely will be prosecuted.
Another is standardising the consultation requirements and matters to be considered by regulatory decision-makers, providing a clear opportunity for affected parties to input into secondary legislation and understand why decisions have been made. As well, they’ll be ensuring that safeguards are in place when the new supervisory powers are being applied. These changes support the policy underpinning the bill and have not altered the intent of the bill.
The Justice Committee made six recommendations on the AMLCFT bill, and I’m going to address three of them. First, the bill clarifies business obligations to provide records. The committee replaced the requirement to act to act “swiftly” with tiered time frames based on urgency, giving businesses greater certainty while ensuring timely access is still available for authorities.
Second, the committee clarified the role of guidance and risk assessments. Submitters were concerned that guidance could take on the force of law. The bill now requires businesses to incorporate risks identified in national and secretarial assessments, making both the status of those assessments and business obligations clear.
Thirdly, the committee recommended introducing a censure as a separate sanction alongside formal warnings, rather than renaming the warnings. The amendment includes a clear framework and appeal rights, aligning with other legislation and giving supervisors a more effective soft enforcement tool.
I’m proud to speak to these bills today because of the difference that they’re going to make to everyone who’s engaging with our anti-money laundering system. The Government is committed to bolstering economic growth while tackling financial crime. The common-sense, quick win changes in the AML bills that are presented will strengthen the anti-money laundering regime while empowering businesses in New Zealand to focus on doing what they do best. I’d like to commend this bill to the House.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:58): It’s not often I get to do a call on two bills at once, so I thank the Minister for giving me a lot of reading material to go through on these particular bills. We are at the second reading now, and it’s the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on either of these bills.
The call for action in this area has been clear. I think, in the documentation I was looking at in 2022, there was a report done that indicated there needed to be action to make sure that our anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism laws and regulations were strengthened. I think, even looking back at the time when these particular amendments that we’re making to the original bill were brought in, there was a view at that time that more would need to be done in the future. It’s not a surprising thing to take action on, and, obviously, it’s good for Governments to make sure that when important recommendations are made about significant issues like this, they are followed forward.
I think there are—I could be wrong—four bills, and we’re discussing two of them today. These are not straightforward matters, but, of course, I’m sure all New Zealanders will recognise that, unfortunately, one of the crimes that is sometimes committed—both in New Zealand and around the world—is hiding the proceeds of crime or hiding particular proceeds or amounts of money and purporting for those to be one thing when actually they are something else.
I wanted to start with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. When this was first introduced—and I think today the Minister went over some of the reasons it was first introduced—one point of difference that we had with the Government on this is where the Minister appeared, in some of her comments, to suggest that streamlining this was in order to get rid of a situation of undue bureaucracy. I don’t agree that that is the right driving intention for these particular changes. The driving force should be that we have the strongest, most appropriate laws in place to ensure that when people do business in New Zealand or when, in fact, people do business with New Zealand companies, they know that we take this type of crime seriously and that we will do everything we can to make sure that New Zealand has appropriate mechanisms to ensure that this doesn’t take place. We don’t agree that it’s necessarily “red tape”.
I wasn’t privileged to be on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, but the select committee, in relation to both bills, have made some pretty substantive changes since the original bills were introduced. At least one of them had a report-back time of the end of November last year, so I think there will be some questions we do have for the Minister around how these particular changes are going to be implemented. For example, one of the changes brought in by the select committee was that rather than the normal process of having a bill come into force the day after Royal assent, it would come in on 1 July 2026. Well, we are now approaching that much faster than we would have been when this was due for reporting at the end of last year. There are a few issues about whether that needs to be changed—this is, again in relation to, I think, the first bill on the Order Paper. They’re quite similarly names, so I can’t be exactly certain—anyway, it’s in relation to the supervisor and levy bill.
The other issue that I wanted to raise is something that we have raised in relation to a few different bills—not just in this area, and certainly not just with this Minister. There are a lot of the substantive provisions in both of these bills that are reliant on regulations and are made to be effective through regulations. Obviously, a concern for us as legislators is the fact that we don’t have oversight of the regulations before the bills are made law, and therefore we can’t balance whether the system as a whole will be effective. That is another thing that was reflected on by the select committee.
Another thing that I’d be keen to raise now and obviously ask the Minister about in the committee of the whole House stage, is the fact that there has been a change made by the select committee to mean that there has to be consultation with the Minister on changes. Now, these are crimes that we’re talking about, and we do have in New Zealand a relatively usual and, I think, proper space and gap between the operations of the prosecuting bodies like the New Zealand Police and other agencies like the Serious Fraud Office and the political decision-makers who make the laws, That has been a change made at select committee—it’s been a suggestion to have consultation with the Minister.
Other things that might be interesting for lawyers, and certainly were interesting for me, were that changes were made to ensure that when a meeting about a contravention happens—this is under the first bill still—that a lawyer has to be present at that meeting. I’m quite interested to find out at later stages of this discussion how that works, because having a lawyer present and being informed of your rights won’t necessarily get rid of all the potential risks. If there’s any doubt, I wasn’t on the select committee, but it appears to me that they have made more substantive changes than many other select committees do, so I want to commend them for that.
There are a few other changes in relation to that first bill, but I notice that I’m almost out of time to talk about the second bill, which is obviously being read at the same time. This has had some rather substantive changes since the first reading. One of the things that might be interesting for the politicians in the House to note is that there was a change from “politically exposed person” and that definition that appeared in the first draft of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which is the second bill. The language of that has been changed. It was raised as a concern by submitters, so I do commend the committee for doing that, and I’m interested to hear, in due course, from the Minister on how that will affect that.
Another aspect of this bill, similar to the last bill, is the fact that there will be other regulations that will be put in place that will not be subject to select committee review. That’s specifically in relation to the risk assessment. That is significant, and, obviously, we hope that the provisions that are put in place can be reviewed at some stage so we can make sure that those are appropriate too.
Overall, I don’t think many New Zealanders would disagree with the purpose of these pieces of legislation. These are serious matters. I recall in my training as a lawyer, and when I qualified in the United Kingdom, that one of the main areas that we had to study was to make sure that we were able to effectively identify money laundering. That was a compulsory aspect of it. The fact that we are taking this so seriously and have, in fact, four pieces of legislation to address these concerns shows how complex this can be. These are not victimless crimes. You’ll see in some of the information about how money laundering has been exploited in New Zealand that some people have used their children or children’s identities in order to money launder. That is a despicable crime, not only for the dishonesty associated with the money laundering but also for the association of people who have no agency and the potential impacts for them in later life, too.
This is serious. The committee has done a good job at making some substantive changes to both bills. It’s interesting to see them set out here beside one another. Obviously, we will look at the other pieces of legislation as well, but we do encourage the Government to make sure that the focus is on having a robust regime in relation to money laundering and on making sure that people can have confidence in New Zealand, whether they are doing business here or whether they are an overseas company doing business with New Zealand abroad. I commend these bills to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:08): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on two bills—the associated bills that we’re reading now for the second time. In terms of context, what we have is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Both bills had their first readings a little while ago—the first one in particular, the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which I will now shorten to AMLCFT.
Hon James Meager: That’s just as long!
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Well, I could expand it and just continue to take up more time. Anyway, the first AMLCFT bill was introduced at the end of 2024, and it did go through the Justice Committee at that time. Afterwards, we saw the first reading, at some point last year, of the AMLCFT (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It’s also interesting to note that while the two bills cover the same sort of recommendations and findings from the Financial Action Task Force, they did go to separate select committees. At that stage, we raised the concern, particularly when the second bill was read—the AMLCFT (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—about why that went to that committee when the first one, about which we did have a few questions and concerns as well, went to the Justice Committee.
At that stage, the rationale that we were given was that upon attending the relevant select committee and select committee process for both of them, it does make a lot of sense when it comes to the first anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism (AMLCFT) bill in the Justice Committee being more relevant around the illegality aspect, the definitions around the regulatory system but also the use of censure, etc. That was appropriate to be heard by the Justice Committee members, particularly those with a skill in those matters.
But it is unfortunate that once we got to the second bill, which went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, it was hard for members—who could, of course, sub in from one committee to another. But for those from the public perspective who may not be aware, both committees sit on the same day, so occasionally it was hard for the same members to sub in and out to join both committees, particularly when the second AMLCFT bill was heard in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It was just by chance that I was able to sub in on some of those and was able to hear from both submitters and also officials on both bills, which form part of a broader package of AMLCFT reform. So that’s kind of the broader context.
I’m going to start first with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which went through the Justice Committee, and then I’ll move on to the second one. Like I’ve said, both of them come as a broader package from the Financial Action Task Force recommendations and the review that they’ve done on AMLCFT. With that particular one, there were kind of two particular areas that are important to note. I want to express the difference between how the bill was introduced in the first reading and what we’re seeing now in the second reading, after the select committee stage, in terms of some of the changes that we’ve adopted as a result of what we’ve done in the select committee, after advice from officials but also from submitters, and I want to thank all submitters on both bills.
For the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, we had 21 submitters, and the two broadest areas were around the definition of “politically exposed person” in new section 26(1) in clause 10. Specifically, when we were looking at the term that was used, which was “risk management system”, submitters mentioned, rightly, that this particular term doesn’t appear anywhere else in the legislation and that by introducing this term, it might have the counter-productive effect of making it more clear in terms of the requirement from reporting entities. So, as part of that process, we have decided to remove that particular term “risk management system” and retain the existing section 26(1) in the section, which talks about it being in accordance with the level of risk involved. I think that is an important consistency change that we’ve made to the bill to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
Now, of course, we also discussed a lot in terms of how the reporting entities must keep a record and the fact that now, under the new requirement, we are seeing greater accountability, which is really important because, again, AMLCFT is a serious concern. As we see organised crimes becoming more and more sophisticated, our AMLCFT legislation should also be able to keep up to date with the increasing sophistication while at the same time ensure that the compliance isn’t overly burdensome for people who may not be in a position to do the full reporting but also in a position where they may not have the resources to be able to comply with a one-size-fits-all model. So I think, again, the flexibility we’re seeing in both bills is really, really important, but in this case, in terms of the reporting, now, the “reporting entity that is required to produce … under this Act or any other enactment would need to do so swiftly.” Again, it’s an accountability and transparency mechanism that we see, which is really important.
Finally, I think, for the AMLCFT bill that I want to address is the questions—and, again, we’ve heard concerns from the submitters around censures. Now, at this stage, there are two separate—well, formerly, under the first reading of the bill, the intention I think at that stage was to replace formal warnings with censures, but as we heard from the select committee stage, as people rightly pointed out, when we’re looking at formal warnings, it is in reference to allegations, and “recipients are invited to contact supervisors if the facts stated in the notice are inaccurate or incomplete.”, whereas “censures are typically penalties that follow evidential findings”. So those two are very different and serve different purposes.
One of the things that the select committee did do is we amended to add censures as a new section while retaining the existing formal warning system—again, just to take into consideration both scenarios. So that’s mainly the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill.
I’m going to move on to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think one of the big issues over—well, one of the big changes, which at select committee we didn’t really have to make any changes to because neither submitters nor officials had any particular concern with this area, is the changes in terms of reporting for the supervisors and the requirements around the supervisors.
I think what is important to mention as part of the select committee process and questions that were raised—and I think this is going to be something that, for example, the Regulations Review Committee will continue monitoring—is that the biggest aspect of this particular bill, which is more to do with the financing aspect of it—which is why it went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—is that it provides for regulations and codes of practice to be made in the AMLCFT system, which then extends that range of secondary legislation, which, for some, of course, as part of a primary legislation, understandably, submitters have concerns around certainty and around requirements, because secondary legislation is not done as part of the introduction of a bill; it’s done much later on.
So it is important, then, to ensure that when the agencies are—and I believe, in this case; I might be wrong, but I believe it’s the Department of Internal Affairs. When they are putting together the regulations and the codes of practice to ensure that a fulsome consultation is done with the relevant stakeholders to make sure that they are fit for purpose and they are appropriate—and, of course, as we know, with the Regulations Review Committee here in Parliament, the Regulations Review Committee will also be reviewing and will be keeping an eye on some of the secondary legislation.
Finally, I just want to address that the broader concerns we’re seeing and how wide-scoping this is when it comes to AMLCFT globally—because, again, this is something that isn’t simply just about individuals but can also be applicable to organisations and companies. An example I really want to address is the landmark case currently that just took place in France where Lafarge, which is a cement company, has been put on record as, or has been ruled to be, financing terrorism in Syria and beyond. This, for example, is now owned by Holcim, which is a company that is also here in Aotearoa New Zealand. So it’s important, when we’re looking at the broader scope of AMLCFT, how we’re able to make sure that that doesn’t happen for both individuals and companies. But the Green Party does support this bill. Thank you.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (16:18): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Removing red tape isn’t just about one step or one action; it’s about layers and layers of removal of unnecessary compliance, things that cost New Zealand businesses every day. This bill is another step in removing unnecessary red tape. It’s about making it easier to do business, reducing compliance costs, and improving our regulatory systems. As part of getting this country back on track, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (16:19): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—a big mouthful. I think it’s really important, on behalf of New Zealand First, to recognise that our core pillar is around protecting community and country, and that includes the necessary steps that we have to ensure that crime and terrorism do not form or take stronger hold than they already have in the fabric of our society.
When we talk about this bill removing bureaucracy and red tape, this means that we’re producing legislation that is usable, workable, and more effective. It is not simply removing red tape; it is actually making the legislation more effective, more applicable. When people understand the legislation, then we can ensure there’s greater levels of compliance and, therefore, greater levels of accountability for those who breach the legislation.
New Zealand First is very proud of this piece of legislation. We commend the Minister for the hard work that has gone into bringing this piece of legislation together. We do need to ensure that we make it easier to do business. We do need to make sure that we maintain our reputation as a safe and effective place to do business, to live, and to operate. Therefore, this legislation is important that we ensure that we have risk-proportionate legislation, that we apply practical steps to ensure that we’re not duplicating, we are making our legislation clear and understandable. Therefore, we have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (16:21): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the second speaker for the Greens to support these bills. I wasn’t on either select committee—the Justice Committee or the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—but I do note the comments made by my esteemed colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan that having those select committees on the same day made it very difficult for members of our Parliament that are incredibly keen to go to every single select committee that they could—so commiserations to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and others across the House that wish they could go to as many select committees as they could.
I guess the thing that I noted from that was the complexity with these number of bills. There’s the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill—which has been protracted into the AMLCFT-type legislation—which is just one of four bills that would amend regulatory systems administered by the Ministry of Justice. These amendments in the bill are designed to ensure that anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism legislation remains fit for purpose, which is the reason why it’s divided up into a number of bills.
My understanding is that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—which is the one that went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and went to that committee because it was dealing with the financial aspects, as well. It focused on making sure that it provides for codes of practice and making sure that there was that following-on regulation. Because this will be a fast-changing and developing aspect of the law, as well, it’s good to hear that the Regulations Review Committee, hopefully, will be paying close attention to this particular bill as well.
Also, noting the case that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan said as well, in terms of this type of bill, that it’s important that it just doesn’t focus on individuals—and noting that companies and larger organisations can also be involved in financing of terrorism, as well. He did point to the case of the French cement company Lafarge—who is now owned also by Holcim, who are here in New Zealand; so I hope they’re listening as well—who have been found to be funding terrorism in Syria, so pointing to the important aspect of making sure that we get this legislation over the line, as well.
The other bill that we are discussing today, as well, is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill. Because I wasn’t on the select committee, I kind of assumed that it was an overarching bill, but I’ve been told that it wasn’t; it is actually part and parcel of the four bills. That one went to the Justice Committee because it was dealing with issues where there are experts on that committee who deal with these issues day to day.
One of the things that they dealt with was what it means to be a politically exposed person. There are very many politically exposed persons in this Parliament, but I guess, within the context of this legislation, it has a very, very specific meaning. One of the discussions that they had was around a risk management system. The point that I took was that, actually, this was the first time that this term had actually appeared in the legislation, and that would cause issues. The committee—my understanding is—decided to change that and take that away. I think that is a common-sense thing to do, to make sure that it is streamlined.
It is important to make sure that these bills do get given due consideration. I do want to commend members across the House for working diligently on this. It does seem incredibly complicated and complex. I’m just picking this stuff up today, but these are fast-moving times. Making sure that our legislation is fit for purpose, making sure that this legislation can get the job done is incredibly, incredibly important. Having that spread across different select committees to actually deal with the separate issues is incredibly important, as well. I know that submitters would have come to the select committee with solutions and to find particular ways in which this will make it fit for purpose here in New Zealand, and beyond as well.
There was a discussion around the commencement date. I note that, as well, that it was different in terms of the context of this bill as opposed to what it was usually as we expect within other bills. The Greens will be supporting both of these bills. Thank you.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (16:26): It is a great honour to rise and speak in support of both these bills. It’s great to have support right across the House for them. It is important to protect against crime and also terrorism, but we also need to make sure our legislation is workable and efficient. Therefore, I commend these bills to the House.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:26): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like colleagues across the House, I rise to speak in favour of both of these bills. Several colleagues have raised the fact that these bills went through two separate select committees, so it was a bit of a collaborative effort, but, actually, a third committee was involved, as well: the Regulations Review Committee, and perhaps I’ll be able to speak to some of their contribution down the line.
This is, of course, an extremely serious issue, particularly so when we see New Zealand’s standing or ranking with Transparency International slip in recent years. Certainly, this is one area that, in my view, has given pause to that. What we know is that about $1.3 billion is generated by money-laundering just in New Zealand every year. In 2025, there was a story about $1.8 million being taken from a group of about a dozen people who thought that they were investing in companies, essentially. This is an issue that very much affects everyday people.
I read an article a little while ago that compared how New Zealand was doing in comparison to Australia, in terms of our regulation. There was a phrase they used that said, “Australia is a step ahead but still in transition.” This is very much an issue where countries across the world are looking to develop their legislation, so it’s entirely appropriate that we should be doing the same.
The Minister and my colleague Camilla Belich have run through some of the aspects of this bill, certainly strengthening the scheme but also ensuring that there isn’t overregulation where it’s unnecessary. There are also very practical powers that are included in the four sets of bills, including the increase to powers for Police to freeze back accounts, as well.
I do note that, in terms of the submitters who came to the Justice Committee, one was the Law Society, and they did raise issues about whether the regulation was still too heavy in this space. In 2024, the Law Society released a report on the costs of running a legal practice. The used the financial data of—I believe it was—over 100 practices to identify operational costs and challenges. What the report showed is that the cost of running a legal practice had increased by 15.3 percent, but in the survey responses, many of the responses spoke to the fact that within that, the percent to which they were affected, there was a significant proportion that related to anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism costs. These are costs such as keeping records and conducting risk assessments. While I feel that we have got the balance right for now, I know that, certainly, there are asks from some who are being regulated that we continue to consider whether we do have the balance right.
I wanted to start as well by speaking a little bit about the search powers in the bill that we considered. As many in the House will of course know, section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Now, the bill as introduced allows the supervisor to require any person who it reasonably suspects has knowledge of a possible contravention of the Act or regulations to attend a meeting with a supervisor to answer questions and provide any other information they deem is necessary or desirable. What’s interesting about this is these circumstances, according to the legal advice, are likely to be held to be searches. Coupled with section 46, amended by clause 10 of this bill, it expands the regulator’s powers to enter into dwellinghouses with the consent of the occupier and conduct these interviews. Now, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act said that these searches—so these interviews—are legal, but there were then, of course, questions about whether the individuals being questioned would be required to answer. Thankfully, within the bill as it was introduced, there’s a section that said the individuals don’t need to answer if it would incriminate them.
The select committee did some really valuable work here in that they expressed concern that individuals simply wouldn’t know that they held this right. There was a necessary connector, which was the connector to two things, actually. Firstly, legal advice at this critical time, but also the individual seeking the information had to inform them of the rights as well. That was a really helpful addition that the select committee made.
There’s also a second question around the issue of detention. While these individuals are being required to attend a meeting, there was no power to bring the meeting to a close in the initial piece of legislation. Now, the initial views and advice around this were that it didn’t matter because the interviewers must exercise due care. The select committee actually said, “No. We should have this as an explicit provision within the bill.” Again, the individuals being interviewed are required to be informed of their right to call an end to these proceedings.
Now, at this stage you might be saying, “Well, aren’t we defeating the purpose of the bill?” We do want these investigators to have access to appropriate levels of information, but, thankfully, the bills as they are already cover this point as well. The Act provides for the supervisors to require the production of documentation. That’s quite broad, in my view. That information cannot only be obtained through that power but there are provisions about how long individuals have to be able to provide that information as well.
So really robust work done by the select committee in terms of ensuring the protection of rights as opposed to assuming them. I said I’d mention the role of the Regulations Review Committee because, again, it’s often an overlooked committee, but one who ensure we have clean and tidy legislation when it comes to this stage of a bill or bills being in the House. They pointed, in some of their advice, to a duplication of powers. This was a power to make exemptions to levy requirements—a very, very important part of the legislation. I’m getting some nods from Government members, I’m sure who not only agree with this but agree with the important role of the Regulations Review Committee. Their proposal was that you didn’t need both powers. So the two powers: one has some restrictions around when an exemption could be granted; the other one was quite broad. The committee’s recommendation was to include the power with more restrictions, which is really in line with best practice in terms of legislative drafting—so a very important role from the Regulations Review Committee.
I can’t bring my contribution to a close without also mentioning one important thing that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—so the other select committee—recommended as well. This is a clarification, rather than anything else, which relates to Official Information Act (OIA) requests. There was a clause within the initial bill that went to that select committee in clause 36, Schedule 1, New Part 3, section 9(2)(a), that said, “all information that relates solely or principally to the function and that is held by the FMA or the RBNZ is transferred to and held by the DIA;” They pointed out that, actually, that was quite confusing about who would hold the obligation to provide the information if an OIA request was sought. In my limited time, I won’t read out the language they proposed, none the less to say that I think that it was extremely helpful.
In my final minute, I would just like to make one point about the funding of mechanisms to appropriately oversee fraud, and serious fraud in particular. I would encourage the Government to not only ensure that we have a legislative framework that is fit for purpose and that has the mechanisms to monitor compliance with that framework but that we also have the court systems to be able to prosecute at a level we should. Now, in last year’s Budget we saw about $100,000 decline in the Serious Fraud Office’s budget, who are being, essentially, asked to have, in my view, a broader mandate and address more serious issues that are hitting our shores—I reference, again, both the decline in our Transparency International rating and increasing rates of fraud across the board. We agree with the legislation, but, again, we’ll be keeping an eye on the Budget later this year; for me, particularly in regards to the budget of the Serious Fraud Office. Thank you.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (16:36): It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the combining and coming together of these two different but fundamentally same in importance bills. Like the coming together of these two bills, it’s lovely hearing the coming together of the commendation around the House of them from all the different parties. I commend these bills to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dan Rosewarne—this is a split call.
DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (16:37): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on these two bills. I wasn’t there for the submission process, but I’ve very much enjoyed just hearing the contributions in the House today. Protecting the integrity of New Zealand’s financial system and ensuring that it cannot be exploited by organised crime or those financing terrorism is absolutely crucial. Let’s be clear: any anti – money-laundering is not red tape, as some have indicated; they’re a front-line defence. They protect our communities from very real harm caused by organised crime, particularly in a country that continues to grapple with the devastating impacts of methamphetamine and a huge amount of financial scams.
We support the steps it takes to strengthen enforcement, close loopholes, and improve the overall effectiveness of the anti – money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. For example, we support banning those crypto ATMs that we see cropping up around the country. These machines convert cash into cryptocurrency. They’ve become a clear vulnerability in the financial system—very hard to track the movements within that system. The Banking Ombudsman recently warned of significant scam risks with people being directed to deposit large sums of cash into these machines. We’ve even seen them appearing around Christchurch. In my research leading up to speaking on this bill, there were around about 30 in Christchurch alone. They were cropping up around the country up to around about 200. Closing the loophole is the right thing to do.
But support for this bill does not mean a blank cheque; we still have some concerns. We also support the move to single AML/CFT supervisor—that role. This is a sensible change. It will simplify what is currently a fragmented system and make it easier for legitimate businesses to navigate. Many of our international partners, including Australia, that already operate under a single supervisor model. However, this new supervisor will take on significant responsibilities—functions currently held by both the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority. That raises an important question: is the Department of Internal Affairs the right place for that role? Because this is not a minor or administrative shift. This is a consolidation of a substantial regulatory enforcement and rulemaking power into one single entity.
That entity must be very robust, it must be well resourced, and capable of managing risk at a national and international level. That brings me to a key concern: the growing reliance on secondary legislation. This bill gives significant powers to the chief executive of the supervisor to make rules, set thresholds, and grant exemptions, and to shape how the system actually operates in practice. Some flexibility is appropriate, but we’re concerned that too many critical decisions—decisions about how that risk is defined and managed—will be made outside of that full parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament should not be asked to sign off on broad principles only to have the real substance determined later on down the track, behind closed doors. We want to know exactly what is being proposed in that secondary legislation, because that detail very much matters.
Take the issue of low-risk customers. In principle, Labour supports making compliance easier where risk is genuinely low, but no one wants to see small businesses, farmers, or everyday New Zealanders buried under unnecessary compliance costs. That really needs us to define what is low-risk, and that is not straightforward. Criminals actively look for weak points in a system, they look for the gaps, and they look for people and transactions that appear low risk in order to exploit them. We know, for example, that children’s bank accounts can be used as conduits for that money-laundering. Real estate transactions remain a known vector for illicit finance. These are all things that these two bills do, and for that reason, we commend them to the House.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:42): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill introduces a single supervisor for anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism—we’re sort of bringing things together, which is a really good thing in Parliament. It replaces the current, complicated system that exists at the moment. Many businesses really struggle with the processes that they have to go through—there’s heaps and heaps of complexity associated. Ultimately, it’s about making it simpler for the businesses but also ensuring that this reform removes all of the unnecessary bureaucracy that’s happening. It strengthens up our defences against serious financial crime, and so I commend it to the House.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:42): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Yes, we do support this bill, but we support appropriate regulation. I do think it’s important to recognise that anti - money-laundering legislation and action is actually critical in addressing some of the real problems in New Zealand today. We do know that the gangs have cash businesses, and they desperately need to launder their money. We do know that methamphetamine use has gone up astronomically in New Zealand over the past few years, and a cash business like that desperately needs ways to launder money.
I just want to express some caution around the narrative that we’re hearing across a number of agencies and regulatory sphere when we talk about risk-based regulation. On its surface, that’s a pretty anodyne kind of comment, but what we’ve got to be really careful about is that that isn’t seen as shorthand for deregulation or less regulation, or lower or looser regulation. What it needs to be is effective regulation, and I think we can all agree that that is entirely appropriate.
There is a danger that we search out situations that the participants say are low risk. My colleague Dan Rosewarne identified one. The problem is that in many cases, they are low risk—children’s bank accounts. Now, of course, we don’t want children to have to have full “know your customer” regulations when they’ve got their $2 a week going into their bank account. If you know that nobody looks at children’s bank accounts, then those naturally become a target because it is the weakest link. The same goes for routine conveyancing transactions, which is another so-called low-risk transaction. Of the thousands that happen every week, they are almost all fine, but if we have a regime where nobody looks—where there is no reporting requirement for routine conveyancing transactions—then routine conveyancing transactions will be where the money goes. We’ve got to be really cautious that we don’t see the system as static—that we don’t say, “Oh, nobody launders money that way, so we don’t need to look there.” As soon as you stop looking there, money will start being laundered there.
The whole premise of these two bills is risk-based regulation. We agree, in principle, with the idea that you don’t regulate where there is no risk—but be cautious that you don’t look at something like children’s bank accounts, conveyancing transactions, or real estate agents’ trust accounts and say, nothing ever goes wrong there, so nothing ever will. That’s the first thing I would say. Along with that goes the idea that money-laundering regulation is red tape. It’s not. It’s actually one of the most effective and important tools to address organised crime, and I think we need to recognise that. What we should see this as doing—and I think it does, in part—is sharpening the tools rather than blunting them. It shouldn’t be making it less effective; it should be making it more effective.
The other thing I want to talk about just briefly is the levy framework. We can see some justification that entities that process large amounts of money should generally pay the costs of administering what goes on there, but linked to what I just said is that this is actually a law enforcement function. What’s going on here is the prevention and detection of criminal activity. In a sense, this has been outsourced to industry in the sense that if a bank gets a suspicious transaction, they are expected to detect and report that; it’s their job to do it—not the Police’s job, not the Financial Market Authority’s job. They are part of the enforcement network. That’s good and fine—there’s nothing wrong with that. But then, to say that they also have to pay the costs of the people who receive their reports and follow up on them—I think there’s a balance to be struck.
I’m not a huge one for letting banks off the hook, or even lawyers, but this is nevertheless a situation where we’ve got to be a little bit cautious about what we levy for. Levying and other charges are generally about a private good, but the good of appropriate money-laundering regulation is a good that is borne equally by society, because it means that there’s going to be less money-laundering that goes on, and it weakens criminal networks. I think we’ve got to think really carefully about that—about whether, just because someone is doing that activity, they should be paying for the administration of it in the Department of Internal Affairs.
That’s the other major restructure that this legislation does. Again, we agree that consolidation of the functions is appropriate, but we do hope that this Government will resource the Department of Internal Affairs appropriately, because the functions are not merely administrative.
But we do hope that this Government will resource the Department of Internal Affairs appropriately, because the functions are not merely administrative. It’s not just a matter of looking through a few spreadsheets and seeing where the money came from. Anti - money-laundering and financing of terrorism in particular is a complex, investigative, and forensic task. The people in the Financial Markets Authority who were doing that were expert investigators. It’s really important that that expertise exists in the Department of Internal Affairs and that culture of robust and fair and procedurally sound investigation is carried across into the department. Similarly, the work that the Reserve Bank was doing in administering—and, if I recall rightly, they would administer the suspicious transaction reports. So also those skills have to come across as well.
So, yes, we think that this bill and these two bills together are generally fine. I don’t know that we would have done it quite the same way, but the Labour Party’s not going to stand in the way of small improvements which do the right thing.
We do worry, though—and Vanushi Walters made this clear—that a lot of the administrative power, and it’s substantial, is passed through on to secondary legislation. Broad powers of exemption need to be carefully used. One of the questions is how far down the chain they go. As I understand it, this will be the chief executive’s role to exempt either by way of individuals—that Sharesies gets an exemption for such and such things—or by classes, so anyone who is embarking on this trade or enterprise can get an exemption. They’re pretty significant carve-outs of the legislative scheme and they need to be really carefully scrutinised to be very transparent. The regulation-making powers and the power to exempt by notice and the like raises some alarm bells and we’ll keep a close eye on it.
But as I said, the real issue is that we’ve got a massive problem in New Zealand of organised crime, criminal groups, methamphetamine use and sale, and we just want to be really cautious that we don’t actually blunt one of the most effective tools in addressing that serious social harm.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (16:53): I commend the bill.
SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (16:53): I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: So I’m going to take the vote on these two bills. I have been advised that I can vote on both of them together as long as all parties are voting the same way on both bills. So if anyone is intending to vote a different way on each bill, please let me know now. There is no indication of that.
Motion agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill
Legislative Statement
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (16:54): I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Second Reading
Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (16:54): I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
We traversed the contents of this bill in the first reading. As tradition, in the second reading, we now come to discussing the report back from the select committee. So I won’t go back over old territory. I will make a couple of key comments. First, I’d just like to thank the select committee—the transport select committee—
Dan Bidois: Infrastructure.
Hon JAMES MEAGER: Transport and Infrastructure Committee—don’t forget the infrastructure part—for their scrutiny of this bill and for the submitters who made the time to make a submission: 41 written submissions, seven submitters in total. I think members of the Justice Committee are probably rolling their eyes at the workload there, but all important stuff. I really appreciate the work that the select committee did and the time that people have put into contributing to this bill. It is a regulatory systems bill, so it covers a number of areas. With the agreement of parties across the House, it amends a number of Acts so we can make some modernisation changes to the system.
I wanted to touch on a couple of points raised by submitters that have been reflected back in the select committee report. The first one is, I think, probably one of the key parts of the bill and maybe the more popular part of the bill, which is that this is the bill that enables the infrastructure to provide for digital driver’s licences in New Zealand. Now, ironically, we can already recognise digital driver’s licences from other jurisdictions, just not our own. What this bill does is it implements that framework so that later on the Government can make decisions about what that system eventually looks like.
Just to be clear, for those who made submissions, this bill does not set up digital drivers’ licences; it just provides the framework for them to be implemented at a later date by the Government. I want to acknowledge the submitters who raised concerns about whether or not digital drivers’ licences would become compulsory. That is not the Government’s intention. It is our view that those licences, the physical licences, will remain in play and this is a voluntary step that people can take up if they wish to do so.
For instance, if you’re like me and you end up keeping your driver’s licence in the truck sometimes and you get to the airport and you fly somewhere and you’ve realised that you’ve left it in your truck and then you had to go and get a rental car, you still can’t get a rental vehicle because you need your physical licence to do so. For forgetful people like me, that may be helpful in the future when you can just pull out your phone, provide your verified driver’s licence, and on the roads you go.
I would also like to provide some reassurances to those submitters who raised the idea of this becoming a national ID. That is also not the intention. Of course, there are a number of documents and identification numbers that people hold in this country. Your driver’s licence is one, your passport is another, your national health number, your national education number—there are many, many numbers around that the Government can use to link you with Government services. All this does is provide the framework for allowing the digitisation of those drivers’ licences.
I wanted to address another key concern from submitters. It was around accessibility and the fact that for those who don’t have a driver’s licence for one reason or another, having a digital ID to prove their age or prove their identity can be quite difficult. I just want to reassure them that as part of the digital identity trust framework that the Government has also worked on, there are going to be other options that come forward in the future for a trusted, verifiable digital ID that people can use to verify their age or their identity which doesn’t involve having a driver’s licence. That should be good for those with accessibility issues or people who for one reason or another cannot have a driver’s licence or a passport for that reason.
With that, I’d just like to once again thank all those who made a contribution to this bill. The select committee reports a number of other relatively minor but straightforward changes to align some of the search powers, some of the infringement powers, some of the infringement powers in here with equivalent pieces of legislation around civil aviation and health and safety. I thank them for picking up on those issues. It’s one of the best things about our select committee, that you can put it through a process where some things that are overlooked the first time can get picked up, remedied, and taken through the House. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:58): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also say a few words at the second reading of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Labour’s going to support this bill at the second reading stage because it’s pretty practical. It’s a system-wide tidy-up, and that’s probably all it could be described as. I note the Minister’s comments and note that it was a relatively short speech because it’s a relatively simple, straightforward bill that tidies things up and improves how transport regulation works day to day.
It’s not without some controversy, and there were obviously some people that were concerned, as happens when some things become digitised. It can raise the hackles of a few people that want to be very well assured that it doesn’t overreach and doesn’t impact them in a negative way, and we can work our way through those points as we go on. So it’s not transformational. It certainly doesn’t fix issues without addressing—it fixes issues but it certainly doesn’t fix those bigger challenges in our transport system.
What the bill does do is it is understood, essentially, as a piece of modernisation work, and a clean-up across land, maritime, and aviation—and, actually, even rail. So it brings the system into the digital age, which is a good thing, and, as the Minister has just noted, a couple of really practical advantages of having that digital driver’s licence—for example, when trying to rent a car and not having your physical licence on you. It’s also important to note, I think, as many of the submitters were potentially a little bit concerned about that it’s not compulsory, and that seemed to give assurance to some people that were concerned about that being the direction.
It enables the digital driver’s licence and electronic display of documents like warrant of fitness and certificates of loading. It allows infringement notices to also be issued electronically, and it updates basic systems so that regulators can communicate using email and mobile contact details. That’s not without risk; we’ve certainly seen that in other bills that have come through this House. I remember, in particular, hearing quite a lot of evidence and information when I was on the Justice Committee about electronic infringement notices. When you dig beneath the surface, it’s certainly not as easy as it sounds at the onset of that conversation. This isn’t without complication, but, as I said, it’s a very simple updating bill. This makes compliance simpler and the system, hopefully, more responsive, which is the aim.
Secondly, it strengthens safety and enforcement. The New Zealand Transport Agency—I suppose, is one example—can close an unsafe highway more quickly, which has got to be a good thing. The Director of Land Transport can suspend unsafe operators much more immediately, should that information come to light if the system is a little bit more modern, and parts of the system can talk to each other a little bit more readily. Rail and maritime investigation powers in this bill are expanded so that risk can be identified earlier, as well. Those were things that within the transport sector are things that have been advocated for. This is about a system that can act a bit more quickly, particularly when safety is at risk.
The third point I wanted to make is that it updates the penalties and improves some consistency. That’s an important part of any kind of robust system. The land transport penalties are, in fact, increased, and the maritime fines are aligned much more readily with international standards, which is, actually, also really important. It ensures that rules—because it is important; as long as you have rules and regulations, they do have to remain credible and they do have to continue to be meaningful in a changing sort of world. We’re more than happy to support that.
The fourth aspect of this bill that bears, probably, worth mentioning is that it fixes some longstanding gaps and what, I suppose, can be described as technical errors. It resolves issues around declaring new State highways, it clarifies the use of infrastructure like bus stops when they happen to be within motorway corridors, and it fixes some aviation law issues so that airports—if I’ve got this right—can properly set those charges. So there are small but necessary fixes to remove some of the friction that exists within those current systems.
Finally, it aligns New Zealand with international standards, which, as I said, is actually important, particularly through stronger protections for seafarers—is a good example—under the international labour convention. That is something that we have a somewhat checkered history on, a proud history in a lot of respects but sometimes the lag between signing ourselves up to things and actually domestically putting in place those regulations in that legislation to enact it could be improved. Overall, the bill makes the system, as I said, more efficient, more modern, and safer. For those reasons, we are prepared to continue to show our support.
Now, when I think about the select committee process, given this is a second reading, I picked out a few bits and pieces of the feedback from submitters. Submitters, largely, supported the bill as a necessary tidy-up. As I said, many of these measures have been long advocated from within and it’s widely accepted that the legislation is somewhat outdated. There was strong support for the digital modernisation, particularly from industry, which stands to reason; these are the people that work within the system that not only have to deal with the cumbersome inefficiencies from a lack of digitisation but they’re also the people that need to be able to have that assuredness through something that’s a little bit more modern. Regulators and safety bodies also backed stronger enforcement powers, and the maritime stakeholders, in particular, welcomed those improved seafarer protections.
But there were, having said that, also some concerns raised, which is not unusual. The bill doesn’t address affordability pressures in transport, which, I think, is a shame. There are plenty of other things that this bill could have traversed to have gone in that direction. Submitters emphasised the need for accountability, alongside stronger enforcement powers, which is also something to be mindful of, and there were concerns about digital inclusion, particularly for rural and older New Zealanders, which is an issue that is relevant across a wide range of sectors but this one, in particular, is a really salient example, particularly when we’re talking about drivers’ licences of people that whilst they might not practically end up feeling disadvantaged but the perception of feeling as if something is happening at a pace or without the requisite knowledge. So we do hope that this is rolled out in the implementation stage in a way that is able to mitigate some of those concerns.
The bill, as I said, doesn’t answer some of the big questions. It certainly doesn’t, in and of itself, reduce emissions; it certainly doesn’t do anything or go any way towards easing congestion; and it doesn’t do anything or recommend anything for anything in the progress with aims to improving public transport or more accessible or more affordable forms of public transport. Those are the types of things that, certainly on this side of the House, the Labour Party will always continue to raise when given the opportunity to talk about a transport bill going through this House.
Whilst it’s practical and, therefore, necessary, it’s a very basic omnibus bill that cleans up some bits and pieces. It certainly can be best described, I suppose, as a bill that may well very well tidy up the system but it does nothing for rising costs of getting around. It certainly doesn’t make life any cheaper. At a time when costs are going up and when the economy has shrunk and people are feeling like they’re going backwards, this bill isn’t going to be the miraculous answer to any of that. But, then, having said that, not much of what’s going through this House at the moment is addressing those problems. Having said that, we will continue our support of this bill and we look forward to the other stages to come.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (17:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to support this bill, on behalf of the Green Party. My colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter was part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for the submissions, but I have looked at those and I have participated in the report and would like to thank the chair, the submitters, my colleagues, and, of course, the committee staff, who do such a good of scheduling and communicating with submitters in general.
It’s remarkable that a transport bill that actually covers air, sea, and land transport—both road and rail—is agreed, I hope, by all of the parties in the House, thanks partly to our chair. But inevitably, that means it is a tidying bill, not a transformative bill. I think we just have to accept that regulatory systems bills are tidying Acts rather than the transformation we really need in transport and a number of other areas.
I’ve got a few notes here from some aspects of the bill. I do think it went through a really good process—the idea that you have an initial chat through Business Committee to see if we’re likely to all agree. Through that process, there were some more contentious items removed, as I understand it. Some of the issues about removing various principles were abandoned when it was seen that we could not have agreement. I think that kind of early engagement might be rather useful on a number of other bills too.
I wanted to talk—and I shan’t be using my full 10 minutes, but I do want to cover a couple of things. It is clear that electronic driver licensing will be useful. It is very important that we are not making it compulsory. I recognise that the introducer of this bill said they might forget their driver’s licence. Well, your phone might be flat; you might have forgotten your phone as well as your driver’s licence—these things are possible. The question is: how will the system be accessible if you don’t have those things either? But that’s in the implementation stage. This enables the possibility of it, and I think there will be a lot of discussion about how we actually make it work.
I think one of the most important things is the organ donor status, and that’s on people’s drivers’ licences but, unfortunately, has been falling over time. I would like to see this opportunity of introducing a better system of recording to encourage people to provide that lifesaving opportunity to other people.
The other area that was brought up by some of the communities representing people with disabilities was: do not assume everybody over 16 is going to have a driver’s licence. Be careful about assuming that for things unrelated to hiring a car or showing the police your licence or whatever else, obviously, you need the licence for—it shouldn’t be assumed that if you don’t have a passport, you must have a driver’s licence. It was not within the scope of this bill to address how you might have that kind of digital identity for other people, but we did, as a committee, recognise that it was an important issue and there’s a gap highlighted in the current ID options. We’re more and more having to prove who we are. The only time I ever say, “Don’t you know who I am?” is to my phone, because it doesn’t know who I am. I change my glasses, I put my hair up, I wear a different lipstick—it can’t recognise me. I do think there are some real issues about how we go forward with defining identity.
I would just like to say the investigative powers there were quite interesting. We looked at railway corridors, who investigates railway accidents—and they are usually a combination of something that happened on a road and something that happened on a railway. To what extent is the site secured? All of those issues were traversed in some detail and I think will enable safer decisions to be made in the future.
I’m pleased to say that—oh, and I did want to say something about the seafarers. We have a section about employers’ duties in relation to seafarers of New Zealand ships on overseas voyages. I understand that there have been a number of improvements made. People are very vulnerable. They’re in the middle of the ocean. They don’t necessarily have communication. They may not even have the same languages. We should protect their employment rights and their human rights in those situations. With that, I support the bill.
SIMON COURT (ACT) (17:14): ACT supports this bill. ACT’s purpose is to make sure that red tape is cut; that regulations, where necessary—absolutely necessary—are fit for purpose and they actually encourage New Zealanders to invest, to go about their business, and to lead their best lives. Now, this Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill does a lot of those things, but, most importantly, what it does is it secures and protects the privacy of New Zealanders when it comes to electronic driver licensing. The committee was very clear that it must be optional, never compulsory, and it must be flexible, because some of us who do lose our wallets and cards regularly do need this alternative option of having an electronic licence on our phone or somewhere else handy. ACT commends this bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:15): I rise as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill as well. There’s only one item that I wanted to touch on. It is the driver’s licence one. We were very, very emphatic that it does need to be an option. We’re making it something that you can do, but it’s optional and not compulsory. I also just wanted to pick up on the comments which have just been made, I think mostly by Celia Wade-Brown, around some other form of identity. We had one impassioned submission from a chap called Runze Liu—R-u-n-z-e, for Hansard—and he said, “Look, as a disabled person, it’s very, very difficult to be identified. You can’t have a driver’s licence. Passports are very expensive. We need something.” We as a party would certainly not want to see a universal ID but something to support those kinds of people, because that is necessary for participating fully in society. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call Mike Davidson.
MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:16): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was only just a bit earlier we had a bit of a call out to see who wanted to talk to a transport bill, and, naturally, I quickly put my hand up, being someone that loves cycling and walking and taking public transport and is very fond of safety platforms as well, and seeing what’s happened with this over this two and a half years. I had no idea what I was going to be coming into but knew it would be an opportunity to speak to transport, especially coming from Canterbury.
Those of us from Canterbury will know how poorly we’re serviced by this Government when it comes to transport funding. We are 13 percent of the population, produce around 12 percent of the GDP, make up 15 percent of vehicle kilometres travelled, yet we only get 5 percent of the Waka Kotahi funding—5 percent. I think a lot of that is just going into a motorway that will bypass—what end? A billion dollars to save 3 minutes, and what will it do? They’re going to put a toll on it, most likely, and it’s going to actually increase traffic going through our local pā. It’s actually really poor when you look at what’s happening in Christchurch, so—
Andy Foster: Get back to the bill.
MIKE DAVIDSON: I’m getting back to the bill, but I was excited. I was excited when I got this call to come and talk about transport, considering what has happened over the last few years. I thought maybe someone saw a bit of a te reo sign and were getting upset and were doing more legislation to remove it. Maybe they’re trying to get rid of Waka Kotahi’s name completely. But no—no. It wasn’t about that. It wasn’t about fixing some of the slowest commutes around our country. In Christchurch, we have the slowest commute. No, it wasn’t going to fix that. In Ōtautahi, we have over 54 percent of our emissions coming from land transport. No, it wasn’t going to fix that. I was actually a little bit disappointed that this bill was just a very simple bill.
Tim Costley: Wellington Council will get you moving.
MIKE DAVIDSON: Wellington Council—we should be grateful they’re only getting $1 million on our one. What about the price of the Mount Vic? It’s going bankrupt the country for the price of a Mount Vic extra tunnel. It’s crazy, what’s happening with this Government, fixated on their roads. But, no, this bill wasn’t about that. Madam Speaker, I’m back to the bill now—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but the member was responding to interjections, so I will let you get away with that.
MIKE DAVIDSON: Thank you. This bill was actually very simple. It wasn’t contentious. It had minor amendments. I haven’t got my glasses; I can’t even read. It’s focused on amending 12 Acts. Well, I’ve still got two minutes, so I better go through them so we all know what the Acts are—they’re amending the Government Road Powers Act 1989, the Land Transport Act 1998, the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the Maritime Transport Act 1994, the Railways Act 2005, the Road User Charges Act 2012, the Auckland Airport Act 1987, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, the Civil Aviation Act 2023, the Prostitution Reform Act 2003—have I got the right bill; I think so—the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Act 1990. They’re just simple changes that were not contentious.
I was actually fortunate enough to be on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when we did hear some of the submissions, and I was present when the young chap that Andy Foster mentioned spoke. It was a very compelling argument, at the time, that, actually, there are a lot of people that cannot have a driver’s licence as ID. Obviously, at that point of time, it was out of scope. One of the things that can concerns me, obviously, is that they come along and they talk, it’s out of scope, and nothing happens, so I was very pleased when I heard the Associate Minister of Transport saying earlier that, actually, they’d picked that up and that issue’s going to be addressed. That’s actually really good to see that. I acknowledge that, because I think it’s really important that when people come to talk to select committees and they actually come with a genuine concern that needs fixing, we don’t just let it fall off the radar; things are actually done to address that.
I would like to acknowledge the work of the select committee and the chair, Andy Foster—you know, hard work to get this one through to this stage, but they did a good job and we support this bill. Kia ora.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker—I didn’t want to interrupt the member’s speech, but I was going to comment that I’m very pleased he has a very strong voice, because he had a lot to contend with.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (17:21): First of all, I’d like to thank you—not the previous one but the one before; the Green Party member Celia Wade-Brown for highlighting the concern I raised, at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, about the organ donation. We want to know that as we’re moving towards using the digital system, we need to make sure healthcare workers can access the organ donation information.
In conclusion, this bill is about getting the basics right and creating a platform for the future innovation and efficiency. I commend this bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:22): Kia orana. Meitaki maata Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to rise, as Labour’s transport spokesperson, to take what will be a full call this afternoon, because it’s important that the Parliament has the opportunity to hear what this member has to say today on The Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.
It seems to be it’s the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s day today, with legislation currently before the Parliament, and some members have touched on some of the issues that have been raised as part of the process that the committee went through. I want to acknowledge the colleagues that work collegially on that particular committee most of the time. We had a number of submissions—41—and seven people came and orally submitted, in terms of coming to speak to their submissions. I want to also acknowledge, actually, what is a multitude of officials, in addition to the standard Parliamentary Counsel Office and Office of the Clerk. The fact that this is an omnibus bill indicates the sort of broad nature of officials that were required to support and assist the committee through their deliberations—so the Ministry of Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi, and Maritime New Zealand, amongst some others as well.
This is an omnibus bill, which is appropriate because it actually seeks to change a number of provisions—many of them actually are rather outdated. When the committee turns its mind to addressing some of those outdated motions, it kind of also has to think about trying to futureproof some of those options for the future, where possible. In some circumstances, that can be done, and in some circumstances, it can’t be done—the select committee’s report does touch on a few of those particular pieces. But, fundamentally, this is looking to update and amend legislation in the areas of land transport, maritime, and aviation.
What was really interesting was Mr Mike Davidson actually went through the 12 Acts that this bill seeks to amend. There were a few little chuckles from across the aisle over there, when two of those Acts were actually mentioned: one of them was the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender) Government Agency Registration Act 2016, and the other was the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. One could rightly, I guess, form the view: what have those two pieces got to do with a regulatory system transport omnibus bill?
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Go on, tell them.
TANGI UTIKERE: I will tell you, thank you, Barbara Edmonds. What the child protection piece of legislation is about—this bill will seek to allow for a registered offender to present ID in an electronic form. So if an electronic driver’s licence is held by anyone in this country—and this will create the mechanism for that to happen; it’s not saying that will, necessarily, all come in overnight, but it will create the mechanism for that to happen. It means that in that particular law, if someone is a registered offender, that they could choose to have the electronic copy, which would be required, as opposed to the physical one.
For the prostitution reform, the current legislation requires an individual specified in that Act to present a photocopy of their driver’s licence, which would prove rather difficult if you had an electronic copy— Justices of the Peace and others all deal with these sorts of issues all the time.
The bill, as it currently stands, seeks to amend the provision to allow for an electronic driver’s licence. For the benefit of members opposite there, consistency is important and, hopefully, that is able to respond to any concerns that might exist there.
This is a bill that does seek to address the digital opportunity for modern service. As Mr Foster has said, one of the things that the committee was really keen on ensuring was that this bill still allowed for people who choose to, to have a physical driver’s licence in paper form. Even though this might provide for a modernisation in a digital context, it does not mean that everyone will be forced to have only one form of driver’s licence and that’s a digital one. This still provides the opportunity for those that choose to, to have a paper copy if that is how things actually pan out. That was one of the concerns that I raised in first reading; where privacy considerations that the committee did hear from submitters about concerns as to if digital was going to be the only way, well, what sort of protections were going to be in place around the protection of their privacy if it was held in a centralised system.
Now, some could argue, well that currently exists as an issue or not where the data is currently contained in a centralised electronic system. Anyhow, it’s just the physical copy of the driver’s licence that people have in terms of being on them and to be able to present those as well, but this also extends that to allow for the electronic provision of certificate of fitness, warrant of fitness. There will be a time perhaps where we will no longer have windscreens that have a litany of different stickers representing different things. This bill does seek to provide that in that space as well.
It also seeks to strengthen the safety and enforcement opportunities that have actually remained in legislation and on the country’s books for some time. If there were some safety concerns around State highways as part of the networks, there was not an automatic right for Waka Kotahi to go and, effectively, close down periods or patches of State highway networks. This does provide them the opportunity to do that, but only in circumstances where safety is an issue. It’s not a broad-brush form of authority where they can just go in and shutdown a highway; it needs to be purely related or only related to safety considerations. I don’t think we’ve got much, sort of, hope with the lack of progress with “roads of National Party’s significance”, that they’re going to have to shut any of them down, because hardly any of them are built in terms of that space. Unfunded, no revenue, wanting to toll them, all of those sorts of things. [Interruption]
Simon Court: You’ll drive on them.
TANGI UTIKERE: What’s that? Oh, look, they like to chirp over there. I look forward to the contributions that are to come, to hear about what it is—they’ve got an issue with what I’m saying. Let’s get that on the Hansard so that they can tell us exactly what that is all about.
Now, in terms of the penalty provisions, many of these provisions had not been updated for quite some time. In the maritime space, what’s been sought there is to try and lift the game in terms of compliance so that those who do need a bit of a deterrent, that, actually, it means something. Many of the provisions have been updated in that space, which does make a lot of sense as well.
I want to touch on the maritime sector, because the committee had a lot of conversations in this space. What I think is really encouraging is that this bill, in the maritime space, will ensure that the reforms that Maritime New Zealand are undertaking as a result, and in sort of tandem with this bill and this legislation, will bring us into alignment with the Maritime Labour Convention.
That is really, really important. Where we sign up as a country to conventions around the world, there are obligations on signatories. For quite some time, New Zealand perhaps maybe have been seen or perceived as lagging behind. What this bill does is it brings us up to speed, and it ensure that as an international player, we are pulling our weight. That’s an important consideration.
What’s also really important is the protection of the rights that seafarers have. This bill goes into quite some detail, and so does the committee’s report—it references this—to ensure that seafarers have a standard of protection that is really, really important. We are a country that is located in the depths of the South Pacific; we rely on seafarers on more occasions than other countries around the world. Ensuring that there are minimum protections and opportunities for the director of Maritime New Zealand to go in and check that these particular standards are being enforced is the right thing to do and will ensure that we, as an international player, are continuing to pull our own weight.
The changes in that regard, in rail, align the investigation powers with those that currently exist comparatively with the Civil Aviation Authority. There is some consistency that has been introduced there as well. Many of these changes, as my colleague Dr McLellan has said, are practical, but they really don’t address aspects that the Government should be turning its mind to around affordability. They have a suite of roads that they want to roll out; they have no money for them; they’re seeking to reprioritise or “re-sequence” or thereabouts, but they remain blind to the fact that they promised all of these things when they knew they could not deliver.
It’s important that legislation like this does have support and does happen and is on the legislative agenda. It’s very clear that this seems to be the priority of the Government, rather than fronting up to the real, pressing concerns that they do have in many of the other transport spaces. We hope that, actually, that will correct itself come the future with a change there. We’re happy to continue to support this bill.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (17:32): There are bills in this House that are game-changing—consequential pieces of legislation that give members of Parliament a sense of purpose about why we are here—and then there are regulatory systems bills. No offence to the Minister; he’s done a great job. I commend this select committee process, and I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Dan Rosewarne.
DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (17:33): It’s a pleasure, again, to rise and take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill—the second reading, I might add. We support this bill; it’s sensible, it’s a practical piece of legislation, and it makes a range of technical improvements to how our transport system is regulated. It modernises those outdated provisions, it closes gaps, and it improves efficiency across road, rail, and the maritime sectors.
Supporting this bill does not mean that we think it’s enough. While this legislation tidies things up around the edges, it does not confront the real pressures that are facing New Zealanders when it comes to transport: the cost, the accessibility, the long-term sustainability, and how people move around their communities. That’s where the Government is falling short. This is a Government, led by Christopher Luxon, that promised New Zealanders relief from the cost of living. Instead, families are feeling more pressure than ever and it’s harder to see a doctor or nurse and everyday costs are rising. Nowhere is that more evident than in the transport space.
This bill introduces useful changes: digital drivers’ licences, electronic warrants of fitness, and more efficient ways of issuing infringement notices. These are all steps in the right direction. They reduce paperwork, they modernise the system, and they make life a little bit easier for everyday people. It also strengthens safety and enforcement, giving the New Zealand Transport Agency the ability to close unsafe highways, expanding investigation powers for rail accidents, and improving oversight in the maritime sector. These are all important changes that will help keep New Zealanders safe.
The updated penalties are also long overdue. Ensuring consistency across transport modes and aligning with international standards is good governance. But none of that addresses the fundamental question facing many New Zealanders: how can I afford to get to work, to school, to the doctor, and to see my family? That brings me to an issue very close to my home and the community of Waimakariri: the Woodend Bypass. People in my area have waited for years for this Woodend Bypass. It’s a critical piece of infrastructure that will improve safety, reduce congestion, and support economic growth in North Canterbury. Anyone who has sat through traffic in Woodend just knows how badly that is needed.
Now, what are we seeing from the Government? They want to toll it. That did not come up at the last election, and when National was in Opposition, there was no clear indication that communities like mine would be asked to pay extra out of their back pocket just to use that essential infrastructure. Now, after the election, Waimakariri residents are being told that they need to reach into their own pockets every time they use a road, every time they need to take their kids to footy practice, every time they need to go to the supermarket. That’s just not on. We are very frustrated—my community is very frustrated; people come to talk to me about their frustration, and they’re very much looking forward to 7 November. They feel blindsided; they feel like the goalposts have been shifted, and these costs do add up.
I’ll go back to the bill. Transport should be about connecting people, not creating new barriers. We believe in investment that strengthens communities and supports economic growth. That means thinking beyond regulatory fixes. It means tackling affordability head on. With this bill improving public transport options, it’s going to be easier through this modernisation. It means investment in infrastructure in a way that’s fair, transparent, and does not leave communities feeling like they’ve been misled.
This bill, while useful, doesn’t address all the issues around what we want to address. It does, however, contain provisions that are worth supporting, and we absolutely intend to do that. The move towards digital licensing and electronic documentation, that reflects the reality of how people live and work today, so it’s very, very important, and those strengthened enforcement powers are particularly important too. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:37): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill does the complete opposite of what we’re hearing on the other side. This bill aims to increase effectiveness and efficiency. I commend this bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (17:38): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Over the recess, I was on the road a lot, travelling in my Tourism and Hospitality portfolio. Then, I had a few days off, and got to have a break, which was very nice—
Dan Bidois: Going to try those five-star hotels.
GLEN BENNETT: Ha! I’ve never been in a five-star hotel in my life. I got home and discovered—
Hon James Meager: This is like a cross-party regulatory systems bill, and you guys are sitting there being political and trying to shit on us all day.
GLEN BENNETT: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, point of order. I would like the member who spoke—I did hear a word that was quite unparliamentary—to apologise, please.
Hon James Meager: I withdraw and apologise.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure what that has to do with me, but anyway. I’ve been on the road and had a wee bit of a break. I ended up back at home to find some mail in my mailbox that was a bit sodden. There were a few leaflets and pamphlets that had kind of mashed in together. In that, I have to confess, there was a notice of a parking infringement. This is where I throw someone under the bus, because it wasn’t me who parked my car at the time; it was somebody else who had been using my car, and I will not mention his name.
But, anyway, the point of my story was that it’s been about seven days since I’ve been home.
Tim Costley: You can’t delegate responsibility.
GLEN BENNETT: I take full responsibility. It’s a story that I’d like to tell and I’m just wanting to reiterate the point and the fact that once I got home, the mush of mail—of course, there was an infringement notice for the parking infringement and it was pretty hard to read and decipher. I actually had to contact the council about what the infringement notice actually was. Anyway, the point of my story is that this piece of legislation—and that now just seems a bit of an irrelevant story; but the reality of it was that being able to have an electronic version, being able to do that, actually makes a lot of sense because, let’s be honest, mail comes less than it used to. For many of us, we are mobile and on the move, and the fact that, often—I don’t know about you, but I often forget to check my mailbox and see if there’s anything actually in it. Looking at this legislation, for things like allowing infringement notices and reminders to be served electronically is very helpful and very handy; I’m sure not only for myself but for many people. I did pay the $12 fine, just so you know.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Only $12?
GLEN BENNETT: Only $12. It’s—you know, come to Taranaki and all of that.
The other thing about this that we support is just around—I was looking at new section 61AA, inserted by clause 4: “Agency may close State highways”. Now, again, Madam Speaker, I know that recently you’ve had experience of closed State highways, and I know what would normally be a 2½ hour journey home took you over 10 hours, I think, because of our wonderful roading network, which sometimes, when there are weather events, there are major impacts. The fact that as I look at this piece here, new section 61AA says, “(1) The Agency may—(a) stop, divert, or otherwise control traffic on a State highway; or (b) close a State highway (or any part of it) to traffic.” It also goes on to say, “(2) The Agency may only exercise the power under subsection (1) if the Agency considers it appropriate to do so for the protection and safety of the public.” Now, we live in these Shaky Isles and there are many weather events and issues that go on, but also, it is around the safety and protection. So to have this in the legislation where it gives a little bit more teeth and a little bit more opportunity for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to make quick and important decisions to protect the public and also those decisions around being able to close a piece of highway, to be able to rectify some issues very quickly, makes a lot of sense. Those seem like really plain and ordinary things, but they can actually have and make a significant difference when it comes to the powers and the abilities for someone like the NZTA to be able to do their job and to do it well.
As we’ve heard from many on this side of the House this afternoon, yeah, we do support it, but it doesn’t tackle the big issues around affordability. It doesn’t tackle the big issues around emissions reduction. I’m a fairly regular user of public transport, and in terms of addressing the issues of public transport accessibility, it doesn’t go far enough.
Tangi Utikere: It’s a failure of this Government of public transport.
GLEN BENNETT: It is. As my colleague and the spokesperson for transport says, it’s a failure. This Government has failed on public transport and we need to do better, not only for this generation but future generations, and to change the way we think about how we transit and transport ourselves around our cities, our towns, and our communities.
Now, I think it is good that this legislation is around modernising our digital services, whether it be around drivers’ licences—and as the Minister spoke earlier, I know there have been moments where I have turned up somewhere and haven’t brought my wallet with me and have failed to have my driver’s licence on me, which is frustrating. Being able to have it digitised but then also making sure that that is protected and it isn’t something that doesn’t become, as was said earlier, a wholehearted identification service for the country but is actually just something that is practical and easy in this digital and modern world. When it comes to a digital warrant of fitness, again, I think it is just practical and moving with the times.
The other point I want to make is around how it introduces flexibility for regulators to extend licences in emergencies. Now, this is one of those things that you never think you need to think about until you have to think about it. We look back on—which I don’t really like to, but in terms of our COVID days and what we had to do, and even now with the fuel crisis and the potential of what might happen with having to potentially—we hope not, but if we had to shut things down or for people to have less access to their vehicles, to get in and do those kind of things. So having flexibility for regulators to extend licences in emergencies, I think, again, is just practical. I know this is why they brought this to the House, and we support it. It also makes compliance easier, by allowing digital display of licences and certificates, and reducing that paperwork burden.
I wasn’t part of the committee and I haven’t been over all the details of this legislation, but I looked through and we can say, yes, we are going to support this today, but we also leave the coalition Government coalition with the challenge of, what are they doing? This is a regulatory piece of work, but what are they actually doing around the transformation when it comes to public transport, when it comes to accessibility, and when it comes to tackling the bigger issues of affordability? We look at things like the electrification of our public transport network, of our personal vehicles, and of our business vehicles and we know that we’ve gone backwards. We need to make sure we are pushing ourselves, to make sure that we do what we can to ensure that New Zealanders have access to the transport needs that they have, because, often, it is reserved for those who have, and we want to make sure it’s available for everybody.
We support this bill, but we ask that the Government to think seriously about what they can do to make sure we have a more affordable, emission-friendly to the environment, and accessible transport and public transport system.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (17:47): It’s time to bring this transport bill into land.
Hon James Meager: I got it.
TIM COSTLEY: I’m glad the Hon James Meager’s got it. Digital drivers’ licences, that’s the one highlight for me in this. It’s about time we got there. I feel like, you know, you go to the supermarket, everything’s on your phone; you go to a sports game, everything’s on your phone; checking in for a flight, everything’s on your phone—whatever we’re doing—so why couldn’t we have our driver’s licence on our phone? It’s a great step forward. A progressive step from a progressive Government. I commend the bill.
SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (17:48): I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:48): I move, That the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
For a significant number of households, council rates has become a major driver of inflation, placing an unsustainable burden on families who are already stretched thin. That is why this Government is taking action to reduce the pressure on rates by getting councils back to basics, by doing those basics brilliantly. This bill is our mechanism to achieve that. In the past, there’s been too many instances where councils have lacked fiscal discipline and spent too much time on the things that most people do not consider core activities of local government. When a council loses focus, it is the ratepayer who pays the price. Instead, we want to ensure that councils are prioritising the most important needs of their communities for which they serve.
To achieve this, we are refocusing the purpose of local government. The concept of community wellbeing has been included in the purpose of local government several times now. Whenever it has been included, generally by prior Governments, we have seen council stretch themselves too thinly, focusing on broad agendas rather than on the immediate needs of the ratepayers. Therefore, it makes sense to remove the wellbeings focus.
We need councils to have a sounder purpose and that is why we are making changes clearly in this bill; that they should be focused on providing cost-effective and good quality local government and local infrastructure and public services. To help them achieve this, we are reinstating the specific core services that they must have particular regard to when performing their role. This ensures that when a council sits down to set its budget, for example, the priority is on the pipes, the roads, and the rubbish—the things that keep a community running.
We also want to make sure that council performance is better measured and, crucially, made public. Current reporting within local government is inconsistent and communicated in ways that make it difficult for ratepayers to see how their council is doing compared to others. That is why we are establishing a council performance measurement framework, where reporting on your council will become easy to access.
This bill supports broader types of data being reported in the future, meaning that we can measure performance on a wide range of data. Last July, we took the first step by publishing council’s profiles and performance metrics. Future publications will build on this, integrating even more detailed insights into how councils are performing. This is about empowering ratepayers to better understand what good looks like and giving them the tools to hold their council to account.
We are also focusing councils on spending ratepayers’ money on core services through a new financial management principle. This means that local authorities must have a particular regard to the core purpose of local government and specific core services when determining their financial management approaches. We have listened to New Zealand ratepayers, households, and communities. These amendments will ensure that councils are focused on what is most important when they are spending ratepayers’ money.
For councils, these amendments will provide direction around where that spending should be prioritised, particularly helping them to invest in vital infrastructure while keeping rates affordable for Kiwi families. Strengthening transparency and accountability is equally important too. To do this, we are rolling out initiatives that will better equip councillors to do their jobs. We are implementing a standardised code of conduct and new standing orders. Both of these factors will be binding on all councils.
We’re also requiring greater information sharing between councils and elected members. These amendments will strengthen the connection between councils and their communities by making public expectations clearer and supporting elected members to effectively represent local communities and local people.
Finally, we are providing further regulatory relief for councils. Some regulatory requirements currently in legislation are outdated or are no longer relevant, having become a financial burden for councils and, by extension, the ratepayer. We are providing a range of regulatory relief measures including modernising public notice requirements, removing the requirement for six-yearly service delivery reviews, extending the maximum length of a chief executive’s second term, clarifying the authority of acting chief executives to fulfil some functions, and removing the requirement for councils to consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge when appointing council-controlled organisation directors. These amendments are intended to reduce or clarify specific regulatory requirements, which will speed up delivery, support councils to focus on their core businesses, and, ultimately, help bring rates down.
I would like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its work on this bill, and the 536 submitters who shared their views; their contributions have been vital in ensuring this bill delivers for Kiwi ratepayers who are sick of seeing their rate bills increase. This Government is committed to reducing the pressure on rates and acting on the areas that are identified as drivers of rate increases. This bill will play a crucial part in driving efficiencies in local government that reduce the cost of living struggles experienced by New Zealanders. I commend this 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, 28 April 2026.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.